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."

Comments

It may not kill a Gnome...

[b0r0din]

But Mono would probably keep one sick for quite a while...

I don't think so!

[YouAreFatMan]

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.

Re:I don't think so!

[JordoCrouse]

I caught it from some girl.

Man, if I had a dollar everytime I've heard somebody say that.. :)

Re:I don't think so!

[Klowner]

MY question is, what kind of girl goes around making out with gnomes? The kind that have mono, thats the kind..

Klowner

Re:I don't think so!

[Jaysyn]

Man, if I had a dollar everytime I've heard somebody say that.. :)

You'd be a broke fucker on /.

Jaysyn

Sure Intel could!

[NWT]

You say Intel wouldn't do that to Mono, one of the Open Source answers to Microsoft's .NET technology.
Intel could do it ... 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 ...

Just a opinion among others.

Re:Sure Intel could!

[geekoid]

so? Whats MS going to do? no longer compile for x86 chip set?

I predict...

[Hatter]

some forty jokes about mononucleosis and how it will just make you sick, probably not kill you. Yada, yada, yada.

Re:I predict...

[llamalicious]

and yet you didn't predict how Mono, since it's modeled after a Microsoft initiative, will spread, and infect hundreds--no, _thousands_ of other Gnomes just by coming in close contact with them.

Gnome can't die

[jdavidb]

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.

Re:Gnome can't die

[JordoCrouse]

If you get a map showing you how to get to Grandma's house faster (but it happens to go by the wolf's den), do you follow it without caution, or do you grab a shotgun first?

I don't think that the question here is if the .NET architecture is a good idea (it is), and if we should implement it (we should).

The point of the editorial (and of the /. post), is to wonder if we are setting ourselves up to be eaten by Microsoft (or indeed, anyone who may lay claim to the Mono libraries). It has become clear that Gnome could be effectively taken out through the current licencing. Microsoft would love to beat us at our own game - and use its influence on other companies to pull rank on Gnome and kill it, especially if Gnome/Mono does becomes a huge success.

Too much money is at stake in the next round of operating systems to leave anything to chance. Microsoft (and Intel for that matter) is setting themselves up for a free shot at Gnome if it ever starts threating the status quo. Thats scary to me.

Re:Gnome can't die

[ADRA]

Ok, Mark me, I am nto totally sure of what the author was tryignt o get at, but it seems liek they are saying, The community releases software, intel changes a line of code, all of a sudden they patent the libraries and their process, so that the open source development community cannot use the libraries.

Am I missing something here? The open source library is still fully usable, and the patent void, because of prior art, I mean it was released to them through that avenue ;-) Or, if they extend a particular feature of the library, and patent that part of the library, well yeah, they have fair use rights to do what they want with it, and block the community from using whatever process that entails, but that is how iot always has been witrh software, so why are they crying now that .NET is in the equation? I mean, they are cloning the JDK libraries right now. Are you saying we should revolt against the GNU classpath group?

Re:Gnome can't die

[Steveftoth]

If Mono/.NET actually proves to be a viable technology that speeds up the development of code for GNOME, then we will all be singing the praise of .NET. Otherwise I'll stick with Java/C/C++ for my development.

C# is an interisting language, I've read parts of the spec, and it seems to not totatly contridict itself.
In the CLR I'm not too sure how they can trust code, and then not trust code. It seems like the security model is not as strong as everyone seems to say it is. If you compile code to a native level then it seems to be much more dificult to check for security. One advantage doing all interpreted code is that the runtime knows what is being executed better. We'll see how they tackle security. I think that'll be one of the last features to work correctly, on any platform. The only people who seem at all truely concerned with security are Java and Web browser people.
it is amazing to me how many security flaws have been programmed into Mozilla, Netscape and IE over the years. Compare that to the number of security flaws that other 'file browsers' have had.

Re:Gnome can't die

[Cyno]

Some of us even like Java.

Exactly. I often say RedHat sucks. I often bitch about a lot of things. But the truth of the matter is I value RedHat and their contributions the GNU community far more than any commercial company in existence. I LOVE RedHat, even tho they suck. Same thing with java. Its not my favorite api, but its a valuable addition to a set of developement tools. Mono is just taking java to the next level. Nothing bad here, but it still sucks. ;)

Re:Gnome can't die

[RazzleFrog]

Maybe he doesn't have his head in his ass and went to any of the hundreds of sites dedicated to it, downloaded the SDK from Microsoft, purchased VS.Net, or (shock - horror) actually read the information on the Mono website.

Re:Gnome can't die

[maxpublic]

Representing those comments as "raving about Microsoft" is a deliberate misrepresentation.

No, it isn't. Miguel's interview reads like an ad for Microsoft and .NET. My first thought was "how much did he get paid to bend over and let Billy ream him?". His comments were nicely summed up in excerpt below.

He also had praise for the new Microsoft security model, dismissed the notion that Redmond was employing embrace and extend to its web services protocols, and put the message that the community should get over its beef with The Beast.

Clearly either the man is smoking way too much crack or he's sold out.

Max

Re:Gnome can't die

[Cyno]

This is an interresting point. What if a commercial company with unlimitted resources attempted to attack opensource projects from within? But the beauty of open source is you can always branch off any version of any product anytime you choose. Until Miguel goes and changes the license out from under you. So even if GNOME progresses into MONO/GNOME/XP we can still rip GNOME out of the middle of that and trim it to our liking. I don't think its possible for a commercial company to hurt or in any way control a GNU project (trademark/copyright issues aside).

Re:Gnome can't die

[Rupert]

Intel sends you a cease & desist. They also tell your ISP that you're violating their patents, and your ISP pulls the plug. So yes, there's prior art, but until your case gets to court (k$s and years later) Intel still has a patent. FSF may be able to fight that, but I can't.

That's why this is a bad scenario.

Re:Gnome can't die

[Anonymous Coward]

During his speech at Fosdem, Miguel said they did have a strategy in case Microsoft would use patents to their defense. It comes down to the fact that Mono is worthwhile developing even if it doesn't have full compatibility with MS dotNet Framework.

Re:Gnome can't die

[MindStalker]

Yes, but there is a difference between a quote and someone summarizing what he said. I'll go back and find the text later, but what he said was that he likes the .NET security protocols (not MS's security model as a whole). He tends to live slightly in the sky though in thinking that MS won't try to embrase extend. But anyways the summary is a bit misleading

Re:Gnome can't die

[the_1000th_Monkey]

First off, nothing against GNOME, Miguel != GNOME. With that said, I would have to say that he does rave about MS. Remember the Unix Sucks speech a little while back, in which he compared Unix to Windows and concluded that Windows is where it's at. And as he said himself (in the article at the register I believe) Bonobo was modeled from Microsoft's COM Technology. And then he wrote spreadsheet app that his big victory was that it didn't flicker as much as Excel, and then wrote a "groupware" program mimicking Outlook almost exactly. Remember copying is the biggest form of flattery. And the final MS-loving clue is that the only reason he didn't get a job there is because his visa didn't allow it.

