Slashdot Mirror
LinuxWorld: Business, Business and More Business
Clarkson University wins a server from IBM. Sun is bringing embedded Linux to its UltraSparc IIe processors. Wired has an overview of LinuxWorld, talking about how it's all business and the joy is gone; and so does Internet.com; and so does Newsforge, which also has a story about LinuxWorld in Paris. The Register has a lengthy interview with Miguel de Icaza, in which he notes "Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET".
Hey,
I thought that's what everyone wanted? To be taken serious as opposed to hey look at the nice kids playing with Linux?
What's wrong with this?
Sent from your iPad.
"I'd like to see Gnome applications written in .NET in version 4.0 - no, version 3.0. But Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET," he told us. "A lot of people just see .NET as a fantastic upgrade for the development platform from Microsoft.
.NET. But it will be a cold day in hell before Billy and the boys would do anything (even for profit) for an open source project that uses the GNU licence for many of its parts.
If this was US politics, a candidate has just stated he supports a communistic form of governement and cant wait till he gets it installed.
Interesting concept though, using
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Porting Gnome to
I love the idea of a common runtime environment that supports C++, Java, Perl, Python, etc., runs on all platforms, etc. etc. etc., but I DON'T want that platform in any way controlled by Microsoft (or by Sun, or RedHat, or me!) If any one entity controls the platform, that one entity has entirely too much power - we've simply traded one monopolist for another.
Now, if Miquel wishes to create such an environment under GPL, with no patents held by any organization, then I'm all for it - that way no one organization can embrace and extend the spec. But
www.eFax.com are spammers
:Peter
I suspect that most people will probably disagree with him, however.
This is /. He'll be lucky to escape with flesh remaining on his bones. Most of the Linux people here have no interest in making peace with Microsoft under any terms except total, utter physical destruction of the company, and anyone who uses MS.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
I think - I THINK - that Miquel's goal is to out-Microsoft Microsoft, by beating MS to the punch on .NET.
.NET as widespread as HTTP _before_ MS can get a signifigant foothold, then you have a certain element of control over the Beast From Redmond.
If you can make
But that's a really dangerous game to be playing, methinks.
Miquel scares me sometimes.
DG
http://streetmodified.org/books.html
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Seriously, back in the good old days (circa 1980) IBM's VM/370 OS was "available source", and we used to play with and modify it. Some of those modifications even got picked up by IBM. We also used it for business (the customer of those modifications).
There's (obviously) nothing to stop businesses from exploiting the benefits provided by those that play with the OS.
And, as long as there's source, there's nothing to stop people from continuing to play.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
The more money is going to trickle down to the little guys, read us, to develope more business solutions.
I found this to be true in my consulting business: When I don't have to charge them $250 a seat for Widnows, $400 for MS Office and $250 for various CAL and NT Servers - they tend to spend more money on my cool database applications. Less money going to Billionaire Bill means more for me.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I love the idea of a common runtime environment that supports C++, Java, Perl, Python, etc., runs on all platforms, etc. etc. etc., but I DON'T want that platform in any way controlled by Microsoft (or by Sun, or RedHat, or me!) If any one entity controls the platform, that one entity has entirely too much power - we've simply traded one monopolist for another.
Considering that C# and the CLI are ECMA standards exactly how does Microsoft control the Mono platform? However Java is very much still entirely controlled by Sun which hasn't stopped a vibrant Free Software community to grow around Java? So even if C# and the CLI were completely controlled by MSFT (which they aren't) there is no reason why Free Software cannot benefit from it. Now, if Miquel wishes to create such an environment under GPL, with no patents held by any organization, then I'm all for it - that way no one organization can embrace and extend the spec.
According to miguel the Mono runtime is released under the LGPL, the compiler is released under the GPL, and the class libraries are released under the X11 license..
From where I sit that is all FREE SOFTWARE unless you are one of those GPL zealots that believes that if it isn't GPL it isn't Free Software even though we all know that Apache, BSD, Kerberos, BIND, etc aren't GPL.
I am not a linux world attendee, so I have not experienced the letdown that these people are describing, but it reminds me of people lamenting the loss of the "cool" internet when it was just a bunch of random people putting up sites, before mass commercialization came in and "ruined everything".
I say the same thing to this as I do to that. There are still plenty of cool sites put up by random people. You still have to look for them just like you used to have to in the early days. YOU DON"T HAVE TO DO WHAT THE MASSES DO. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH THEIR TV SHOWS OR LISTEN TO THEIR MUSIC.
