Slashdot Mirror
Could Mono Kill Gnome?
Jrbl writes "NewsForge is running This editorial by Tina Gasperson about the possible implications for GNOME if it gets Mono (which allows patented components.) There's also a reference to this article at The Register in which Miguel de Icaza raves about Microsoft."
But Mono would probably keep one sick for quite a while...
i had mono once. but it didnt kill me.
:)
i wonder how many posts will be like this one
-
I had mono once, back in college. I caught it from some girl. No, it didn't kill me, and I was much less powerful than any gnome. Gnome'll have a sore throat and be real sleepy for a while, but he'll get over it. Don't worry.
Robotiq.com is heavily tested on animals
is it just me or is everyone always thinking something is going to be replaced.... is kde going to replace gnome is mono going to replace kde is linux going to replace windows is that new fangled expensive scooter going to replace my ability to walk..... how about it might get a larger market size because it allows more, I doubt it will ever replace anything.
Due to the stupid nature of this comment; posted anonymously
You say Intel wouldn't do that to Mono, one of the Open Source answers to Microsoft's .NET technology. ... they're fine with MS, and I'm sure MS puts Intel under a lot of pressure. Intel won't resist because it's (again) all about the money ...
Intel could do it
Just a opinion among others.
Life sucks.
some forty jokes about mononucleosis and how it will just make you sick, probably not kill you. Yada, yada, yada.
We saw those comments from Miguel a long time ago. He's not raving about Microsoft. He just likes .NET. So do a lot of us, and I'm a free software raving lunatic. Some of us even like Java. :) Representing those comments as "raving about Microsoft" is a deliberate misrepresentation.
If you don't want Gnome to be .NET, then fine. Stay with what you've got, and if it ever moves toward .NET, fork. No one will blame you, but you may find that Gnome/.NET outperforms what you've got.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
You can still win an Olympic gold medal if you have Mono...
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Shouldn't that be *RANTS* and not *RAVES*? Raves means that he *LIKES* M$....
I'd be much more concerned about the likes of Dual Channel, Joint Stereo, and Stereo.
/me thinks we've spent too much effort arguing about this.
.NET/Mono", "Linux desktop struggles" and "GNOME in Trouble" sensationalism for ZDNet headlines, and that's not going to help our cause one bit.
Ximian is going to develop Mono - that much is clear. It doesn't matter what anyone says, they're going to use it.
Wether 'official' Gnome uses it or not doesn't matter. Enough people hate the idea that that probably won't happen. And if it does happen, they'll either be a fork, or massive exodus away from Gnome.
Let Ximian do what they want to do. Gnome is GPL - what's everyone so scared about? We've got bigger fish to fry.
All this does is provide - "Linux Community divided over
I'm getting pretty tired of the trend of Slashdot to post stories that are not only based on very shaky and highly-speculative evidence, but are backed-up by old articles that have since been refuted/proven dead-wrong.
It's one thing to accuse Microsoft of FUD, it's another to do their job for them by fragmenting the open-source/FSF/Linux community by posting this type of crap.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
Could Mono kill Gnome
I sure as hell don't know but I'm pretty sick of watching the redundancy in Linux. Sure, most of it has a purpose but I might be able to use the damn software if people made sacrifices for the sake of getting a desktop product out. I'm not trying to start a flame war about whether it is good enough for *your* desktop or not so please don't start.
What I would love to see is everyone who is working on anything remotely redundant to drop what they are doing, put their collective heads together and come up with a real competitor for Microsoft in something *other* than the server market. I don't care if it is a desktop product or an TV/entertainment product.
There are too many unfinished products and not enough of One Good Thing.
BTW - I mentioned the TV thing because I am currently building a home theater PC that has caused me much grief. I see that both Microsoft and the Linux community are addressing the market.
10 to 1 odds that Microsoft finishes a product that everyone buys and bitches about while the Linux product stays in beta stage for years to come.
Sigh...
This message has been brought to you by the department of the redundancy department.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
There's a Visual Studio .Net banner ad atop the front page at 4:59 pm Eastern.
Shall we expect more open and Slashdot now? :D
[Granted, it is served through Double-Click. Does MS outsource advertising?]
Most people are scared that if GNOME adopts the .NET framework, Microsoft will change and break things and general anarchy will ensue. I ask you this: how does this differ from the WINE project? Why do people seem to care so much about the .NET Framework?
....? Can someone set the extreme-pessimistic record straight, because I can't see any other reason to hate the .NET framework besides the fact that Microsoft is behind it. But even that reason seems a little petty to me - if you don't like the technology, just ignore it.
And it's been said a million times, but GNOME has not decided to incorporate Mono. Mono could very well stand on its own legs in any "desktop environment". It could fail miserably (doubtful). Why do people care about it suceeding? Because the Open Source and Free Software communities will be pawns to big business? But I thought we couldn't be controlled or coerced
----- rL
Richar Stallman was recently extremely worried about KDE's licensing. Here he goes now...