All these factors have made me think for a long time, though I can't imagine it's the case, that I wouldn't be surprised if Miguel were planted to undermine MS competition in the Free Software community which can't be fought by PR campaigns, buyouts and product markdowns.

Like I said I don't figure that's true, but if MS were to try and trip up various free software competitors while boosting themselves, they would probably do it just as Miguel has.

Re:Gnome can't die

[4of12]

[Let me preface this by saying I don't know the difference between .NET and AVaporWareMarketingPloy.]

But it seems like there really are some good ideas in .NET somewhere, my free software zealotry notwithstanding.

Can .NET provide the kind of common platform that is needed for a good interobject bridge between the current Gtk and Qt widgets?

Re:Gnome can't die

[Bilestoad]

When KDE was not completely GPL'ed, RMS called for Gnome to be written in cometition to it. (enough acronyms for you? :-)

If Gnome gets Mono and becomes only partly GPL (some MIT X11 licensing etc.), will the same thing happen again?

Re:Gnome can't die

[ethereal]

Number one comment from the linked editorial that you should read, digest, and read again:

Microsoft are great strategists. Play by their rules and you'll lose.

Think about it.

Re:Gnome can't die

[lak3rs]

The GPL and LGPL contain language with the goal that "any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all", while the MIT license does not contain similar language.

Consider the following scenario. Intel (they asked for the license change so they get to be the bad guys in this hypothetical example) extends the Mono framework to support a new image compression algorithm and releases their code under the MIT license. GNOME uses this new compression algorithm in their next release. Intel then discloses that they have a patent on the compression method and demands royalty payments. What happens to GNOME?

Re:Gnome can't die

[Mansing]

When you sleep with dogs, you better expect to get fleas.

.NET may be an excellent technology, but when dealing with a for-profit company who owns the technology, you must accept the risk that the direction you want the technology to go won't be the direction they want it to go.

Fore warned is fore armed.

Re:Gnome can't die

[jdavidb]

Well, you can read the docs (somewhere on MS's site; I'm not going to search for it), or you can go check out the mono project, or you can go check out dotGNU, which is somewhat larger in scope than mono but also implementing a .NET runtime, or you can go read O'Reilly's books on the subject, some of which are already in their second editions.

Re:Gnome can't die

[jdavidb]

Actually, that would be comparable to what has happened with Ghostscript. Aladdin has an almost open-source license for Ghostscript, but there is also a GPL'ed version from GNU. GNU Ghostscript trailed Aladdin's for a long time, although I think it has somewhat caught up now.

I guarantee you that if someone tries any funny business, Gnome will fork. RMS will yell. I'll yell with him. But we won't yell long, because we'll just move our efforts from www.gnome.org to www.gnu.org/software/gnome/gnome.html . Remember, the GPL is an irrevocable license. Even if the copyright holder later comes out with a proprietary version, you have a perpetual right to freely modify and redistribute the GPL'ed versions. And I doubt the copyright holder can keep up with several thousand testers, debuggers, and coders who aren't interested in contributing to their proprietary product but are interested in contributing to something that is free.

Re:Gnome can't die

[blakestah]

We saw those comments from Miguel a long time ago. He's not raving about Microsoft. He just likes .NET.


Right.

And pre-GNOME, when he was grabbing the torch, he wasn't raving about Microsoft either. No, he sure wasn't. He was just caught up in how cool DCOM was, and was all fired up on how to implement it appropriately in GNOME.

AFAIKT, it is still pretty useless. But it is conceptually "the Microsoft way".

Then there was email. Miguel cloned Outlook in Evolution. Microsoft KNEW how to make a good email app, so Miguel was going to make one too, "the Microsoft way".

There is no person I can think of in Free Software development that likes "the Microsoft way" more than Miguel. No one. In fact, at this point I am beginning to wonder if he is on their payroll. First he was fired up to replicate DCOM under GNOME, then he was fired up to replicate Outlook, and now it is .NET.

GNOME should support .NET. .NET apps should run by mapping function calls onto GNOME. Just like SAMBA should run on linux. But it has to end there.

Re:Gnome can't die

[Cuthalion]

If you compile code to a native level then it seems to be much more dificult to check for security.

Not really. Each .NET assembly (a module, rougly analogous to a .dll a .class or a .so) has a section which lists which external functions are imported. From there, you certainly can do access control on a finer scale from within the imported functions.

Re:Gnome can't die

[jdavidb]

Maybe you're right. But I often think about what would happen if there were a concerted effort to render Microsoft irrelevant -- by producing 100% compatible free-software clones of everything they do. Yeah, I wouldn't want to use it (I was a Mac user before I came to Linux. Still am, a little, since my email is all trapped in, you guessed it, Outlook Express for Mac.), but plenty of people would look at "Hmmm... MS's products, or something identical to MS's products for free," and make a decision that didn't include MS.

RMS set out to duplicate UNIX, even though it wasn't his favorite system. He knew technical improvements to the platform would happen along the way, and it wouldn't be exactly the same when he finished. Sure enough, it's not. And we're starting to see the final effects, as one commercial UNIX after another starts selling Linux (IBM, and now Sun!).

One thing to remember is that Microsoft is the enemy because they are a proprietary company. If (impossible though it may be) Microsoft jumped up tomorrow and released all their code under the GPL and started making their money like RedHat, they wouldn't be the enemy any more. Some of us might even like (parts) of their system and bring it into Linux and/or vice versa.

Re:Gnome can't die

[blakestah]

One thing to remember is that Microsoft is the enemy because they are a proprietary company.

I would have ZERO problems with a proprietary company that ATTEMPTED to use well-featured standard formats for exchanging DATA. Data can be interpreted as any format that is displayable only. Like, sound, video, streaming versions, documents, text email, PDF...

I use linux. Other companies will make and sell software, and I just want to be able to interact with them reasonably.

When a proprietary company makes data available to me only in formats for which they control the displayers, I don't like it so much anymore. When they additionally make NO effort to use interchangeable formats that are well-featured, I recognize that company doesn't care if its users can interact with any users of other software. There is no excuse for that - it is plain anti-competitive for ANY software maker not to make his data displayable using anyone else's software.

This becomes really clear in Microsoft's case, because other people's formats are so widely read in the rest of the world. No one in the linux world has a horrible time reading pdfs (acroread, xpdf, ghostscript), or email, or word processing documents that are not in a Microsoft format.

However, try to read a WMV/ASF file, or a WMA file, or a DOC file, or read a web page served by IIS, and there are LOTS of problems with accurate reading.

Re:Gnome can't die

[alext]

Your last paragraph is a complete non sequitur.

Why should GNOME support Dotnet? Where are the requirements? To run third party apps developed for Dotnet on Linux - an instant Photoshop port, maybe?

Get real.

All that's happening is that a few people who don't know about Parrot, don't like Sun/Java and don't have the wit to propose something new are following the hype and grabbing the headlines.