Getting depressed about what the masses do with a new concept is silly and counterproductive. All that does is shows how much you are buying into what Madison Avenue is trying to sell. You get irked because some knockoff is getting all the attention. Well, why do you care who all the masses are being told to pay attention to? Why are you letting them tell YOU what to pay attention to?
Britney Spears does not annoy me--that may be because I never see her or hear her music. If I want to hear edgy, innovative, gutsy music I know where to look--off the beaten track. Lamenting the fact that it isn't on the radio is a waste of a lament.
Enterprise stuff may be getting all the industry/press/expo attention right now, but that doesn't stop a single GPL/open source product from getting done, nor should it have any bearing on our passion for the freedom, quality, and community of open source/free software.
Personally, I am thrilled to see people there to make money. And an important part of that is just the "to see people there" part. With this economy we should totally expect that a lot of the fun, innovative, exciting, and cutting edge stuff would be gone. A lot of that was funded by the pre-bubble-burst wild-eyed investment community. The fact that ANYBODY showed up this year is wonderful. And if IBM and HP are not only there, but completely bullish on linux's future, well, I'm ecstatic. It's a huge victory for us that they are there at all, and that they are as enthusiastic as they seem to be.
Linux in the enterprise might not be what excites you about Linux, but it is still an exciting possibility.
These may well be the people that create your next Linux using job--I say we welcome them with hearty handshakes and reciprocal enthusiasm.
Liberty uber alles.
To be fair, he did distinguish between the NT security policy and the new .NET security policy, which he compared much more to a sandbox system.
I've created a new Slashdot Icon for Gnome that I'd like to propose. It can be seen at the following location:
. jp g
http://www.geocities.com/heavenstrash/gnomeicon
I also got to experience the feel of the old days, having brought my TiBook for a demo system. There were quite a few Apples in evidence, and I proabbly spent more time talking PPC Linux than I did KDE. The PowerPC Linux crowd continues to have all the community feeling that Linux as a whole lost when the gold rush started. Curiously, the Apple guys who stopped by the booth seemed completely uninterested as all the Linux guys drooled over the TiBook.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Come on spaceman, you use linux, you should be able to write your own.
Actually, I use a tweaked-out Commodore 64 for basic web browsing and email purposes. The rest of my time is spent improving Knuth's algorithms with pencil and paper methods in order to achieve a better run-time.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
I saw this in the Business Wire - apparently Oracle will be ditching Unix to run on Linux, and will then do versions for the different OS as well.
But their main servers will all be Linux.
As to those who gripe about "darned business Linux" stuff - what's stopping you from doing your own Open Source projects? We never paid attention to Windows - you don't have to pay attention to Business glomming on to Linux either.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
I understand from what I've read over at Wired that many an old attendee of Linuxworld are dissapointed with the new business-sponsored Linuxworld.
.NET into GNOME or the fact that IBM, HP, Compaq and other major hardware vendors are embracing Linux?
I've read comments on it 'not being fun' any more. I've also seen comments here stating that the Opensource-ness of Linux is being attacked by the close-sourced monsters. I was wondering if that comment was referring to just the spastic comment aout including
I think IBM doesn't sit up all day thinking of somehow 'stealing' linux for themselves. They see it as a viable, important alternative to the closed and controlled Microsoft, and probably even Intel regime. They see the gartner charts that show with current trends that Intel servers running MS OSes are going to account for 85% of the money spent on IT infrastructure in the server market.
The reason I think they're even against Intel is that all of their big-ticket-lots-o-press-with-linux in it adds are about the zSeries or the iSeries products. There is hardly a mention about Linux running on Intel based systems (xSeries).
I think IBM sees Linux as a way to sell more of their 'big iron' high margin systems and to not have to continue to fight the idiots at Dell who try to commodotize the server market when they see the server market as more than just a commodity...
Just My $0.02. I may be wrong.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Miguel? Do you have any idea of what type of fire you are playing with? Seriously, what you plan on doing is taking a large chunk of gnome users and kindly giving them to Microsoft in their battle to control EVERYTHING there is to control. Listen, if this came of it's own because of need then I would have no problem with it. Especially if it came from the free software movement or other companies/monopolists who weren't convicted of abusing said monopoly. The problem I DO have is that simply this may make things easier in short term but in long term horrible for the industry. The infrastructure of what we call the internet today (application wise) is built with many different, compilers, archs and setups; it works and it might not be efficient but it allows for choice. What .NET plans to do is basically eliminate choice in the long run.
