Slashdot Mirror
DotGNU and Mono Continue
saurik writes "After what has been a strange few weeks of converse between the DotGNU and Mono teams (including a small PR SNAFU that involved the banning of a member from the DotGNU mailing list), DotGNU has now announced that they will be forming a partnership with Portable.NET." Frankly I like that there are 2 efforts going on. Maybe one will succeed.
Do you ever wonder if these open source projects are actually helping Microsoft? I mean Microsofts coding standards are pretty low (check out Windows ME, IIS, well, everything from Microsoft)... They are probably studying the source code from these two projects and stealing ideas from them as far as better ways to implement the same frame work. Implementing any large scale project (and this one is big) raises many technical problems, and there are many different approaches to solving them. I wouldn't be surprised if MS is looking for ways to improve their own code by reading the source from these other projects.
What would it take to push apple into making NeXTStep a truly cross-platform development environment again? If they did so, would anyone actually use it? (i.e. which is greater: the dirty feeling coming from using an MS platform, or the dirty feeling coming from using an apple (NeXT) platform.) Or is .NET better than *Step/Cocoa anyway?
Apple currently needs Microsoft for Office. Microsoft would not like Apple invading Windows by putting Cocoa on Windows or giving Linux a boost by putting Cocoa on that.
So Apple needs something to replace Office to get out of under MS control. The only real possibility is OpenOffice, but of course there is no Mac Version of OpenOffice and they report they need help porting to Mac OS X
I alternative to Word that could actually defeat .doc as the "standard" format is AbiWord free and small, so it is a easy download. But, it has the same problem OpenOffice has no Mac Version.
I think these two programs have no chance becoming wide spread without a Mac Version. Because basically anyone using any Macs can't use it. It is not "cross-platform" to them. Also us Mac Users would be very likely to go preaching the OpenOffice-Abiword gospel. We hated Microsoft before Linux existed, and I believe there are more of us then there are Linux users.
Make the community look like a bunch of childish "I can do that too" people
I agree that this seems to be what the DotGNU people are seemly try to do. Mono, on the other hand, is more looking at having alternative langauges, etc, on the *nix based OSs. Porting the CLI means nearly everything else can be ported with ease. They are looking to actual WRITE most of the infrastructure in C# after all, after getting a decent CLI up and running..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Reg Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the
Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
PFJ Yeah
Judith Splitters.
Francis And the Judean Popular Peoples Front.
PFJ Oh yeah. Splitters.
Loretta And the peoples Front of Judea.
PFJ Splitters.
Reg What?
Loretta The Peoples front of Judea. Splitters.
Reg We're the Peoples front of Judea.
Loretta Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
Reg Peoples Front.
Francis Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
Reg He's over there.
--------[A single old man sits on a lower seat.]
--------{Some POPULAR front, eh?}
PFJ [To the old man.] SPLITTER!
Not to mention the potential etymological shift (say in 5 years) caused by the almost subconcious association of "mono" and "two". I suggest they change the name to bino, or something.
For those who didn't read it through, here's some scoop from the Portable.NET faq:
.NET-capable framework that works well with GNOME. This means that their system is unlikely to work well with any other desktop environment, or with PDA's that don't feature GNOME.
.NET development toolchain on Linux.
.NET does not create needless desktop dependencies, so more power to them. I am a bit surprised at Ximian's attitude at the whole thing though, where is the logic? To read the full faq go here:
3.2. Why not co-operate with Mono?
I tried suggesting that we divide up the work to prevent too much duplication of effort, but Mono seems set on re-inventing all of the wheels that I already had several months prior. Mono's idea of co-operation at the moment is "do it our way or no way". Therefore, I will co-operate with Mono when they start co-operating with me.
3.1. Mono
The Mono project that is run by Ximian has many of the same goals as Portable.NET.
Mono is oriented towards building a
Portable.NET is designed to be more general purpose than that. It has very few dependencies on other libraries so that it can be integrated with any desktop or PDA operating environment.
