Slashdot Mirror
RMS Asks Miguel to Explain Himself
phaze3000 writes "RMS, responding to questions from the audience at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil last week, has asked Miguel de Icaza to explain himself to the Free software community about comments made last week that Gnome should be based on .NET in the future. More details at Brazillian site Hotbits and in The Register." I find this amusing.
Karma Suicide Bomber.
Tuesday -- Slashdot. A Troll with an estimated 100 lines of flamebait strapped to his body detonated near the top of an article, moderating the troll down to -1. The blast incited a lenghty, fruitless debate over the merits of the GPL vs. BSD license, revived debates over the Karma cap, and widened nearby pages by up to 500 pixels. Fragments of sentences and even entire paragraphs were scattered over a wide area. Early estimates indicate that as many as 5 other users may have been modded down to -1, and that a larger number were modded down to 0.
Spokesman for the trolls and defacto Troll leader Yassir Arasplat denied involvement. "This may have been the work of Hagoatsex, The Bombastic C-Code, or one of the other militant Troll groups". Leaders and moderators of Slashdot insist that Arasplat must bear some responsability for the outburst. As you may recall, last year the Slashdot coalition government offered a deal that would have ceded large portions of Slashdot to Trolls. This was considered a very generous offer by most parties, but it stopped short of establishing a Trollestinian state.
Leaders of the United Web Sites and others pledged to bring an end to Karma Suicide Bombing. The United Web Sites pledged over $10 billion flooz, as well as its own Perl coders to help in the effort. An offer by MSN.com to send in coders was politely rejected, but the Slashdot coalition said it could not rule out anything in the future. Recent e-mailings of Perl code snippets to the Trolls demonstrate that they have no intention of posting anything other than mindless, disruptive, off-topic drivel.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Miguel makes a comment about a linux project being based on microsoft technology
RMS takes offense.
OK, who was suprised???
-Space for rent
RMS actually seems to be pretty rational when it comes down to it. If Miguel puts up a rational argument I'm sure he'd swing RMS's opinion. I wonder if there will be a EMACS .net plugin. Somehow I doubt it.
e4 e5
Did Miguel really think that RMS would ignore the fact that a project, possibly the "showcase" project for GNU is going in this direction?
:)
He's on worse crack than the moderators
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
It's time that Linux people realize that hating MS is going no where and is completely unproductive. All too often they fail to realize that MS is on to a good thing just for the sake of always putting down MS. I think it's a great move on behalf of GNOME.
scott
The man is getting old and it shows.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
KDE probably isn't looking so bad to RMS right now.....
"Stallman only learned of de Icaza's intentions to slip the Mono project - based on Microsoft's .NET framework - into Gnome as "the natural technology upgrade" when asked by the audience."
Way to keep up to the date on news there, Rich.
Isn't this proof that he's "out of it" when it comes to technology?
Not trolling, just a thought.
I'm not sure Miguel *CAN* tell RMS to fuck off. Doesn't RMS hold the trademark on "GNU"?
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
This man is becoming increasingly irritating, a modern day Rasputin (in looks as well as deeds).
This is a *little* disconcerting for some, but I applaud Miguel's willingness to embrace the technologies he feels are best, regardless of the political fallout. Given the amount of XML stuff in Ximian Gnome / Nautilus etc, it only seems natural to move towards more RPC based standards. The fact that one of them is being developed by Microsoft should not IMHO be an obstacle to progress. Now if they would just fix the fonts! ; )
As someone previously said, why should a proud and experienced community of Unix architects blindly follow the lead of some newcomers in the platform and components business? That's ridiculous. .Net behavior on a non Windows platform is an interesting academical exercice. Nothing more.
Cloning and reimplementing
I think people have misunderstood Miguel. What he has done here is to use MS as an R&D dept. MS spent millions researching .NET and built a comprehensive set of tools. GNU (and the rest of us) can benefit from this research, they can take the best ideas from .NET and implement them in MONO. This is a GoodThing.
.NET and stick with the standards he wins because .NET will become fragmented.
.NET and C# are full of ideas borrowed from JAVA, DELPHI, DCOM etc. Why not pull an MS here and embrace your enemies. Take their ideas and run with them!
There could be a problem if MS shifts the spec or extends the spec. At that point if Miguel decides to chase MS he loses. If he decides to "fork"
I think Miguel knows what he is doing. I say give him a chance if history is any indicator he will kick ass.
In essence
War is necrophilia.
Now wouldn't it be funny if GNOME started basing itself heavily on Microsoft's architecture? I mean if I recall my history, KDE came into existence but it was based on the closed QT libraries. So then the GNOME project was founded to be a more free software purist environment. Now it seems that things are getting reversed now that you can get an open version of QT.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
As in "Fuck Gnu"?
RMS is a buffoon.
[Richard Stallman is] just bitter he can't call it GNU/.NET.
No, but he can call his team's version dotGNU.
Will I retire or break 10K?
quote:
.NET - you use the .NET API - the classes [sic.] they have defined."
"What's important to keep in mind is that you do not actually use the Windows API in
hello, what exactly needs further explanation? its brilliant.
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
If not, shut up, RMS
Can't slashdot devote a news section to "RMS ranting"? It's always the same, it's always narrow minded, it's always useless. I'd really like to ignore it.
Although I'm ready to give Miguel de Icaza the benefit of the doubt, I have to admit that his words were quite surprising - possibly ill-chosen...In any case, he really should explain exactly what he means.
The most likely short-term effect of this declaration is that some people are going to migrate from GNOME to KDE...perhaps, in his way, de Icaza has succeeded in solving the so-called "Desktop Manager Wars"! (Personally, I use GNOME, but KDE is okay...)
Reminder: find a new sig
Eventhough it is already slashdotted, here is opinion on mono and its integration into gnome: .NET!
I think Gnome is a really nice desktop and today as good as KDE, but if it wants to keep up with the really impressive KDE progress, the Gnome-developers have to concentrate on Gnome Development, not on reverse engineering a MS technology! Linux doesn't need
Boycot? Blackout? Subscriptions?
I don't care!
As someone previously said, why should a proud and experienced community of Unix architects blindly follow the lead of some newcomers in the platform and components business?
At one time, Unix architects were "newcomers in the platform and components business." The .NET philosophy meshes well with the UNIX philosophy: small, portable components that work together well.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It would be very, very unfortunate if this debate just focused on the politics of Mono following Microsoft Dotnet. Miguel might be misguided in this aspect, but his strategic vision of what is critical for the future growth of Linux-the-platform is far more attuned to current trends than anything RMS, ER or LT have articulated.
/. - of 27 postings on this topic (see my user info), only one was ever moderated up, and that was promptly moderated down again ('overrated'). Draw your own conclusions!
He realizes that without a VM and the cross-(hardware)-platform capabilities it gives, Linux apps are going to be very hard to distribute in future. Normal consumers simply aren't going to run C compilers, yet the Linux "architecture" takes absolutely no account of this.
By the way, it is customary for the 'strategic VM' debate to be ignored in
Given that Sun has publically stated they are going to move to using Gnome as their desktop (not that i believe it given their last support of the OpenStep UI) -- I believe they would have some serious issues with this as well
Its no secret the position Sun takes as it relates to Microsoft
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
1) You need more people to take care of Microsoft boxen than with free software;
2) Microsoft security updates are usually late, and they can break even programs running from IIS itself, like Mercury Interactive's TestDirector;
3) You need many more Microsoft boxen than free software ones;
4) It's easier to learn with free software, and no you don't need to know how to compile kernels. Editing conf files is trivial, and is also necessary in the Microsoft world. In fact easier and safer than editing the Windows Registry.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Nitpick! You don't have to take down a machine to patch a OpenSSH exploit!
'nuff said.
d.
But .NET is actually a pretty well thought out and designed plan. If you take off the blinders and look at it, .NET really makes sense.
What should open source do? Should it push forward a political agenda, or strive to provide people with the best possible products? Personally I could care less about RMS' agenda. To me open source is about options, and I applaud Miguel for working to provide people another option.
Is it just me or does the whole Gnome project seem to be loosing focus?
I have been a loyal Gnome user but KDE is leaving it in the dust as far as development goes right now. And NOW I know why...
If Miguel insists on using .NET for Gnome in the future, then it's time to branch development for Gnome. All the Gnome developers with some sanity will undoubtedly go for the non-.NET Gnome. I.e. 99% of them.
I'm sure that 99% applies to Gnome users as well.
I mean, how dare the guy develop useful open-source products and tools using a modern, cohesive framework that's en route to becoming an ECMA standard? All open-source programmers should stick to cryptic/buggy libraries or stop making open source projects. Because just because you're open source doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, right?
Microsoft, after all, was the one who designed their own implementation of this framework and they're a big monopoly that makes products that people want and use so no one in the open source world should work with them.
Also, Bill Gates has a nose so Miguel should cut his off right now to spite him. That'll show 'em all!
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
You might think this a troll. But, I truely cant stand gnome. I dont like it. I am a KDE fan. I'm happy to see him making it an easier choice for my friends.
Gnome sucks, has sucked, and will always suck.
How is this flamebait? It's a reasonable suggestion.
Ok, so RMS isn't happy with Miguel supporting a technology developed by Microsoft. But the issue isn't that the technology comes out of MSFT - the bigger issue is that in the .NET infrastructure, don't all requests/authentication/charges end up going through MS? Is Miguel essentially porting .NET to Linux by doing this? Or does Mono provide a means for bypassing the central MSFT authentication?
Beyond that, I'm surprised RMS didn't make more of an issue of Miguel changing the licensing on Mono to X11 from GPL. Lord knows that it's causing a ton of controversy among Gnome developers, and I can't imaging a bigger finger in the direction of RMS myself.
It's too bad, really - I've been using Ximian/Gnome for over a year now, and parts of it are pretty darn cool. But I'm starting to think that Miguel's getting off course - perhaps it's time to re-evaluate KDE.
'ARRGH! Pirate Designers of the Internet, we be!'
Yesterday, I was sitting at a Microsoft Windows workstation researching something on physics, when I came accross a Webpage with an embedded Java applet. I was dumbstruck; what a fabulous idea! From what I can gather, Java applets are quite prevalent in education circles and other applications where user input can be taken to produce a visual representation of the result. .NET is the best thing for GNOME? It's really very simple: The Java runtime environment is non-free. Certainly, Free Software Java interpreters like Kaffee came a long way when they were actively under development, but what was really missing was a complete set of class libraries.
.NET bytecode that allows the code, once compiled, to be run at almost native speeds.
.NET is an open standard; Java is not. It's been submitted to the ECMA which means that you, I and Miguel are free to make an open implementation of it, explicitly. Sure, some may worry that Microsoft have subversive motives in doing so, but the fact remains that they've released a technology that's at least as good as, if not better than Java.
.NET and I can view it in Mozilla, or in Konqueror, without having to install Sun or IBM's proprietary Java runtime. It's all about the technology, only in this case it makes sense not only to pragmatists but Free Software enthusiasts too. In fact I bet that most of the anti-Mono trolls are the very ones that have those proprietary Java runtimes installed on their systems.
