Slashdot Mirror
MS .net vs Mono, Open Source
vinsci writes "Sometimes, reader comments to reporter-written stories are just as good as the stories themselves. Such as David Mohring's comment yesterday on ZDNet.com's story Mono & .Net: The odd couple. Since Microsoft are now using their licensing terms to stop GPL and LGPL free software, it would be a welcome sign of free software maturity at Microsoft if they actually resolved the Mono issue. The gist of his comment: 'Microsoft's CEOs have made it 'patently' clear that they intend to restrict competing .Net implementations by cultivating Microsoft's patents, [...]
Mono also implements parts of .NET that have NOT been submitted to ECMA and ISO standards. Those parts of Mono lack even the protection for IP infringement with re-implementation that ISO documentation licensing implies. [...] There [are] those that claim that .NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any .NET re-implementation represents a pending legal mindfield.'
While on the subject of C# development, users of the GPL'd C# development environment SharpDevelop may also want to try Eclipse together with the Open Source Improve CSharp plugin for Eclipse. Eclipse also support C/C++ these days using GCC and GDB, thanks to the CDT. There are about two hundred add-on plugins available for Eclipse. Eclipse itself is available for many platforms, including Linux with native GTK 2 support."
.Net is MS proprietary. No way MS is going to let you run it in any useful way on non-MS operating systems.
If you plan to sup with the devil, it is best to bring a long spoon
We still have RPG code running in an emulator running on SCO. Costs us tons of money per year to maintain support for it. Hell, if we wanted to move it to Linux in an emulator, that would cost $20,000.
Any company which invests in proprietary programming lanugages must not expect to be around very long, or is happy giving a cut of the profits to other companies forever.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
While Java is my main language, I have been doing some C# work recently using SharpDevelop, which is good, but still needs work. I can't wait to try out the C# plugin for Eclipse.
Just some thoughts. It's not impossible to take them down. I remember when one of our local guys got his cost analysis posted on slashdot (Rockingham County, Virgina). Start flashing those kinds of figures to the bean counters. You may not get many converts right away, but oh well. You have to start somewhere. I've gotten most of my technology-clueless relatives hooked on Mozilla because of its popup blocking ability. My neighbor across the street who is an accountant by trade loves OpenOffice and is looking into switching to RedHat 8. Again, it can be done. Just get them hooked on the Windows/Mac versions of OO, Mozilla, etc and switching to an open source platform will be easy.
As for Mono, MS Legal can't fight if they don't have money :)
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Microsoft has already written .NET for another platform (Rotor, for BSD.) And Microsoft has communicated with Miguel many times with regards to Mono. An interview with him on the topic is hosted on MSDN! This does not appear to be a prelude to a lawsuit.
What's the news item here? Fear-mongering about the Evil Microsoft? If you're worried about big companies with riduculous patents ruining society, worry about Amazon.
...or so I thought. Turns out the hardworking mindfarmers were actually growing minds without a license. An illegal mindfield. Can you imagine?
Yes Microsoft!! Santa gives things away, like some kind of commie bastard. They probably want all legal avenues at their disposal to stop this threat to their lively hood.
He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
Microsoft's strategy is to embrace, extend, and assimilate.
Isn't Mono just self assimilation? What does Microsoft have left to do if OSS just comits fratricide?
I often see complaints about Microsoft spreading FUD about open source but this appears to be the reverse...spreading FUD about Microsoft. There's no evidence at this point that Microsoft is going to try to prevent the completion of the Mono project. In all likelyhood Mono will do little to threaten Microsoft's dominance anyhow...
yes but I would like to know the fundamentals...why should I use C#? what is C#? why .net or mono? why is all this technology going to benefit me/the consumer/my employer?
Seriously. ASP.Net running on Linux will be the best thing that could happen to .Net, from the developers, to the clients, to MS. .Net HAS to run on Linux.
If MS really wants to put the competition under, then
The truth doesn't care what I think.
One question that I have is, "Why don't Open Source developers spend more time with their own creations and killer apps as opposed to ripping off what commercial companies have already created?" We see in a few instance that Open Source developers can do just that. Look at Apache, PHP, and MySQL for examples of packages that are unique, or not totally ripped off. Imagine what could be produced if OS developers actually built something truely unique!