Mono's C# compiler and other tools are written in C#. While academically interesting, this will incur a severe performance penalty on the toolchain compared to Portable.NET's use of C. It also means that it will be longer before Mono can natively host a
Future versions of Portable.NET will also support compiling C# to the JVM, which isn't something targeted by Mono as yet.
---------------
I think it is really interesting that Portable.NET intends to target the JVM. Now we are getting somewhere. Also their version of
http://www.southern-storm.com.au/pnet_faq.html
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
I know this is a trite argument, but it is appropriate (and no, I'm not trying to flame anybody, or even single you out or anything):
If you really think another way is the way to go, please start doing it. You don't even need to be a programmer yourself; write up a paper detailing the failings of the current efforts and propose a better way. Disseminate this text, and persuade other coders to join in and implement it. Even if you do not succeed in getting your project started, your work will not be wasted as your analysis will be helpful in guiding the current projects.
The people working on Mono, DotGNU and Portable.NET are all doing it because they believe their project is the right way to go about it. Any productive feedback - in the form of a design document or a competing project - is very helpful for all involved. A random 'I don't like this', on the other hand, is likely to be ignored.
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
> And what is an objective criteria?
How fast is it, how fast is it at xxxxx clients (where xxxxx is a big number), how much memory does it take up (and at xxxxx clients), how much code has to be rewritten to support it, how much support does it have for future target platforms, how many platforms require admin intervention to roll it out on (usually in the form of installing dependencies). How many existing technologies in use does it integrate with, how many technologies will have to be migrated to something else?
A java platform may win on some of these points, and I'd really appreciate seeing those points argued, not vagaries like the Betterment of Society. That along with spelling "Microsoft" correctly, or at least the two letters MS. C'mon, you can do it if you try (though perhaps there's a certain Randroid charm in M$)
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Or a single-threaded version of .net for Gnome. G.String.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Yes, my friends, fight against each other. If you don't agree the way a project is running, leave the project and make another one by your self!
That's the spirit of Variety. That what keep our Freedom of Choices. I like to choose Window Maker, and I also like that my pal prefers Gnome. That's the variety that I love to see!
Imagine a world where there are no differences, where all window managers look the same! This sux! I prefer to see a good fight, I prefer to see people getting out of a project and building their own. But I'm sad about that horrible happening about baning (too sad...)
Of course, freedom is hard to manage. Ditatorial government are much easier than a real democracy. Be fair is much more difficult, look all around is much more difficult, but IMHO is much much much better!
Let's fight and build several .NET projects. Can I see a third project in the horizon? Maybe I'm right, maybe it's just a dream, maybe everybody fits into dotGNU and Mono. That's ok too, the point is, we still have a choice!
FREEEEEEDOOOMM!!!
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
I don't like it admins on lists that feel like they need to exercise power over the list in the name of "harmony". You see it all the time on IRC.
Whether Martin Coxall was being an idiot or not
isn't really the point. Everyone should be entitled to read what he has to say, and killfile him if they want. Afterall that's what killfiles are for. I don't like it when someone makes decisions like that for me.
Also what's the point of "nonpublic" lists when the whole process is supposed to be "open" and allow anyone to join?
It's this hypocracy that keeps me from joining
the selfrightous schlong measuringfest that is IRC, or any of these projects.
All I have to say is read the link. Really.
After reading the link, unless you are socially brain-dead, you will see that Martin Coxall (the "banned" member) was being a total ass. No really--read it yourself. Keep going until you get to the end of the thread. You'll see. Unfortunately, the dotGNU people felt they needed to defend themselves on the mono list--and with people like this guy, that is only adding fuel to the fire. He's definitely a Tireless Rebutter.
Note of clarification: he was put on manual moderation after stiring up trouble on the dotGNU list. Not banned, moderated. Now before you cry "Oppression!", remember that this is exactly what moderation is for. If you don't understand what I am talking about, read the thread and imagine a constant onslaught of email coming from Martin Coxall sniping and being a jerk--as a developer, it would make you pretty upset.