.NET and C# are basically a reimplementation of Java. Sure, they add new features like cross-language support, and finer grained security context. These mean respectively that I could call a perl function from a python script inline. The latter means I could create software that has extensible input and output filters for program data, where the filters are trusted to convert data but never write it to disk.
So, why then do I think
Ximian Mono is writing a complete cross platform development and code exceution platform which includes a complete set of class libraries, and a JIT (Just in Time) interpeter for
Finally,
I don't know about you, but I want to see the day when I'm doing research and I hit a page with an interactive demonstration written in
...and Miguel is a baboon.
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
Pinning GNOME to .NET sounds like a braindead idea to me anyway. Perpetually playing catch-up and being involved in an arms race with MS. If you have any knowledge of the history of computing then you'll know the sands of .NET will continually shift.
.NET
/. about it!
Just look at the lineage :
dde, ole, ole2, com, dcom, dcom + mts, soap,
J++ & Active Directory probably fit in there somewhere too.
Pinning your business model to any of these technological donkeys is an expensive move.
to paraphrase :
The MSDN treadmill moves pretty fast, if you don't look around once in a while, you might just miss out!
Everybody has a duty to question, I'm glad RMS has done it so publicly because if it was me that asked then I doubt we'd see any discussion on
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
A quote from The Register:
Nor has Miguel made any secret of his ambitions to enrich the software libre desktop with more sophisticated infrastructure, using Microsoft Windows as the model. The Bonobo technology was designed to provide a lightweight compound architecture inspired by The Beast's COM, and there was even a Gnome Basic scripting language mooted at one point.
Thank God Miguel is looking out for us! I just know that someday, someday soon...my Linux distro will be compatible with Outlook viruses.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
What I want to know is how much it pays to claim that .NET is a good technology. I mean, is this something where I could get a second house paid for by embracing MS? We know they have more money than design experience.
I don't really think that Miguel is being paid... but then, if someone offered evidence, I wouldn't be surprised.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
C'mon people stuff his journal with hate mail, I'm so sick of this wide crapola.
Yes, we hate MS. We really hate MS. MS is bad, mmkay? Now that that's out of the way...
.NET is coming, lets not dilute ourselves about that. MS owns the desktop, and if they want .NET, odds are, good or bad, .NET is making it into peoples homes. So our choices are simple, we can ignore .NET, do our own thing (bonobo, watever) and stay a fringe group (dont kid yourselves, were a fringe group) of radical non-windows folks. Or, we can do the smart thing, offer full .NET compatibility. If we do that, and manage to keep up with MS's API changes and whatnot, when MS phases in .NET as the only type of app out there, we're ready, and we've got a real shot at the desktop. Want to run office? Go ahead, we can install it from your MS CD with no problems (no WINE, no emu, native). I, for one, can't wait for .NET on linux. I'll be coding my web services in VS.NET while still hacking perl in my bash console.
.NET, and let MS develop the software. Seems very logical to me, I dont understand what the problem is. Yeah, we're imitating 'the beast'. So what? Immitate now, dominate later. If linux is to make it to the desktop, it needs to catch up to windows, and this is the quickest, most painless way I see of doing this.
.NET on linux, it gives .NET more market penetration, but then again, once .NET is on linux, who needs windows?
.NET is new, its untested, its unproven, but the simple fact is, it's a very promising platform. Yes, MS built it, because they have the resources to. Why not use it?
Slashdot keeps talking about how we need to make linux so easy that my grandma can use it, here's our chance. We copy
Yes, I'm biased, I contribute ALOT to the Mono project, but I honestly believe that without something that gives native compatibility with windows apps, linux will stay on the server, and my grandma will keep shelling out for new versions of windows.
And one more thought, MS isn't trying to kill mono. Has it crossed anyones mind that this is our chance to get MS to help kill themselves? They want
Yes, this is a rant, and I'm sorry for any grammar/spelling errors. But, before you mod me down into oblivion, seriously think about this. This really is a good thing(tm), and is the best bet of linux getting into mainstream desktop land.
-
RMS is a person; try to avoid ad-hominem attacks and instead focus on his acts & ideas
-
Miguel de Icaza also deserves the same respect
-
MS is a business - it is not inherently evil nor has Bill Gates been conclusively identified as Cthulu-Jr
-
MS puts out lots of ideas & products. Just like with any other ideas they can be used for good or ill, or as intended by MS or not
-
RMS through the GNU licenses does have an interest in how & where they are applied (to ensure compliance.) It is reasonable to anticipate possible conflicts and resolve them early
Or this can all degenerate into a bunch of folks screaming how they don't like whateverI don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Read Miguel's clarification of what he meant by GNOME taking advantage of Mono.
.net. It just might deliver what CORBA only promised, language independent component reuse. I know I wouldn't mind mixing for example Kylix generated GUI frontends with Java/C# running the logic in the background, transparently (and natively!). I surely hope that by the time we reach GNOME 4 (and we're talking 2-4 years from now here) we're not still writing GUI applications in C, as is the state with most GNOME apps now.
.net, it's not controlled by Microsoft, it's a reimplementation of the .net class libraries while also bringing in a C# compiler as a bonus (Believe me, there are plenty of worse languages to code in). The Mono libraries are Open Source (Same license as Xfree86, and I don't hear anyone bitching about the license of that particular piece of software) and will probably help bring a lot of new neat Open Source applications, giving especially GUI programs a boost.
Mono has a lot of technical merit, don't shoot it down only because it's based on
Remeber that Mono isn't
What is in my best interests is to have multiple, robust, "genetically isolated" choices for the critical technology my business needs to use. "Cross-pollinating" two of those choices so that they are no longer separate is not a good idea.
And have we already forgotten Microsoft's attempt to ban non-IE browsers from "their" web? Although I often do not agree with RMS' more extreme positions, I think he understands quite well that you can't be a little bit pregnant, nor can you sell a fraction of your soul to the devil.
sPh
Given this plethora of PRE-EXISTING software that is open, mature (or at least written by people who know the problem-space damn well), and standard, WHY would anyone want to port GNOME to
Whether you like RMS or not, the point is that he is very right to question the validity of using
But whether it's possible or not doesn't matter. Miguel's complaint was there was no realistic alternative. I've listed several. Now, I expect (as a GNOME user) a damn good reason why I shouldn't just pick up the GNOME sources and fork the hell out of the tree, to make them OPENLY networkable.
I don't like code-forks, when they're not necessary. It's a lot of hastle to maintain them, keep things in sync, etc, but I don't cater to fools, either.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I applaud Miguel's decision to allow for future generations of GNOME to plug into what will undoubtedly drive a significant portion of web-services. It shows intelligence and a desire for long-term security.
Most slashdotters, myself included, use both Windows and *nix machines in our work environments. While this might bring a deluge of "Yeah but, my xxx company only uses *nix" and "Only a sux0r company would use Windows!" responses, I feel relatively safe that anyone that's been in the industry for a while and worked for multiple companies knows the real deal here. The fact is that both *nix and Windows coexist, and should coexist. Each has a niche and fills a specific need.
The kind of blind fanaticism shown by certain proponents of GNU is both unhealthy and short-sided. A pro-linux-only (or is that GNU-linux? Who gives a shit?) jihad accomplishes nothing but the accelaration of the demise of a good thing. Only by being flexible and adapting will GNOME, and indeed linux, find it's way into more mainstream use. The unflexible and unyielding only assure their own death. Miguel isn't accountable to anyone but his family and his company. Some people (RMS) should probably stop and do a little introspection on what they want the future to be, and what is *really* the best way to achieve it. Fanaticism is never a good policy. Observation, understanding, and assimilation are what truly make a good leader.
I stuck to Gnome initially, coz KDE was based on closed source QT. Then QT opens itself, and Gnome moved to Bono and eventually to .Net. And I switched to KDE, so that I won't get myself stuck in some proprietory architecture.
/. posted here that MS might be on something really good (if .Net is that good). If that's the case, good for them. But it's a proprietory architecture. And I think it's a lost cause to base a whole entire open source platform on some proprietory architecture which you have to play catch-up all the time, and which you have to reverse engineer to know how it works (correct me if I'm wrong here). How many companies have been trying to make their apps work with the proprietory format of MS Word and get burned?
Some
You may not like RMS, but as far as I know, he is one of the few who stick to his lines over the years.
MS must be laughing really hard now for causing a little political turmoil among OSSers. At the end of the day, MS is still the winner.
You sign over all your rights to the FSF the minute you sign on to one of their projects.
They encourage you to ally your project with them under the FSF banner. Suddenly, everything you've ever worked for comes under the sole purview of Stallman. And as we all know, Stallman is great with people and in building a solid sense of community.
U have been trolled.
Fuck that's funny!
How is this situation any different from free software projects using Sun's Java technologies? Isn't this just two sides of the same coin?
On one side you have Gnome intending to use Mono, a cross-platform language and runtime environment based on open standards,
and on the other you have projects such as Apache's Jakarta using Java, a cross-platform language and runtime envionment based on almost open standards.
I don't recall seeing RMS bitching too heavily about Sun's absolute control of the Java language and runtime.what it was that RMS didn't like about it. I wouldn't be surprised if he's just being reactionary for the sake of it.
For a second, when I read the topic, I thought this would be a confrontation between RMS from gnu.org and Miguel from fatchicksinpartyhats.com. That would be a Slashdot link worth reading.
I think it's a great move on behalf of GNOME.
I was under the impression that Sun was going to use GNOME as the default GUI instead of CDE in the next (and future) version of Solaris.
I am sure that Scott McNealy will be thrilled that his GUI will be based on something that is m$ in essence...
And if he has to pay a license to m$ to distribute it...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
He's obviously a Windows guy, since you almost ALWAYS have to take down a Win2k box to patch it.
Looks like someone is moderating at newest first, I always laugh when and original post gets modded redundant while the identical posts following it get modded insightfull.
I don't care, though, as long as their not wasting mod points on my posts. [Evil Laugh]
Miguel is thinking in terms of technology, of usefulness, of practical value to users. .Net is a great platform, and Microsoft's dominance of the client is going to guarantee its widespread use. If you want the great features of the platform, and want to interact with .Net systems created by others, but you hate the thought of being forced to use Microsoft Windows, Miguel is your friend.
.Net, and I love it. I'd love to have the advantages of .Net and Linux without it implying two different operating systems. Go Miguel!
RMS is a political ideologue who thinks in terms of leftist political objectives. Leftist ideologues aren't famous for their customer service. They would prefer to fight valiantly against the Enemies of the People, and heaven help any people who don't demonstrate political correctness.
I've been playing with
And RMS, you don't represent me, buddy. I don't see my needs high on your list of priorities.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
The article points out that it should be OK for the free software community to implement MS API's like SMB (SAMBA) and Windows itself (Wine) because they are already established standards, but it should not be alright to implement .NET because it is only an emerging standard not yet heavily adopted by many.