It seems a little early to implement MONO in Gnome at this point me thinks. Why dont Miguel try to get a different license on the mono libraries first and then adopt it? Im not comfortable with the thought of Gnome having its nuts in the hands of intel and Microsoft iether directly or indirectly. Why dont look into other high level application language instead? Gotta be lots of alteratives like lisp?
HTTP/1.1 400
The article is very hard to read, as it seems to confuse patents and copyright in ways that are imiscable. I will try to lay out the timeline that I think she's assuming when she says "Intel, having gleefully taken advantage of the MIT licensing on Mono's class libraries, enforces its patents against every entity making use of its modifications, including the Gnome project, effectively shutting it down."
1 Mono exists
2 Gnome adopts Mono (a reach, but ok)
3 Intel writes proprietary (non-MIT-licensed) components for Mono
4 Intel enforces patentson those components and shuts down Gnome!
Ok... so we come to the obvious solution. Assuming that #2 happens (no pun intended), #4 can only happen if #3 is followed by:
3.4 Gnome adopts Intel proprietary components via Mono
Um... *WHY*?!
Of course, if Gnome implements these features using Bonobo and Orbit guess what Intel can do? That's right... enforce their patents!
This is, AFAIKT, junk reporting. If I'm wrong, please show me specifically what timeline you see occuring.
Personally, I'd say this is a pretty paranoid article. Sure, M$ must have some sway with Intel, but Intel has been pretty active in the open source world themselves, going so far as to invest in RedHat and VA even. Linux on the server is big, and so is the money. Nothing Microsoft could do to Intel (rather then OEMs who license their software) could cause them to kill GNOME.
.net. It's just not going to happen.
Also, sun is never going to develop software that requres
Other then that, what exactly about the MIT license makes it more prone to patent problems? Is it that MIT'd code can be patented or what? How is it that an official GNU project (as GNOME is) not use the GPL or LGPL?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
A foundation on .NET means no one who wants open standards will use it; .NET is another of Microsoft's attempts to control API's. This is DirectX all over again; try to keep people from using OpenGL by offering them something "more interesting", and thus, making it as hard as possible for anyone else to offer a functional system.
.NET will, in the end, be just as permanent as MFC, or any other "standard" microsoft guidelines, and about as portable.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
>>What if all of a sudden the U.S. Patent Office decided that musicians could patent chords or certain note phrasings?
This a old technique, say something really amazing and simple to grab your attention. The problem is it's just an attention getting technique.
Yes patents are messed up but the article is pure conjecture.
My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
Given that performance is not a show-stopper anymore and given that Managed Software (class library at OS level, GC, runtime checks) is the Next Thing (hey, there was a time when we though C was too much a layer over assembly language), your choices are Java or CLI/CLR.
Java has some nice stuff to it -- friendly documentation at the Sun site compared to that gibberish that passes for documentation at MS, a nice software-engineered feel instead of that steaming pile of stuff that makes up an MS API (I develop for MS API's). But Java is Java and Sun is Sun, and you have to take the whole thing or leave it.
Since MS has flopped this "CLR/CLI/.NET" standard out there, it really there for the implementing. Oh, the Borg we hear, we are about to get assimilated into the Collective.
My understanding is that the effort is not simply to try to clone .NET but to implement an Open Source managed software thingy, and if it forks from MS, who cares. MS can have all the proprietary extensions it wants and we can have our own extensions.
Why not clone Java? Sun won't let you. Why not invent our own managed software thingy? We could, but there is one already out there.
Haven't we already seen enough on this drama by now? I mean, sometimes it's like a damn soap opera around here with the "he said/she said".. Let's see, Miguel makes some statements about the idea of .Net and Mono, RMS is taken out of context and made to look confrontational (OK! *More* confrontational) about it. Both of them bend over backwards to explain themselves and repair the appearance of any breach, Miguel comes back with a *very* lengthy explanation about what he meant and what 'The Register' had taken out of context for whatever reason, and yet we find ourselves looking at the same tired issues, yet again..
Hrmmm.. I wonder what's on Jerry Springer...
If it's such a problem, just ditch GNOME and move over to GNUstep which is all GPL/LGPL and can't be taken away. Oh, and you get a bit of MacOS X compatibility thrown in too.
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't think that MS cares whether or not there is an Open Source version of dotNet.
.Net pieces to handle each. All the while, your passport account is getting billed a small amout for each use of each different function. So instead of paying $200 for Office, you pay a small amount (say .10) for each use of the spell checker. So maybe this month, your passport bill is 19.00 for use of .Net services. Instant revenue stream.
.Net function.
.Net Development part, not the .Net Framework. And, why would MS be porting it to FreeBSD if they did not want Linux to have it as well.
Follow me on this.
