Slashdot Mirror
Mono-culture And The .NETwork Effect
Sun Tzu writes "This article discusses the dangers posed by a very successful Mono project. Microsoft has several means at their disposal to effectively shut down Mono if it should ever gain critical mass. Unfortunately, Linux would be the big loser if that were to happen."
Does this surprise anyone, really?
You can't dictate/predict software usage displacement when people on Linux and other *nix-style operating systems continue to use obsolete and broken software just because they've always used them. Sendmail and ISC BIND come to mind.
Wow, and I thought FUD was something only the commercial software vendors used against its competitors. I guess the Open Source community can't claim the moral high ground anymore.
And is that supposed to guilt trip Microsoft or something? We all know what a compassionate corporation they are; always helping the little guy out.
It's the kissing disease.
"Unfortunately, Linux would be the big loser if that were to happen."
Linux would be at exactly the same spot in which is started. Mono is a work in progress and really isn't embedded itself into Linux yet or probably will for a long while.
Stealing Microsoft innovation and borrowing on this corporation's achievements without asking. Microsoft paid money to their programmers while they wrote this wonderful API lib, so why should anyone get it for free?
" Unfortunately, Linux would be the big loser if that were to happen."
And why would Linux be a loser, because we can't play in Microsoft's sandbox?
Linux's strength lies in its variety, not everyone will commit to developing with mono.
.net.
There will always be alternatives.
Whereas with Windows development everyone and their dog are jumping into
You don't have to use mono on Linux, on Windows this is becoming less of a choice.
...if MS where to shut down the Mono project. The last few releases have really come a long way and I, for one, am looking forward to the day when I can use Mono on Windows as a complete replacement for the MS.Net binaries.
A very worthwhile effort is the mod_mono subproject, which aims for Apache integration, allowing us Apache users to dish out ASP.Net faster and more securely than IIS.
I am not the first person to have thought about this. Several Slashdot users have posted cautionary messages about developers placing their trust in the good intentions of Microsoft.
I love recursion!
But seriously, this entire article is "-1, Flamebait."
You know, as much as this was meant to be a troll, it was really amusing and extremely enlightening.
Troll on, Genghis troll, troll on.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Mono won't be successful. Java is xp, but isn't used except for backends. There's no reason to think anyone will accept a 50-75% reduction in speed to run abinary which, hypothetically, could run on any .Net platform.
That's what you get for kissing reindeer.
I thought I had mono once for a whole year. Turns out I was just really bored.
Nick Drochak backwards is Mircosoft, what do you expect?!
Unlike the UNIX braintrust, Microsoft makes sure their products are a moving target to prevent people from copying them.
By the time Mono has finally reverse-engineered NET 1.1, Microsoft will be releasing NET 2.0. They'll keep adding to the APIs, they'll hook into Windows, leave parts undocumented, whatever it takes to ensure that nothing comes close. Mono will be stuck running trivial or toy programs.
This is just like the Wine project -- for years people have been promising that you'll just be able to install Wine and fire up any Windows app. But there's always another and another and another API that Wine hasn't gotten around to yet.
Don't worry folks. Noone here should worry about mono. No chance it will ever affect you. Good Day (teabaggers).
Would Microsoft "Embrace" Mono ? /subtle ?
- .NET? Nooo, that's too proprietory!
- J2EE? Nooo, that's too complex!
Well, any volunteers then to implement GPLed version of Corba Component Model (CCM)?...I've never understood why Miguel suddenly believes MS that it is playing fair now. I think he should have a chat with Jeremy Allison from SAMBA to straighten him out.
.NET die. Do NOT support MS in any way. Continue to "skim the top" of the best features of MS's stuff for interaction purposes only...
Maybe he's been taking gullible pills, I dunno. Let
We have MS in a good position right now: Longhorn delayed, about to make a 32 bit to 64 bit conversion that they can't transition with easily, draconian licensing schemes making IT people back up, etc. Now is NOT the time to support MS' foolhardy attempt to dominate the real 'net.
"Does this surprise anyone, really?"
[raises hand and speaks in a timid voice]
It's surprised me.
OMGLOL! ROTFLMFAO
"This article discusses the dangers posed by a very successful Mono project."
Must be using a different definition of discuss. I didn't actually see any discussion in the article. More like ponderings.
Wouldn't be in the OSS spirit to wish success on anyone now would it?