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
Sun's patents are much more worrisome as far as I'm concerned. For example, patent number 6,477,702, held by Sun, would seem to be infringed by any conforming Java implementation. And Sun has pulled out of every and any process that would have required them to make a declaration or commitment on patent and IP issues related to Java. Furthermore, while Sun PR likes to talk a lot about openness, I have yet to see a legally binding declaration by Sun that would guarantee that third party implementations of Java may use Sun's patents.
I don't trust Microsoft any further than I can throw the entire stack of printed MSDN documentation (which is to say, I don't trust them at all). But, all things considered, I think the risk of patent infringment claims from Microsoft over Mono are very slim indeed. All that hot air from Microsoft CEOs and Microsoft PR folks doesn't change that. Sun, on the other hand, holds known patents that could create real problems for any non-Sun Java implementation.
If you are very worried about patent problems, there is a very easy solution: don't use either Mono or Java--there are plenty of other languages a round, many of them better. If you are slightly worried about patent problems, then Mono looks like a safer choice to me than Java. And probably, you don't really have to worry about patents with either of them.
And de Icaza says he has unofficial word that in the coming weeks Microsoft plans to share .Net-related intellectual property. Pending review by Microsoft lawyers, he says, "Microsoft patents on technology developed specifically for .Net will be granted royalty-free to those trying to implement the spec."
Yeah, it says "unofficial", but don't spread FUD until there's some updated (the Ballmer quote is from March) official information.
"Unique" isn't going to get linux where it needs to go - at least as a selling point. Linux needs to be able to "slip right in" so that users aren't forced to learn the idiosynchrasies associated with a different OS. The good thing about the way things are currently evolving is that Linux might be able to look and feel like 'doze as an out-of-the-box experience, but there's no reason that the unique stuff can't be available for those that dare (or even want) do stray from the beaten path. Forcing users into something "unique" as part of the overall Linux experience will probably drive more people away than it will help to convert.
I'd like to point you at an article I wrote for kuro5hin on the subject of .net:0 59/0319
d uctinfo /overview/default.asp
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/10/2/43
Microsoft's introduction is here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/pro
Mono's information is here:
http://www.go-mono.org/rationale.html
My Journal
Most users' experience with swing can be summed up with the following:
1. Open any swing application
2. Right click the mouse button somewhere a context menu should appear, or click on one of the file menus.
3. Wait 3 seconds
4. Form the incorrect conclusion that Java is slow
5. Go back to using native win32 programs
Sun's been trying to "fix swing" for the last 5 years, and they've had no luck. What makes you think IBM has the magic bullet?
Swing will never be fast. The same abstractions that make it such a joy to program with make it terribly inefficiant. Print out a stack trace in a event handler function in swing and take a look at how deep it is. Every one of those functions had to be called before the event was process, and ever call had to be done through a table lookup. I'll avoid going into the whole native vs. non-native widgets debate, but forgive me if I remain skeptical about the non-native approach sun has been using with swing.
IBM (well, the company that wrote eclipse that IBM bought) did the right thing when they started from scratch to design SWT. Eclipse is amazingly responsive when compared to any swing application I've seen. Try it out yourself, I think you'll be impressed.
I'd like to point you at an article I wrote for kuro5hin on the subject of .net here.
Microsoft's introduction is here.
Mono's information is here.
My Journal
I could sleep off Christmas dinner, or relax in my chair reading slashdot.
Sleeping would have been more intellectually stimulating than reading this nonsense. I'll remember that next year.
Really folks, patents are a problem to Free Software in every project. No Free Software project is immune to these kind of concerns as well as other complicated interactions with corporations. Look at Samba which is every bit as susceptible to MS patents as Mono. Or how about OpenGL which has problems with corporate concerns. Sun has patents on Java. At least Microsoft is bound to the ECMA patent policy which is basically RAND with required disclosure.
.NET infrastructure ie, System.Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET. The wine project is another area with every bit the risk that Mono faces.