Moderation is in place on lists to keep flame wars to a minimum. Martin Coxall was just sounding off and got moderated--that's internet life, kids.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
What would you say if asked to justify the idea that creating two different .NET implementations is a more valid use of manpower/volunteer time than devoting that same time to the Linux and Windows versions of GNUStep, with the goal of getting them to the point where GNUStep can be presented to corporations as something to develop for one platform & compile for three OSes? The head start given by the work already done on the Foundation would be enough that if the Community was to try to help GNUStep, they would probably have the time to add support for the java and python programming languages. (Cocoa supports java already.)
.NET -- a VM that is designed to be compiled to from any programming language, things being seen as slightly more "open", a thought-out system for meshing different object-oriented programming languages-- and move to fix these things?
.NET better than *Step/Cocoa anyway?
.NET is vapourware and will fail, and pretend it isn't there?
.NET? Or is java just inherently doomed because it was the first product of its type, and microsoft is able to learn from Sun's mistakes with 20/20 hindsight?
.. here goes nothing.. *submit*
Is the c#/.net framework really any better than gnustep would be with a slightly updated objective c or java?*
Why accept Microsoft's conception of the universe and bring it to linux when you can bring your own conception of the universe to Windows with about as much work?
And do you think that Sun will recognize the two or three tiny valid threats in
What would it take to push apple into making NeXTStep a truly cross-platform development environment again? If they did so, would anyone actually use it? (i.e. which is greater: the dirty feeling coming from using an MS platform, or the dirty feeling coming from using an apple (NeXT) platform.) Or is
Will apple or sun actually move to ensure that they remain with products that are better than microsofts', or will they just assume
In the upcoming war, which product is X and which is NeWS? Is that an appropriate anology? Are there any third alternatives outside of java/.NET?
What would it take to get the universe to a point where the API and VM for the next generation of operating systems (as well as a system, such as c# offers, where objects can be inherhited across operating systems-- CORBA generation 2, maybe, except actually usable?) is determined by a truly open, inclusive board of experts representing the entire industry, along the lines of an idealized version of the w3c or opengl?
What would the software industry be like *right now* if at the time that Sun began to release Java, they had had the money, resources and ability to get products installed on consumers computers' "by default" that microsoft has right now? I.E., how much better would java be if Sun had been able to rapidly mature it the way Microsoft will be able to rapidly mature
Is microsoft doomed because rather than attempting foresight, they're just trying to replicate java, slap on an authentication mechanism, with little attempt to do more than fix sun's mistakes?
What the hell is going on?
I'm going to go curl up now.
(please do not respond to the following. i am just trying to explain where i am coming from in wondering these things:)
*(I would honestly like to know the answer to that one. I have used Cocoa and love it to the point i would make my OS choice based on it solely. I haven't looked at C#/.NET because i don't trust MS and believe that if they are given power, any kind of power, they will abuse it. This is nothing more than internal bias and i am not attempting to justify it as "true", or start a discussion on that subject. I just want answers to the questions above. And i am secure, because after programming some Cocoa i know that NeXT will never die the way that the Amiga will never die.)
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Crapflooded and apparently astroturfed on top of it...
/Brian
One could hope. But that may be unlikely. Again, "Not Invented Here" -- the developers who left the dying project might not go to the surviving one. They'd probably be sick of the whole thing and move on to something else entirely.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Yes, but Microsoft's strategy here was perfect, because they know it's too much of a gamble for the open source community NOT to make an open source version of .net technology.
Certainly if we did nothing Microsoft would have to work that much harder to gain universal acceptance of .NET, but if we have an open source alternative at least nobody has to be under the iron grip of MS. That's not too high a price to pay to avoid MS dominance even if it plays into their hands to an extent.
I take as a prime example the issue of the simple email client for GTK/GNOME. A glance @ the gnome software list shows 25 email clients. Do we really need that many? And are ANY of them solid/robust enough to put on someone's desktop and say "you can do anything you want with this that you could do with Outlook, and at the same time be safer than Outlook".