.NET taking over the world, using dumbasses and tiny amounts of cash in retrospect as pawns and they are too blind to see me coming.. man I'm good"
Can't you see that Microsoft isn't doing this to be nice, they aren't even doing this for web services. They are doing this to own the whole goddamn thing. The internet, what developers develop in, how things operate.. EVERYTHING!! And you are gonna sit there and honestly interview with someone on some bullshit about how this is good for you/us/me/developers because it makes things easier and that Gnome 4.0 will support this. This is Microsoft getting out of the OS business and into a much larger market. If they become the standard (standard meaning widely used) this will set off World War 3.. Everyone trying to break ties with Microsoft will again have no choice but to follow a standard they created and will no doubt make proprietary extensions too breaking said standard submitted to the ECMA when their standard+extensions becomes standard (widely used) you are fucking OWNED.
I hope this doesn't happen because if it does, you'll be known as the fucking typhoid mary in the free software movement.
"MS =
Go back and read Miguel's statements on Microsoft's security in context. He correctly distinguishes Microsoft's security design from its implementation.
On paper, .Net's secuity model is quite nice. Just as NT's model is well designed. Unfortunately for all of us, Microsoft has been choosing the wrong pair from [fast, cheap, right]. That was the point of the Trustable Computing Memo. It's time for Microsoft to start coding as well as they design.
Besides, this is a tremendous opportunity for Mono in particular, and Open Source in general. Here, we have a spec from Microsoft, rubber-stamped by ECMA, with both closed and Open implementations. Both sides have something to prove. Microsoft must prove that they can "turn the boat" again, as they did after the Internet Memo, and write secure code. Mono must prove that the tenets of Open Source (many eyes == shallow bugs, full disclosure, etc.) can bear fruit in an apples-to-apples comparison. This competition can only improve the breed. In the end, we'll be able to choose the greater good, instead of the lesser evil. <trollbait /> :-)
For some, blissful ignorance of Microsoft has been the best way to go. Who am I to argue with Linus Torvalds? But Miguel has chosen to take the fight to Microsoft, by competing on their .Net turf. More power to him!
This sig intentionally left blank.
Both your questions are irrelevant. The first set of questions about whether Microsoft can change the C# and CLI spec is irrelevant because already a lot of stuff in .NET is not in the C# or CLI specification. Miguel has stated that creating a compatible implementation of .NET is not his goal yet people keep assuming it is. The CLI and C# are good technologies that fix some of the mistakes that Sun made with Java (and made some new ones) but somehow assuming that implementing the development platform now means that Ximian will have to mirror the .NET development environment when MSFT probably has twice or thrice the number of programmers working on .NET fulltime versus Mono's five fulltime and about fifty volunteer employees.
.NET framework to Linux. Instead I assume it will be a successful port of C# and the Common Language Infrastructure which is good enough for me.
Quite frankly, I don't ever expect Mono to be a port of the
As for your second set of questions, I somehow doubt that MSFT can hand over their technology to a standards body yet still threaten to sue anyone who implements it. However, IANAL and stranger things have happened.
To those giving MS praise for coming up with .NET (including Miguel): Face it, there isn't a significant difference between CLR-type functionality and the JVM. Getting the JVM was a much bigger step than going from JVM -> CLR. In MS's defense, though, since it's an incremental and obivous step, WHOEVER had made that step would be embracing and extending the innovation of the JVM work at Sun (and the efforts to bring other languages to the JVM).
.NET software that people will think can run on any .NET platform that actually only runs on MS's .NET. Sure, it's an ECMA standard, but that doesn't keep MS from introducting their own "extensions" to it which lock users into MS.NET while still giving the illusion of not being MS-specific.
I'll leave the discussion of Java (the language) vs C# out of this.
The real difference is that with Java/JVM, when MS deviated from the spec (de facto, governed by Sun) Sun was able to get them to stop. Sun put the smack down on MS for trying to make MS-specific changes to MS's implementation of Java. This would have resulted in people developing for MS-Java thinking they were developing for Java, and then having issues when trying to get their code to "run anywhere" besides MS OSs.