Operating System wars are over. Linux is making headway, and the courts are ruling that you have to open the source code. Microsoft has seen that revenue is not going to increase with the rapid OS upgrades. They want a month to month revenue stream. So they *invent* software renting. But this is not 'hey I am going to check out MS Office for a couple hours at 19.95 an hour', it is more like this as I read it. I need a new resume, so I start a wizard in Windows 2002 that helps me write one. So while the wizard is going through each part (like spellcheck, cover letter) the wizard automagically downloads the proper
When upgrades happen, then you automagically download the latest version of the
Everything I have read is that Microsoft want to push this everywhere. They want this on every computer, every PDA, even right down to your cell phone. So I do not believe that they care that it is on Gnome. If the passport stuff is in there, then it just adds to the revenue stream. That is what they are really after.
Plus, I see Gnome trying to implement the
The only interesting thing is if MS wants the passport/hailstorm added in. Then things could get interesting.
Mono only wants to do the software development side, and there are a lot of nice things in there. It is the passport side that makes us cringe.
.Net is as open as it gets from a development standpoint, you can use any laugage or OS you want. The specs are all there for your consupmtion....read and learn.
.net is going to kick ass, accept it now and help the linux community implement software to interoperate with it, be happy - don't fight it.
Well, regardless of the merits of the article, if Mono does happen to "kill" Gnome, it would be better for Linux in general, as KDE will gain the vast majority of users. The standardization of (and consensus upon) a single Linux UI will really help draw in the new user.
The new user:
"What's this? KDE? Gnome? Command line?!? I just want my start button and paperclip, dammit!"
... and then the new user throws away a shiny new Desktop/LX OS and purchases Windows XP.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
i hope it does cos gnome is l4m3 and KDE is K-RAD D000dz!!!!111
... that actually do like monkeys, feel free to disagree. :)
--- Sueños del Sur - a webcomic about four young siblings
These are the very words from the 'big man' miguel. TheReg has the story anyhow. Why blame Slashdot? Stick your head in the sand asshole, the rest of us will fight it out.
I wouldn't mind. No-one would use it because it doesn't sound good. If we were talking E-B-C#m-A, then we'd be in real trouble.
What would happen if I transposed the chords? Does that fall under the patent? What if I used a variation, like E-B-C#m-Asus4? I guess the courts will decide...
"It's Dot Com!"
I am not a genious but that would totally defeat the purpose of it all. Hope the freedom fighters fight a good fight!
It sounds like a pseudonym to me. Why would anyone take an article serously when it's anonymous?
I haven't read too much up on this. Regardless the air about it gives me some paranoia. I mean no offense but you have to wonder if there is some sort of Microsoft backing behind these statements.
Really would you be supprised if they were?
If anything, the *nix people don't trust Microsoft's .net plan, and no one should. No one company should control that much information about individuals. People's mistrust of .net will stop the *nix people from using Gnome. It's almost like Miguel is trying to bring Microsoft to the *nix people even though he knows we absolutely hate Microsoft's stradegies. Too bad, Gnome 1.4 was kind of nice. I guess I'll be using XFCE or Enlightenment.
-Feddman
My co-worker once told me, that OS/2 died because its windows emulation was too good.
I think something like this might happen to every Linux Software. Therefore it is unwise to support closed standarts.
OK, my turn to play pundit. (-;
.Net seems dangerous for GNOME. Imagine that Microsoft really does let other people play in the .Net game. Consider the ramifications to the Open Source movement if proprietary software like MS Office or Photoshop could be used more-or-less 'natively' in Linux using the .Net API provided by Mono. Would laziness set in, slowing projects like OpenOffice and Gimp? Would people still use the free software or would they just give in and use what is more familiar? Without .Net support, people will continue to be forced to use Free Software in many areas, thereby causing them to learn new tools and break ties with proprietary ones.
.NET is supporting the future of proprietary software simply by enabling it. Another sign of this would be GNOME/Mono moving away from GPL to a "less defensive" license. Microsoft knows that Windows could be doomed in the near future. They also know the power of the Open Source movement and that it has the power to obsolete their entire proprietary business model. IMO, they're using .NET to try to hook people into hybrid free/non-free software so that they'll still have a strong foothold no matter where the market evolves. And if the patent issues get ugly, we could end up paying Microsoft for software that *we* wrote. Sure, GNOME itself could still be free, but if half the Open Source software for it requires .NET modules from Microsoft, licensed at a cost, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot. A similar analogy would be the DVD crypto mess. You can buy the media, you can write the free software to play it, but you can't legally use them together in the US.
It's one thing to support what could eventually be a necessary "embrace and extend" standard, but to focus everything on
So it seems to me that supporting
Let me re-emphasize: We do NOT need ANY proprietary software. We do NOT need Microsoft or ANY of their products. All we need is a stable user-developer community. In a word: consultants. That is the future of Open Source in the business world. And it is a good future both for business and free software developers.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1 and 2 can even be combined.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Redundancy is good. Having diversity is a good thing, it's the sign of a thriving community.
What will you be suggesting next? That humanity should take up wholesale cloning?
Monocultures are evolutionary dead ends. Inevitably something comes along that devastates everything in the monoculture because it's all based on the same code. If you want to be taken down when that devastation is unleashed, be my guest. I'll take the other path.
