Rotor: Shared Source CLI

Oink.NET writes "The O'Reilly Network reports on an unannounced BOF session at BSDCon 2002 regarding Rotor, a shared souce implementation of Microsoft's Common Language Infrastructure that currently runs on Windows and FreeBSD. It relies on a Platform Adaptation Layer, similar to Apache's Portable Runtime, that simplifies porting to other OS's. As to the licensing terms, the Rotor FAQ says "Microsoft intends to provide very liberal non-commercial licensing terms and is interested in gathering community input on the design of the license." Wonder if that includes Slashdot community input..."

Comments

Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion

[Baca]

"Why FreeBSD?

One goal of creating a shared source implementation of the ECMA CLI is to prove that the technical choices being made by the ECMA technical group can be implemented on multiple operating system platforms. FreeBSD seemed like a good choice, since it is both a representative UNIX implementation and a platform that has historically encouraged unencumbered experimentation. Microsoft has no plans for supporting other platforms or chip architectures in this implementation at this time."

I think they chose freebsd because it it _still_ driving the majority of hotmail, perhaps this is thier "FreeBSD version of Linux" See the link below:

http://www.cw360.com/article&rd=&i=&ard=110220&f v= 1

"Microsoft has built a FreeBSD version of Linux, but this is more of a publicity gig than a serious endeavour."

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion

[reaper20]

I would guess one reason is the old "We're ok with BSD, its the evil GPL software like Linux that we have problems with."

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion

[Snowfox]

I would guess one reason is the old "We're ok with BSD, its the evil GPL software like Linux that we have problems with."

Well, more importantly, this creates a convenient runtime binding mechanism for neutering GPL. If you're indirecting calls through the a mechanism such as this one, you can use all the GPL code you want and not have to share any source but the GPL-side adapters.

It's a short step from here to creating staged runtime hierarchy bindings so you can even extend the GPL code directly without sharing the source for your changes.

CLI

[ackthpt]

CLI == Command Line Interface | Command Line Interpreter

wtf is wrong with these people, reusing existing acronyms?

Re:CLI

[mattr]

This is quite intentional and not a laughing matter.

"Embrace and Extend" means Microsoft has an imperative from way up high to subvert anything it perceives as dangerous. This includes weakening de facto standards (made a lot of people code for MS Java) or somehow take over the very concepts we use to think about our environment.

This is very dangerous when the environment is based on agreement by a lot of people as to virtual standards. Ultimately a Microsoft brand name would be planned in such a calculation to completely replace common features of the landscape. Or did you think they would allow "http://" to remain in the Address bar forever?

This is a seedy corporate tactic and unless we refuse to feed our brains with Microsoft drivel we have only ourselves to blame. They've still got plenty of acronyms to go..

Be very very careful.

[Ami Ganguli]

The existance of a widely distributed "visible-source" version from MS means that developers of Open Source versions have to take special care to document their development. If there's any similarity between Mono or DotGNU and the MS offering, MS can try to say that their code has been stolen.

Note that if MS really wanted independant implmentations then they would just use a BSD license. They're not doing that, and that means there's something sneaky going on. Don't trust them.

Re:Slashdot community input?

[spike666]

yeah right. look around. its more of a community of people who "hate" microsoft, but want to make .NET work outside of Wintel. thereby aiding microsoft in world domination. you also have the legions of microsoft employees who troll and subvert. and then of course the mac fiends. (of which i am one) and somewhere theres the few unix heads who contribute.

i guess i'm just sick of hearing people who "hate" microsoft helping them by promoting their architecture and systems. to me it is the biggest hypocritical side to slashdot. well other than the subscription gig.

Open Source / Free Software are not noncommercial

[Nailer]

non-commercial licenses (ie, Mono)

For God's sake would you all please stop referring to non free / closed source software as `commercial'? Not only is it simply incorrect there are many Open Source / Free apps produced for commercial benefit (eg, Zope) and many non-commercial apps with non Open Source licensing (eg, much Windows `freeware').

