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.

Comments

Improving usablility

[nixadmin]

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! ; )

Miguel's vision is better than RMS's

[alext]

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.

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 /. - 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!

This may be hard to take...

[trcooper]

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.

Hot Buttons and Productive Discourse

[maggard]

Oh great, RMS, MS, .NET, Gnome, can we get more /. hot-button things into there?

1. RMS is a person; try to avoid ad-hominem attacks and instead focus on his acts & ideas
2. Miguel de Icaza also deserves the same respect
3. MS is a business - it is not inherently evil nor has Bill Gates been conclusively identified as Cthulu-Jr
4. 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
5. 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 whatever

Re:News?

[GreyPoopon]

I'm fairly suprised. If the free version of .NET is licensed as free software, who gives a damn?

Yes, but he didn't say that GNOME would be based on MONO technology. He said it would be based on ".NET" technology. While we all know that it would have to be MONO to run on Linux, his statement becomes an extremely powerful marketing tool for Microsoft. As such, RMS would rightly be opposed to such a statement.

Can't sell part of your soul to the devil

[sphealey]

I am sorry, but I must respecfully disagree. I am not a "Microsoft hater" - I have been using their products for 18 years, and I continue to use them when to do so makes busines sense. But neither am I blind to Microsoft's actions. Nor do I think Microsoft's actions are in my best interests. Nor can Microsoft's actions be in my best interests as long as Microsoft is a joint stock corporation.

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

Explain to me...

[jd]

...why RMS is as mistaken as a lot of posters here claim.

• MPI and PVM are already open, accepted standards, and virtually all distributed architectures use one of these. They already exist, there are already applications there, and they've had a good time to mature.
  
• COSM is an open standard by which distributed applications can be developed. It exists, it's developing at a decent pace, and although it's not "mature", the development team are very familiar with this problem. (It's an off-shoot of distributed.net! How much experience do you need!)
  
• MOSIX is an open standard, and now exists in both kernel and user-land versions. The UL-version would allow MOSIX to be ported to virtually any OS, with minimal fuss, I suspect. MOSIX pre-dates .NET, and is already in the field. .NET is only barely out of the vaporware stage.
  
• SE-Linux is an open standard, uses the existing LSM (Linux Security Mechanism?) patch and offers far greater security for distributed applications than .NET ever will.
  

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 .NET?????

Whether you like RMS or not, the point is that he is very right to question the validity of using .NET technology in GNOME. You don't imagine MS would actually LET Linux systems communicate with Windows systems, via .NET, do you??? The day they don't rig their own protocols, to deny service to "the unwashed masses", is the day I might believe Bil Gates got a humanity transfusion.

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.

Actually, the opposite is true

[wrinkledshirt]

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.

Re:.NET: The power of Java, and Free Speech too

[DGolden]

If you don't like the proprietary java runtimes, there's nothing stopping you using an open-source one (kaffe), or coding another one yourself. You just won't be allowed use the Java trademark if you don't pass a load of strict compliance tests. Hint: This is very similar to the situation with Mesa/OpenGL or Linux/POSIX...

Java is a standard, and it is pretty much as open as postscript or pdf. The standards publishing body for Java is Sun, and for ps/pdf, Adobe. Note the presence of an open-source implementation of postscript, cunningly called "ghostscript"...

You can download extensive java specifications from Sun - and not just a nearly-useless core yet-another-c-family-language and some system libraries specification like MS's for-show C#/CLR ECMA submission, with java, in addition to the VM and language, there's full and voluminous specifications for all those add-on java packages like Java3D, JAXP and whatnot - MS makes a point of NOT standardising the .net equivalents.

They are all downloadable documents. Sun can't reach onto your harddrive and mutate them once you've downloaded them. Sure, they could release a new version of the spec, but the hypothetical version you coded could still be fully compliant with the old spec.

This is in marked contrast to MS, which doesn't even bother fully specifying most of it's APIs, in fact, is reknowned for such behaviour.

There are multiple independent implementations of Java and its very extensive addon libraries (like the J2EE environment).

So, which would you prefer - a mature de-facto standard with multiple competing, yet interoperable, implementations, or an "official" standard with no finished implementations from a company that's well known for breaking compatibility whenever it suits? Given that MS will still contorl the only full implementation of .net for the near term, I predict a situation similar to Netscape and the HTML spec, back when Netscape was the only major web browser - they'll just embrace/extend it whenever they want...