Another important thing to understand is Mono isn't the only Free Software project out there that is implementing the ECMA standards. DotGNU/Portable.NET has a large par t of the ECMA specs implemented and the design goal of PNet is ECMA not the rest of MS's
So the conclusion to draw from this is: Patents are a danger to Free Software in every direction! Not just this one particular project...
(ii) Sun has tolerated those implementations for years now.
(iii) In the past, Sun has never shown to be anti-competitive as microsoft. They don't defend or promote Solaris at any cost the way microsoft does.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
I'm sure that'll get the RMS haters eyes rolling, but, dotGNU also deserves a mention. I know, cuz I'm a recent contributor to it. These guys have done a lot with fewer PR and resources than Ximian/Mono, but they're not as far along either.
.NET can't be ignored. So if it's gonna be as big as J2EE (and it will) then there might as well be a some OS implementations out there for anyone and everyone to use. That will not really help M$ so much as it will make them work harder to justify using Windows as a platform when it can run just as well or better on others. Hats off to the Mono and dotGNU team for realizing this early on.
They've actually done some stuff much different than Mono. For starters, their compiler is in C not C#. And it's able to general IL as well as Java bytecode and hs some other interesting approaches; not huge, but still very cool. One thing I find interesting with various OS vs. closed source projects - their approach.
From the code perspective, we read the Ecma spec and then crank out some code. If M$ has the entire spec patented as various 'processes' then I guess they could take the authors of Mono and dotGNU to court. It would be complicated tho and I'm sure there's already prior art out there for Strings, Input Buffers, Webservices, etc..
Frankly, I joined dotGNU because the Java tools are very mature and after working with them for the past 5 years, I'm really bored doing 'enterprise web apps'. There's much more fun, for me, in getting the foundation built; seeing how and if it will actually work. For me, all the top most layers are just fluff.
As far as ASP.NET goes, I'm actually thinking of something along the lines of a C# version of Java Servlets and JSPs. I've done ASP and I personally think it's pretty filthy. JSP can be just as much, but there are definitely more patterns applied to Servlets/JSPs than ASP. A C# implementation of the Servlet/JSP spec would be an interesting thing; and possible too! Altho, I obviously wouldn't be 'compliant', but could work the same with just a little different syntax.
Anyway, I finally realized that
Also, I am not alone in my concerns about Microsoft's patent threat, even Red Hat Chairman and CEO Matthew Szulik has said that Microsoft's legal efforts to challenge open source by employing patent infringement law represent a big threat.
Microsoft could settle this issue by making a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA.
add to this a bit of "Microsoft to Buy Rational and/or Borland?" (more informative article article - javatips (66293) ) and you get a better view of the options MS are working on.
.NET and remember Rotor already runs on FreeBSD so borgifiying any of Borlands tools into a XP Visual Studio for Linux gives MS means to kill any competition - (Open source Mono classes). Remember MS's MO is to set and 'own the standard'. Nails get hammered and Mono is a target.
Borland are developing their own architectural solution for
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Microsoft want's to control .NET completely. If enough people write .NET code they wouldn't want Linux to benefit more than their own OS.
The bottom line is we can't trust Microsoft to do anything other than what they have always done. Use their monopoly power to crush anything that even has the slightest chance of competing.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
They're happy to see Mono progress. In the end, it'll help them sell more copies of Visual Studio and Windows XP Professional.
But what I'm afraid of is that if someday Microsoft is in bad shape and its profits start to drop, they'll go on a legal rampage and take down anyone that built software even remotely "like" theirs.
I think you've got it right-- .net will only run on Windows, although I understand that they have ported a subset of the .net framework to FreeBSD. I would be very surprised if we ever see a port to anything else. Microsoft is just trying to pull more developers into developing for Windows and nothin' but. "Write in any language to run on Windows". Furthermore, they are using a backdoor approach to lock organizations into Windoze, by getting developers onto the bandwagon. This is why I am staying away from .net, or Mono, or DotGnu, because of the potential for IP challenges by MS. Plus, it forces me and my potential employers or clients into restricting our choices instead of increasing them. If you want me to develop on Windoze, its Visual Studio 6, or Python/Tkinter, or maybe even Java-- but not .net.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
from http://swpat.ffii.org/players/microsoft/index.en.h tml:
Asked by CollabNet CTO Brian Behlendorf whether Microsoft will enforce its patents against open source projects, Mundie replied, "Yes, absolutely." An audience member pointed out that many open source projects aren't funded and so can't afford legal representation to rival Microsoft's. "Oh well," said Mundie. "Get your money, and let's go to court."