Why is it that people (not referring to the person I'm replying to, just Slashdot in general) claim they care about Free Software so much and have never read The Free Software Foundations list of words to avoid. I imagine the OSI would shaare this vview.

Long live commercial software, as long as its Open Source!

Muddying the Waters....

[zulux]

Microsoft is engaging in a tactic called "Muddying the Waters" - when your adversary has crystal clear goals and objectives, you can divert him by giving him extra goals and more interesting things to ponder. Any time spent away form the goals of Free Software is a win for Microsoft.

Remember that the sucuess of Linux is due to the GPL and not due to it's technical merrits. If technical merrit were all that mattated - we all would be running Be right now.

Linux and Free Software are winning becuase we are not playing Microoft's game of Shiny-Box-On-Retail-Shelf software. We are using the desruptive technology of the GPL. and Microsoft is now getting wise and is trying to play our game.

Don't let Balmer make you do his monkey dance.

There is an end-run around 'Non Commercial'!

[Jack William Bell]

Available for 'Non Commercial Use Only'? Hmm... But this is a runtime! This has some really interesting implications...

Let us suppose Rotor is fully compatible with the Windows CLI. I develop a commercial application for the Windows CLI. I also test the application for Rotor, but I don't ship the application packaged for it. Instead I ship the application packaged so that it simply expects a CLI runtime.

In my FAQ I mention that it was tested with Rotor and provide a pointer to some generic explanation for installing a CLI application to run with Rotor. My customers wanting to run the app on FreeBSD or Mac (or any future Rotor implementation) simply install the app as described and now have my application there.

Microsoft may have a case against this, but they probably do not have a case against me. And I doubt they would go after all of my customers.

Jack William Bell, who thinks this is a pretty unlikely scenario and is hoping Mono will make it moot.

Re:Why???

[jonabbey]

OSS/FS developers are just waiting for Microsofts and other commercial software vendors to show up with something new that they will embrace and extend. Same with .NET, that's OSS/FS' future...

Right! OSS/FS developers are just leeches hanging on to other people's innovations. Why, take a look at .NET. A *very* clear rip-off of the whole Java concept and implementation, from VM to language to security model to class libraries. It's so totally obvious that the OSS/FS developers who created .NET were just imitating Sun's innovation here.

Damn those OSS/FS developers and their non-innovating ways.

Rotor intentions

[david_stutz]

[I'm the guy on the Rotor team who presented at this BOF.]

We absolutely welcome slashdot "community input." I'm pretty sure that a lot of slashdotters will be interested in taking a look at this implementation; it is a pretty fascinating piece of technology, both in terms of the abstract approach to virtualizing resources that the ECMA CLI uses, and in terms of the implementation choices that have been made.

Anyone who wants to better understand how the .NET Framework works will be interested. Likewise, anyone who wants to better understand Mono or PNET or the Microsoft "Compact Framework" will also be interested!

Many of the comments on this thread might be summarized as follows: why is Microsoft doing this? The answer is that we really want the ECMA standard to succeed (and that includes success for non-Microsoft CLI implementations!) and we also want to seed the use of the CLI over the long haul. The only way to do this is by participating in the community that moves computer languages and runtimes forward - we believe that many experimentally minded folk will find Rotor a great base from which to work.

Re:consistent and nothing new

[spongman]

what, you expect microsoft to spend four years and hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D to produce a product and then just create a new market in which they can reap no benifit from this investment?

Are you fucking crazy?

same old story? sure, this is what every company in existance does: invest, develop, collect. If all your company did was invest and develop then you'd see your cash dry up in a hurry and your investors leaving south even quicker.

It's simple economics, why does nobody on slashdot seem to understand these things? Maybe 'cos the only economics they've ever had to deal with involve getting stuff for free... tanstaafl.