Sure the standard has ECMA's rubber stamp on it - but what matters for implementation is freely available specifications, not the rubber stamp... Witness the popularity of R5RS scheme, or internet RFCs or I'm-not-officialy-opengl-but-who-cares Mesa.

Anyway, when I last checked, C# didn't even have mandatory-checked exceptions. That alone is enough to reomve it from consideration for a large swathe of corporate development mixed-ability team projects....

The permssions security model of any modern JVM is pretty damn fine-grained, more than enough for my needs. Don't confuse it with the primitive sandbox of early java.

What I really hate (and this is a general remark, not accusing the parent post or anything), is people who judge Java by Microsoft's antiquated and incomplete implementation of it. For god's sake, install the Sun Java2 1.3.1 or 1.4 JRE, don't judge Java's by MS's (presumably deliberately) shitty implementation.

Personally, I'll just keep on using Lisp for my development work, but there's millions of corporate drones who'll be told to use either Java/JVM or C#/CLR.

It won't work anyway...

[ChaoticCoyote]

Consider several things...

• Microsoft has not submitted the entire CLR class library to ECMA -- and the monster in Redmond has made it clear that they want to license the non-ECMA classes commercially.
• Most Windows applications (even those for .NET) rely on API calls. Perhaps MonoGnome can incorporate Wine?
• Microsoft does nothing that is not in its own best interests -- rather typical, really, of monopolistic entities. Miguel is likely to end up in the belly of the beast, like so many "partners" of the past.
• Assuming MONO supports Visual Basic.NET, will it also include the "compability layer" required for legacy VB code?
• If Miguel philosophically violates the spirit of GNU and Gnome, developers will flee his ship. One of the great glories of free software is the ability to rebel without bloodshed. If you don't like the way Miguel is running things, create a new desktop or work on a different project. Free software may not be timely, but it sure is liberating.

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.

Re:Reality check for RMS

[jmccay]

I hope they don't go the .NET direction. I haven't gotten to read the hotbits column yet because it's Slashdoted aleady, but I see several problems with his statement.
First I think his statement was more political than technical. I think he see the money that is possible through the .NET framework. You can charge just about everybody to develop it. Microsoft is charging developers fees to develop on .NET. Why you Ximian be different? Look at the place Ximian will be in it GNome 4.0 does tie into .NET. They will be the ones that control code because they control the only NON-Microsoft version of .NET. The stand to make big bucks off this if they pull it off.
I don't see how buying into Microsoft's vision of .NET as the future will help Linux on the Desktop. We will be playing even more of a catchup game. Look at the companies that have had to rely on Microsoft releasing key information for the products of these companies to work on Windows. Microsoft has a history of withholding key information until they have the edge by already having a product out that supports there "standard".
I think Miguel has become a follower--especially of Microsoft. I think he has lost his forward vision. I think he should step back from all leadership positions he has on Gnome (if any) and let others take over. His statements in the interview smell of someone buying into marketing hype because they lost their independant thought and no longer truely see a goal.

With that said, the is one thing I like about the .NET framework. The ability of all the compilers in Visual Studio to compile/translated down to a common language before compiling. That could definately be use to build APIs for multiple languages at once! It would need to be well thought out, but I think that would be a good goal to aim for in the long run. If I remember correctly, Borland C++ Builder compiled into a Pascal derivative first. There are a lot of possibilities with this design of compilers.

Re:Reality check for RMS

[SirSlud]

Whether or not 'a few developers still rally around him', he does stand for his principals over material gain, which is more than just about anyone can say these days.

If RMS 'alienates' developers because he sees the 'killer app' that will put undoubtly make Microsoft's interests a more powerful force behind future technology and information legislation than social and governmental (although the Bush administration is less of a government, and more of a door greaser for the Microsofts of the world) interests, good for him. Developers that abandon his 'radical' prinicipals will undoubtly find themselves on the wrong side of a swing that history prooves has already swung to far. The guy spends his time looking furthur, knowing more, rather than protecting his own interests. Those developers who are 'alienated' by his views are only thinking about their own interests, given the Vegas numbers on MS's chances with .NET entrenching their monopoly. What do you think the chances are of proponants of .NET seeing as some sort of salvation for the human condition?

Incidentally, I'm of the opinion that in the past few years, this has become less about 'business' per se, and more of a religion. MS is a church for market pricing (a state enforced system, very evident under the Bush administration, natch). RMS is a church for decentralized social pricing (which is to say that nothing is 'free', but that the cost/worth of software simply gets entwined with social values under his system, as goods and services were before the 16th and 17th century .. in which people only make, distribute, fix, document software for the sole purpose of bettering their society or community).