Would have been interesting if they looked at other possible outcomes - the bleak armageddon ones that the author favours as well as the more cheery ones.
My AUD two cents worth is that it'll be like Java has been.. another tool in the belt, but not critical to anything Linux. Afterall, what assurance have we got that Sun won't do something similar with Java? And yet the penguin will keep evolving.
Move along, nothing to see here.
I just can't be bothered.
Why would Linux suffer? .NET sucks! I say kill the beast before it becomes cross platform compliant.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Even worse are binary distribution risks. It is probably ok to distribute source code which, if compiled and used, would violate a patent. It is much less ok to distribute a binary which violates a patent. There could be a situation where source, distributed for non-commercial use, is ok, but all binary distribution requires a Microsoft royalty fee.
Mono is a terrible idea. I don't see what C## has over Java. We should all get behind Kaffe (www.kaffe.org) and use that as the next-gen software framework. Mono is nothing but a trap.
and I would go
and I would go everyday almost to the sandbox
and 'cause I loved the sandbox so much
and 'cause I had my pail and shovel
and shovel
and I would play in the sandbox
and it would be so much fun
and I would make mountains in the sand
and I would have so much fun
and and but one day I went to the sandbox
and it was so sad
and I cried and I cried because
someone took a doody in my sandbox
someone took a doody in my sandbox
and that was so bad
and that was so disgusting
and how could they do that?
and and that was so bad
and and and I didn't see it
and and I sat right down in it
and it felt squishy and I got up
and I cried and I cried and I cried
and why didn't they clean up after themselves?
and why didn't they clean up the mess?
and now my pants are dirty
and I'm crying and I'm crying and I'm crying
and I'm never going back to the sandbox again!
and I hate everybody!
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
.NET is about applications. In Microsoft's case, its mostly about office apps.
.NET application, they would only have one codebase to maintain. (Bye bye Mac Office, No need for Win64 Office)
.NET and Office works best with Microsoft SQL server, and Exchange. More platforms = more money.
Once Microsoft Office is a
They would love to suddenly have their apps run on multiple platforms. Think about it, Windows XP is $150 and Office $400, which one brings in more money?
And we all know that
Mono is a dream come true for Microsoft, it will eventually let them sell all their apps to Linux users directly, and they didn't have to write any code to do it.
The parts of .NET that are standard are safe.
The parts that aren't standard aren't required to Mono and can be replaced with other libraries.
Sure MS can keep changing APIs, but that will hurt them and their customers too. But even if they did, Mono is still a big gain as a Linux development plateform.
The people from Mono explain this at Mono / FAQ
Mono is a work in progress and really isn't embedded itself into Linux yet or probably will for a long while.
So, what you're saying is that:
Mono is a work in progress and really isn't [hasn't] embedded itself into Linux yet or probably will [embed itself into Linux?] for a long while?
What is it you're trying to say, man?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
You write some kickass module for Mono and you GPL it. People want to use that module in .NET and are constantly telling their customers where to get it from. Microsoft decides that this module is so damn common that they should actually distribute it with the runtime environment. Oops.. it's GPL, they can't do that.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I believe the work on the CLR and compiler and associated tools are a good thing. If MS is unwilling to port the runtime environment to other platforms but it seems easy enough to cleanly reverse engineer then by all means it should be done.
.Net widget library and you now run on both Linux and Windows.
However, I always felt the work on the class libraries walks on a bit shakier ground. It isn't so much that the clean room reverse engineering isn't good. I wonder if there is real value to it. Is it better to rewrite System.Web.UI or implement a new compelling set of classes?
My dream is that instead of people seeing Mono as a gateway for MS to get into Linux, I see it as the opposite: great applications being opened to Windows. Take Evolution or Pan or whatever your favorite X application, port it to a
Mono could be used to port off of .NET into a linux or possibly bsd environment. I've never written a large or complex app before, so the comments I'm looking for would be for the following assumption: Now that the apps are in their new environment it would it be as hard of a step to get them off mono an into another simmilar language. Hopefuly people will remember why they ditched windows in the first place and make the next logical step in progression and recode the program. If not I say if they switch back to MS after this happens, let 'em. Linux existed before .net and mono and it will exist afterwards (maybe even at a larger market share than tosday).
This would be a good indicator of what Microsoft thinks are the best development tools for the job.