Deleted
The Mono controversy (with some RMS thrown in):
- The present story
-
RMS comment
-
Miguel responds
-
Miguel talks about Mono at *gasp* MSDN
RMS controversy (apart from Mono):-
RMS not elected
-
RMS says why he should be elected
-
RMS IS running for election
-
Breaking News! RMS running for a seat on the GNOME foundation
GNOME is behind or dying or a slave of corporate masters (see also Mono controversy):Etc. Almost half of the past 30 news posts on GNOME involve a political controversy. Is this news-site bias or simply GNOME's ability to stir controversy?
~~~~~~~~~
dissertus scribendo latine videri volo.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Since she wrote both articles, I want some of what she's smoking...
(The patent issues also apply to the DirectX re-implementation that TransGaming is doing, so it's just as likely to blow up in WINE and her other pet project's face as it is to blow up in GNOME's face. And TG's WINE with DX 8 is much closer to realization than GNOME under
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No you're not; you're a juvenile crapflooding idiot who is obviously starved for attention and tries to make up for a lack of intellect by jumping up and down and screeching "Look at me! I'm a moron!"
..
On second thought, maybe you are Scott Baio
...even Jar-Jar could kill a Gnome.
Let me tell you of a little "problem". I am writing a shareware application. And in this shareware application I am saving data to the users directory. Since this application is going to be cross-platform I decided to write it in wxWindows. All is ok.
But then I saw that the wxWindows call to get the users home directory was not working. So I investigated. It turned out that Microsoft "added" a new call to get the users home directory. Only this shell call will get the right directory. So I had to #ifdef WIN32 to get the right directory.
What is the moral of the story? Without this shell call I cannot write a good app. Since Windows XP requires that I save my data in the user directory. I do not want Win32 approved, I just want my app to work properly. Now imagine this one call was patented or hidden or whatever. At that point mono is left without a single call. What does Mono do? Invent a new call? What happens then? I am back to C++ programming with #ifdef's. To be frank I would rather go back to C++ then start anew to be confronted with that problem yet again.
Sorry folks Miguel has not learned from history and he is doomed to repeat it. Except he may pull down the entire GNOME project. Oh well c'est la vie that is why we have KDE!!!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
In the news today, Gnome has contracted a bad case of mono. Development slowed to a standstill as all developers felt the sudden urge to take a nap. Developers on other projects are urged to stop using Open Source Software else their pojects run the chance of developing a case of mono as well. There is no known cure.
I don't like the style of the article. I almost didn't read further than the "sky is falling" style intro. But it is critically important that the core of Mono and other free/open .NET efforts is fully protected from patent prosecution. Not fully protecting it would be irresponsible.
You know I just started a new job and I am starting with a newly formed group of people that will be writing code in C#. As a result I have three books on C# and the .NET platform. Now one of the biggest obstacles to Linux that I see is the lack of interoperability with other OSes, especially Windows. That creates a problem for people who want to use Linux but feel tied to Windows for various reasons. Maybe I'm missing something but this definitely looks like it will help. Let me quote from C# and the .NET Platform by Andrew Troelsen.
.NET", on page 8: ".NET binaries do not contain platform-specific instructions, but rather platform-agnostic "intermediate language" officialy termed Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL) or simply, IL."
.NET runtime will be ported to other (non-Windows) operating systems. In this light, the .NET runtime is poised to become a platform-independent architecture, providing the same benefits Java developers have grown accustomed to"
In chapter 1, "The Philosophy of
Also from chapter 1, on page 13: "Given that IL is platform agnostic, it is very possible that the
I cut and paste between Gnome/KDE and X11 apps all the time.
Kword -> Gnumeric -> Whatever.
Deleted
If any open source projects are built on any .NET knockoff that uses any patent-bearing main .NET library routines then that project could be vulnerable. Actually, I'm not altogether sure of this as it is a type of library/component usage.
Help anyone?
Well, when you submit standards, you generally don't leave out a single system call to screw people over. The one way that I could see CLI screwing people over is the same way that java can, by tieing through the VM into the OS, making specific calls that are runtime determined, and cannot be pre-determined. So, yeah, it -is- possible to to screw over the 100% platform compatibility issue, but even without it, you still have a cross platform language to develop software from in an open source environment if you want to. Whatever Microsoft changes down the road could hurt portability, but it can never break GNOME as they have said here.
As long as the currently submitted spec of CLI is patent free, there is no fear of loss, death, destriction, or the rule of microsoft.
CLI will make it to Linux from Microsoft if you like it or not, but the question reamins, would you rather have it open or closed.
Bye!
The only time anything changes with respect to Intel and patents is if Intel explicitly signs their rights away. I believe that if you distribute your software under a GNU license, that means you give others the right to use your patented invention. That's a nice safeguard, to be sure, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to protect Mono or Gnome from Intel.
If Intel were duplicitous enough to contribute a patented invention under an X11-style copyright and then, two years later, turn around, mention that they have a patent, and sue for infringement, Mono and Gnome might have to stop using that part of the software, but I seriously doubt any judge would award damages. And the affected parts of the software could be easily replaced, since patents are not like copyrights or trade secrets--there is no risk of "contamination".