.NET is popular and widespread before starting a compatable project, then it will already be too late and you will be eternally playing catch-up. Think how much more accepted Linux might have been if it was also able run Windows applications well from the get-go.
.NET becomes very popular and widely deployed as Microsoft wishes it to be. In this case Linux and other OSS will benefit from already having a .NET implementation (Mono) in place. No need to spend two or three years to play catch-up while OSS loses market share to MS.
.NET is a bust and never becomes popular or widely deployed. Microsoft loses big time (since they are hanging their future on it), and OSS (mainly just Ximian) loses a gamble by having wasted some development resources. Big deal. And mainly just Ximian would have lost anything, the rest of the OSS community will have lost very little.
.NET and C# become widely deployed and OSS operating systems are caught with their pants down, not being able to host any .NET related services or applications.
I disagree with this conclusion. Why wait. If you wait until
Here are the two possibilities:
1 -
2. -
These two alternatives seem better than the third possibility, which is that
Perhaps Miguel should inform his investors that he is spending a large part of their money on an effort (Mono) that very few of the consumers in Ximian's current marketplace are actually interested in. In fact, most of his current customers are dead set against the product that Ximian intends to push out the door.
Miguel's amazing lack of business sense is simply stupifying. Is there no accountability at Ximian? All of its employees and investors are willing to just march right off the end of a bridge if told to by Miguel?
Perhaps Miguel is attempting to top the blind-sighted, who-cares-about-a-business-plan failure of Eazel?
Miguel is well known for his efforts in emulating Microsoft technology. What he failed to do while training at the knee of the beast was to visit the Microsoft marketing department.
Think about what this will do for projects like Apache. Once Mono is up and stable, what's to stop the Apache folks from taking a few days and making it possible for someone to zip up their IIS-based website, unzip it on their nice new linux box, and have it already running? I've done contracts for MS (please don't flame me, feeding my family comes before my feelings about them), I've seen the code in IIS that runs .NET, its just a wrapper around the .NET runtime. Apache can do the same thing, and voila, even more integration with MS for linux. In other words, even a paper MCSE can move that production site in less than an hour. Once again, this is a good thing(tm). I'm going to stop now, I think I've made my point.
If Miguel hadn't moved MONO to the X11/MIT license last week, I don't think RMS would be so upset. We're talking about GNOME, the biggest GNU project since HURD being based on an API that is Non-Free-As-In-Freedom, only a portion of NET has been submitted to ECMCA. With the concern the GNU community had over KDE, this would make the GNOME community look like hippocrites (GNOME was started because KDE used to be based on QT, which was not released under GPL.)
FYI I submitted this same story about 5 hours ago. Hmmm.
"As flies to the wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for sport." - William Shakespeare, King Lear
Go RMS. He goes too far sometimes, but this time he's spot-on.
Miguel... Geeze, did he sign some sort of secret deal with microsoft? It's -insane- to become dependent on them. Look at the huge trail of partners microsoft has destroyed ("innovated").
I like gnome. I've invested time in learning gnome programming. But this has got me having second thoughts about maybe switching to KDE. I believe in gnome because it's more open. A gnome that requires
If microsoft is onto something with
Does anyone know the most effective places to send letters to make sure gnome doesn't become dependent on
I was sorta confused when reading about GNOME using .NET. Now, I read an excerpt from the article:
.NET framework - into Gnome as "the natural technology upgrade" when asked by the audience."
.NET, right? So how well will Mono do if nobody is using it?! That's why GNOME _should_ go with Mono. The more applications will use Mono, the sooner headlines will be "Use Mono, it's even better than .NET!"
"Stallman only learned of de Icaza's intentions to slip the Mono project - based on Microsoft's
when I read the comment someone made about RMS living under a rock. And to be honest, I think this is one of the best moves GNOME could make:
Mono was created as an open-source answer to Microsoft's
If people wanted .NET they would buy Microsoft products. If people want something ANTI microsoft, free, and STABLE they will go with GNU software and tools. IMHO Gnome has never been stable... never been really useful either.
By the time Mono starts being implemented as the underlying API for future Gnome Apps, I bet you'll see more and more people switching to KDE. mmmm Mandrake is looking good right now.
I agree with the first AC -- that is HILARIOUS! :)
Dickhead moderators without a sense of humour!
Extremely funny mod it up now!
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
Son, you need the Lebesgue integral.
I know he's smart and all in bed with linux an everything but DAMN IT!!
I will never ever touch anything .NET or related technologies that soul purpose is for marketing and generating income. And yes, I'm talking about Sun baby too, libertry I think its called.
I don't care how related it would be, or how much it makes use of it. I, and I hope many others, would boycott any such technology. Open source or not.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
As you may know, the "G" in GNOME stands for "GNU." And RMS is in charge of the GNU project.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The GNOME project had the opportunity to go with a better toolkit than Gtk+ and they blew it. Everyone said writing a GUI in C with #defines to pretend you have object support was a lame attempt at a good C++ gui library. There are plenty of alternatives to Qt now and Qt is available under the GPL anyways, so if you dont like writing GUI applications in C and you're not fond of basing your future on a brand spanking new language and a completely unstarted class library toolkit, then there's plenty of space on the other team.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I know he's GNU god and in bed with linux but damn it!! Someone needs to shove some major seditives down his throat. Relax, RMS. Everything will be ok.
I think this is the crucial moment for RMS where he either becomes more flexible or risk alienating the remaining few developers who still rally around him and his ideas.
I believe you've got it backwards.
Keep in mind the number of GPL evangelists in the world. Not many, hey? Certainly not enough, and definitely none with the power that Microsoft's PR department has.
We should be thankful that there's a guy out there who risks mockery on a regular basis in order to try to ensure some balance. His role isn't to represent the average coder, it's to give us an extreme point of view opposite of what's normally given out there in the world of software -- corporate corporate corporate.
The man is getting old and it shows.
Look, if you don't like him, tune him out. But don't underestimate his importance. He gives us balance where the Microsoft monopoly would like us to believe it's their right to bleed us dry of every penny we've got. You might as well criticize the Yin Yang symbol for not being all gray.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Phunny AND true!
Open source developers tend to be headstrong. I can see only one solution to this conflict; Give Miguel and RMS each a brick and lock them in a room until only one is left standing.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Good luck to them when the try to clone WinForms (or whatever the correct marketspeak is for the C# GUI stuff). Microsoft will sue in a heartbeat.
I hope the Gnome steering committee sees the light and slaps some sense into de Icaza. He's a threat to the success of Gnome in particular and Open Source in general. If he's so enamored of language independence, he should just stick with gcc. It supports plenty of languages, including a rapidly improving native Java compiler.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
How many people out there, who aren't anarchists/socialists as RMS is, really care about his opinion? I honestly hope Miguel tell him to shove it up his rear.
Derek Greene
MS knows that they can not make money off of selling the various windows platforms, and if this was their sole product they would be in deep red.
.NET has a few main objectives
.NET Office. Vendors will pay for levels of use like the 3% on credit cards. There will be various levels such as bronze, silver, gold and platinum
.NET applications and services. Big Picture may form here. They are probably funding XIMIAN. I do not know any one paying for redcarpet or purchasing Ximian Gnome Box sets.
They haven't made a profit from their OS division in over 7 years.
Faced with this and other facts you will find out that
#1 is cash flow, this will be accomplished through various licensing schemes and levels of use with the Passport Portal system and with monthly services such as
#2 To rid themselves of the need to make a OS. Why do you think they are lobbing for laws that require digital content management, If all OSs had DCM then it would work with #1 This is just trying to make the point the only reason they make windows and it's aborted registry is for DCM.
#3 Microsoft will not care what OS you use as long as you use
This may also explain why they are sensitive to the names of various Linux Distributions.
Get a free ipod.
Why else would Miguel start telling us that CLI means Microsoft's Common Language Interface, when we've known for years that CLI means Command Line Interface?
Biggest proof for me that Miguel has sold out, when not only is he selling Microsoft technology to us, he's also selling Microsoft MARKETING to us. Nobody but Microsoft is so good at redefining the tech lingo. (of course there's RMS and "free software" but let's not get into that...)
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
How is this funny?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
) You need more people to take care of Microsoft boxen than with free software;
I suspect that you will get a tap on the shoulder by someone by HR soon. You had better get your MCSE ASAP or your out the door.
Miguel has lost his way.
Too bad, too because along with him are lots of other people that could be working on improving GNOMES glaring defects, with respect to KDE.
Instead, they are following the path that is dividing, and ultimately conquoring the GNOME org by the beast.
-hack
"Behold a third of the stars in the sky fell to earth as Lucifer and his armies were defeated and cast down."
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Too late
But people, get a grip !! Seriously !!
Ever heard of occam's razor ? :
RMS is simply asking Miguel what he ment by
"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,"
Nothing more.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
...something so Microsoft-ian. Much fear & trembling here. But I have to defend Miguel's right to program whatever he wants to program. If he wants to embrace & extend a Microsoft product/API/whatever, then he should do exactly that. I do not at all believe in RPC based standards, so I will never, never use Miguel's product. But it's his code and he can do stupid things with it if he wants.
One of the reasons why I soooo hate Microsoft is their use of scare tactics and implied audits to squeeze cash out of companies, and basically interfere uninvited and without proof. I came to Open Source to be free of these self-appointed watchdogs, yet here we are, handling RMS with kid-gloves. But I just don't feel that extending him more grace is justified. I don't believe he is good for the community.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
All I have understood is that it is _something_ that uses XML(which I still don't think is the big thing that everyone thought it was going to be) and it is going to have on one great big server: all the data about me that the CIA(or any advertising agency) could ever want. How does GNOME, Mono and .NET got to do with eachother... aside from Mono being noninovative? I'm not trying to troll, nor am I trying to start a flame war. I just want to understand what this really is. I have read white papers, I have looked at all of this stuff and I just don't understand what the hell it is. Is it a programming API? Is it a network? I don't get it and I am sick and damned tired of hearing about how great everyone thinks it is.
The thing that MS is very good at is hooking the developer. Start using their API and in no time you will feel the pain. That is the pain of upgrades. Remember OLE, then COM, then ActiveX, etc, etc?
.NET. If MS wants to put the followers at a disadvantage, they will do so. Period.
.NET should be ignored by the opensource community. Go out and invent something just as good or better, that stands on its own. That way, MS can't mess with it.
Everyone has to realize that following MS is just that. You will burn massive resources the rest of your like FOLLOWING. You will not do anything new, but you will put massive effort into staying compatible with them.
Do NOT forget than when MS wants to, they can hurt you. Remember the Win32s compatibility that IBM did? Remember what MS did to IBM? They released a gratuitously different Win32s just to break IBM's translator (that ran on OS/2).
The same thing could happen with
That is the reason
So if you didn't see this one coming, you simply haven't been paying attention.
It looks like Stallman just didn't realize this was the plan. Perhaps he also doesn't realize .NET refers more to the Java-like language and runtime being implemented by the mono project than the privacy-trashing hailstorm system Microsoft is trying to wed it to.