Re:Gnome can't die

[alext]

If you don't want Gnome to be .NET,

I don't.

then fine. Stay with what you've got,

No thanks.

GNOME (and Linux) needs something like Dotnet, but it doesn't need Dotnet.

There are plenty of VM projects around (Java, Python, PERL, TCL, Scheme...), some with features not in Dotnet. I'll support the development and convergence of these as my new platform.

Re:Gnome can't die

[kubrick]

The open source library is still fully usable, and the patent void, because of prior art, I mean it was released to them through that avenue ;-)

The prior art provision won't help you if the paent filing was made before the release of the library as OSS. It would depend on the license as to whether undeclared patents may later be exercised, and I'm unaware whether the strength of any anti-patent provisions in the (L)GPL have yet been tested in court.

Re:Gnome can't die

[alext]

"Mono is worthwhile developing even if it doesn't have full compatibility with MS dotNet Framework"

This assertion is just as vacuous this time as the last ~20 times it's been thown into Dotnet discussions.

Funny how no Mono proponents will go so far as producing a concrete list of requirements that cloning Dotnet (specifically and uniquely) will satisfy, presumably because they either don't exist or they can't guarantee to deliver them.

The fact is that there is precisely zero benefit in cloning Dotnet unless it offers real portability for real applications. All other requirements can better be delivered using existing or emerging platforms.

Re:Gnome can't die

[alext]

eems like there really are some good ideas in .NET somewhere

Maybe the size of the marketing budget can explain this? Feel free to share some actual facts if you encounter any.

Re:Gnome can't die

[jdavidb]

Pet peave of mine. It's Perl, not PERL.

And actually, to be honest, I'll go on programming in Perl (which is what I spend most of my time doing) and will probably never touch .NET or Gnome programming.

If you're looking for a virtual machine, I hear you'll really like Perl 6!

Re:Gnome can't die

[blakestah]

Why should GNOME support Dotnet?

GNOME is free software. If someone wants it to run .NET and can program it, GNOME will support .NET. This is a gain for GNOME users - more programs for the platform.

You can still CHOOSE not to use them, too. And then for you nothing will have changed.

Re:Gnome can't die

[alext]

Duh... I rest my case.

Next!

Re:Gnome can't die

[sbrown123]

Replacing is not always possible. It depends on their patent. If its a process that is patented and you write new code that performs a similar function, you could be legally sued. A good example is Amazon's "one-click" patent. Sure, you could built a shopping system that works the same, uses your own code, but you could still be sued if you copied the process.

Code is generally not patented, rather the outcome. This is because any basic programmer could simply rearrange the code a bit and call it a new work.

I doubt Intel would truthfully use a patent in this way. Microsoft will most likely add functionality to C# that they in turn patent and Mono would not be allowed to simulate. Mono could do likewise but will in turn kill any cross-platform to Windows capability. Thats a killer since Windows is on something like 95% of the PCs out there and Gnome is on, may we say, .001%?

I have seen very little that impresses me with the whole .NET initiative. Miguel may be a big wig within the Gnome group but he can be replaced.

Re:Gnome can't die

[Cyno]

This is a good thing, IMO. The more people that sell their souls to the devil the less crowded heaven will be. Assuming GNU == heaven.

Re:Gnome can't die

[k8to]

yeah, but you lose all the static analysis
possibilities.

-josh

Sick of this topic already .....

[reaper20]

/me thinks we've spent too much effort arguing about this.

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 .NET/Mono", "Linux desktop struggles" and "GNOME in Trouble" sensationalism for ZDNet headlines, and that's not going to help our cause one bit.

Re:Sick of this topic already .....

[zeno_2]

Wether 'official' Gnome uses it or not doesn't matter.

wether Pronunciation Key (wthr)
n.
A castrated ram.

Wether

Boy, I was suprised when I heard they were going to use .net, but involving castrated rams is just going way too far!

Re:Sick of this topic already .....

[Uruk]

Ximian is going to develop Mono - that much is clear. It doesn't matter what anyone says, they're going to use it.

The second part of that is wrong - they're a company, and they don't have the luxury like non-paid independent free software hackers of not caring what other people think of their project. Since they're going to be using it eventually to either drive revenue, or support something that will drive revenue, they do care what other people think.

It seems that you're saying that they're going to do what they're going to do, so there's no sense complaining about it. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with everything in this article that was posted, but if there are dangers, it DEFINATELY makes sense to complain about it, because ximian CAN be swayed. (They're a company - companies tend to listen to large portions of their customer bases when they have to)

Gnome is GPL - what's everyone so scared about?

Aggregation of software! Your package foo might be GPL'd, and might be a part of GNOME, but if you base it on Mono and components written by Intel that have patent problems, you could quickly find yourself unable to distribute your application depending on what Intel wants to do with their patents.

If a GPL'd application links to a library, or in some other way uses software that's encumbered, problems can spill over. So it's not necessarily safe to say that since Gnome is GPL'd, we'll never have any problems.

The perfect way to avoid problems is to link GPL'd software only with GPL'd software that isn't covered by patents. That's *not* what Ximian is doing, and not what they have in mind for GNOME.

Re:Sick of this topic already .....

[curunir]

involving castrated rams is just going way too far!

Actually, considering the gnu logo and the dire predictions in the editorial, it seems strangely appropriate.

Re:Sick of this topic already .....

[geekoid]

yes, but we should keep the discussion alive so people, and other companies, know that mono is not free, and may have strings attached.
anytime anything has a negative impact in free software, it will reflect back to Linux bacause people don't understand that Linux is not the desk top. Like it or not,but Linux has become the Free software/ Open Source flagship.

Re:Sick of this topic already .....

[JoeBuck]

You write as though Mono were the only software component that could be threatened by patent problems. Any piece of Gnome, or KDE, or whatever, can be so threatened, forcing you to stop distributing code.

If Microsoft asserts a patent covering part of .Net, that may or may not affect Mono. Mono might have to rip out a piece of functionality, but it would not kill the project as a whole, because there is nothing patentable about the basic concept .

Re:Sick of this topic already .....

[whereiswaldo]

Someone please tell me how Gnome can be killed.

It is an open source project with AFAIK, to date, no patented code in it. So, if I decide to take a CVS snapshot today and maintain a new branch of it, there should be nothing stopping me and no way to "kill it".

Re:Sick of this topic already .....

[Ian Bicking]

Ximian is going to develop Mono - that much is clear. It doesn't matter what anyone says, they're going to use it.

If just Ximian develops Mono, then it won't matter whether Mono is good or bad -- it will never go anywhere. Mono's success depends on a larger group of people developing it, and it is pointless unless there is another group that develops apps on it.

This sort of public discussion is how the larger community makes the decision whether to get behind Mono. And that makes all the difference. If it weren't for something like this around KDE issues, Gnome wouldn't exist (and Qt wouldn't be GPLed either).

