MS Releases .NET Source, Sort Of

cam_macleod writes "A friend at Microsoft (he's a nice guy, really!) pointed me to their release of the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) source, which builds successfully on Windows, FreeBSD, and MacOS X 10.2 -- he says Linux too, but their website strangely doesn't mention it!"

Comments

CLI

[m0rph3us0]

I'm not that familiar with the .NET infrastructure, but does this mean that I can take a .NET application that works on my Windows box and uses the Win32 GUI and have it work on my Linux Box? Just wondering if this thing actually "works" or if its just part of the whole picture.

Re:Evil licensing..

[informer]

In other words, they're trying to use software patents to keep people from writing their own implementations of C# / CLI libraries and software.

This is a completely bogus interpretation of the goal. The stated goal of allowing people to view and study the source is to gain acceptance for the .NET platform, and to kick-start an understanding of the technologies, and to permit and encourage other implementations. Why have they not started legal proceedings with dotGNU or Mono? Please spare us the doomsday senario's. Evaluate the .NET / C# licenses and technologies and use them if they provide a benefit, otherwise ignore them.

C# is an open standard. The CLI is an open standard.

There are many libraries included with the microsoft implementation of .NET which are *not* part of the standard, and these become more like the Java libraries. Many of those classes and features which are not part of the standard are not included in the SSCLI.

My opinion: boycott this if you want, but dont use bogus arguments for doing so.

Source Code

[glenstar]

It is interesting to note that many of the files have a comment with a date of June, 1999.

Re:Evil licensing..

[Twirlip of the Mists]

In other words, they're trying to use software patents to keep people from writing their own implementations of C# / CLI libraries and software.

Hey, that's quite a scoop there. You've stumbled on the fact that this is exactly what patents are for. They are a limited monopoly on an invention or innovation. Until Microsoft's patents expire, you can't do any of the stuff described in them without an explicit license.

I always get such a kick when people post this sort of thing to Slashdot with such indignation. "They're trying to use patents to keep people from doing things!" How dare they.

My opinion: boycott this crap.

Given the degree of insight inherent in your first observation, I'm not sure how much I value your opinion on this matter. But rest assured; if it's crap, a boycott will be quite unnecessary. In the computer industry moreso than any other, bad ideas wither on the vine.

Re:Evil licensing..

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Wrong? Immoral? Unjust? No. Patents on software, just like patents on anything else, exist to encourage innovation. Without the promise of a monopoly-- temporary though it will be-- there would be no incentive to innovate. Of course, the average Slashdot poster would respond that innovation will come from hobbyists and other creators of open-source software, who believe themselves to be acting philanthropically. The average Slashdot poster hasn't the foggiest idea how the world actually works, and has no respect whatsoever for the power of the profit motive.

And unconstitutional? Please refer to Article I, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." All patents are fundamentally constitutional, as long as they are granted for a limited time.

I feel dirty.

[subuni]

I feel dirty. I started by downloading a tarball from Microsoft, and after extracting the tarball, I ran a shell script that built a Microsoft product from source. I then invoked a Microsoft compiler from a UNIX shell, am greeted with a Microsoft copyright message, and get an .exe file as output. And then I ran the .exe file on a UNIX based Mac.

Something about that experience felt really... dirty.

And for the unofficial 'benchmarks' on my G4/800 (because printing out "Hello World!" is a valid benchmark :) ):

# time clix hello.exe
Hello World!
1.240u 0.460s 0:03.28 51.8% 0+0k 0+9io 0pf+0w
# time java hello
Hello World!
0.200u 0.190s 0:01.72 22.6% 0+0k 2+14io 0pf+0w
# time perl hello.pl
Hello World!
0.000u 0.000s 0:00.02 0.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
# time ./hello
Hello World!
0.000u 0.000s 0:00.01 0.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w

Re:I feel dirty.

[subuni]

Actually, I had ran it multiple times, and had pasted the best times for each language (I know, not a true benchmark -- hence the quotes around the word benchmark). But pasted here for giggles:

# repeat 10 time clix hello.exe
Hello World!
1.320u 0.400s 0:03.28 52.4% 0+0k 0+20io 0pf+0w
Hello World!
1.230u 0.470s 0:03.60 47.2% 0+0k 0+6io 0pf+0w
Hello World!
1.250u 0.510s 0:03.97 44.3% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Hello World!
1.240u 0.490s 0:04.19 41.2% 0+0k 0+6io 0pf+0w
Hello World!
1.340u 0.500s 0:04.91 37.4% 0+0k 0+9io 0pf+0w
Hello World!
1.290u 0.430s 0:06.44 26.7% 0+0k 0+6io 0pf+0w
Hello World!
1.240u 0.510s 0:04.33 40.4% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Hello World!
1.230u 0.490s 0:03.84 44.7% 0+0k 0+5io 0pf+0w
Hello World!
1.200u 0.570s 0:04.33 40.8% 0+0k 0+5io 0pf+0w
Hello World!
1.330u 0.480s 0:03.46 52.3% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w

Re:Evil licensing..

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a completely bogus interpretation of the goal. The stated goal of allowing people to view and study the source is to gain acceptance for the .NET platform, and to kick-start an understanding of the technologies, and to permit and encourage other implementations. Why have they not started legal proceedings with dotGNU or Mono? Please spare us the doomsday senario's. Evaluate the .NET / C# licenses and technologies and use them if they provide a benefit, otherwise ignore them.

1. Reasoning that they won't pursue legal action because they haven't isn't logical.
2. Reasoning that Microsoft's motives of releasing the source is about learning the .NET platform is only your guess at real motives you do not know. You're repeating press releases.

As Bill says, patents allow the giants to set the entry price for new competitors. Will a key part of the .NET platform require RAND licencing fees?

You're not being logical :)

Re:Evil licensing..

[informer]

1. Reasoning that they won't pursue legal action because they haven't isn't logical.

I did not reason that they will not pursue legal action at all. It is logical to assume they have not yet pursued legal action because that is not the goal in this case.

2. Reasoning that Microsoft's motives of releasing the source is about learning the .NET platform is only your guess at real motives you do not know. You're repeating press releases.

Exactly. I did not reason with anything once again. As i mentioned, those are the *stated* goals. Deviating from those clearly stated goals would be a huge mistake, as many many industry partners including Borland, IBM, etc, would shoot them (microsoft) down.

You are reading things in my post which I did not write.