and
"Heise report about Steve Ballmer's talk at CeBit. At a speech event together with chancellor Schroeder, Ballmer says that Microsoft owns lots of patents which cover its new DotNet standard and that it aims to use them to prevent opensource implementations of DotNet. The key phrases read, in translation:"
It's Blackdown Java. It is not a third party implementation. Sun simply dumped their source code onto a bunch of people outside Sun who then fixed a bunch of bugs and ported it to Linux.
IBM has had it's JVM for eons now. There are lots of embedded JVMs.
IBM does not have its own Java implementation--they have a license to Sun's Java implementation, and they replace some of Sun's components with their own.
(ii) Sun has tolerated those implementations for years now.
Sun hasn't tolerated anything. As far as I can tell, anybody who is shipping anything remotely resembling a Java platform implementation has a contractual agreement with Sun. In fact, merely to claim that something is Java, you need a contractual agreement with Sun (because of their trademark).
(iii) In the past, Sun has never shown to be anti-competitive as microsoft. They don't defend or promote Solaris at any cost the way microsoft does.
I see no basis for that statement. Sun simply isn't leveraging their monopoly because they don't have one. As a 15 year Sun customer, all the indications I have seen are that Sun is worse than Microsoft when it comes to cut-throat competition and intellectual property, they are simply not as successful.
I do wish that SWT had its own documentation and a separate download though. It would make it easier to use.
I haven't observed that Swing is that slow under JDK 1.4. Most complaints about Swing being slow are based on earlier versions.
That being said, I'm interested in evaluating SWT. Still, Swing is a nice toolkit, and the fact that it is so ubiquitous makes it an easy choice to use it to write against.
This would especially be the case if the preliminary injunction is upheld and suddenly the Java Plug-In shows up on millions of computers. Swing applets are pretty cool. Still, you could bundle swt.jar with your applet I guess.
ASP is MS proprietary and ChiliSoft never got sued, right?
Chilisoft (Now Sun One) ASP has some limitations, including lack of support for ASP 3.0 and VB objects.
Since Sun has announced that they are not going to advance Sun One ASP to ASP.NET, I think that this is a dead product.
He's worse than a commie bastard. He's a commie bastard fool.
People have leeched trillions of dollars by ripping off his valuable trademark image, and he's done nothing to stop it. He is such a poor steward of his own intellectual property that he should be sued for negligence.
His business plan sucks:
1) His elven employees make toys all year
2) Give away toys
3) WTF ???????? No profit!!!
This is worse than any .COM boondogle. When he runs out of cash, all of his elves are going to be out in the street. How can he live with himself?
I've got news for all of the slasbots out there: there's no such thing as a free sugarplum. This Santa fairy tail is going to end soon. Milk and cookies don't pay the rent. Mark my words, if Saint Nicholas wants to make a go of it in this economy against heavyweights like Wal Mart and Best Buy, he's going to have to demand that people leave a major credit card out for him. And he's going to have to charge a steep premium for holiday home delivery and setup. The writing's on the wall, folks. It's time to pay a fair price for your toys.
...for almost all of my Java development, on both Linux and Windows systems -- and I ship the entire project to my client, who runs Eclipse on his Macs. The same projects work across all three platforms. Why so many systems? Well, let's just say that Java is a "Write once, test everywhere..." language.
I don't use IBM's SWT -- my app needs to be portable, and Swing is working just fine under Eclipse. Don't believe the ignorati who say the Eclipse forces you to write SWT apps -- it doesn't. Eclipse is part of IBM's attempt to control Java -- but considering the piss-poor job Sun does at times, I think they need a little competition.
As for Mono -- anyone who relies on it for the portability of their applications is fooling themselves. I've used .Net since it's beta days; it is a blatant move by Microsoft to lock people into an architecture they control. MS learned the value of a VM-based language when they started implementing Java; when they couldn't "embrace and extend" Java, MS created a semi-clone. I recognize .Net's prupose and goals; it has value in certain situations, but it is not an open standard that guarantees portability.