Altogether, the article strikes me as being as the grumblings of someone who is just overly zealous about GNU-style licenses. Yes, GNU-style licenses are nice, but the sky isn't falling if something is distributed under some other license. The X11 license is perfectly fine for open source software and has been used for many projects (including X11 itself) that are a much more dangerous minefield of patents than a 1970's style object oriented language.
That's the MS mantra and just look at the devastation that any muppet who knows 10 lines of VB can unleash on *everyone* who buys into the Windows + Outlook + IIS + IE + Office monoculture that they sell.
Monocultures *do* have lower costs, they can reproduce with less effort, but WTF do you think that sexual reproduction evolved? It happened because species without diversity get *wiped out* very easily. You show me an environment where all the code is the same and I'll show you an environment that can be taken out in one fell swoop.
Just look at the world around you, all the interesting life forms use sexual reproduction to increase diversity. Life tells me that monocultures are the wrong way to go.
Got it?
Deleted
Standards have never stopped MS before. If their monopoly was threatened they would break the standard in the windows implementation of the CLI. Code then would not be compatible with the unix version and voila they steer the ship back to monopoly land.
War is necrophilia.
I once got pretty sick from Mono, I would guess it could kill somebody pretty small like a Gnome.
That is the point exactly. MS is playing the standard supporters like a fiddle. They understand what is required to compete against Open Source. And sadly people like Miguel fall into it.
I look at Apache and PERL and LINUX... What do they do? They make sure they build the best applications there are.
Take Apache as an example. To be compatible Apache could have said, wow ISAPI is really cool lets build that and do a good job... What did Apache do? They did a rudimentary ISAPI, but kept focus on their API.
Or take PERL. Sure there are PERL extensions specific to Windows. But the mother ship PERL (Larry Wall) is more concerned about making sure that PERL solves the needs of all its users.
Maybe GNOME will continue since Ximian != GNOME. But with people like Miguel talking the way he does does not bode well. I am curious to see what Sun will say...
And remember track record of anyone building a symbiotic relationship with Microsoft is 0!!! Microsoft is a dictator (their right) and there is no way you can change that.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
this may sound mean, but it is the truth.
.net is indeed that useful, then write our own derivative. you know microsoft is NOT going to let an OSS developer write .net code and have it run on the microsoft .net platform! if you think that, then you are a microsoftie! if you are that ignorant and blind, then you are a microsoftie!
why should we, open source developers, bend over backwards to play by microsoft's rules? we're only going to get bitten in the end.
i used samba religiously for years [until i converted everything to linux at work and home]. i have seen microsoft do nothing but change their own standards, api's, and policies to better benefit them while simultaneously shutting out others who could have benefitted from those standards.
i have a SUPER l33t programmer friend of mine. he's a win32 developer and is about as l33t as they come! with each new version of visual studio, his older code suddenly doesn't compile, or he has to make severe rewrites to the code to comply with the new release. not to mention the bugs IN VISUAL STUDIO he has found!
the difference with that versus gcc is he has no way to get patches from other l33t coders to fix the package. he can't get updates except only by the beast's permission. and everything requires ie5/5.5 or ie6 now, too. it's absolutely ridiculous.
my solution to the problem:
if the microsofties are unable and unwilling to lay down their evil ways and convert over, fine. don't execute them [we're not 16th century anymore!], but don't play with them. same goes for the sun/java thing the apache group is fighting. make our own like we've always done. why do we need to use these tools which are not open (and i don't mean BSD/X11/MIT license)...
why do we need to rely on microsoft technologies all of a sudden?
we've grown up and past this mess and our world has grown IMMENSELY in the past 10 years. faster than any other group or organization EVER!
if
why should we play nice with them when they refuse to return the favor? take our toys with us and go home. to hell with the spoiled unintelligent microsoftie brats...they're useless anyway. hopefully the laws of natural selection will kick in and they will wither away soon..
Two points...
.NET and this easier programming model was to avoid that in the first place? If I do not have it then why bother going to .NET in the first place? Better to stick to something like C++ and Java.
First MS did not leave out that single function call. It was added at a later iteration and hence changed the entire programming model.
Second MS can and may introduce stuff that works best on their platform. And lets say that Mono does not implement those things. We would then have to write applications like in C++. There would be defines specific to the implementation. To be very frank I thought the point of
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
YOU must obey your M$aster.
I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
1. Microsoft is ridiculed and taken to court for being monopolistic (many times over) and in effect, allowing them to make crap everyone has to use.
2. Microsoft bashes Linux security.
3. Microsoft proclaims it's new dedication to security.
4. Microsoft creates a web based API platform.
5. This platform is easy to implement in Linux.
6. Microsoft programs can run in Linux and any other OS.
7. OS's become a shell for running Microsoft's new, "much more secure" web based platform.
8. Hey, you can run any operating system and Microsoft will still be the center of the software universe.
Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
Let's be clear here: Ximian's entire reason for existence is to be acquired by Microsoft. Look at 'em... they were founded by an ex-Microsoftie (Nat) who saw company after company be acquired by MS and got a little jealous, and another person (Miguel) who wanted to work for MS. And what is Ximian building? Office for Linux. Why? Because if MS gets sufficiently scared of Linux, they may acquire a company that will allow them compete on the linux platform.