I everything produced by Microsoft was crap anyway. Why try and duplicate in on Linux?
If a lot of people come down with Mono, what are the odds that Bill will pay for some innoculation research?
;-)
As a MS stockholder, I'd just as soon see him fund a poison pill for this little leach
The scenario outlined in the referenced article is exactly what MS will do. MS will tolerate Mono as long as .Net is second to Java. MS LOVES Mono! It gives enterprise developers a false sense of cross platform runtime. As soon as .Net overtakes J2EE (and they will unless Sun wakes up and redefines their strategy) as the most popular enterprise platform, MS will take out Mono. At that point, there will be tons of enterprises who have lots and lots of C# code that needs a runtime. After Mono becomes liability due to patent infringement, MS will start offering Linux-to-Windows upgrade paths. People will have a choice of either upgrading to Windows or scrapping their .Net projects. What do you think they'll do?!
Mono is truly a bad idea. It is a trojan horse for the Linux community and sadly, one of the pillars of Linux community, is an "unsuspecting" accomplice. Well, not that unsuspecting anymore looking at that last quoted paragraph in the article.
If you think this SCO "code" has thrown a monkey-wrench into Linux community, just wait when MS decides that Mono's time is up and it's time to reel those Mono-dependent companies in.
Linux developers, and app developers using Mono should cease any Mono development and should demand from MS to state their position on this project. If MS remains silent, just flat out refuses to comment or just issues a set of contrived statements, abandon Mono and concentrate on Java (or something else) instead.
I refuse to develop using mono since this code might end up orphaned, without any runtime. I just can't justify developing for a platform that might not exist 2 years down the road.
Frankly, PHP right now is the .Net killer. Java is really cool, but it's still just as bad as C++ with it's flavor-of-the-week APIs. That leaves it with corperate clients, and limits exposure of the little people to the "good stuff" like EBJs. C++ will always be the standard for the pros, but again, it's too much for the "casual" programmer. Basic has too many incarnations. Perl is just a touch to high-up-there. but PHP seems "just right".
The real problem with OSS is that they have to keep the apperance of "doing" something to compete. One thing the "designers" of OSS seem to miss is that their "customers" will never be professionals. That requires a different set of rules to be effective. Look at the basic LAMP toolkit. Linux is typically pre-configured for most "normal" linux users. Apache has a few standard mods & changes are mostly config files. MySQL is fairly simple for an RDBS and most "users" use a GUI to access it. PHP [perl/python] is a simple one-page/ one-script language that lets "users" create complex projects from simple, easy to understand parts. Most common linux tools only deal with about a page or two of config/scripting at a time. That's completely different from any other computing "system" and the Pros at the top need to understand that and embrace it.
Things like Mono take away from growing the core Linux user base...most of which will either be forced into MS Mono at work, or be exploring other pure OSS solutions. I'd propose that OSS is big enough to stop following and travel it's own path. That may be out in front, or it may be in a more consumer/"little people" direction that the large companies have long forgotten about. OSS is at the point where "following" only DEGRADES it's reputation now!
C# is a published stanbdard MS cant change it anymore than vendor schange c++ compilers which is also a published standard... or are you saying using C++ is dangerous?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Man, the dude writing that stuff is sure one paranoid fellow. A paranoid fellow with little or no vision. No offense, but the guy is drowning in a quite empty glass of water.
.NET APIs while they remain open, and will continue to use open protocols whenever possible (for example, our System.DirectoryServices implementation talks LDAP).
.NET APIs we have been actively implementing our own framework that maps into the Unix world.
.NET binaries.
Lets take the following premise:
`Mono succeeds, and Microsoft then changes the APIs so Mono can not catch up, hence Linux looses'.
Lets take a sample that is closer to us: Linux and Unix. Linux and GNU are implementations of a fairly popular and interesting technology: the Unix operating system.
Now, if the Unix creators introduced a new API, or changed a Unix API when Linux was successful, did that change the success of Linux?
For example, lets assume that tomorrow SCO introduces a new API call into SCO Unix, lets call it "hasuseraclue()" [1]. The system call is highly proprietary and undocumented. Now, will Linux and GNU users suffer from the lack of this API? I am going to leave that as an exercise to the reader.
[1] Note: by reverse engineering the code, we know that above system call return 0 when ran on the system of the author of the previous paper.
In a world where Mono is vastly successful, if Microsoft changes/introduce new APIs, do you think it will matter?