As for myself, I'm a "free as in speech," copyleft, "do what's best for the free software community" kind of guy, and I don't see a problem with moving Mono to .NET, if it works. (AWT and Swing gave me a bad taste with Java, so I'm a little suspicious of .NET, but still optimistic.) Of course, I've known since the beginning of the mono project that this was the plan. Because that's been said openly at every opportunity.
I do wish Ximian could find it in their hearts to copyleft everything, though. (No library licenses, proprietary Outlook extenders, etc.) And I know, that makes me evil and heartless.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
How is this funny?
What, are you some sort of humior impared dickhead or something? - Oh, I get it, you are just like RMS in the above posting, just about to loose your job to a couple of paper MCSE's?
It's certainly a shitload funnier then anything you have posted recently.
It's also a lot more insighful and informative then this
In fact, looking though your account, you are a waste of space. All you post is shit!
It attempts to make humor.
-- yawn. --
Lets play conspiracy theory...
.SHIT?
/.? Every other thread, MS haters outweigh MS lackeys 5 to 1. What, did all of the slaves suddenly crawl out of the woodwork? Or did the number of ip's resolving to microsoft.com suddenly shoot up, making the access log look fatter then Steve Balmer in a speedo?
Ximian was on the rocks a while back financially, what happened? Where did they get that sudden infusion of cash, and a sudden love of
Microsoft has stooped to writting newspaper editorials using ficticious names and ballot rigging on CNET, why not on
Its obvious they want everyone using it pretty bad. When its adopted by the hungry masses, and the CLS definitions suddenly change so Java, Python, Perl, and oh, everything except C# dont work, then we'll have to develop on windows, boy, wont that be a treat? Won't we show that old fuddy duddy RMS then?
The "shifting sands" argument used by many OSS zealots is entirely without merit. Microsoft has engineered
Want backwards compatability? Microsoft has gone so far as to cripple its own software for backwards compatability. FYI, the intended replacement for Windows 3.1 was Windows NT 4.0, not Windows 95. Microsoft made huge sacrifices in terms of performance, stability, security, etc. in Windows 9x in order to keep Win32 compatable with DOS/ Win16. There is really no reason for MS to distribute what could arguably be considered a successor/ alternative to Win32 and then break it simply because someone else implemented the standard it is based on. What the hell would they say to their (massive) user base?
And as for the "lineage" of
Based on .Net. I've read that they mean the 'specifications' of .Net, which are supposed to remain 'open'.
Just like we all knew RMS would comment on this issue, we should all realize that open specs don't exist in a Microsoft world.
I think Miguel should do what he wishes, but perhaps he should watch himself. MS isn't exactly the nicest company on the block, and Miguel could just be setting himself and the Gnome team up for a lot of headaches.
I think a lot of /. folks are letting their RMS disillusionments take control. I personally would definitely NOT like to see the Free software world start using Microsoft-invented, Microsoft-owned, Microsoft-patented technology if it can be helped.
This is like turning Gnome into a Windows app. Sure, .NET sounds cool from a technology point of view but you should know by now that technology doesn't live in a vacuum. As soon as anything based on .NET becomes a threat to Microsoft, they will cripple it, through technological or legal means.
The Free software community should stand firm and develop and use open technologies, and not even pay lip service to .NET.
I agree with the view taken by Nick Peterly (or whatever his name, I can't remember right now) that Miguel has been baited by Microsoft .NET and this will just give Microsoft a way to try and subvert Free software. Maybe that's not what MS was thinking at the outset, and not what Miguel is thinking, but it will be possible and we shouldn't allow MS that kind of power.
I for one will lump anything that uses .NET in with Microsoft products, even if it's "open source". Why take the chance? I'm surprised that so many /. folks are calling .NET "progress" or "a standard". It's just a Microsoft technology.
Never take what your enemy offers you. .NET is part of a larger plan. I'm not big on renting my OS, office productivity software, firewalls, games etc.
Excuse me. You don't have to reboot a server to upgrade openssh. Maybe you're just used to rebooting your windows machines everytime you install any piece of code. I'm guessing you don't know much about GNU Linux or xBSD, nor do you seem to understand that its very important to not fall into the MS embrace and extend trap that so many have fallen into for so long. I'm glad we have RMS speaking his mind. That's true whether I agree with him on any one point or not.
I mean, the idea that RMS thinks he speaks for
the open source community to the extent that he
can ask someone to explain their decisions on
matters that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with RMS
or the so-called community, and that he actually
expects and answer, seems fairly arrogant on Stallman's part. Best thing Miguel could do at
this point is to ignore Stallman, maybe wait
for him to ASK POLITELY, or maybe respond to the
effect of "I don't have to explain myself to you, and the idea that you expect me to offends me."
Something like that.
Maybe I've misunderstood something, but I don't believe that Miguel works for Stallman, uses any of Stallman's intellecutal or physical assets, or has any real obligation to him. So why does Stallman think Miguel owes anything to him or to anyone else?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
There could be a problem if MS shifts the spec or extends the spec. At that point if Miguel decides to chase MS he loses. If he decides to "fork" .NET and stick with the standards he wins because .NET will become fragmented.
.NET requires interaction with a server somewhere. If the service you're trying to use is a Microsoft one, that server will be inside Microsoft. Now, if Gnome can't use that service, why would anyone choose to use it.
.NET what exactly would be the incentive to stick with his version? Forks are always resolved by market share. Guess who's got it.
No one who's been paying attention has any doubt whether MS will extend the standard. All they have to do is require a (patented) process to access a single part of the system.
Remember,
With Microsoft being the defacto standard, Gnome needs a compelling reason for people to switch. Aiming for where Microsoft was two months ago doesn't provide that. More importantly, if Miguel were to attempt to fork
Nope, no sig
It's a bit of a joke, perhaps, but a troll? So, everyone's quite comfortable with a leader in the free software community endorsing a closed and proprietary system developed by Microsoft?
Fascinating. There's no such thing as a thought Slashdot's reader community disagrees with; it's either agreeable, or a troll.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Consider several things...
I'm not sure there's much here to worry about -- other than making damned sure that free code doesn't somehow become proprietary through various license follies. On that issue, people like RMS have my heartfelt thanks for their vigilance.
All about me
Why do cockheads insist on posting absolute shit at +1?
RMS: "Miguel, you got some splainin' to do!"
Miguel: "Waaah! Oh, Ricky, I'm sorry. I didn't mean it!"
That someone in the position of having a readership of 600,000 can dismiss the political arguments of the GNU project as "amusing".
.net "infrastructure".. If you can use a linux client to talk to a microsoft server via .net, then vice versa should also be possible (unless M$ block this out, which is probably inevitable).
Admittedly, I see a future in many aspects to a
Then again, if this does happen, I don't want this bound to the Gtk widget set (sorry to troll, but I've written code for it. it smells funny). Perhaps the KDE guys should do the same.
RMS feels like Miguel should explain himself:
"GNOME is part of the GNU project, and is free software (some times referred to as open source software.)" --The gnome website, second line of body.
Not that I side with RMS, but hey.. that's what the website says.
http://fanblade.dhs.org:27902
Migual is too often optimistic that Microsoft will build .net safe and secure. This is like saying that if the flood gates were open, there would be no flood...RMS should be pissed
Abandon Miqueland his mad gnomes schism.
Retrun to KDE.
For the most part it is bullshit free, unlike Gnome.
So RMS's vision was to build a OS based on UNIX. So, what's the difference basing GNOME on .NET?
I don't know about you, but I've read a lot about Richard Stallman. This man is a genius. Did you know he left MIT to start GNU?
I heard of Miguel through Ximian / Eazel / Helixcode and now Mono. Eazel was notorious for putting small logos and advertisements in their code, similar to Ximian in some ways. And now he's carrying the GNOME flag preaching Microsoft APIs and the future of open source and free software. Miguel probably didn't mean what he said, but none the less, he irritates me. I don't like someone betting my desktop on untested APIs without much public debate and discussion.
Hearing Richard Stallman's slight protest of Miguel's public comments this morning brought a smile to my face. At least a strong voice in the free software community is stating that Miguel doesn't speak for all of us.
You're Free to do whatever you want in GNU land, as long as it's exactly what RMS wants you to do.
In the Miguel de Icaza interview
.NET - you use the .NET API - the clases they have defined.
"When Microsoft ships 1.0 we're not going to be shipping Mono1.0 for at least a year. So we're late. If they make changes to the API we'll try and track it down.
and..
"They have a beautiful security system and we're emulating the whole security infrastructure. It's actually easier to use than the Windows counterpart. We're basically wrapping the Unix functionality inside the Windows functionality.
"What's important to keep in mind is that you do not actually use the Windows API in
And I am also interested in knowing more about Miguel's interest as these comments doesn't look good from a strategist point of view.
Hereby we are not stating that compatibility with MS is bad, I like that idea, only I do not like it strictly on their terms, with them setting the standard.
Give me a break.
.NET into GNOME, you'd immediately rally to his side. But since it's RMS you just can't help trying to find some sort of way to justify how trusting Microsoft to keep .NET open is a good idea.
The posts here just tell me one thing; most of you despise RMS so much that you'll take any opportunity to criticize him.
If ANYONE else criticized Miguel's intention to integrate
I have been using their products for 18 years, and I continue to use them when to do so makes busines sense.
.Net with Java, and it's even faster. Java is even more popular.
I have never known a microsoft product to make business sense. I don't think RMS is going overboard just for the record, I think Miguel is going insane.
Sun has a much better platform than
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
paragraph. Remember, they've(Microsoft) been convicted of being a Monopoly already for weeding out competition. For someone to jump ship and follow blindly like this might actually be 'insane'. Microsoft as it stands shouldn't even be around anymore after what they've been charged and convicted with, but they still are. This is not good.
I believe you misunderstand what .NET is, and which portions could be useful to GNOME and Linux. Miguel is porting C# and libraries to produce software that runs on the CLR (Common Language Runtime) --- think Java VM. C# and the CLR have some good, solid ideas, in part because a lot of them derive from the best ideas of C++, Java, and software component technologies.
.NET strategy is Passport, their authentication service for world domination. But .NET is a strategy that encompasses a few technologies and a whole lot of partnering and marketing.
Part of Microsoft's
All Miguel wants to do is bring a compatible version of some very good technology to Linux. As a developer, I'm looking forward to working with C# and Mono.
Future will let us know if de Icaza's vision was the right one. Whatever happens, choice will always be there, so what's the big deal if he goes .NET or Mono or whatever.
What bodders me in this thread is a COMPLETE LACK OF RESPECT [in quite a few postings] for Richard Stallman and for what he's done for the Open Source Culture.
One may or may not agree with Stallman's views but RMS has certainly earned the right to question somewhat controversial acts within the community. ...and so ends my first slashdot posting...
:wq
What .NET is about, apart from the well-known
fact that it is from Microsoft? How many actually
know what C# is and how different it is from a
bazillion other more mature languages out there?