My opinion: no.
The "Not Invented Here" syndrome is still pretty rampant, and I feel it'll be the same between these two .NET clones as well (as the "PR Snafu" demonstrated), and that will likely kill both projects in the mid-range, so that neither survive in the long term when M$ really gets version 3.0 of .NET going (knowing again, that their 3.0 is always the first version of any M$ product that really actually works...).
Then again, by that point they may realize .NET is a crock of crap and have moved on completely -- .NET is a strategic move to take on Sun and J2EE and ONE, not an effort to really change the world for the better).
It would be better for OpenSource to stop cloning stuff that already exists (or doesn't exist and has no real driving need to exist) and come up with its own killer app. Apache as a spokesman for OpenSource originality only goes so far. The world is waiting for something new, not a rehash of what's old, or a clone of something that isn't even done yet.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Unfortunately Microsoft has all the leverage in this particular case because they control the client. We could come up with something a hundred times better than .NET and .NET would still win because the client bits of .NET will be on every new PC firmly embedded into Windows.
The Samba developers really have the right idea. Instead of creating a network file system and then trying to create a Windows client (which Microsoft could break at every .dll update) they instead took the route of emulating Windows servers. Even with a crufty protocol like SMB this turned out to be the easiest route. Microsoft doesn't want to break their own clients, and so they are limited in what they can really change.
One of these days Linux (or some other open system) might very well have enough client side market share that the Free Software folks could create a client side standard and actually have some weight behind it. The closest we have ever come was with browser based applications, and even that was marred by Netscape-isms and the even more overwhelming IE-isms that are cropping up more recently.
Free Software is getting closer, however. My guess is that it is only a matter of time.
Make the community disperse its efforts on copying what is little more than vaporware
Make the community look like a bunch of childish "I can do that too" people.
The only thing that comes to my mind when I look at the mono and dotGNU projects is "monkey see, monkey do". One of the projects can't even come up with an innovative name for itself. Well, I'm sorry but copying .NET is just dumb and it plays in favor of Microsoft, who looks like the real innovators that legions of unimaginative free-software geeks always try to copy.
In short, the community has to stop copying and being toyed with by Microsoft, and begin innovating and proving that there are much better things than what Microsoft comes up with.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I'm just so involved in evangelizing for vi vs. emacs and gnome vs. kde I just don't have the time to get involved in another holy war. so you guys fight it all out and let me know in 20 years what you came up with.
-
You're kidding, right? The whole Sun ONE pipedream wasn't even announced until this past February. If you know anybody actually excited about it, please let them be heard, because they're pretty hard to find. Sun's nursing some pretty bitter feelings right now after watching the developer community scramble to support .NET while for the most part having given Java the cold shoulder. Heh, think Sun's now regretting having pulled back so many times from submitting Java as a standard? 'Cause I guarantee you, that's what's caused the big upswell in .NET plans. There are a ton of people working on .NET projects now who would have totally written it off as a Microsoft-only technology if not for Microsoft submittting this stuff to a standards body.
Seriously, Sun's got a lot to worry about. Where's the excitement about Sun ONE? What happened to the "web tone," the "big freakin' switch," JINI, and JXTA? Most importantly, what happened all those dumb Java-enabled rings that Scott MacNealy used to wear? Anyone actually miss 'em? Sun's just become a follower, finally coming around to SOAP, UDDI, etc., after getting over the bitterness of adopting technology that Microsoft developed. Not sure why they mind now, though -- J2EE's just a Microsoft Transaction Server ripoff, and it's not too hard to guess where JSP and JDBC come from.
Trivia time: Sun is on ECMA Committee TC39 Task Group 2 (TG2), as well as being on TG3. The purpose(s) of these two bodies is to:
If you chose B & C, you're absolutely right! Now remember players, you must've chosen them both to win. Don Pardo, show the people what they've won! :)
...it's hard for people in business to Open Source seriously.
.NET-clone projects get off their high horse and just merge the projects together? All this stupid in-fighting just goes to show that Microsoft has nothing to fear from Open Source.