We will continue to implement the
But Mono has not stopped at implementing the
For example, Microsoft has chosen XML Schema for representing, mhm, XML schemas. But the world of XML has been leaning towards Relax NG. Well, we implement Relax NG.
We implement Mozilla bindings, OpenGL bindings, Gtk+ bindings, Qt bindings, Unix bindings.
They implement support for 3 databases, we implement support for 11 databases.
Mono ships with plenty of other libraries, like a BigNum library and APIs to manipulate
miguel.
Or failing that, to all the paranoid daddyo's here who need to stop being so square.
I think it basically comes down to several things.
1. How much do you trust Microsoft?
2. How much do you trust patent laws and the Patent Office?
Have any of you nerds tried programming in C#?
It sucks.
What the hell is Mono anyway?
Who cares?
if you look at Microsoft's profits year to year, they tend to have profits primarily in only one sector: the OS. Office is the only other sector that has any net profits, but it's a DISTANT second.
-"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
Mono is useful for Microsoft as a altenative to J2EE. Once it has won the war against Java/J2EE with Mono's help, it will turn on Mono and squash it like a bug.
Alot of people have commented on this before by posters on slash. I don't understand why this is a big surprise now. Does it take someone in the media to write an article to substantiate something we all knew.
As for NET since there's so much IP cloud BS over it I think that developers should stay cautious and keep using Java,perl,python,ruby and PHP.
Microsoft has several means at their disposal to effectively shut down Mono if it should ever gain critical mass.
.NET compatibility and that Mono applications are .NET applications. That's, in fact, just false. Most current uses of Mono are based on ECMA C# and Gtk#, not .NET. In fact, one of the big strengths of C# is that, unlike Java, C# makes it easy to reuse existing C and C++ libraries; in that, it is much like the relationship of C++ to C. If you already know Gnome, you can start using C# to develop Gnome applications much more easily than picking up Java and Swing (and the Mono/Gtk# applications will work better, too).
.NET, just don't use .NET. In fact, I wouldn't touch .NET simply because I think it's technically not very good. But you can still use Mono, which is shaping up to be a great, general-purpose programming platform. And because existing open source libraries, like Gtk+, Gnome, expat, X11, etc., is so easily accessible, it's very easy to start using Mono--it's just a nicer version of C++.
Those claims are based on the inaccurate perception that the success of Mono depends on
The company to worry about is Sun: open source Java applications do use all-Sun APIs; interfacing with native libraries is just too much hassle, and that's no accident: Sun wants you to use their APIs and give up on the free, open source APIs. And, despite all the JCP mumbo-jumbo, Sun has a lot of control over the Java platform, through numerous patents, through owning key parts of the actual implementation of key parts of the Java platform (e.g., Swing), and through their ownership of the specification and the certification process.
So, if you are worried about Microsoft's ownership of
http://www.cgisecurity.net/development/dot-net.sh
http://www.cgisecurity.net/development/xml.shtml
http://www.cgisecurity.net/development/java.shtml
Entering agreement and working with MS fits the definition of insanity. You know doing same thing over and over and expect different results.
Help fight continental drift.
It's not about the domination of net via .NET, it's about a true, open source virtual machine project with a proper, OO language to go with it. Java is not open source, but Mono is. And Mono happens to be a superset of the Java functionality.
That fact that it lets you take Windows code and run it faster, better, more securely -- that's just icing.
To think that this is supporting Microsoft is to think that Samba supports Microsoft just because it implements protocols that Microsoft uses.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
JDOM is in the JCP process and Xalan and Xerces are bundled with the JDK.
omicoo-
im not Sun fanboy but..
"Sun wants you to use their APIs and give up on the free, open source APIs"
No, Sun want you to make *PORTABLE* applications - thats the whole point in Java. They arent trying to stop you using native libraries but they, quite rightly, are trying to encourage good practices. Unless you know that the native library is available for every brand of OS and platform etc then you shouldnt be using it in software you intend to give out. ever.
"despite all the JCP mumbo-jumbo"
which, if you have ever been involved, would realise is a Very Good Thing. Motorola for one have done a great job with JCP - the idea is that the community has a say in things and not always Sun. Besides which, how is Sun supposed to make a decent CLDC without proper valid input from manufacturers like Nokia et all. The difference between this and MS is you can see, have a say and understand why things went the route they did.