.NET is just MS way of rehashing existing technology and of course, adding a little bit to it. Their legendary marketing dept. is doing a damn fine job of touting this as the greatest new innovation from the all-time innovative company ever.
Remember, if you are the gingerbread man, you can never ever trust the fox.
If anyone's smoking crack here, it's RMS.
:)
Looking at his website: http://www.stallman.org/
Where he seems to have a ton of links along the lines of, "SaveHemp" and "change the marijuana laws" type of thing. So yes he probably is smoking crack as well
I think the only thing that I really take exception to is the choice of wording. I'm assuming that GNOME will incorporate
I also think there are some mistakes about Java in there. There are GTK+ and GNOME bindings for java and gcj. Java doesn't force you into a platform, it's very powerful to go there but you don't have to. We could very well design a new class framework and use java for this, there isn't any real reason why it couldn't be done, I just think that he thinks
If it really takes off and flies then maybe we should "base GNOME" on .NET but it just seems too early for that right now.
The scary thing is, I think some people will believe that...
.Net label are such things as the compilers, the languages, and certain *optional* web services such as hotmail and hailstorm.
.net app, Redmond gets a percentage of your use time out of it."
.Net core services server too approve and monitor your use of .Net services. (After all, Uncle Bill needs to get his cut when you pay as you go, minute by minute, transaction by transaction, or month to month...) "
.Net core services server?
.Net API and development IDE? "
".Net is at the moment, still crystallizing into a vision/API of "pay as you go" services."
No, it's various things. A common language runtime - a bytecode executable which will run on any compatible JIT compiler - whether it be on x86, Alpha, or some future Nokia phone. A standard set of APIs and a standard class library. Much like those provided with J2EE. Also under the
"That means when you build a
Lies, lies, and more lies. This is simply not true at all. Sure it's possible to create applications which use the Microsoft web services, but it's by no mean necessary, or even nearly manditory.
"2) You are literally stuck on PC hardware. You can't get anywhere further than that without a
Not true again. Pretty much the whole point of VMs and JITs is that they are hardware and platform independent. Microsoft, with the help or Coral I believe, is writing a JIT compiler for FreeBSD, and the Mono is creating a fully open implementation for IA32 Linux, with other platforms and architectures to follow.
What are you talking about with a
"Can't you wait to get your hands on that just released
Well, the APIs been released for a good year now or so with only minor changes in the betas. But, like everything here, you're talking just plain rubbish.
I very much think you should read the Mono FAQ here: http://www.go-mono.com/faq.html
tlhf
xxx
Everyone loves a SlashDrone!
This is not a troll or intended to be flamebait or anything: what are the crucial benefits that would be obtained by tying oneself to a completely new and untested programming framework like .NET?
Also (and this is really the same question in a different light) what is .NET and am I correct in saying that Mono is the Free implementation of .NET?
I have found one actual statement from Miguel as to why he wants to move Gnome from being based on C to being based on Mono (again this confuses me, I thought that .NET is some sort of super-duper XML based interactive protocols thingie that is actually written in C#):2 002-February/msg00026.html
http://lists.gnome.org/archives/gnome-devel-list/
I am not asking anyone to rewrite any code. Indeed, I encourage people not to do so. But when it comes to extend a product, Mono might be a valuable tool. Valuable, because I believe that the major feature of .NET is reduction of development time and the reduction of the money we
spend on developing those products.
I have written a large amount of code over the years, and there is a point in everyone's life, when you figure `dealing with memory management is just not worth it'. I want to have a garbage collected language, and I want to have a modern platform, and I want language independence.
So, it seems that the main stated benefits in Miguel's mind are Garbage Collection and Language Independence. Is there no other way to acheive these goals?
I can see the need for a very restrictive license like the GPL. It's "viral nature" is the only bat that can be used to hit at corporate entities that try to embrace & ...
Go RMS, extend your license!
(will it be troll, insightful, or clueless...)
and he's playing with the big boys. Squash.
Flirting with .NET is definitely selling out to the dark force. We all know Microsoft, and we HAVE the tools and technology to beat them at their own game. Let's stop playing on their ballfield.
Miguel: "OSS...I am your father"
It's interesting how someone can post a link to Miguel's clarification but it gets lost in the shuffle.
Beyond that it amazes me how everyone seems to be overlooking the maintainers of the various Gnome applications. Just look at the shear size of the Gnome Software Map. If anybody is going to be making the call of using Mono, Bonoboo, or whatever when adding features to Gnome applications it will be maintainer(s) and contributors.
Hell even in Miguel's example of Gnumeric, I would suspect that Jody Goldburg as the maintainer would be making the final choice rather than Miguel. I'll grant you I don't follow Gnumeric development and Jody might love Mono but it seems everyone is looking in the wrong place to discern the future trends of Mono & it's integration with Gnome.
And yes, I do realize that Miguel was the creator but he seems to have his hands full with other things like Mono and Ximian. As I recall his stated motivation for creating Gnumeric was not even an interest in a spreadsheet but annoyance with the lack of one in Gnome.
~~ What's stopping you?
His position has already been explained again and again and again as the register points out in their article. Has RMS gotten to the point where he can't be bothered to read existing explanations?
"Lo, I am Miguel the many-coloured!"
To which RMS the grey replied,
"You have been staring into the Lidless API for too long. You tried to wrestle control of the Dot away from Him, but the Dot still points to Redmond."
"To oppose Bill is impossible! If you are not with us, then... Die!"
</rough_paraphrasing>
- undoware.ca
Windows, at present, only supports a single platform. Because of this they have no cross platform instalation issues. You must be thinking of some other operating system.
.NET. The XML services are another part. The tech is separate (though plays nicely together), but all part of .NET.
Rewind the clock. The AIM alliance (Apple, IBM, Motorola) are cranking out faster PPC chips, the Alpha research project is bearing fruit, and Intel can't get the Pentium to move. They start playing tricks like they did at the end of the 486 era with faster processors then busses, but they can't really get the speed up.
Intel looks like a dead end.
Microsoft's NT project looks like it will divorce them from Intel. Their NTVDM, based on an old OS/2 VDM (IBM's later version was better) can emulate the entire 286 instruction set, so you can run DOS apps inside of it. They develop NT on a non-Intel architecture (rumored to be MIPS) to avoid any Intel specific shortcuts.
NT 3.51 supports the MIPS (there was a project with several companies to build a desktop PC on the MIPS line, NT was the OS, and Intel pulled tech specs for their stuff from everyone involved ).
NT 3.51 supports the PPC. They are scared of Taligent Pink, the Apple/IBM project to build two OSes on the same core system. PC Users would run OS/2, Apple users their Macs, run the same applications with the different environments.
NT 3.51 supports the Alpha. The Alpha looks like it is going to be awesome and could carry Microsoft into the server rooms. It looks like a screamer. The AlphaPC, the cheap version of the chip, looks like a great processor. NT 3.51 and the AlphaPC could turn Microsoft into a workstation player and compete in the engineering space.
Intel is still moving chips cheaply (in the $400-$1000 range) so they are involved.
Microsoft has another project, Chicago AKA Windows 4.0 AKA Windows 93, released as Windows 95. It brings the Win32 API to the lowend world. Get your apps moved to Win32 from Win16, and you can move to Windows NT (but not OS/2). Stick to Win32s and IBM can still fight on with OS/2.
At that point in history, there was no Microsoft monopoly.
What happened?
Intel gets the Pentium Pro to perform well on 32-bit operations (though the 16-bit code in Win95 made it a dog there) and announces the Pentium II, a PPro without the expensive on-chip cache. Quad-PPros do okay as workgroup servers. The MIPS PC initiative dies out (taking one of the top graphics card makers with it, who couldn't compete without Intel's PCI specs early... and Vesa Local Bus wasn't keeping up).
IBM refuses to ship PPC computers (to run Windows NT) until they have OS/2 running there. Well, the OS/2 port couldn't make it. Sure their were dozens of machines build in Boca Raton, FL, they rocked. The PPC 620 was promissed with the 486 core integrated. Wow, OS/2 on a PPC with your old DOS/Win apps running on the 486 core? Never shipped...
NT drops to just the Alpha and x86. With no support for the other ports, Microsoft lets the development tools for non-x86 lapse. Visual Studio RISC was usually at least 1 rev back.
Alpha support drops out later.
Microsoft is now stuck with x86.
Itanium/IA-64 is on the way. Microsoft needs a 64-bit system to carry them up the food chain, and the Alpha is dead.
AMD's x86-64 is on the way, and while there is no official plans for Microsoft to support it, I'm sure that they will.
Microsoft is back to pushing cross platform.
J++ didn't get them there. The CLR may.
The CLR is part of
Microsoft HATES sharing their monopoly with Intel. Intel may be the junior partner, but they are there. Microsoft needs to increase its leverage. The CLR makes Intel a junior partner... VERY junior.
They can talk to IBM about PPCs, or AMD about x86-64.
Microsoft certainly has cross-hardware issues. Because of them, they are only on 1 platform.
NT is extremely portable.
x86 assembly code is not.
Alex
I'm willing to accept it might be me who's wrong, but my understanding of .NET, according to the way Microsoft themselves have sold it, is that trust of foreign code will be established by reference to a central verifying authority. For example, the way they use Passport to authenticate within Hotmail.
.NET in practice. While the .NET specification could indeed be submitted in its entirety to some standards body, what would prevent Microsoft from adding an additional API into all the services that they actually build off of .NET?
But to me the big issue is more the way MS will use
Any ".NET compliant" third-party implementation that is not interoperable with Microsoft's version will be dead in the water.
Nope, no sig
half those class calls are thin wrappers around the OS. Example, .net drawing API is a wrapper to GDI+; all the file IO is modelled on NT objects, not the unix device model.
Even if you arent talking to the API, the package model assumes it is there. ASP.NET even assumes that COM+ is there for things like message queuing and transactions.
MONO could do their own package heirarchy for talking to the OS, and run on all platforms, mac, unix, windows, etc, instead of cloning the windows package heirarchy in one go.
But they'd be better of writing Gnome 4 in java
Hey mods, this guy obviously hasn't taken the time to actually read anything ont he issue. Miquel has posted explanation after explanation about the whole go-mono.net thing everywhere as the Register points out, and further, GNOME happens to be free software and he does not control its direction. Why can't folks have opinions nowadays without know nothing idiots jumping down their necks for "ill-chosen" words?
These guys have obviously never read a single mailing list and probably have not contributed a single line of code. If idiots like this migrate from GNOME to KDE based on some thoughts of one developer, good riddance I say, idiots like this detract from folks doing honest open source work. Let's befriend the helpful, knowladgeable folks, and let the ranting idiots find other mailing lists to bother.
Point 1. Mono was recently relicensed from LGPL to the MIT X11 License. This means that it is possible to sell proprietary forks of Mono without the permission of the contributing developers.
.NET libraries are standards, and available to be cloned by the free Mono. The remainder are technologies that must be licensed from Microsoft.
