Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reverse Engineering .NET - Good, Bad or Inevitable?

Posted by Cliff on from the stuff-to-talk-about dept.

It was only a matter of time until someone posed this question to the readership. After its announcement, last year, a Slashdot reader wants to know your thoughts on the issues surrounding a potential Open Source port of Microsoft's .NET.

legLess asks: "The Register has an interesting article about reverse-engineering Microsoft's .NET. Apparently ESR, Bruce Perens and Miguel de Icaza have all dropped hints that the project's already underway. The Register has this to say, though, which I think is worth discussing:

...In fact it's a risky strategy for the Open Sorcerers. If .NET isn't reverse engineered, it will surely remain a Microsoft-only platform, as even the best funded efforts to port Microsoft technology to non-Windows platforms in the past have remained at best, a niche option. But if a good implementation is produced, it has the effect of legitimizing the platform, and making much more attractive to conservative, non-committed corporate buyers. Which is certainly the last thing the Beast's foes want to see."

Yes, if we could get .NET working on non-Microsoft platforms, it would be a good thing, but I don't think that the Redmond Redwood will roll over and let this happen without a fight. How difficult would it be to port .NET, if Microsoft is free to add, extend and modify the underlying protocol to break any third-party implementation that may rear its head?

Jamie adds: XNS is worth keeping an eye on. This is a nonprofit, (promised) open source infrastructure to allow individuals to save private data which corporations can only access if they agree to (legally enforceable) point-and-click contracts. In short, it's the groundwork for an open version of .NET focused on privacy, and more. But they're making progress slowly if at all. They have a good team heading it up, and I really want to see them succeed at something besides writing whitepapers, but their mailing lists have slowly gone cold and they still haven't released any source.

7 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Open Sourcers do not control .NET's fate by RyanGWU82 · · Score: 5

    The Register article assumes that .NET's legitimacy rests on the availability of an open implementation to compete with Microsoft's. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of of .NET's perceived legitimacy will in the eyes of CIOs, IT managers, etc. These people will be swayed by its performance in its initial MS incarnation; reviews in manager-oriented publications; availability of software based on .NET; etc. They will not care whether there's a free implementation available.

    Remember, SAMBA did not make Windows file sharing so widely-used!

    Ryan

  2. Reverse Engineering .NET by StaticLimit · · Score: 5

    So let me get this straight. Microsoft puts out C# to kill Java and .NET to kill JINI and the Linux community is going to jump on board?

    I can understand jumping on board for SOAP, which is a fairly basic element of .NET, developed alongside IBM and others. But I'm not sure embracing C# is the best way to "stick it to Microsoft"...

    -StaticLimit

  3. .NET is by mr_gerbik · · Score: 5

    the final nail in the coffin for OpenSource. If you think it is hard now trying to find a job using technologies that work rather that technologies that are popular, just wait until .NET comes out. This is when the shit is gonna hit the fan. We are fucked unless we do something drastic. We are all going to be out of a job.. and all the people who have been spending their time drinking coffee and eating doughnuts at these stupid fucking .NET seminars are going to take our place.

    So what can we do? There is only one solution. Start killing. If you know someone who is excited about compileable ASP code... KILL THEM. If you know someone who has Visual Studio .NET beta... KILL THEIR WHOLE FAMILY.

    If you want OpenSource then you are going to have to contribute to OpenKilling. This is the time to seperate the true advocates of free software, from the the poseurs who brag about the money they made when RHAT was hot... which reminds me, if you know someone who sold RHAT at a reasonable price.. KILL THEM.

  4. Don't fall for it! by stox · · Score: 5

    Why should Microsoft pay someone to port .net when the community will do it for free and get a much higher quality port than Microsoft would if they did it themselves. Are efforts to reverse engineer .net playing into Microsoft's hands? As long as we fight the battle on their turf, we are greatly handicapped. If we can design an alternative to .net and pull the game onto our turf, we stand a much greater chance of succeeding.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Re:Stuff that matters by _ganja_ · · Score: 5
    Arrgg fuck, should have previewed that before posting it :s/porn/pawn

    I've given away slightly more insight in to my life than I wanted to there I think.

    --

    A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security

  7. Stuff that matters by DaSyonic · · Score: 5
    How about first reverse engineer Microsoft Exchange? A project exists for this, but volunteers are badly needed. I for one have offered to volunteer, but there arent yet enough people who really want to help make this a reality.

    Nothing could help bring Linux to the backend for corporations more so than this... OpenMail and Mailone are costly, and OpenMail is also now dead. This is a needed project!

    --

    Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
    James Brents