Re:Sick of this topic already .....

[magnified_plaid]

A castrated rams? Is that like crosses between gnus and eunuchs (UNIX)?

Re:Sick of this topic already .....

[plaa]

And if it does happen, they'll either be a fork, or massive exodus away from Gnome. -- Gnome is GPL - what's everyone so scared about? We've got bigger fish to fry.

Isn't there enough competition already over free software developers between GNOME/KDE? Do we really need another fork of GNOME in the competition? The discussion may be boring, but radical changes (like Mono) in the desktop must be made by consensus. That's what the discussion is striving at. Or at least that's what it should be striving at.

SlashFUD

[Apostata]

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.

Re:Raves?

[Anonymous Coward]

what, is miguel decked out like a candy kid?

Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 19 seconds since you hit 'reply'!

Re:Mono isn't that bad...

[felipeal]

That picture doesn't show it, but while she was celebrating the victory, she always hit the gnome who has using his gold to forge the medals, so yes, it could have killed it.

Could it?

[swordboy]

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.

Re:Could it?

[steveha]

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

To some extent, redundant projects are a good thing. If two projects are competing, they can spur each other on to better results. Look at GNOME and KDE, for example.

Also, when there are two projects, the potential downside is reduced for trying something new. If GNOME bets on Mono, and KDE steers clear of it, then if Mono turns out to be a bad idea, we can all switch to KDE. (But note that it might be easier just to fork GNOME and switch to the non-mono fork, especially for those of us already using GNOME.)

But it's moot anyway. People work on whatever they want to work on. I think the world has enough text editors, but no one cares what I think; if some guy wants to write a text editor, he's going to do it. Free software, freedom. Nothing you can do about it, so why worry about it?

steveha

Re:Could it?

[jdavidb]

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.

You know, RedHat 7.1 converted me away from Mac OS. And that was before Sun's Gnome usability study. I'm looking forward to reaping the benefits of the work that's happened since then.

If they're winning Mac users, how long do you think it'll be before the Microsoft exodus begins? (Hint, consider software license fee structures in your answer. :) )

I'm optimistic. It's coming.

I know the redundancy pains a lot of people, but it has given us competition that enables us to pick the best solutions. Sometimes there's more than one best and we hit a stable point with multiple alternatives instead of a monopoly. And that's (mostly) a good thing.

Re:Could it?

[ADRA]

Not so much on the side of redundancy, since redundancy -can- be a good thing, but what is really important here is that everyone and their dog work on their own projects, and if all being the same are not nearly as good as they could be if they had a consolidated market, one being theoretically the best.

If I, and everyone else wasted thier time making their own text editors just to use my new keyboard layout, or variable color scheme, or minimal memory requirement, or whatever, you overlap in projects by 90% of the work. That work could have come together to make a truly innovative project instead of just a half assed attempt to clone the existing norm.

We need something like SourceForge on steroids, which seriously needs enhanced collaboration tools which will encourage outsider lone codes to work together. One of the things I hate the most about sourceforge is the lack of collaboration tools, which I think in Open source, that is one of the most important tools, that, direction, and standards.

Re:Could it?

[Arker]

If that's what you want, feel free to work on it, or to pay someone to work on it. Don't feel free to tell volunteers where they can and cannot put their time and effort. It's rude and stupid.

Don't like a product? Don't use it. Simple as that.

Trying to tell someone that doesn't give a crap about "Desktops" that they must work on one only works when you are willing to pay them a salary.

Re:Could it?

[Alex Belits]

If that's what you want, feel free to work on it, or to pay someone to work on it. Don't feel free to tell volunteers where they can and cannot put their time and effort. It's rude and stupid.

"Volunteers" happen to care about what is being said about their ideas -- after all the whole project is supposed to be implemented by a large number of people, one that express their negative opinion included.

Don't like a product? Don't use it. Simple as that.

If Gnome just was a closed system and a product of some company that was developing it with its own resources, it would be reasonable. If it tries to be a framework that many people already use, they have a right to demand that carpet will not be pulled from under them in mid-development. Many people will have to make a decision if their programs will be made based on or compatible with Gnome, and it will be only fair to warn Miguel and other how their decisions would affect that. For example, if Gnome would require JVM or a even a single DLL that must be compiled with Microsoft tools, or will demand some hideously convoluted "OO framework", such as COM, XPCOM, DCOM and especially .NET support from applications just to perform their basic functionality and configuration, or any of that bullshit in session manager or mandatory pieces of its framework, I promise to never develop anything for it, never use it again, and delete it from all my computers despite the fact that now I am using it exclusively.

And I certainly feel that I have a right to tell that to Miguel now instead of doing it later.

Trying to tell someone that doesn't give a crap about "Desktops" that they must work on one only works when you are willing to pay them a salary.

And probably no one should tell anything to politicians unless with regularly scheduled bribes? Gnome would be an unremarkable piece of shit if it wasn't a project supported by a large community. Look at CDE -- that's your "Gnome" made by a bunch of shit-headed companies (including such "intellectual giants" as HP) over, I think, decades of hard work. That's what you get when you proudly work in a vacuum, and all your developers care so little about what others think about their code that they probably write that code while sitting in Exceed or possibly even in Devstudio. That's what you get when "screw all the users!" is an acceptable attitude. This is what happen when the only recouces are 1. to beat up the developers and 2. start your own project.

Gnome is one of the projects that started exactly because of this (and Trolls showing just a little bit of similar attitude at the time, but this is unimportant). So unless someone wants to repeat the history again, it's better to express the displeasure at Miguel's ideological decisions now than to have to fork the project, driving Ximian out of business in the process.

MS advertising on ./

[RampagingSimian]

Hrmm...(offtopic?)

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?]

.NET Framework and WINE

[rlowe69]

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?

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 ....? 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.

Re:.NET Framework and WINE

[fanatic]

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?

In that respect it's not. I've long considered WINE a non-starter for that reason.

Makes me curl my little toes ;D

[miffo.swe]

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?

So don't use it

[ajs]

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.

Re:So don't use it

[Keith Russell]

I think what she's trying to say, in a rather roundabout, "let me adjust my tin foil hat" sort of way, is that there's no legal precedent for this situation. Is there an implicit patent license when patented material is contributed to an Open Source project by the patent holder? Look at it this way:

1. Ximian adopts X11 license for parts of Mono
2. Intel contributes to X11-licensed parts, including Intel-patented code
3. Gnome 4.0 is converted completely to Mono
4. Gnome acheives World Domination
5. Intel calls in its marker on Ximian and Gnome, demanding royalties for that Intel-patented code
6. Everyone gets dragged into court
7. Miguel stands up in court and says, "Of course, there's Intel-patented code in Mono. Intel put it there in the first place!"
8. Intel responds, "Yep. We did."

So what happens now? Will the judge have a sudden flash of common sense and tell Intel where to stick it's legal briefs? Or will Intel's high-priced landsharks invoke some strange combination of DMCA, SSSCA, the Patriot Act, and a rider on some farm subsidy legislation to swing the case their way?