.NET services, since they're all running on Windows boxes that have the full Microsoft .NET implementation.
:)
Point 2. Only small parts of the
Point 3. Ximian need a long-term way to make money.
Conclusion. When GNOME is based on Mono, Ximian will start licensing the additional libraries from Microsoft, and incorporating them into a proprietary "Mono-Enhanced" (Duo?). Mono-Enhanced will be binary compatible with Mono, so you can plug it directly into your GNOME desktop. Users will need Mono-Enhanced in order to interoperate with most
Microsoft will have pulled a massive embrace and extend on GNOME, through Ximian. Way to go, Miguel.
Charles Miller
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
...but a better idea would be to use the .NET implementation on windows. It will be more up-to-date, and it will have all those nifty proprietary features that MS likes to add. Sounds like the Mono team has already started that approach - they develop on Windows then test it in gnome. I say why bother with that second step? ;)
yeah, you use the defined classes to make RPC called to the undefined ones. So even though you implement the whole spec (which is less than 1/4 of the classes), it doesn't work with some, and others, it works just fine with -- but you get a big pop-up on your screen from verisign that says
"You are using an unsecure application that does not have a guaranteed Microsoft checksum. Are you really stupid enough to trust anyone but Microsoft-Verisign?"
Many people are going off on rants detailing why Mono is a bad idea.
.NET classes for use with Mono, but will Mono do that? Why can't mono create new GNOME classes that run ontop of .NET? This would allow GNOME and its applications to run on Windows. This is a good thing. GNOME is trying to build a free software desktop - not only the environment, but also the applications. GNOME is not going to try to chase MS so that GNOME can give up and only use proprietary Windows apps.
.NET framework does not mean total compatability with MS, and it does not mean a new WINE .NET implementation of all of the MS classes (although someone could make such an effort). Think of the Mono .NET more as the basic C libraries as opposed to all of the proprietary libraries that vendors may come up with to do more advanced things.
Who says that Mono will try to chase Microsoft? Maybe a Wine like project will try to implement all of the new proprietary MS
Remember, using the
Or am I missing something?
Well said.
But -- typical slashdot folks respond really well to this kind of button pushing. I'm thinking that there must be some way to channel all of this energy into something good.....
Great, great, great, bleh.
.NET) we will all be storing our data on MS servers, and you just /know/ how secure those are. Hell even Microsoft has to admit that they have 'security vulnerabilities'.
Server orintated, lead way to pay for use software subscription programs.
Where will users run from Microsoft if even the free software is under MS's rule?
Do we REALLY want EVERYTHING to be server orintated? I mean sure it is a good geek dream, but shoot folks, WHO IN THE WORLD do YOU *trust* with your data?
If MS has its way (another generation or so past
Do you really want your SS#, CC#s, address, telephone number, and all of your other personal information stored on one centeral server? Think about it folks, first damn exploit that comes along and some damn script kiddie ends up richer then Bill Gates.
Yah, great plan, those applications servers are. Now excuse me while my eyes roll out of the back of my head.
(Who the hell thought up of this? Centeralized servers for LANs, sure. Heck even WANS, but shit, one GIANT centeralized server? Ohh maaan, somebody was smoking the baaad dope that day!)
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
All this rhetoric about RMS and Mono and Ximian got me to re-read the article Ximian to Change License for Mono
How can Miguel change a license from GPL to anything else? My understanding of the GPL (section 3.1) is that this is impossible.
In other words, once software is under the GPL, can it actually be relicensed under a different scheme?
Mono is a clone of C# (c-hash) and the Common Language Interpreter (CLI). The clone of .NET (and Hailstorm) is DotGNU, which Miguel has nothing to do with.
.NET CLI framework. Insead of write once in Java and run anywhere, it is write once an any language, and run anywhere. This is very well suited to free software development, since it is much easier to reuse code, and allow more people to collaborate.
There is a clear advantage of using the
But
The Evil that Microsoft does is not technical. While it may involve technical trickery... at its heart is marketing. Microsoft is a technical company who excels at marketing.
To understand the "evil" we're looking at, one has to realized what (subset of?) moral code is being used. Its not neccisarily the morality that condems murder. It is not the ultra-aggressive business morality that accepts any action that turns a profit. It is a techie morality - one of making things work. Functionality. And ultimately, interoperability. If something interferes with functionality and/or interoperability, its evil. If this interference is artificially induced, it is exceptionally evil.
Microsoft has often interfered with interoperability as a marketing tactic. It is such a strong part of their business, that they have not only worked it in to their products but they have used it as a reason for aquiring other technologies and changing open systems (embrace and extend).
This should be old news if you're reading this. Even if you don't subscribe to that moral code.
So how does all this apply to
That certainly doesn't mean one should automatically discount Microsoft's offerings. To be sure... the moral code I mentioned all but demands looking at any new technology. And hacking it. But one would be foolish to limit this issue to technology alone. Anybody involved with
The sad thing is I would normally argue that .NET is not the platform for Gnome for architecture reasons, but I hate RMS and the mindless crap he spews out that I hope they freaking figure out a way to sell him to Microsoft.
Even when I agree with him he's such an idealogue and zealot that I find myself wishing I had other beliefs...I swear he's the David Duke of Open Source...doesn't matter if you agree with an individual issue you can't bear selling your soul and admitting it because he's such a clueless clod as a whole....ok, I'm done...gotta go get some blood pressure medicine now.
Ximian Gnome based on
and GNU Gnome.
Gnome is slowly selling out, we need a fork right about now.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
This is a big mistake
Why does migel want to copy
Why isnt he focused on making something better than
Perhaps next we will hear, "Microsoft backs Gnome" or "Microsoft buys Ximian"
I bet thats his goal.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Well...
.NET don't actually know what .NET is.
.NET IS a publicly available standard, and is very well documented, the API, VM's, etc, are fully documented. We can concentrate on implementing those into the linux world, and give developers a very easy way to develop apps for our platform as well.
.NET specification fits the needs we have, why on earth not use it?
Firstly, 99.9% of the people arguing about
Secondly...we have 2 choices when it comes to making linux popular.
1) Not Invented Here - Do our own thing, ignore what everyone else is doing, and make an incompatable system yet try to make it superior. Developers will have to learn this system saparately than others.
2) As
In other words, regardless of MS history, if the
Why do we need a Microsoft compatible
All Gnome is ever doing is copying other people, if its not copying KDE, its copying Microsoft, or OSX. WTF?! When are we going to develop our OWN technologies, why should anyone switch to linux, linux is known as the OS that is just as good as everything else, but not really any better.
Why copy
If I'm a developer i'd develop for the Microsoft . Net, forget Gnome.
Honestly, Gnome cant even keep up with KDE, they dont innovate enough, using
Dont forget theres all these other GUIs too, who needs gnome? Does ximian think Gnome is the standard linux Desktop? Just because Redhat comes with Gnome? Redhat comes with KDE as well, so the point is what?
Gnome is behind KDE because of stupidness like this, fighting amoung each other on changing the internals, over and over, never really setting any standards, having wars on the email lists, I mean really, the Gnome project is as good as dead.
I've seen their mailing lists and even posted on them, I've been to their chatrooms, the people there they fight each other, and if you try to contribute they fight you. Alot of developers developing for gnome dont support open source, free softwsre, or even the GNU, in fact alot of them are pro corperate pro microsoft people and ive gotten into many arguments with these people.
Gnome corrupt from within, I dont know if its migels fault or because all these companies are sponsering Gnome, but theres not many Gnome developers who represent the Gnome user, or the open source community.
RMS alot of people dont agree with him, but he represents the community, he IS GNU, he IS open source.
Why was Gnome started in the first place? TO give KDE an official GNU competitor.
The GNU in Gnome is dead right now.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Sun has dropped the ball a few times in the past in regards to window managers / desktop envornments. I won't hold my breath.
.that never came through.
.that got dropped with the Sun-Netscape-AOL alliance.
I hope that they still follow through with Gnome and not repeat their past.
* Remember that funky entirely postscrpit-based desktop that Sun was supposed to come out with some years ago? I can't remember the name of it. .
* At some point there was a project at Sun to re-write all their GUI apps in Java starting with that odd Java web browser. .
* OpenWindows, obviosly, got supplanted by CDE.
* CDE was a very odd beast based on the failed HP Windows 3.1 Program Manager called "Dashboard". Obviosly now that looks like it will probably be dropped.
* Like you said Sun has been doing some funky stuff with OpenStep that contradicts their GNOME 'vision'. That and StarOffice, their 'pearl of the desktop' is not a gnome app (I now that OpenOffice is adopting it to some Gnomish things such as bonobo, but it is still not a gnome app).
If the heat gets too hot with GNOME I can forsee them dropping that, too. I hope that they won't because it's the most promising desktop venture that they have made so far. . .
When are the black helicopters going to take RMS back to the mothership, I think we've had enough of him. His home planet surely misses him.
I have been using GNUStep and WindowMaker for a while now. API-wise, it beats the crap out of either Gnome or KDE, despite it being less mature than either. Other benefits include compatability with Mac OSX (of a fashion) and much, much more rapid application development. I also think objective-c is a cleaner language than C++. Anyway, people wishing to avoid the BEAST may want to consider GNUStep as a viable alternative to all of the other nonsense.
Don't complain to MS (well, yes complain to them) that STL is broken in VC6. Dinkum couldn't have a 100% working STL library ready by the time VC6 needed to ship, so they shipped what they had.
MFC, OTOH, isn't changed significantly from version to version, so the MFC code just worked. It isn't some plot by MS to defeat foes, just some slow development by Dinkumware.
your telling me Miguel and Ximian do not control Gnome? Right.
So what is the point of our organization? Endorsement of free software, or hatred of Microsoft?
Usually these interests coincide, but what if on occasion they don't? If Microsoft ever releases something that is GPL-compliant, this community is in big trouble.
Will the group implode on itself, each side calling the other "heretic"?
Will Pope Stallman and Pope De Icaza excommunicate each other and cause a split in the Empire?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
RMS angrily denonces developer who dared disagree with him!
What Miguel should answer here is the above
question. Charles River and Battery Ventures
certainly have a plan. Buy out or IPO ???
If the former, who ??? Think about it.
The whole Mono thing is about Ximian's
business plan, not the future of free
software.
Patents are going to screw any free software/OSS implementation of .NET, and anyone (i.e. GNOME) depending on it is going to be f**ked.
Microsoft has flat out said that it will use patents to defend it's .NET investment. Miguel claims that lawyer(s) have told him that the patent issue can be avoided.
DON'T BELIEVE IT (I don't; here's why):
ECMA rules stipulate RAND licensing of member's patents, and don't require disclosure of pending patents. Remember Miguel's quote about those, spiffy -- novel -- assemblies? What if MS has a broad patent filed to cover those? What if MS has a bunch of other overly broad patents in the pipeline to stuff that may seem non-novel, obvious, or based on prior art to you and I, but which a judge or patent examiner will give the benefit of the doubt?