This is no different than the Gnome vs. KDE debate, or Debian vs. RedHat, or hell, even Linux vs. BSD. We fight amongst ourselves so much that we can't present a unified front against (much more organized) Closed Source efforts.
Will somebody at one of these
NO CARRIER
Mono is a GNU port of C# and the CLI runtime. What people think this has to do with authentication, I have no idea.
Porting a language means making it available to another platform. With mono, you can develop C# on gnu/linux. Why is this such a terrible and confusing thing to so many slashdotters? Is the availability of another development platform a bad thing? The only thing that would really bug me is if the KDE team decides to write their own separate implementation. The fact that Mono will be tied to Gnome is iffy, but what are you gonna do? Gnome has to make strides of some kind or another to stand out.
When Gnome says they have customers, I believe them.
I don't give a shit if my Mono applications don't even work on Windows. I'd like an alternative to Java that doesn't feel like a toy.
I don't know if dotGNU is needed. I guess if it means I only need one username and password to log into any sites that have accepted their standard, then that's just super.
But wether or not I am going to be able to go to Amazon.com and identify myself with a dotGNU login, I don't know. Frankly, I don't care.
Mono interests me, dotGNU doesn't.
It would be really nice to see other companies such as Sun invest in Mono and push it far beyond what .NET plans to do.
For once, open source can publicly set the standard and let Microsoft catch up.
And I didn't mean only Sun. Other companies have much to gain from forcing their own method though, making Microsoft adjust instead; it'll keep them in the running.
This has a lot of potential, and I see "internet services" as a small part of it, at least in the way it effects me.
Then again, I'll probably never bother using it, unless there's Smalltalk and CL implementations as good as or better than the ones I use now. :)
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
"Frankly I like that there are 2 efforts going on. Maybe one will succeed." Well in a sense it is good that the projects have comed together specially when the outcome seems so young. Later on when the technology does become usable there will be other similar projects even based on the original.
Dan,
I couldn't agree more with you. It's disheartening discovering that many people in the Open Source and a great many in the Free Software movement lack the maturity to approach this as a real-world problem. They don't realize that they could take the cause further by showing some restraint where appropriate and focusing their energy in their creativity.
I personally agree with the term and precepts of Open Source rather than Free Software. There is a rather childish quality to their public announcements (tantrums?) that I don't see as often in people adhering to the more open-minded people in the OSS movement. In general I can present something produced by a non-GNU but open sourced group to a customer and have it accepted. I cannot always do that with GNU products, Linux itself included. I think it's a shame that hollering distracts the intended audiences from the substance.
Thanks for your response to my comment.
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
2. Pervasive Object Model. Looking at the ActiveState site, you can see the power of being able to bind to .NET services written in any of the supported languages. Yes, you can compile Python to the JVM, but Sun won't officially support this type of activity - Microsoft on the other hand is funding cross-language support from ground zero.
3. Mostly open architecture. C#, SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI are all open specs. Some of .NET is not open, such as the source of the compiler, but at least with a spec you can write your own, and perhaps even influence the design.
4. A nice OO language. You get this with Java too. Hopefully memory-managed languages can become the norm for application development with all these tools available.
Judging from your previous posts you're obviosuly a die-hard Microsoft supporter, but even so this statement:
.Net yet. (Do you know any Java developers to start with?)
.NET and have a clear strategy of running legacy .NET code in the Java VM.
"Given Java the cold shoulder"?
I was with you on most of the rest of the post (SunONE? Who Cares?), but I can't see that. I've seen a lot of people switch to Java development and a things like a myriad of J2EE app servers. I personally don't know of any Java developers jumping to
I think the battle will be lot more evenly fought than you make out, and not based at all on which one submitted something to a particular standards organization. Frankly, the ECMA origazization seems about as good as the Java Community Process stuff to me. Also, for all of those interesting standards like SOAP and UDDI Java provides the leading implementations at the moment (and Sun is the company heading the UDDI effort!!). JSP and JDBC are indeed similar to MS counterparts except that they work and are pleasant to use (OK, actually JSP's suck as much as ASP and neither should be used by anyone). As for J2EE being a Transaction Server ripoff, I don't know where you got that from but you'd better buy a new J2EE book and re-read things a bit harder.