It is a valid concern, and I would hate to see projects as significant as Mono and Gnome be taken down by it. But I think Tina is being a bit too alarmist.

OT: This is what Slashdot's email auto-obfuscator generated for my email address:

krussell@ mEEEsa.com minus threevowels

Hey, Taco! I do not work for Jar-Jar Binks! :-)

Re:So don't use it

[gnovos]

Intel calls in its marker on Ximian and Gnome, demanding royalties for that Intel-patented code

Sure thing Intel, will give you 99% royalties on all the profits we get from these gnome binaries we sell. Here you go, here's your 99% of nothing... Aw what the heck, we'll even double that since we like you so much.

Re:So don't use it

[ajs]

Your concern is valid, but ill placed.

1. If Intel writes code for Mono that infringes on a patent or Richard Stallman writes the code for CORBA that infringes on a patent, it's still patent infringing.

2. Once Intel notifies you that you're infringing, if you strip that functionality, you're not infringing. If you can't strip it, and have Mono still work, then I suggest to you that CORBA won't work either. In that case, the idea of an open source component model is pretty much dead until the patent expires or is contributed to the public.

3. When you own a patent, you can license it any way you wish. If you choose to write reference code and distribute it under the GPL, that's a very valid option. Intel would be free to change the license, but anyone with their hands on previous, GPL-licensed code would... well, have a license. It really is that simple (IANAL). Could this be a test for the GPL? Sure, and that's a seperate topic, but one I'm not too concerned about. Why? Because it's in the direction that the GPL is strongest. The GPL is weakest in defending the code owner (potentially) not the user.

4. I think she was not so much concerned about Intel contributing code as writing components that were proprietary and patented. Again, if they did this, we should all carefully avoid using Intel's proprietary components. Again, this comes down to sloppy reporting.

I think this whole thing is a no-brainer.

Rather paranoid

[autopr0n]

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.

Also, sun is never going to develop software that requres .net. It's just not going to happen.

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?

Well, it's certainly limiting applicability...

[seebs]

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.

Re:Well, it's certainly limiting applicability...

[Graymalkin]

Why do people keep bringing up DirectX as a competitor to OpenGL? DirectX came about because developers were tired of having to reinvent the wheel whenever they wanted to do something more complex than merely tell GDI to write out a couple of bitmaps to form a window. Read the DX developer books (the Microsoft Press ones) they give a good deal of insight into the original ideas behind DX. DirectX was never intended for people to use instead of OpenGL, if that were the case Microsoft could have kept Windows from properly using OpenGL libraries. DirectX is not a fucking product they sell, noone fucking sells OpenGL. Don't compare oranges to bricks man.

You seem to think .NET is an API like DX or OpenGL, some portions are indeed APIs but most portions of it are just communication specifications. This whole todo about Mono and thus GNOME being Microsoft's bitch is so retarded. It is much better to have software that can talk to a wide range of software as opposed to only being compatible with a narrow range of software. It allows for vendor independence as well as forward and backwards compatibility. If a bunch of vendors produce software that does FOO and are all using specified guidelines for FOO communication you can pick any one of those vendors (or write your own software) that does FOO and you aren't locked into using software from a single vendor. Using Mono and supporting .NET communication schemes GNOME software can talk to closed source software using the same schemes. A great example is GDict, it is only going to work with dictionary services that it knows how to use. A SOAP version though could query a server to see if it is running a service and once it finds out if it is it can figure out how to query it as to get the results it is looking for.

As thought provoking as an infomercial

[ChaseTec]

>>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.

Managed software

[Latent Heat]

Having tried C#/.NET at the command line, the performance hit over C++ is maybe 2-3 (18 months of Moore) instead of 5-10 (about 5 years).

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.

Re:Managed software

[Mr. Slippery]

Given that performance is not a show-stopper anymore...

Hmm. What field do you work in?

Re:Managed software

[Ooblek]

I think he meant performance in terms of how much of an impact the CLR is having vs. a native runtime. Obviously there will always be applications for native code and there will obviously be the need for optimal algorithms. Also the mixture of CLR based thin clients to more robust applications (i.e. RDBMS of your choice) can probably be grouped into a set of apps where performance on the thin client isn't a show stopper.

Now we can talk about performance and real-time stuff where performance is always a show stopper. However, I doubt you'll see a CLR type architecture used in an RTOS any time soon. (But, hey, I don't do RT stuff, so what do I know?)

Re:Managed software

[alext]

Insightful my ass. The poster doesn't seem to have even heard of existing open source VM efforts (Parrot, Python, TCL, Scheme...). Instead we get waffle about some trivial performance and documentation aspects of Dotnet as though this was somehow of great and lasting significance.

The issue at hand is whether we address Dotnet-style requirements by developing a similar platform, hopefully drawing together other VM developments, or try vainly to clone Dotnet and so put MS in the driving seat of Linux development.

Re:Managed software

[Pengo]

no kidding, if I could write native code in a java like language for Gnome it would be great. The closest thing I feel the community has to a really good operating framework is kde. The libraries are all good and consistent, as where my brief stint with gnome was enough to make me not want to touch it again from a programming level. Maybe Miquel knows this and doesn't want to rewrite base gnome in C++. If there is a solid set of working high level libs that become the standard for the movement forward, who cares what MS does on their platform. We will have a kickass java-like language that we can write with against the base libraries.

I personally just find learning a new API is too risk to put on something like gtk+ or other wrapper libraries.. if I am going to learn something, I would like to learn the source. And learning something that could help me in the event I had to write code for .NET is a bonus, it's reusable knowledge of a semi-standard (we hope) api. Regardless, like Java, it should be easy to bounce back and forth between microsoft and mono even if their is a virtual fork. (think java 1 / 2)

Re:Managed software

[fredrik70]

Not that it's my field either so please correct me if I'm wrong, but heard somewhere that it' snot neccesarily the *speed* of what something is performed that's the inmportant bit in a RTOS, but that it can be done within a *guaranteed* period of time. So maybe someday there will be a CLR for your RTOS of choice!

tada

Been here done this..

[agrounds]

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...

Why can't people see what MS is really up to?

[Reylas]

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't think that MS cares whether or not there is an Open Source version of dotNet.

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 .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.

When upgrades happen, then you automagically download the latest version of the .Net function.

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 .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.

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.

Re:Why can't people see what MS is really up to?

[Junta]

Interesting point, but where in the hell do you see courts ordering open source code? Yes, they order it in drastic cases and the party reviewiong the code is really constrained in what they are allowed to do, you make it sound like courts are mandating Open Source projects for companies.

Secondly, as far as OS Wars being over, nothing has really changed that much. The market changes the same way it did a few years ago. Systems come and go, just because MS is dominant on the desktop doesn't mean there is little change in the market. If you would qualify the market before as a war, it still is, but I would say any supposed OS "war" is a misnomer in any time..