The article is pretty silly but it reflects a general mindset. "Oooh, Microsoft, ooooh, big bad bully!!"
.NET applications to Linux, they can sell them. Wow! Suddenly there is a whole new market of people to buy new Office licenses (oops, did you not read the fine print where it says your old Windows licenses aren't transferrable? Too bad...)
Yes, but even big bad bullies tend to look after their own interests.
It's very hard to imagine hoards of Linux developers jumping onto Mono. Very hard. After all, if the word "individualistic" applied to anything, it'd be Open Source developers.
But imagine another, much more plausible scenario, for an instant in which Linux is incredibly successful, so much that Microsoft realize that Windows, as a proprietary OS, is not going to ever make money again. We're pretty close to that point today.
Now, Microsoft have this huge suite of applications that they want people to use and pay for. But no-one is installing the latest Windows, instead they're taking the cheap and cheerful route and doing with less complex applications, or getting their own made in LAMP.
LAMP... suddenly Microsoft realize that there _is_ a Visual Basic for Linux, and it's doing what VB did on Windows: creating a generation of developers able to get the OS deployed for small-medium business, the core Windows market... OOOPS!
Now, Microsoft suddenly see Mono in a very, very different light. It's their safety-net. If they can port their
Microsoft sell software. That they have depended on Windows to control their market might have worked in the past, but that strategy seems finished.
If they're smart, they are using Mono as an insurance policy which - should Linus die one day in an unfortunate accident - they can also strangle with IP laws.
Either way, I thought Mono was a bad idea when it started, and I still think it's a bad idea. In the best case it's divisive, and in the worst case it is a breachhead for Microsoft to launch its junk on the corporate Linux market.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
This article is complete FUD from the linux side of the fence. Having mono widly available is good for everyone, it is good for developers as now they will have a common platform to develop on, it is good for linux because now people who were traditionally only microsoft platform programmers will now produce software for linux as well and it is good for microsoft because it opens up a whole new operating system for them. Anything that helps .net grow helps microsoft, cowering in the corner spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about what microsoft might be able to do is very hypocritical in my mind as it is what slashdot readers always claim microsoft only does.
... as of yet, it does not seem there are plans for a mac .Net port. So the portably to other platforms remains singular in nature, as with any other large .Net application.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What a pity I don't have moderation points now. Indeed cross platform with any MSFT API is an illusion (without government intervention), please LEARN FROM THE PAST.
.NET/C# has no real advantage to Java (on the contrary). The only weakness of Java is its GUI (Swing/AWT), which gave it an overall bad name. However Java is hughely successful as back-end language at the moment (many large companies, amongst which the one where I work, develop all their software exclusively in Java) and rightly so.
As a mere programming language,
If you want to improve, better put a better GUI toolkit in Java instead of starting from scratch with an attempt to copy. Eclipse has proven it can be done.
Do you know who is our enemy and who is our friend? You may not like SUN for all its policies, but they are and always shall be part of the good guys (as one of the very few remaining). I can't believe reading such statements from someone who cares for open source and UNIX/Linux.
It is the only company that has not given in to the enemy in any way. Without SUN UNIX would have died a long time ago (in the real corporate world that is) and thus Linux and FreeBSD would have been much less relevant as well.
SUN wants to keep control to prevent abuse and beaurocracy. Whether you think this works and is necessary or not does not matter. Fact is, SUN has NEVER misused its control over API's, but instead has given away many products and standards without ever playing tricks or misusing its position (think about virtually any UNIX network protocol and influence in most UNIX API's).
MSFT is an entirely other story, they have misused almost each time they controlled some API's, even when it was a so called standard (HTML comes to ming). Why would it be different this time?
Please, don't forget who your enemy is and who your friend is, take just a bit of historical perspective!
Now, imagine for a moment that Mono, following in .NET's footsteps, is also hugely successful. Further, imagine that, in its success, Mono displaces a large portion of traditional Linux software development over the next few years.
.NET will never be open. some parts sure, but not the vital stuff needed by microsoft to guarantee lock-in. geez, some dude rants for a bit, about nonsensical scenario, and that makes /.
um, yeah, that's gonna happen. linux development relies on things being open.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I posted this on slashdot previously, but...
When I met Bill Gates at an intern BBQ last summer (at his home in Seatle) I asked him about Mono: he described the project as 'flattering' and said that MS has no particular competetive interest in the project.