.Net for linux.
Unfortunately for Ximian, MS would kill Office before Windows died (thanks to the stupidity of Jim Allchin) so the original plan won't work out. Better come up with the new new thing: a
Any reason for putting the whole comment in type-writer text?
God damn, that article was complete and total *FUD*. It's either a case of someone not understanding the MIT license or deliberately spreading misinformation. And look at you poor people eating it up...
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
I'm sorry to write this as an AC, but I know Miguel de Icaza and have worked with him in the past.
He is very intelligent, which makes him an even larger fraud. He has no love for Open Source in general, and is nothing but a profiteer.
And, he likes the boys.
I'm sorry, Miguel, but I think your time is through.
I guess the mods are smoking crack today. I've posted this same "let's actually work together and stop duplicating efforts" for years now. /. for amusement now, too bad linux never made it on the desktop.
Not like I give a crap, I've moved on to XP for my desktop. I just read
In the mid 90's when the mainstream Internet boom was spinning up Microsoft started something called the Windows Open Standard Architecture (WOSA). This included several varied initiatives such as multiplatform MFC (Unixes and Mac) and the Microsoft Messaging API (MAPI). This initiative was a major marketing point for Microsoft and played a big part in reeling in customers with the promise of platform independence. .NET architecture is a bad thing. In fact, I'm really impressed with a lot of what I've seen so far. But I'd still be very careful how far I let Microsoft lead me down any road.
Unfortunately this story doesn't have a happy ending. Microsoft dangled the cross platform carrot and stalled on the actual implementation until until long after the majority of the market had been hooked. They failed to deliver on many of their most important promises, including such early ones as a cross platform Exchange client and Office applications.
This isn't to say that the
I hope I'm not being redundant, but I did not see anyone else link to further clarifications from Miguel, free from any editing done by The Register. The link is mentioned briefly at the end of the article.
- February/msg00031.html
.NET Framework.
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/2002
If you're a reasonable and logical person like I hope to be, you reserve judgement until you hear all sides of the case. So, instead of declaring that MS == Evil, perhaps there are reasons why someone who is clearly is an Open Source fan likes
I realize his post is long, so if you're not going to read it, I see his key points as being:
1) Increased productivity for Gnome/Mono development.
2) Language independence, allowing programmers to continue to use their favorite coding.
3) Better portability for open-source applications.
"My experience so far has been positive, and I have first hand experience on the productivity benefits that these technologies bring to the table. For instance, our C# compiler is written in C#. A beautiful piece of code."
Hands on experience! I think that unless you have had this with this technology, you may not be qualified to judge this decision path. Let's give this a chance, and try to be both passionate and reasonable in creating Windows alternatives.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
ho mono
This article is terrible. Her topic is "Mono can Kill Genome". In her opening paragraph she spouts, "and did you know that HP and Intel have a front for getting patents"? Where the hell did that come from? Intel and HP are in a joint venture on IA64, creating a holding company for the patents that come out of it is a convenient way to share them, and it's no big secret either. This has nothing to do with Genome. She also mentions Fiorina's speech at LWCE where she talks about the rabid supporters of Linux within HP. What does this have to do with Mono? Anyone? Her article should be moderated -1, Offtopic
Mike
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
Comment removed based on user account deletion
RMS posted this clarification to the register a couple of weeks back. Kinda shows what pointless media hype this is.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If Mono is vulnerable, then X11 is more vulnerable (it's a bigger target) and so is FreeBSD.
The simple fact of the matter is that if Mono or X11 or *any* opens source program contains patent infringing code, the code is illegal unless you license it. The solution is simple. Remove the code, and if you want, replace it with something else.
Simple.
Tempest in a teapot.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...turned out I was just really bored.
Schwing!
is this.
as long as the GNOME developers get plenty of fluids and avoid strenuous exercise, they will overcome Mono. Recovery may take anywhere from two weeks to 3 months, though.
-Linux was for the masses, who spoke, and everything was crystal clear.
As far as I know, mono isn't deadly.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bah, you suck. I can see the goase.cx link in the status bar. If you're gonna be a jackass, at least do it right..
The same joke twice from two guys (see next one).
Two different ratings. How can this be? Somebody please fix this recurrent annoying problem.
Ah, yes, I also always get 1 out of 3 messages (approx.) posted rejected (I get a list of open discussions). Why?
<HANK HILL>If you can't remember a time when your only "font" was burned into an EEPROM, boy I feel sorry for you. Back in my day, we could do all sorts of things that just don't work with those bastard TrueType fonts. We made our window frames out of pipes and underscores and that was good enough to show to your Mother. Just today I used Lynx on the console and it loaded a damn sight faster than that Mozilla thing, I'll tell ya what.</HANK HILL>
'nuff said.