Re:Why can't people see what MS is really up to?

[nvrrobx]

Okay you need to do a little more research here. Mono is implementing the .NET Framework, which is the development portion. MS is also porting the Framework to FreeBSD because ECMA requires two reference implementations for the standard. The FreeBSD port will not have ADO.NET, ASP.NET or WinForms support.

Re:Why can't people see what MS is really up to?

[Reylas]

Actually the article I read said that MS is paying to have the .Net services ported to FreeBSD. Again, I believe that was on NewsForge. Plus, I state in my post that Gnome is only doing the development platform and I do not see why all the fuss.

But the main point of my post stays the same. They want to *rent* software. They are going to extreme lengths to ensure that developers can access through web services, pre-built libraries that can be tracked by usage. That is where passport/hailstorm comes in. I said it would be interesting to see if MS pushes that part into Linux as well.

Re:Why can't people see what MS is really up to?

[Rick the Red]

And, why would MS be porting it to FreeBSD if they did not want Linux to have it as well.

Maybe because they like (and have used) code released under the BSD license, with it's permission to steal open source code and embed it in proprietary code, while they fear/loath/hate code released under the GPL, with it's viral clause that forces you to open up any proprietary code you embed it in? That's just my guess.

Better for KDE?

[Decimal]

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.

Re:Better for KDE?

[Decimal]

Moderation: -2 Offtopic

I have a feeling I've been hit by a Slashdot manager with unlimited points (who thinks I hate Gnome)...

Any gnomes in the public...

[locoluis]

... that actually do like monkeys, feel free to disagree. :)

Re:You are an idiot

[Apostata]

Dad, leave me alone!

Not a Genious!

[KDENCE]

I am not a genious but that would totally defeat the purpose of it all. Hope the freedom fighters fight a good fight!

Casual Reader

[BelDurnik]

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?

People in the know don't trust .net

[feddman]

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

Re:People in the know don't trust .net

[I_redwolf]

Again that's optimistic bullshit, YOU don't decide how this pans out; Miguel doesn't decide how this pans out either. It's Microsoft who will decide the future of Mono, it will either work with Windows systems or it will not. In the case that it does work, trust me; it'll be limited simply because Microsoft is a business they won't just let their desktop market get sliced into.. especially since they can have their cake and eat it too. If it doesn't Mono is Java with some extra functionality bolted in. Java is coming along, I don't even like java but in small doses it isn't so bad. There are many other languages etc etc Gnome could use for the desktop.

Again, you try to spread an optimistic viewpoint about how Mono WILL BE; not how it is and you tend to neglect what we here at slashdot and the internet community in general already know about Microsoft, including the DOJ and just about anyone that reads a paper.

Why we should not support closed standarts

[senfman]

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.

The real danger

[Ogerman]

OK, my turn to play pundit. (-;

It's one thing to support what could eventually be a necessary "embrace and extend" standard, but to focus everything on .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.

So it seems to me that supporting .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.

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.

Re:The real danger

[I_redwolf]

Stop saying that; Everytime we have this Gnome/Mono discussion you always reply to my posts or other posts with absolute garbage. NONE of that exists yet. First off Any apps developed to run on Mono WILL not run on Windows as well, especially since Microsoft hasn't submitted all specs; not only that but embrace and extend could kill off the mono project with 1 compile from Microsoft.

The end result is "A WASTE OF TIME". Jeezsus don't you get it? MS HAS control over the Mono project already.. they defined the specs for the Mono project. If anything I keep saying Mono will become java basically. By that time I'm sure java would be further ahead. When Mono reaches 1.0 Microsoft will be up to 1.whatever and STOP SAYING all apps developed for VS.NET now will run on Linux.. That's bullshit.. I'm beginning to think you're speaking right outta your ass. Either you're an optimist or just one of Microsoft's lackies. Either way you're basically lying, spreading FUD and it's extremely annoying. Especially considering we are talking about Microsoft here, who wont even release specs on their filesystem or tools to communicate with window systems. All of a sudden they wanna allow you to run .NET shit on any platform under the sun? Whatever, I'll stick to Java, to some Sun might not be any better BUT they have proven over time with technologies like NFS, Java, etc etc etc that they want their systems, archs and programs written on them portable to other systems and archs; STOP SPREADING LIES.

Re:The real danger

[accessdeniednsp]

yes, i will further emphasize your emphasis:

We do NOT need proprietary software!

microsoft is the oil to our water. we do not form a symbiotic relationship, we do not rely on each other, and for fuck's sake, microsoft is gonna die over the next 4-6 years anyway!

microsoft is no threat to open source. open source that embraces microsoft is a threat to open source!

Re:The real danger

[GigsVT]

That isn't a troll. I saw danhesketts game a while back, and he has been a firm fixture in my foes list for a while now. He is a broken record. He claims he doesn't work for Microsoft, but he sure knows how to constantly toe the party line.

Re:The real danger

[GigsVT]

You really shouldn't fax your tax returns to random people on the net. Besides, there would be no way to tell if they were falsified or not.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

How about this?

[SashaM]

1. Mono exists
2. Intel writes MIT-licensed Mono components using patented techniques.
3. The components become a part of Mono and can't be easily removed/replaced.
4. Gnome adopts Mono
5. Intel enforces patents on those components and shuts down Gnome!

1 and 2 can even be combined.

Re:How about this?

[Jaeger]

What about:

5. Intel enforces patents on those components
6. Miguel says "oh bleep" and every Ximian programmer stays up all night, for the next three days, to write their own replacement components
7. Suddenly, no more Intel-patented code in Mono

Would I (and Miguel, and the significant others of bleary-eyed Ximian programmers) prefer that it not happen? yep. Will it be the death knell for Gnome? nope.

Re:How about this?

[alext]

I guess that must be it.

The Mono guys know that there's no actual benefit in cloning Dotnet instead of coming up with something else (Parrot, modded Java VM etc.) but the thrills and spills of sailing close to the MS wind are too tempting to ignore.

Pointless, but endlessly entertaining, I'll admit/

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Utter rubbish

[Colin Smith]

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.

Re:Utter rubbish

[I_redwolf]

Maybe you should learn the X command for cut and paste?? Because it works..

Re:Utter rubbish

[yomegaman]

Only for text. What if you want to copy a chart from Gnumeric into Kword? Does that work? (not rhetorical, I really don't know)

Re:Utter rubbish

[Alex Belits]

Why would anyone want to do such a thing? It's like trying to "copy" AutoCAD drawing into Photoshop -- sure, one may implement it, and maybe AutoCAD already does that, however applications that use drastically different ways to represent their data must somehow force naive user to tell them how the data is supposed to be converted instead of frustrating everyone else with idiotic defaults.

Re:Utter rubbish

[IamTheRealMike]

That problem has been largely resolved with Qt3 - within a few months once the kde community has upgraded (i can't wait :) the X clipboard will be largely reunified and you'll have a more powerful clipboard than on Win32 or the Mac.