.NET has a long way to go over ground that Java, J2EE and other standards have already broken - the winner is my no means predetermined yet, either way. At this point Sun is pretty much obviously the leader and MS is struggling to keep up or overtake them. Just because Sun is helping them define the language and common set of libraries is no reason to think they are even close to abandoning Java - more like making sure that the final standard can be easily implemented on top of the JVM so they can dump
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Microsoft's .NET vision is very cool. Imagine all the advantages of the Java platform, without the one huge disadvantage of that platform, you don't have to write everything in Java. It's even possible that their implementation of this vision will work as advertised. If that is the case then having a competing implementation isn't just a good idea, it's going to be critical to the success of Free Software.
Even if .NET is horrific, there will undoubtedly be some sites that use .NET technology, a useful .NET client would therefore be useful even if .NET turns out to be less than Microsoft is advertising.
Open source software has lost its creativity and usefulness. DotGNU and Mono are just clones of a bad design in the first place. Must the OS community copy everything that Microsoft does? Or do we lack the intelligence to come up with something unique and inspiring?
It is rather unfortunate that nothing new and interesting has come out of the free software movement. It seems like open source projects are nothing more than cheap knockoffs of existing commercial software.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Am I the only one that thought of the gladiator scene in the Monty Python's The Life of Brian when I read that? The bit where they are bickering over the 'splitters' and changing their names from the Liberation Party to the Party of Liberation or some such nonsense. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled /.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
> it's probably a _lot_ simpler to write a GCC
> frontend.
If you go look at the dotgnu.org website, you will see a plea for a volunteer to write the gcc bytecode backend for a stack-based vm.
This is not a simple problem, and no one has volunteered to date.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Is their name--"Mono". At least it's not G.NET or Portable.NET or Opensource.NET or Somethingelse.NET.
.NET is a huge cloud of MS initiatives, some of which I am interested in, others of which I consider dangerous.
.NET?"
.NET as a vague entity, I believe, will fail.
.NET initiative, on the other hand, might work well. A good open source CLI implementation, for example, seems great. So does a good authentication system. But trying to do everything at once in one project I have problems with.
The name might seem like a lame reason, but to me it makes all the difference in the world.
The choice of name, as far as I'm concerned, says a lot about the mission and mindset of a project. I'm much more interested in a project with a function goal than an emulation goal. "Mono", to me, would beg the question, "what are they trying to do"? X.NET would beg the question "how are they trying to copy
Trying to emulate
Trying to emulate or provide alternatives to elements of the
Maybe I'm wrong here, and maybe I really don't know enough about the projects (I _know_ I don't know enough about the projects, actually). But I'd rather see one project trying to accomplish X, another trying to accomplish Y, etc. than one huge project trying to copy MSs latest vision of world domination.
For those who are keeping track, that's two (2) Wayne's World references. Thank you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For those mistaken enough to think that Java the language and VM are not open, take a look at the Java Community Process.
Are you saying there can only be one standards body? Personally I think the important aspects of a standard are that a consortium of many different companies and people from all over (including individuals) be involved, true of the JCP. The Java bytecode is a standard, and other VM's have been written by many people. The Java langauge is a standard, anyone could write a compiler and feel safe knowing what to expect.
What is the difference to you between the JCP and ECMA? Why do you consder changes through one body open and the other not?
At JavaOne, a speaker was moaning about an aspect of the language not going in until later than Sun wanted (Generics - not out until 1.5) - but he was also happy that the JCP was working in that it was going against Sun's wishes on the matter and the community process was in control.
Those of you siding with MS and imagining it will be more "Open" than Java are in for quite a rude shock!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
why all these projects seem hell-bent on writing thier own C# compilers, when it's probably a _lot_ simpler to write a GCC frontend.