There are old tarballs of MONO still in existence from before the license change. I know it's a dirty word, and it puts fear into the hearts of the most experienced *nix developer, but maybe a FORK is appropriate here.
Remember the line where Lando Calrizian was talking to Darth Vader and said "But we had a deal", to which Darth (read billy gates) replied, " I am altering the deal, pray that i do not alter it any further"
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Now we finally know what the Ximian logo stands for....
But you know what, I don't care.
.Net is a good thing? It's been done.
I'm going nuts with the repetition of people saying geeze 'X' is good, so we should implement it. So long as that's all developers are doing, Linux will always be backseat to Windows. Why the heck doesn't anyone want to create something better?!
Evolution is fantastic, but it takes about 3 seconds to realize it's outlook. Plain and simple. GnomeIcu, icq, XMMS - Winamp, the list goes on.
Doesn't anyone other than me in the Linux development community want to develop something new and better?
Sorry, that was blatently negative, but stuff like this drives me mad. So what if
Aaron
AaronCameron.net
Here Here!!
It's "Hear Hear", as in you hear what he's saying....
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
I just wanted to comment on the various posts that make the blanket statement... patents are bad. They aren't all bad, in fact for those who live in the US, take a look at you constitution. Patents are useful for protecting innovators for a limited time and thus gives them the freedom to innovate further. Now on to software, I think that is where patents get a little hairy. Code as most would agree, should be open, and based on my historical knowledge (which I'll admit isn't the most extensive) isn't what the framers had in mind in protecting.
Wow, mod this up!
Someone who believes that the open source community can have good ideas too! Whatever next?!
Could Mono Kill Gnome?
Gnome should be safe so long as they don't go around kissing too many people. Of course, who has ever heard of somebody dying from Mono, anyway?
*duck*
I apologize for that. As a token of my sincere and utter regret, please follow this link. Enjoy!
Except he may pull down the entire GNOME project.
How? Didn't you read the license?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I'm sick of hearing about it.
Miguel go join the other team so I don't have to read about you anymore!
What call are you speaking about? Looking in my trusty MSDN I see that there is a function called SHGetSpecialFolderLocation. You pass CSIDL_PERSONAL in for the second value to get the path for the users My Documents folder.
a sp?url=/library/en-us/shellcc/platform/Shell/refer ence/functions/shgetspecialfolderlocation.asp
This is the version requirements for this call so unless you were developing for Win3.1 then wxWindows is doing it wrong in the first place.
Version 4.00 and later of Shell32.dll Windows NT/2000: Requires Windows NT 4.0 or later. Windows 95/98/Me: Requires Windows 95 or later. Header: Declared in Shlobj.h. Import Library: Shell32.lib.
Here is a link to the web page on this...http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.
Silly Rabbit...Sig's are for kids.
Well, that article was enough to make me want to switch to KDE (which I am doing right now). Gnome is goat cheese anyway.
I knew Mono was supposed to be highly contagious, but I didn't think it could jump species! That's what happened with AIDS, in other species (like simians-SIV*, bovines-BIV** and especially felines-FIV) it was harmless, but when it jumped to humans it became deadly. Does this have something to do with the Viral nature of the GPL? I guess Microsoft knew what they were talking about after all. Poor Gnomes... that's probably why you can't keep them as pets. Same thing with penguins at the South Pole - you can't get too close to them or they will get sick and die because their immune systems aren't as strong as ours. :(
I don't understand why anyone at the Register would show any sympathy for any of this. I'll bet they're happy about all of this misery. From what I understand, they're a morbid bunch of vultures over there!
* Not sure about Ximians and XIV, though I think that they were the first to develop Mono.
** I understand that Bovine cracked DES. I'm not sure how that compares to other viruses, but it sounds just awful.
-castlan
*** What are you looking for, I didn't use 3 asterisks anywhere in my post! Get out of here! I said SCAT! Shoo! Run along.****
**** Alright, if you really need more information of how FIV might have jumped to humans, you might want to look here
I'm a developer on win32 platforms, so perhaps I shouldn't care, but I find it irritating at best that a person who put in so much effort to give the Open Source community the stuff they wanted, is critizised as if he's the lamest n00b in the world. And why is this? Because he's one of the very FEW on Linux platforms who has realized that today's way of computing is doomed and will be taken over by a new, more distributed way. Miguel took the brave stand to decide to implement a Microsoft based technique.
Oh brother, now he's true evil...
Get a life, zealots. If Mono kills Gnome (or better: makes Gnome obsolete), why would that be something bad? If Mono lets you run the applications you need, makes you use your Linuxbox the way you want and the way you need it, would you miss Gnome? I don't think so.
Mono is a hell of a project to complete, a lot of subprojects of Mono still need completion. If you want Linux to survive in the new era of computing, stop whining and start coding.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
CLR does not support well all laguages. It's not interesting to standardize on it. Miguel thinks it's cool just because he's technologically challenged (like most people).
Just keep on adding frontends to GCC.