1) Use Ctrl-C/V/X to do the standard Windows thing with the clipboard.
2) Selecting text copies it to the secondary clipboard. Then you can paste it using the middle mouse button (or the wheel). No need to touch the keyboard at all. That's a real speed boost I find.

Re:Utter rubbish

[Alex Belits]

You EXPORT it. Into a file. With all the options that you need. Then you switch to another program and insert that file into its document. Same functionality, one more click, much more flexibility.

Re:Utter rubbish

[Alex Belits]

You have a vulnerabilities in a spreadsheet and have graphs and averages in it? Where does the data come from, does the spreadsheet by itself try to exploit your boxes? And if not so, can't you just re-generate everything automatically when making a document, using whatever source that stores the data -- and make graphs suitable for the document, what unlikely to be the same as what you have in a spreadsheet?

Or is it that you actually use spreadsheet to keep all the data (data collection) _and_ do all the graphs (presentation), _and_ keep all the descriptions (secure long-term "write-only" storage)? That's a poor handling of information, and the behavior of the mouse is the least of your problems. Personally I would just write a simple script in perl or php, and keep data where it belongs -- in databases, with properly assigned permissions, and presentation where it belongs -- in HTML, handled by few simple scripts.

Re:Utter rubbish

[Alex Belits]

could easily just use exported data - but I really like having the data linked live. While working on the report the charts are updated in near realtime from the original SQL queries. That means when I print that report in 1200 dpi color glory the data is within five minutes of being accurate. Is this the best way? Well, probably not. I had some nice little scripts that produced raw stats and dumped them to a text file, but you know how management is - they want charts and colors and exploding pie pieces.

If you can get a data from a database, you DEFINITELY can immediately generate those graphs. This would be so far superior to copying graphs from a spreadsheet, it's not even funny.

In the Windows world, I can switch between any number of apps that handle my data rather well (though I admit its far from perfect). Exporting to flat files, then re-importing will indeed work, but its far from real-time and its far from flexible in certain cases.

If you have data in the database you don't even have to export it -- there are a lot of tools that will do that directly from the datbase on the fly, and they are easier to use than to make your spreadsheet. In your "Windows world" you simply follow one rule -- to do everything by a small set of huge overbloated programs by tinkering with their endless "features", even if it doesn't make any sense, and requires constant repeating of simple but time-consuming procedures. Unix users don't follow this philosophy -- they would rather get a proper tool, and make things work once and for all, so every report can be generated by just clicking on a button in a web form -- then your boss wouldn't even have to ask you for those reports, if this is the goal, or you can email him a link to the automatically generated report about whatever you wish him to look at. But no, in "Windows world" it's all about documents being pushed between desks, be it through paper, email or telepathy if one will be invented -- the idea is that amount of busywork is more important than the result or even convenience -- the more amount of mouse-clicking is involved, the better, and the only alternative the user sees is "exporting to text" that he is trained to be afraid of.

/. pattern

[ambrosius27]

GNOME has become a lovely *political* (rather than technical) topic for slashdot during the past few months. See below:

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):

• No GNOME for Solaris
• GNOME has been taken over by Ximian!
• GNOME hackers killing each other in the streets!
• Eazel is dead; will GNOME follow?
• Eazel dying- bad tidings for GNOME?

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?

Re:/. pattern

[aussersterne]

Are you kidding? GNOME is the most controversial project in the history of Linux because it was basically launched, at least at first, to kill KDE (which is the second most controversial project in the history of Linux).

GNOME's GPL-ness and RMS-ness have been the subject of attacks and discussion and "I'm taking my ball and going home" for years now. Only KDE, with its former questionable-GPL-ness and non-RMS-ness comes close in terms of controversy.

I would suggest that there has never been either a GNOME or KDE story on Slashdot or most any other site that did not start a flame war on the related forum. It's the nature of GNOME and KDE... because they are the "desktops of Linux" people have the perception that whichever eventually becomes more popular will essentially be Linux (for the average user) for the rest of time... that kind of perception of finality brings out all the GPL-crazies, anti-GPL-crazies, make-Linux-like-Windows-for-the-user crazies and I-am-anti-Windows-don't-do-it crazies.

(Meanwhile, WindowMaker on the desktop has been silently winning in terms of actual usability almost since its inception.)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Dude...

[arnoroefs2000]

...even Jar-Jar could kill a Gnome.

Miguel DOES NOT GET IT!!! So young and naive

[SerpentMage]

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!!!

Gnome gets mono: other programs should watch out!

[Topgun1]

NEWSFLASH

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.

good point

[sister_snape]

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.

More rubbish

[Colin Smith]

I cut and paste between Gnome/KDE and X11 apps all the time.

Kword -> Gnumeric -> Whatever.

Re:More rubbish

[Patrik Nordebo]

Start Mozilla. Start konqueror. Go to a page with a link in it in konqueror. Right click on the link, select copy link location, middle click somewhere in mozilla window. Result: mozilla opens that location pointed to by the link. Do the same in mozilla (except there it's "Copy link address"), middle click in konqueror. Result: konqueror opens the location pointed to.
Drag and drop between them doesn't work, though.

you don't get it

[sister_snape]

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?

Re:Miguel DOES NOT GET IT!!! So young and naive

[ADRA]

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.

patents are unrelated to Mono/Gnome

[markj02]

Yes, software patents can kill free software. That's a real, dangerous, ever-present possibility. However, that has nothing to do with how Gnome or Mono are licensed. If Intel has patents that cover technology implemented in Gnome or Mono, they can threaten or possibly kill the projects with those patents.

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.

Re:patents are unrelated to Mono/Gnome

[markj02]

Intel could only pull this off for code they themselves contribute (if someone else uses their patented inventions, that's not Intel's responsibility), and that's the only code you'd have to rewrite. Therefore, you'd only have to replace Intel's contribute code, and you'd be no worse off than if you had written the stuff yourself from scrach. In fact, I think you'd be better off since a working module helps a lot during development, even if you have to reimplement it later.

Re:patents are unrelated to Mono/Gnome

[vidarh]

If anyone write code that would be covered by any of Intels patents and submit it to the Mono project, or any other open source project, then Intel can sue. Which makes the point of the article completely moot unless Intel specifically contributes code it knows is covered by its patents without granting a license for the patents at the same time.

You'd have to replace any code that violate patent rights if the patent holder goes after you, and that is true regardless of whether the patent holder have contributed any code or not. In fact it would most likely be worse if the patent holder was not the contributor, as if the patent holder actually did contributed code covered by one of their patents without disclosing that it would be very hard for them to try to get damages.

But I agree with you that it's most liekly no big deal. Most likely the worst case you have to reimplement a module. That of course doesn't mean that people shouldn't look out for patents that may pose a problem.

Re:patents are unrelated to Mono/Gnome

[markj02]

You are repeating my point: the only way the license makes any difference if Intel tries to engage in some complex game of deception, and that seems just absurd.