All about me
Ever heard about DotGNU ?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
If you look at the JCP, you'll note that any use of a patented technology in a JSR means that the submitter grants everyone else a royalty free use of that technology, forever. Just check out the documents you have to sign to become a member. Your argument has no grounds, unless you care to name examples that apply to Java?
Thanks the the JCP, you don't have to worry about patented ideas polluting additions. That's what I call a standards body, not a puppet show.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I just downloaded eclipse and found the interface horrible and awkward. The source editor is tiny and everything needs to be added as a plugin. Click on the plugins and a million tabs obstruct the view for the source editor. I only use 1024 x 768 resolution so maybe the designers had bigger monitors but it was unbearable and difficult to do basic things.
Dev-c++ was easy. I just selected "new project" and selected the project I wanted. No bizaare menu's obstructing my menu space. Just a class browser and a source editor. When you compile a project with Dev-C++, the debugger and compiler log pop out just like Visual c++. Its very well integrated. The only downside is its very c/c++ oriented while Eclipse is java oriented with beta level c++ support.
Eclipse screenshots are here and devc++ is here.
http://saveie6.com/
...I'd personally rather get mono than use .net.
Oh, that Mono. Nevermind.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I think the author actually wanted to say 'minefield'. Hey, this is Slashdot. So don't expect perfect grammar and spelling on every sentence.
Maybe through something like a GPL for patents ?
There are those of us that have one major issue with the GPL -- the amount of trust one is forced to put in the FSF. The FSF now has enormous intellectual property power by having the ability to revise the license on a very large amount of software.
Now, maybe the FSF is "okay" for a couple years. Or maybe Stallman decides to give special favors to companies that donate large amounts of money to the FSF (the idea has already been batted around). Fifty years from now, unless the GPL flops, it will be enormously influential and powerful. Stallman will likely be dead, and a new generation or two will have passed through the organization. Do you trust the FSF to have that much power a few years down the road? Especially when it becomes *worth* it to bribe an FSF member with a few million dollars?
The FSF is the single point of failure of the GPL. Sure, you can do what Linus does and use "GPL v2 only", but very, very few people do so.
Anyway, patents would be even more nasty. If a viral-style license was produced, where you could use any FSF-owned patents as long as you also donate any other patents used on a project to the FSF, you have an *incredibly* quickly growing virus. It's *very* hard to avoid infrining a huge body of patents (unlike copyright, where you just avoid copying any GPLed code).
I had no idea you read Slashdot, Rik.
May we never see th
it took from 1988 to 1998 to get a first release with 200 engineers working on it.
The first release of NT (3.1) was in '93, not '98.
May we never see th
Even if Microsoft were to attempt to pull Mono, they would wait until it is deeply entrenched into the Linux community and knowledge of C#/.NET itself is widespread among us before doing so.
.NET until word of Linux/Mono came around.
They could look at this as free marketing, because I didn't give a damn about
Jason Fisher
ActiveState started out porting Perl to windows for Microsoft to put on the Resource Kit CD. They've funded and helped quite a lot of ActiveState's development. They have not yet killed them, nor shown any sign that they wish to.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
Hey, anyone can make spelling mistakes. But this sounds like a great idea for a sci-fi novel ... our intrepid heroes carefully make their way through a mindfield, using an, er, mindsweeper ...
No, I'm not. It's just that you have trouble reading carefully.
IBM has two jvm's. They have the Hursley JVM which is a port/licensed jvm based on Sun's source base. However, IBM also own's OTI and OTI has j9, which is a totally clean-room jvm that recently got full certification. So IBM does in fact have it's own JVM.
A "JVM" isn't a "Java" implementation. Furthermore, IBM is a Java licensee, so no matter what they implement, they are not an example of Sun allowing independent third party implementation.
I call it, "Just say no."