Microsoft will use patents for things like this to force all implementers of the standard beside themselves to pay, OSS/Free Software or not.
And that's the good scenario! Suppose MS does a RAMBUS and says that they aren't LEGALLY bound by ECMA RAND policies? Then they could refuse to allow an OSS/FS implementation at all, and even if it wouldn't ultimately stand up in court, what free software company, developer or user can afford to fight one of the most deep-pocketed companies in existence in court on this one?
Abandon hope all ye who enter here...
If Miguel succeeds with this lamebrained idea, I shall personally switch our entire Network to KDE. First he starts charging for preferred access to Red Carpet, which leaves the non-paying users with a lousy 90-user limit on their FTP server and now this. Maybe I should switch to KDE even if he does not embrace .NET.
"You are using an unsecure application that does not have a guaranteed Microsoft checksum. Are you really stupid enough to trust anyone but Microsoft-Verisign?"
are you really stupid enough to trust Microsoft?
Exactly! Well told.
:-)
Just for clarification, the Alpha isn't dead, it's only dying.
Parts may be kept (a-la Organ Doner of dying car crash pasengers) alive in the intel IA-64 offering... but I'm not banking the farm on it.
And when the alpha is dead, it will only be as dead as my VAX!
F*ck you, RMS.
Just by reviewing his page you can see that the guy can't possibly be in his right mind. He advocates all types of drug legalizations and usage. I'm sorry, someone who is a basehead drug addict just cannot be taken seriously.
or the fly in the ointment may be just this:
.Net could be a great idea --the "market" will decide that. If the "community" is deciding the fate of software then Open source (as defined by the GPL) is dead -- just living on life support.
No country, no development project, no significant contribution has ever lived in the user driven society proscribed above for long.
By far the best model has been for a group of bright individuals to come up with a good idea (tm) and to then develop and distribute it. Open source adds the ability for many to gain from the experience. If Open source restricts the bright individuals from following the good idea (tm) then Open source (GPL) is truly a viral license. It is also doomed to be discarded when the next group of bright individuals has the next good idea (tm) -- why should I stamp my good name on a product that will be hijacked by the truly horrible masses?
Miguel = bright individual.
Ximian and Gnome = good idea.
Using
why .net
.NET, may create unmaintainable code. The idea of writing applications in any language and having it compile into a common class/byte code sounds desireable on the surface, but what happens when a person uses 3 different languages in one single application? How are the pieces supposed to interact seamlessly and how will it affect the organization of the architecture. How a person would build abstractions in C, C++, VB, C#, Perl and Python vary enough to create some funky code. Sure people will argue no one in their right mind would do that, but by virtue of it being possible, some one will.
defining the basic elements
application center
From what I know and what others have posted about Mono, I don't see that Mono inherently is bad or evil. What I don't like about CLR as it is proposed in
Since my knowledge is limited, I don't know if in .NET CLR it allows only one language per application, but from what I have read it doesn't appear that way. Sure it's easy to build an application in 3 different languages and kludge it together, but will that application be maintainable and extensible? Sure Java has it's problems, but in the end, a single language leads to more maintainable code and better compliance to coding standards.
From a practical implementation perspective, I don't like the idea of working/fixing a distributed B2B service that is written in 5 languages and kludged together with tons of weird optimization to make it run at a decent speed. The other aspect of microsoft's .NET servers is there isn't much information about state replication and persistance framework. From what I can tell, the application center is a Microsoft Transaction server with clustering. It still doesn't have standard framework for persistance and state management.
I'm sure someone on /. knows more about the application center's architecture. The so called benefits of SOAP in my mind aren't really useful, unless they it is in used in a transactional context with persistence. Most web services today don't need all the encoding features of SOAP, nor does SOAP appear that much better than XML RPC. There might be a transaction/persistence framework that seamlessly plugs in with SOAP, but I haven't heard of one related to .NET services. I'm sure .NET and .NET services are useful, but there's still a lot of missing components to make it fully distributed and transactional like MS is marketing it.
Frankly, I'm frustrated at the free software community's willingness to hail Microsoft's latest technologies as a great gift of some kind.
.NET effort...having a complete solution (from the highest level down) that is easy to port to would probably be a great stick to hold over Bill Gates's head.
More likely, a trojan horse.
My take on the entire brouhaha is that MS has simply cloned java...more or less.
Why doesn't some genious FSF type of guru take the BNF or design specs of both java and C# and create a totally free, yet easily cross compiled, language? Then let mono or dotGNU take over from there?
At some point, MS will drop the ball and try to put the squeeze on the
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
You poor, ignorant fools... (Miguel included!) Haven't you learned that adopting Microsoft technology, no matter how good, is a death sentence? Do you think the Windows 3.0 APIs weren't better than DOS when they came out?? But Microsoft used their headstart on the Win3 APIs to make inferior products leap-frog superior products by WordPerfect, Borland, Lotus, et-al. Microsoft has always known that by playing the "standards advocate" (particularly when they write the standard) they can always throw 10x more programmers at the problem until the only way to use the standard to its fullest is to use the Microsoft product. Miguel is short-sighted enough to see a good standard here but doesn't realize that Microsoft will stay so far ahead of him in the race that free software will come out looking like a joke. THIS IS WHAT MICROSOFT WANTS! To use the coolest new features we'll need to use Microsoft and Miguel will look like an idiot for always being a year behind. A situation that Microsoft will ENGINEER...
Well, he probably had only heard that Miguel was working on some kind of "infiltration strategy" that somehow involved Free Software and Windows users. All he's really out-of-date on, are the details.
Details like .. who is getting infiltrated.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This beats anything else on the 'net for entertainment value.
The one time an open source developer decides to use the classic embrace-and-extend technique on The Great Evil Company, who nearly invented the technique, and surely perfected it, and the masses of the infamous Open Source Community fail to see it for what it is.
It's time to stop playing nice with Microsoft--do what they have done to you, plunder their riches and make them your own!
I congradulate Miguel for following a proven strategic direction that should ensure a thriving future for GNOME.
GNOME is the GNU NETWORK OBJECT MODEL ENVIRONMENT and "GNOME is part of the GNU project".
.NET - the Next Big Microsoft Plan to Take Over the Internet?
What is GNU? The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. The GNU system is licensed with the GPL and the LGPL for libraries.
Who heads GNU and founded GNU? Richard M. Stallman.
Now, I'd say that gives Richard M. Stallman all the right in the world to inquire of Miguel Icaza where he intends to go with GNOME. So enough with the inane RMS remarks - if you don't want freedom then go be a slave.
I have said before that I wasn't confident in the meandering course that GNOME was taking. Where is GNOME's basic THEME... what is it's guiding light? One minute GNOME is the White Knight of Freedom and then the next GNOME is going commercial with the Ximian moniker and talking about being based on
I dunno, I was initially and still am in support of GNOME pending further developments. I hope they do The Right Thing(tm).
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Politics vs. technology. First, I'd like to point out that I'd like to totally get away from dual-booting... total waste of resources, IMO. I think Miguel and the corporate sponsors are hoping the same thing. I believe that Miguel's interest is holding together the intel's, suns and hp's by making concessions to satisfy their interests - maybe he could do a better job of persuasion... maybe RMS could give him some help.
I do quite a bit of cross platform work as a programmer. Frameworks and infrastructures are wonderful things. For those who say that .NET is untested and unproven, well it's been worked on since 1999 and the components have been in beta for the past year (it's at Beta 3 now). All M$ has to do is release it and turn on the marketing machine.
My confusion, I suppose, is how GNU/FSF/RMS have such a problem with all this. The Register articles point out that Miguel's position has remained consistant (they point to a 9/01 interview) and I'm reading currect events as an extension of what he's been saying all along. Anyway, isn't the FSF about bringing tools to the community without the commercial costs? .NET is unproven and spawn of the Beast so it can't be 'the best'? Is that one person's opinion (RMS)... dumb questions maybe that are steeped in confusing control issues, which I really don't care about.
What I do care about is that if Miguel or anyone has a concept and the where with all to bring it fruition, more power to him. If it's a 'bad' idea, it will fail. Integration and interoperability are not only buzzwords but they are key concepts in all sucessful implementations. Projects like this should, IMO, be encouraged and not horsewhipped.
As for RMS, I think his ego is really getting in the way. It may be me, but if someone demanded an explanation for something that I've been working twards for a year, I think I'd be looking to a new licensing model.
After this, it is kind of easy to reach to the conclusion that the ECMA standard has major deficiencies, that there is no way (apart from custom tool support) to tell if the code you are writing conforms to that standard and that Microsoft is most likely just paying lip service to the standards process, at least as far as the core .NET API's go. Java and Sun do a much more complete job of defining and sticking to specifications if the ECMA work is any sign.
Personally, I don't plan to touch .NET API's to develop open source software after this. My opinion is that Mono would be much better off if they develop their own cross-platform class libraries instead of using .NET API's. There is nothing preventing them from using CLI VM and multiple language support with their own class libraries. They are already writing everything from scratch, they might as well use their own design rather than playing catch-up to proprietary Microsoft API's.
"The deluded are always filled with absolutes. The rest of us have to live with ambiguity." - Aristoi, Walter Jon Willia
java, java, java. what the hell is wrong with you people? the answer to your problems is: java.
I think we can safely say that Microsoft's strategy outlined in the Halloween document's is coming into full effect.
l w-01-vcontrol_5.html).
Now it's no secret that Miguel and Nat met while Miguel was interviewing for a job at Microsoft (http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2001-01/
What we never got told was that Miguel was selected as the perfect candidate for a new brainwashing experiment from Microsoft research. (C'mon, it's obvious that all that research money wasn't going on _software_ research.)
Miguel was implanted as a Microsoft sleeper agent in a large free software project. He doesn't even realise that's what he is.
So basically, the idea seems to be that he will subconsciously subvert GNOME towards Microsoft standards. Then, once this is complete, Microsoft will reveal its secret submarine patents on the standard and destroy GNOME through litigation.
We must not let this happen.
Miguel has told reporters that only an immigration technicality prevented him from becoming a Microsoft employee four years ago - the small print of the H1-B Visa process denied employment to the students who haven't completed their degrees.
Sun microsystems should be severly beaten for closing Java off in the MS world.
They blew their shot at getting a standard no-extra installation needed vm/interpeter on every desktop and server.
Sun would have made a killing selling server side Java tools, training, documentation, and consulting.
They were just too damn hateful of MS's rise to fame.
Too bad they missed getting Java really integrated into the millions of windows desktops.
A much better approach would be to get MS to ship some open source code/applications as standard executables installed every win32 platform.
MS will develop their own vesions with more or less the same features.
Miguel has now responded. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-devel-list/20 02-February/msg00042.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I mean, really, he wants to implement .NET on Linux? Great! He wants to build a whole GUI framework out of it? Knock yourself out! People are feeling threatened? Did Wine threaten them? No, let Miguel do his thing, more the merrier, yadda yadda.
.NET's technical "superiority." That's open for debate. I'd love to see how that one goes.