Now I know, GCC is not perfect (by a long shot...). But it seems reasonable (to me) that C# be part of GCC. I mean, not all compiled languages are supported by GCC, but it seems to do a decent job of supporting C-like languages, C, C++, Java, Objective-C, plus odd and ends like Fortran, Ada, Pascal (?), etc. And as a bonus you immediately get native code generation.
And the whole idea of writing a C# compiler in C#... I mean... c'mon people. Must we repeat the lesssons of Sun's JDK and Jikes once again?
I image that the (hypothetical) C# GCC frontend and the (already existing) Java GCC frontend could probably share a pretty decent amount of code, as well.
You clearly don't have much of a clue about:
.NET
Microsoft Passport
DMCA
I'd suggest doing some reading. There's plenty of freely available information about all of these topics.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Comment removed based on user account deletion
*cheers*
Damned good point. Yet another example of a group of people wanting to do something to prove that theirs is bigger, longer, and stronger then someone elses.
Theres no itch scratching going on here, and they sure dont seem to have a focus on 'WHY' they want to do this.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I've been looking at the DotGNU projecft recently, and something occured to me..
.NET or Mono doing anything that
.Net framework at a low level and distribute the entire thing with
.Net infrustructure to be entirely
They're not interested in anything their doing for technical reasons.. They just want to build something simular to snub their noses at Microsoft, and prove a point. This is absolutly the WRONG reason to be doing this effort.
Proof is in the pudding. Heres some excepts:
This list (the DotGNU "arch" list) on the other hand is about
creating a something much more powerful than what Microsoft has,
something that Microsoft cannot easily copy because it is
totally incompatible with the business model they've chosen for
.NET
Mono will have a place in DotGNU for providing ".NET emulation
functionality", but I don't see
comes close to the Distributed Execution Environment that we've
been talking about for DotGNU.
Oh, and heres something where they aren't quite getting this, I think:
Microsoft has an advantage over us at this point because they hold the
keys to the client OS. This allows them to insert their authentication
and
their OS. This allows the
transparent to the user. Dotgnu, by it's very nature, will not be
entirely transparent to the user because we don't have access to the
source code - and because of the increased control we're going to have
to give the user.
I mean common, someone has to send a message, tell them that theirs are quiet long enough, and they can stop it with the rulers.
They're not looking for a good, sound, technically superior product. They're looking to prove their right, and someone else is wrong. I truely hope it succeeds, but at this rate, we're gonna end up with the Windows Terminal Server of the Open Source world.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Portable.net and Mono don't validate Microsoft's .Net. They are a reaction to it, and perhaps the only chances we've got to wrestle control of the Internet from Microsoft.
Many Open Source projects tend to be re-implementations of someone's commercial products. In this case, Microsoft designed a framework that is likely to become the standard in years to come. It's not a matter of whether we like it or not. It's simple economics. Microsoft has the following advantages going for it:
Rather than complaining about "validating Microsoft's position", we should all take this as an opportunity to do what Microsoft does best: Embrace and extend. The products from DotGNU meta project, and every subproject or related effort, can be leveraged by us to wrestle control from Microsoft.
It won't be an easy battle, but we may win it. We need to achieve the following:
Remember also that this is not only a technology fight. Hailstorm/passport are services. That means that, after we implement the technology, we must convince real world organisations (businesses, non-profits, government, whatever) to adopt it instead of .Net et. al.
Let's charge on!
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
Marketing dollars and a virtual monopoly provide pretty much all the validation they need. There's no point in waiting for it to succeed before implementing it, you'll just give them a bigger head start. Better to start early and have something credible to show earlier.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
isn't it true that no matter who provides the front end, the back end authentication will be done with microsofts passport? isn't this a bad idea? is everyone hoping that an open source version of passport will be available at some point? doesn't anyone else feel that if someone designs an open source passport app that microsoft will sue using the DMCA?
i mean, things like the samba project cannot be done anymore, thanks to the DMCA.
please, someone correct me!