Now that it has the project must maintain a garbage-collector (for GCJ) you could have Common Lisp, Dylan, Cecil, etc. tightly integrated with Java (of course, only for native applications for the time being, but that can be fixed later with something really better than the JVM).
It 's a riddle to me why they do not choose the implementation with the superior license.
Or am i missing something?
I have to agree. This is not news, it's been hashed over many times already, Miguel has stated many times that he's sick of it, that it's a project that *he* is funding because *he* thinks that .NET is a profitable development environment for *his* company, no, GNOME is *not* going to be ported to .NET and it would be silly to spend the huge amount of time it would require to port all the GNOME software to .NET (and Miguel agrees).
.NET is available for Linux. Big freaking deal. Java's also run by a big propriatary company (hell, it's more tightly controlled then .NET even), it came out, and the Open Source world didn't keel over. There's been some good stuff written in Java, though most people stick with C/C++. Guess what? .NET will have *exactly* the same effect.
.NET makes it much easier for companies to do cross-platform development. This is a plus to Linux, not a minus -- there aren't that many UNIX development houses that "might" port to Windows, but there are a *lot* of people writing software for Window that might do a UNIX version if it were trivial.
All this is is a project that one company is funding that might be useful. It has nothing to do with where GNOME is going (aside from the fact that Ximian also makes shitloads of cool GNOME stuff and Miguel pays for it).
Even aside from the whole conspiracy theory stuff, this is just dumb. So
Also, having
The original story posting was biased and sounds like one of the flames on dot kde.
I want a ban on Mono stories unless more actual news comes up.
You said : "Why not clone Java? Sun won't let you."
.... all Java softwares are released under the JSCL and such a license is not far from what OSI define as opensourced. But there is just a few lines in the JSCL that may prevent Sun to add the "Opensource Ready" stuff.
... Restrict derivated projects to have the same name is-OSI liable but restricted derivated project to be compliant with spécification to use the same project is not liable :(
:
...
.net .... this is just false how can you immagine that MS will let their captive users (now on .net) go to a non MS platform ? are people so naive ?! Of course they won't ! All they just have to do is massivelly use undicumented API that use native stuffs (direct native or COM+ stuffs) and crossplatform will be void. No doubt they will do it !
This is stupid thing !
You can do it whenever you want !
There is no trouble inside !!!
And the best thing here is that you may even call it Java complient if it pass the JCK (Java Compatibility Kit).
The trouble is here in the JCK not in Java.
In fact at this time the only things that is still under Sun's control is the JCK test suite.
That's why people what the JCK to be under JCSL (Java Community Source License) and free of use.
The last point is about Java beeing not opensourced
The problem with the JSCL is that it deal with compatibility issues (what a OSI opensource license does not !)
There is two solution to this Sun-OSI head to head
#1 either the OSI add a complience path restriction into their opensource definition (that may benefit to all the opensource community)
#2 or Sun use the not-the-same-name restriction and comply to the OSI requests
#3 or Sun decide to allow derivated project to be called Java without validation
IMHO, the best solutions are #1 and #2
Nevertheless, Mono project is side-effect made-of because it will kill many of the Linux advantages (native software that fit your needs) and all the mono future applications will no doubts be run 10x fasters on WinXX, so there will MS be the winner again !!!
An other point is that MS keep-on using mono to vaporware the community about potential multiplatform of
In the opensource community lots of bad advertisement was gone against Java (mainly by people that have competing technologies and legacies), most of the arguments people use to have agains Java are now void. And looking to the number of java opensource project that are released on freshmeat you may notice that the world is not getting Java hot !
That's why i think it is time for Sun and the OSI to fix once for all the JSCL problem and find a way to go on compatibility issues.
An Java OpenSource License is possible instead of the JSCL but it is just a matter that people meet and explain why the stated to that point and where they may go.
'4R34.
And that is exactly what I hate about programming in the Windows environment.
Everything is so over complicated - what's so wrong with ~/ ?
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
I been saying this since the day mono was insiped by Migual. No good can come of additing Microsoft shIt to Linux. The security holes and worms alone make anyone shiver.............
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That a GNOME project could harm what GNOME was set out to combat which was the fear that KDE would end up in the direction GNOME seems to be going anyway.
sigh
Actually, I thought it was pretty funny.
"I once thought I had mono for an entire year... turns out I was just really bored."
--Mike Myers, Wayne's World
The neutrality of this sig is disputed.
This is how we will be screwed; Microsoft submarine patents. And Miguel can claim as much as he wants that "lawyers" have told him that the patent issue can be avoided, but that kind of assumes that one knows about the patents -- which in the case of "submarine" patents is not the case. Even if a future MS patent on this stuff turns out to be invalid due to prior art, WHO IS GOING TO COURT AGAINST M$$$$$ FOR YEARS AND MUCHO $$$$$ TO PROVE IT?
Abandon hope all ye who enter here...
Just got a fat wad of cash in the inbox from Microsoft, or so I heard.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Would a Beowulf cluster be an implementation of the Herd ?
-- don't discount flying pigs until you have good air defense