KFG
I think MS needs Mono to legitimize itself in the standards department. I also feel that eventually, they (MS) will pull the patent and copyright reigns to curb the extent to which Mono and other competing entities can compete. Look, if Miguel thinks this won't happen, he's an idiot at most and naïve at least. Someone said "there is no evidence MS will do this." I wonder how many people thought they wouldn't bastardize Java? Or give their browser away to kill Netscape? Or gobble up competing innovations just to kill them? MS is the single most destructive entity in technology today. They are not going to be happy unless they dominate. They've bought all the players they need and now they are getting patents on as many plays as they can. The rest are reduced to running single plays and offensively just cannot score. Open Source has found a way to compete via numbers. Now we're going to throw much of our team away because MS has decided to let us "borrow" some formations from their playbook? When this all goes down, I hope Miguel posts a HUGE apology on Slashdot. Frankly, anyone working on Mono is wasting valuable time, but hey it's a free country (depending on where they live). Until we're willing to take an US/Them approach we'll be pissing traces of the MS cool-aide from now on. >
Yes, that is what I am. I have been doing asp on both SQL Server and Oracle for a few years and managed to ship one asp.net product while Visual Studio was still in beta. Then things changed.
.net? I love c#, it is a hell of a technology but even if the asp.net sdk is free the only decent tool to build asp.net solutions quickly costs thousands. I would rather use that money to buy more PCs for the 2-3 new employees we hire every quarter.
.net? Will this ever happen? What if they suddenly drop asp?
.net. I am happy that Ximian decided to build their own .net solution, but I am hoping this does not harm the php movement.
.net has the potential to bring me, my company and my colleagues a lot of heartburn.
It is easy to support Microsoft-based initiatives when you work for a company large enough to qualify for Microsoft partner discounts on development software. A $2500/year subscription/blackmail fee pretty much gives you access to any and all commercial software sold by Microsoft. You get used to have all the cool stuff arrive on CD or DVD every month or so and nothing stops you from building one more development box just to test Whatever.net. Who cares if you got a room with 20+ development servers on a 100+ employee company anyway?
Things change once you move to the small business field. Suddenly you don't have a shitload of cash to burn, and the $2500/year can probably pay one or two PCs for coworkers. You barely manage to afford one lousy development server, and your production schedule is so hectic that you cannot afford to drop development on asp (dirt cheap, you can pick asp programmers literally everywhere) to make the jump to asp.net, which means you will need Visual Studio and eventually more expensive windows.net server licenses.
I was put in that position when I switched jobs and joined an 11-employee firm to be their techno geek (I got so tired of explaining to people my job that I just tell them my job is to isolate the CEO and President from technical stuff). Then the soul searching started?
1. Do I commit my company to a $2500/year MSDN subscription? We are not a software shop, all our development is internal.
2. Do I make the jump to
3. Do I keep the current solution as asp and wait for the end-of-life of asp before I try to move up to
4. What about php? I have run a phpnuke website successfully for a long time and I am sure I can rewrite my company's solution to php.
5. What about SQL Server? I absolutely love SQL Server 2000, but how much will I have to relearn when the new one comes out? And will I have odbc connectivity to php in case I want to jump out?
6. What about mySQL? A couple years ago mySQL was nowhere close to ACID, but right now it is almost there. And my mySQL install runs as stable as my SQL Server. When can I trust mySQL with corporate data?
The list of questions goes forever. I finally decided to do nothing. The current toolset in asp runs itself and does not make me waste a lot of time in code maintenance. Performance is acceptable for our usage. I am not going to move us up to asp.net just so I can say it runs on
I would like to be able to buy a $1500 Compaq 1U rack drawer and know I only have to put freeBSD, Apache, mySQL and php and I am set, instead of having to go thru the stupid requisitioning process to get Windows server licenses and CALs every time I deploy a windows server.
When people ask me why I am on a mac (switched in September 2002) but I still use Microsoft products (IE, Ms Office v.X and the xbox) I tell them my beef with Microsoft is not about monopoly this or predatory that. I have valid business concerns and complaints, and
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
That's not really true. Rotor is a "shared source CLI". This has two strikes against it.