.NET that's not ECMA (and maybe some that are) is still Microsoft's house... and doesn't that detail about how little of .NET has actually gone to committee keep coming up?
On the other hand, he did make some statements about
I've been thinking a lot about Microsoft, though, and how they could ever hope to fight against free software in the long run... I mean in addition to marketing and sales efforts. They could try to influence key players and/or figureheads, but that's risky and unreliable... they could use lawsuits. Non-fantastically-wealthy individuals, after all, are nothing but roadkill in American civil court...
Hey... Hmm...
Wouldn't it be interesting, if Microsoft were to play a game with Miguel - to lure him, his co-developers, and his users, by following Microsoft's (often implicit) standards, into treading over a set of Microsoft patents, or a EULA/UCITA-backed reverse-engineering lawsuit? To wait say, 2 years, or 3, and then when Gnome is installed in millions of places and Sun and Dell are prepackaging it, etc., and there are a lot of juicy targets in the crosshairs, all of a sudden, bust down the door and start serving papers?
Please, reassure me. Tell me why I'm wrong about this. Any part of
We're on the road to Tycho.
If we want Linux to get the most used OS around, we also want commercial software on Linux. These are the options:
.net is another.
1) Do not release for Linux.
2) Rewrite everything from scratch to crossplatform C, C++ etc.
3) Release as binary for only one Platform. Like The Sims - doesn't run on a Mac.
This will also be the case in the future, unless Linux gets a good runtime, that compilers will support. Java is one option,
Does anybody hear anything in this name? I am talking about Icarus, the story here seem quite the same.
...and if you had read the article, you would know that RMS
didn't know of Miguel's intentions until he was asked a direct
question by a memeber of the audience.
Never mind though, eh? Any excuse for a bit of RMS bashing.
gee, how TERRIBLE of miguel to re-architect Gnome by embracing modern open standards like SOAP, XML and Web Services in place of an antiquated remote object interface like Corba.
.NET is just microsofts' packaging and marketing of OPEN STANDARDS.
people forget that
"Yes, this is a rant, and I'm sorry for any grammar/spelling errors. "
:P
You make some good points but I feel as a friend of anyone who contributes to projects like MONO I should point out any potential sources of embarassment. You know how you can go around mis-pronouncing words for ages and no one tells you? Like some un-educated person pronouncing, say - Versace as "Versaise" or "Gucci" as "Gucky"? And then when you *do* find out - you think back to all those people in those meetings you said it in front of...
Well I can't let you go on! - it would be remiss of me not to tell you that the phrase is "let's not delude ourselves". To dilute something - usually means mixing it with a water or some other compound...
Don't forget the C# Gtk+ bindings.
Any chance of Qt being available under C# in the near future?
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
Once everyone needs .NET, Microsoft doesn't
.NET and he'll eat the rest of us.
need to sell software anymore. They can sell
services.
Give the man a user, and he will eat for one day.
Give him
AvK
When will someone tell RMS that the GNU dream is over. That he's not god. That not every good piece of software is free as in speech.
In short, when will someone tell RMS to choke on a fat one?
How much charity have *you* been doing recently?
Dude, if you think charity is the only way to get tax write-offs, you must be thirteen or something.
Granted my knowledge of the history of the GNU project is somewhat limited, but wasn't the original idea to make a libre version of *nix, which was the dominant technology of the day?
Microsoft seems to be in a fairly similar position to where AT&T was. Why is it somehow more unsettling to see someone creating a libre version of their technology as opposed to *nix?
...if you're such an "old-timer", perhaps you should consider enlightening "clueless" people such as me rather than insulting them. It shows better intellectual form...like the difference between being a wise old man and a cranky old coot. As I have said, I personally don't think that the technology is bad. That was my point, which you would have got if you hadn't been so busy foaming at the mouth.
Reminder: find a new sig
Not all software will blow up in your face. You're thinking of Microsoft products, which I think we'll all agree are fairly dangerous to use. However, many companies produce proprietary software for the Microsoft platform that runs well and does no harm -- this is something people tend to forget, what with Microsoft encouraging the spread of viruses with their virus API (VB, and the VBA tools they provide).
.NET, I may personally think that's a little loopy and will probably kill Gnome, but if that's his thing, why demonize him? Let him try everything to see what works. Who knows, he might do something interesting with it.
RMS would eliminate all proprietary software, and all software that in any way relates to Microsoft products and systems. This isn't just extreme; it's ridiculous. First of all, what about all the proprietary software created by small shops, which produce a good product and don't twist your arm about licensing? Look at Winzip, LView Pro, WS-FTP, and similar products to see how such a model works. These aren't gigantic companies, hell bent on taking over the world. They're usually small shops that have been started by one guy with a good idea. They're nice, and often, the "free software" implementations of their ideas aren't as good as the original work. Don't equate all proprietary software with the Microsofts of the world. It's not a black and white issue, it's a continuum with a million shades of grey.
Having said that, hey, if the man wants to base Gnome on
Phil
I have my own experience. With Microsoft you learn the interfaces, and never know what's really going on. With free software you have documentation in several levels, down to the source code, so you can always debug and troubleshoot to your heart's content.
Anyway, most computing books are trash anyway... exceptioned the usual Knuth, Djikstra, Date, Darwen, Pascal, Codd, and assorted others.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
WTF are you smoking? Feudal rule was dead as Julius Caesar by the 16th & 17th centuries! You're talking post-Renaissance, and the rise of the modern nation-state.
People 'worked' in order to provide things that others could not make, and were repaid by getting things they themselves could not make. But the 'cost/gain' measures were not nearly as qunatitative, and the exchange of goods and services was entwined inseperably with social and communal function.
Uhh... that sounds like people worked (no quotes, they did actual work, you know!) for a living. Wasn't that what the guy you're responding to said? And when did exchange of goods and services ever stop being intertwined with social and communal function? If your goods and services aren't of some use to the rest of the community, no one will buy them from you.
And your view of working for wealth is a little skewed historically. Prior to the dominance of Christianity, mercantile wealth was respected in, for example, the civilized Roman Republic and Empire. Commoditization of labor, goods and services is not new; again, I refer you to the ancient Romans. It only seems new because to exist, it requires a populous, (relatively) wealthy society with a (relatively) free market.
In medieval Western society, the teachings of the Church were such that work was regarded as a necessary evil, the curse on Adam for original sin. Therefore, you only worked as much as necessary to get by, because work was a Bad Thing. Holidays were good; loafing around was good. Work was bad; greed was bad--one of the Seven Deadly Sins. As you say, pursuit of wealth for its own sake was considered immoral and looked down on--but only during a certain historical period and place, not everywhere and at all times before the 16th C. (Hypothetically looked down on, that is; the power that can be obtained by judicious use of wealth was always respected.)
The end of medieval society and the Renaissance came because of several things, but one of those was the Protestant Reformation. Protestant theology looked at the rest of the Bible beyond Genesis and said, "God blesses those who work well at what they are given the gift to be good at; we aren't all good at being priests and monks, and besides, someone has to weave and plant and forge things and so on. All honest work is GOOD." Thus, the Protestant work ethic.
After the Reformation, work was seen as a Good Thing, provided it was honest work, and wealth obtain from hard work as the just fruits of one's honorable labor--at least among Protestants. If you were wealthy from doing honest work, that meant you were using your talents wisely and were to be respected.
There's a reason most of the businesses and much of the commercial wealth of England was controlled by Puritans and Quakers during the 16th - 18th centuries, and it had nothing to do with the ruling elite imposing anything on anyone.
For a similar reason, the tiny, but Protestant, Dutch Republic became a major commercial power during that period, while Catholic, monarchic Spain utterly destroyed its own economy looting the New World.
Where did your view of history come from? It seems a bit odd, and definitely dogmatic. Marx? Or later writers?
---dragoness
Just say GNO to GNU.
The Free Software Foundation - where all software is free*
[begin fine print - read really fast]
*Redistribution of this motto without this attached licensed agreement is prohibited. The word "free", although meaning free, in this connotation means that it is free as long as the FSF gets credit for doing nothing and micro-managing the develpoers of said "free" software. Selling said "free" software with the goal of making a profit should be illegal, but it isn't so the FSF will fold it's arms and pout and cry like little babies. No warranties are expressed or impled. Void where prohibited. No purchase necessary. See dealer for details.
[end fine print - stop reading really fast]
Bugger RMS!
So what you're saying is, I should write my program to go find a news webservice based on the various webservices self-descriptions, and if one of them lies, no harm done---my program just doesn't work!
Now guess who the user blaims---that's right: me. So, I'll pick the news service I want my program to use, thank you very much. And if you've got a human picking the service, you don't much need the program to duplicate that human's intelligence. So, the program doesn't need to know what the service does, and the service doesn't need to describe itself to the client. Right?
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
If you'll notice, a full 85% of the posters here are PRO-Microsoft, some rabidly so. More outspoken than if RMS himself was here promoting GNU. Wanna know why? Talking via e-mail with a friend who works for "the beast", he told me about a bunch of guys he knows at Microsoft being given the lovely assignment of creating a "grassroots" show of support on *Slashdot*, same as what they do on the newsgroups, online polls, and elsewhere. I've really seen the changes over the last couple months. There were always some Microsoft symps here, but now they're really showing their numbers...
Like that Microsoft guy said in that email that got leaked to the Reg, "Did they (Linuxheads) think we were gonna take this lying down?"
The mass of support for Microsoft on a supposed Linux advocacy site is ridiculous. Just like the Linux and Mac advocacy newsgroups. Absolutely astounding. It just shows how low Microsoft will go to kill their competition by establishing "mindshare", and convincing people that freedom, multi-platform open standards and free access to source code isn't important. Just dope us with pretty little apps and tools, we'll sell out our morals pretty darn quick. Ooooooohhh, that new Outlook is SLICK!! I'm switching over right goddam now!!! Ohh! Ohhh! Ohhhhhhhhh!
Light up a cigarette, baby. That was a good one.
Miguel, if you play with fire, expect to get burned. And thanks a bundle for burning us all with you. We appreciate you deferring leadership of Gnome to Bill.
President Lincoln
Too bad. NT and 2K servers own the corporate business space when it comes to network servers. You can pretend that Linux has some small piece, but you're only kidding yourself.
However, I am curious of one thing... your scenario you mentioned is by definition a 'conspiracy theory'. So, I wonder first of all if anyone would label it as such in an attempt to quickly write it off (hey, it works... many people are more interested in sensationalism then facts and reality). My question for everyone is this: Would the same people that would find this theory plausable, find an equal one plausable if the 'company' here was not MS, but was a government agency? (and vice versa)
I'm not gonna bother with a proper reply, as I'm pretty sure that you're a troll. .Net, although similar in some respects to Java, isn't Java. It has no Java code, or anythin like that.
.Net uses Windows Forms and ADO.net. You are but a fool. If you really want to know about .net, read about it in this article on ArsTechnica.
SWING, JDBC?
tlhf
xxx
You muppet