Re:patents are unrelated to Mono/Gnome

[vidarh]

No, my point is that the license doesn't make any difference at all. If Intel wanted to engage in a game of deception they could just as well have done so with Mono under another license.

Re:Platform independence

[I_redwolf]

"Now one of the biggest obstacles to Linux that I see is the lack of interoperabiity with other OSes, especially Windows."

I call bullshit on that. Linux works on more archs than windows does, linux is inteoperable with just about close to everything out there, we even try to read NTFS partitions.

The biggest obstacle to Linux is nothing.. an obstacle that this community has been trying to get over however, has been inteoperability with Windows(tm) by Microsoft. THEY are the ones that don't want interoperability. Now that ties are seemingly broken as projects like Samba and Wine come along (because of Microsoft these projects exist, my deepest gratitude to the developers of these projects) here this .NET shit comes along and we have to try and be inteoperable with that?? I say, No. I'm tired of being yolked around by Microsoft. The Linux community, the free software and opensource movement is at a point now where we need and CAN start defining our OWN standards. It's funny people will believe that a company that has fought, extended and want's it's own standards so they work with nothing else all of a sudden want's .NET everywhere on everything. They submit some specs (not all) to a standards body and all of a sudden they are nice and want interoperability. I swear it's almost as if they have mind control over people.

One Windows to rule them all.

[Colin Smith]

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?

Re:Miguel DOES NOT GET IT!!! So young and naive

[Malcontent]

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.

Re:Miguel DOES NOT GET IT!!! So young and naive

[SerpentMage]

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.

microsoft's pond; open source pond

[accessdeniednsp]

this may sound mean, but it is the truth.

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 .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 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..

Re:Miguel DOES NOT GET IT!!! So young and naive

[SerpentMage]

Two points...

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 .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.

Miguel you don't know the POWER of the Dark Side

[betis70]

YOU must obey your M$aster.

Microsoft Strategy timeline

[TheRain]

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.

Re:Gnome can't die [OT]

[timmyd]

Any reason for putting the whole comment in type-writer text?

FUD

[Z4rd0Z]

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...

Anyone Remember WOSA?

[n0-0p]

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.
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 .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.

Further Comments from Miguel

[erasmus_]

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.

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/2002- February/msg00031.html

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 .NET Framework.

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.

intel/hp relationship

[warrior]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Thought I Had Mono For A Whole Year...

[Peale]

...turned out I was just really bored.

Schwing!

Dealing with Mono

[Dr. Carl Jung]

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.

Re:Dealing with Mono

[scrytch]

Actually, mono never really goes away. Some believe it's one possible cause of chronic fatigue syndrome. Must be, I for one am really tired all the time of the trolls that masquerade as .NET articles on slashdot...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Typewriter Text

[Threed]

<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>

How about Dolby 5.1?

[halfelven]

'nuff said.

Miguel and Star Wars

[kurt555gs]

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"

This, I'm sure is flamebait

[Zenithal]

But you know what, I don't care.

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 .Net is a good thing? It's been done.

Getting OT

[G-funk]

Here Here!!

It's "Hear Hear", as in you hear what he's saying....

On patents etc.

[tutal]

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.

Re:Miguel DOES NOT GET IT!!! So young and naive

[alext]

Wow, mod this up!

Someone who believes that the open source community can have good ideas too! Whatever next?!

Very Bad Mono Joke

[Guppy06]

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*

Re:Miguel DOES NOT GET IT!!! So young and naive

[jdavidb]

Except he may pull down the entire GNOME project.

How? Didn't you read the license?

Go join the other team and shut up

[cs668]

I'm sick of hearing about it.

Miguel go join the other team so I don't have to read about you anymore!

Re:Miguel DOES NOT GET IT!!! So young and naive

[Thatman311]

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.

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.a sp?url=/library/en-us/shellcc/platform/Shell/refer ence/functions/shgetspecialfolderlocation.asp

Don't be so sure... and be careful!

[castlan]

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

Have respect for Miguel.

[Otis_INF]

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.

Re:Have respect for Miguel.

[Alex Belits]

who has realized that today's way of computing is doomed and will be taken over by a new, more distributed way.

It was "more distributed" than anything you ever knew on win32 for decades already -- with technologies that have absolutely nothing to do with DCOM and .NET, and especially a lunacy that RPC and SOAP are. As opposed to Microsoft-world where you live, technologies don't appear because an ugly guy and a fat guy give everybody else an API to implement them. Technologies just appear when someone thinks, he can implement them, and distributed computing, done in ways much more flexible and efficient that nearsighted "frameworks" from Microsoft and Sun, is being used right now by many people while Windows monkeys were getting excited every two years after hearing each Microsoft announcement that the happy days of automagically working distributed object framework's days are near, and everybody should better learn COM sooner because this is where they are going to put it.

Re:Have respect for Miguel.

[AYEq]

>If Mono kills Gnome (or better: makes Gnome >obsolete), why would that be something bad?

First of all, the fear is not in making GNOME obsolete, the fear is that the patent issues could make free software impossible. If the whole desktop is based on this fragile deck of cards and it blows up, then linux would really be set back.

The funniest thing is when people think that distributed computing is new. Like I have said before, the most interesting aspect of .NET is the multi-language VM (if it works), not the stupid RPC. RPC has been done a thousand ways til sunday.

I do have respect for Miguel, but programming in the days of the DMCA is risky buisness. All we need is for free (collabrative) software to die a second time, because we got a little too trusting. (or a little to greedy for features).

Re:Platform independence

[Alex Belits]

Java was supposed to be platform-independent, too -- and, as opposed to MS, Sun actually wanted that to happen. http://www.dialpad.com anyone?

Personally I know only one true cross-platform thing -- properly written C or C++ source.

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

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 .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.

Also, having .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.

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.

Stupid: You can do a Java clone whenever ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You said : "Why not clone Java? Sun won't let you."

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 .... 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.

The problem with the JSCL is that it deal with compatibility issues (what a OSI opensource license does not !) ... 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 :(

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 .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 !

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.

Re:Miguel DOES NOT GET IT!!! So young and naive

[Geeky]

And that is exactly what I hate about programming in the Windows environment.

Everything is so over complicated - what's so wrong with ~/ ?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Excellent

[horati0]

[...]possible implications for GNOME if it gets Mono[...]

"I once thought I had mono for an entire year... turns out I was just really bored."

--Mike Myers, Wayne's World

Why do you think the CLI is patent free?

[Mr. Fred Smoothie]

ECMA rules don't say that a member must disclose pending patents, only issued ones. And in the case of either, ECMA rules only insist on RAND licensing, which means free software developers can be hit with licensing requirements at a later date.

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...

Miguel's swiss bank account...

[andrewski]

Just got a fat wad of cash in the inbox from Microsoft, or so I heard.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Let's build a...

[kigrwik]

Would a Beowulf cluster be an implementation of the Herd ?