.NET. Remember the Common Language Infrastructure is only a small portion of what MS is calling .NET
1) It's only the CLI and not
2) It's "shared source". That basically means "look but don't touch". You can't do any commercial development with this code and you can't look at this if you want to work on something like Mono.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
First off, how can a JVM not be a Java implementation? The Virtual Machine is the part that actually runs the byte-code that Java (and other languages) is compiled into.
Second, as was pointed out, IBM in fact has a complete "clean room implementation" which means that it uses no code from Sun whatsoever and is built solely off of the specfication.
Finally, Sun has made incredible strides in opening up Java for implementation by free-ware groups such as Apache. It is not possible to create a complete and compliant JVM and JDK using an open source license.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I find this absolutely astounding. Steve Ballmer has been quoted about having IP in .NET and wanting to protect it. If you bothered to read the post by Mr. Mohring that started this you would see links about Mr. Ballmer's statement and a patent application filed by Microsoft.
.NET to ECMA so they have to be relatively unencumbered by patents.
.NET in its entirety. David has repeatedly pointed out the potential legal traps just waiting for anyone trying to fully implement .NET.
You however, blithely dismiss all of this and claim to know better, eh?
Meanwhile, Sun is actively working on supporting groups for open implementations of Java and you attempt to disclaim it as "hot air". Please tell us what particular patents we "all know that Sun holds". Be specific as David was.
Then, finally, we troll off on a tangent by talking about C# and CLR. We all know that MS has submitted these two tiny portions of
This, however, isn't the issue. The issue is
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
You're so right about the thousands of dollars of licensing. For a small company that's trying to be flexible, it's a big deal to cough up a $2500 fee for MSDN, and it's even worse to consider that if you use it for anything, you are pretty much condemning yourself to keep paying that fee (plus many others equally pricy) *every year* FOREVER.
.Net, Oracle, etc., so they don't really realize how much they are losing when they move to a little quickie platform like PHP or MySQL. "Looks good to me, and it's really fast!"
It's enough to make any sane and savvy entrepreneurial run off and join what you call "the PHP movement".
It's just my opinion, but I think it would be a mistake to do it. PHP and MySQL are quite amateurish compared to serious enterprise-class tools. Put the PHP and MySQL teams together and between them you won't find anyone who can even SPELL Unicode. They are so far removed from the state of the art in serious enterprise-class platforms that they don't even understand what they lack or why it matters.
Companies like IBM, Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, etc., invest millions of dollars in R&D to create platforms with architectures that are deeply globalized and rich in other sophisticated features that reflect the enormous expertise and experience of their corporate specialists. Most developers barely understand a fraction of the power in systems like Java,
If you have a small company that will be building inventory systems for local shoe stores, you might make great money (if you don't get too many employees) by rolling out quick solutions with simple tools like PHP, so I'm not saying the platform is worthless. Sometimes small, simple tools are the best for the job.
But if you have bigger ambitions, you might be better off mastering platforms like Java and/or C#/.Net plus powerful databases such as Oracle, SQLServer or PostgreSQL. All of these are rich, powerful systems.
Java backed by Postgres can be set up with no software license fees whatsoever on a Linux server. Or you could pay the MS fees for a while, go with C#/.Net and keep an eye on the Mono project. I think that a few years from now, C#/.Net will be as available as Java in no-cost versions, but we won't know for sure until it happens.
I'm not impressed with PHP and MySQL, though. Both projects are years old already and (unlike Linux, FreeBSD, Apache, and some other OSS systems) seem to be guided by a "quick and easy tools for amateurs" approach to architecture that is something that I would personally prefer to avoid, especially given the free or low-cost alternatives.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Factually, Ballmer may be right: within the vast, ill-specified mess of APIs that is .NET, Microsoft may have some patents. But that doesn't matter: .NET is not a standard and it doesn't matter whether open source clones implement it 100% or 98%; it's fine to leave out some APIs around the periphery. It is clear that Microsoft has no patents on ECMA C# or most other .NET technologies.
For Java, in contrast, we know that Sun holds patents essential to the core of compliant implementations. If you implement any form of Java, you infringe. The only thing we have so far is legally non-binding promises from Sun not to bother open source implementations. That is a very, very serious problem.
Hmm. SO what would i prefer.
Getting caught in Ms's Net
Catching mono
or
Having Open Sores.
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.