With CLR/.NET there's no one to sue Microsoft when they go and take what is touted as being an open spec and change their implementation of it. That will lead to
Or am I wrong? Is there any legal way to punish MS for the type of mischief they tried with Java/JVM and that I predict they will try with CLR/.NET?
Microsoft is playing the favourites game again. First MS gives the rights to MFC to Bristol (where is Bristol today? Notice also that Bristol did not get the rights for COM?), then COM and MFC to Mainsoft (where is Mainsoft today? Notice that Mainsoft does not have the rights for .NET?), and now finally Ximian is the "annointed one".
This is a Microsoft play through and through. And it surprises me that Michel is that STUPID to fall for it. I think the reason is because MS seriously sweet talks into into Michel's ear. And most likely the Ximian team went through various scenarios and thought, "Hey this is a win win situation." But the reality is that it is not a win win situation. Microsoft will string along Michel until they do not need him and Ximian anymore. And then there will be a new annointed one.
What disappoints me is that Michel thinks he can outfox Microsoft. Bigger people have tried and have their problems. Michel is a small fry and when Bristol or Mainsoft or Software AG tried to get more action MS stopped them dead in their tracks. Standards mean squat to Microsoft. How many people does Microsoft have on the standard bodies and how many does Ximian? Get my point folks!!! Sorry for being so harsh, but after having talked and written about Microsoft for a decade (switched to Open Source) I am amazed that people still fall for this tatic.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
It seems some people yearn for the days when they where the only ones using linux. They are as bad as M$ trying to put themselves on a pedestal by sabotaging other peoples attempt to step out of ignorance.
Business is good. A "mixing of open source and close source ideologies" ends up making a very competitive and successfull candidate. It's not that one or the other is necessarily bad, but that extremes of either become self defeating. Sure RedHat has certain proprietary secrets which they use to make a profit. So what. They also make linux very accessable and allow more people to discover the 'joy' of linux. These heady idealist who scream down with all things proprietary are nothing more than neo-hippy-nihilist-posers who need to think before they parrot. Part of what makes linux and open source such an inspiring concept is that it makes information accessable to the people, and thusly empowers them to some extent. Successfull business' that push open source solutions manage to put the empowering project in more hands, and helps to fuel the ongoing development and exploration in the community. I think it's very symbiotic. The real bitch I think these people have is that money no longer falls out of the trees. Such is the state of the economy. Many of us are finding we have to work for a living. For some of us, this is no revelation. Some of us even find joy in our work.
Why is it so easy to hate members of the "Linux community"? Is it because they are the whiniest bunch of computer users ever? Is it because they kick and scream like the children they are when they don't get their way? Is it because they are just fucking stupid? I don't really know which one to pick. Two years ago Linux geeks were complaining about not getting corporate support. Now they are complaining about actually having corporate support. Now when somebody suggests they have a method to interact with the rest of the world they kick and scream because the great satan was the one who came up with the buzz words. What the fuck?
.NET system is based around stateless XML based RPC methods. This is a GOOD THING for interoperability. As long as you conform to the SOAP your program can talk with another program not matter what sort of machine it is running on or where it is running. A common runtime for languages isn't so bad either. You can write a program on any architecture and run it on any other architecture that has a compliant runtime environment and bytecode translator. Don't use the CLR if you wahnt to preserve certain functionality for a given language. It would be cool though to be able to write apps for GNOME that would run on any OS and architecture that has the CLR compliant GNOME libraries. No recompiling required. A house that does all C/C++ development doesn't need to learn Java in order to write a program they can sell to just about anybody running just about any computer. Just because the idea proposed by microsoft doesn't make it evil. In fact I'd say Miguel is doing the GNU thing by writing a free implimentation of non-free software. This is what the whole GNU crap is about. Slashdotters seem too fucking stupid to understand this point.
Miguel de Icaza wanting to add real functionality to Linux is not a damning offence. Half the fucking posts on this thread seem to think Miguel is off his rocker or Bill Gates' bitch or something. That is just fucking retarded. He's a damn good programmer who knows Linux is way behind the times when it comes to interacting with the real business world. Stateful RPC methods need to hit the road. They don't fit into topologies where you have multiple servers behind a single address that are all processing requests for the sake up upping your throughput. Stuff like the LVSP isn't going to work with FTP or rsh connections though works well with HTTP. XML based RPC (or any stateless RPC method) are much more efficient in modern networks because I don't need to fuck with my external network configuration to add capacity. SOAP and the whole
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.