What this means is that the project is fairly safe; no manager will take the initiative to butt heads with Mono head-on (it's not major enough to devote resources to). There is always the possibility, though, that some little wiener in the dregs decides to alter a library here and there, making compatability for the next version of C# a little more difficult (this is more like an eventuality than anything else.)
From a competitive standpoint, though, MS has nothing to lose. The project lengthens the reach of MS technology, and encourages developers to stay 'locked-in' to the big profit-margin products, mainly the thousand-dollar+ development tools.
Rishi Chopra
www.rishichopra.org
From the Joel on Software story, it seems the C compiler for the Excel team dates back to the 80's. And this news releases states that Microsoft Business Solutions CRM "is the first Microsoft business application built on .NET infrastructure."
Miguel's gonna be pissed ;)
I have never once met anyone who programs
We get job emails to our CS UGRADs list all the time about "Microsoft This, Microsoft That" and our small contigent of microsoft fanboys loves it because they rarely end up with more than one application for a job.
Now when an email comes out about something that is C/C++, Java, or web developement in open languages: it gets flooded. I just applied for a position that had 90 applications, about 10 interviewees (including myself, no I haven't found out yet if I got it). The position I applied for is with a group that is looking to expand it's linux stakes, and generally seem to dislike platform dependance.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
You seem to be confused between specification and implementation. It doesn't make sense to claim that Java isn't Open Source, since there are various Open Source and Free Software implementations of Java compilers, runtimes and libraries in addition to the proprietary ones. Here is a good list. Some of these Free implementations have been around much longer than Mono. Mono isn't the only Free implementation of DotNet; there's also DotGNU.
I think it has been a compromise to Microsoft when so many linux programmers considered to port .NET to
Linux platform. When more developers are doing everything with C#, more laughters will be in Microsoft. This view seems hard to be supported by linux fans although I think it does good to Linux and Windows. The result is that we get the same interface.
.NET SDK/C# which is one of the main parts of Mono project is also free in Win32(certainly not opensource).
In the short term, I think Microsoft would not care the Mono due to Mono and Linux's minor influence on his plan. In the long run, the fate of Mono might be purchased or defeated by the product of Microsoft but absolutely not sued by Microsoft. The reason, I think, is that the
When you play with fire you will eventually get burned.
.NET, etc. I have been burnt too many times using Microsoft myself so you will have to excuse me for not jumping on the bandwagon to try their latest and greatest marketing promises. I'm sure this screams troll material but the truth is that we looked into Java too and it doesn't seem to "cut it" for my employers needs nor my own personal preference. The C and C++ codebase we use works* quite well crossplatform. To help keep the nay sayers at bay: yes - at times it does have it warts but they are industrial strength tools with a proven track record. As an aside if Mono doesn't get hit with some submarine patent type crap, etc. then I guess everyone who "got the jumpstart" will have the last laugh as we play catch up if that situation ever arises.
I wish the best to all OSS projects but when you are skirting around with Microsoft - fsck it, let Microsofts track record speak for me plus any future actions Microsoft pulls out of the bag.
And before I get modded as flamebait: No I have not tried Mono,
*The basic assumption that skilled people create and use the code is required for some to understand this statement.
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
Microsoft changes some stuff so that there is an incompatibility.
You then chose to go with .NET or stay with Mono and break the compatability. One might argue that Mono can change to keep chasing .NET, but this is a loser's game. Too much resource just gets swallowed up with juggling compatability etc. People running a "mission critical" app will just shell out dollars and buy .NET to get going again.
Microsoft has used this tactic many times over. While Borland and other compiler vendors served Microsoft's interests they wore tolerated, but as soon as they were seen to be the enemy (ie MS wanted people to use Visual Studio), they started changing stuff in such a way that the other vendors just could not really keep up. Eventually even die-hard Borland supporters had to switch to keep going.
They did a similar thing with NT. They provided a Unix streams model to encourage people to port their Unix drivers to NT but then crippled the streams driver support and finally killed it, thus breaking compatability.
It is a safe bet that Mono will be treated the same way. MS has no fear of anti-trust.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
When I heard about Mono my knee-jerk was to worry that it was walking into some MS trap. But it was only because I was ignorant, much as the author of this article seems to be.
The people who are working on Mono are not idiots. They have given a lot of thought to this issue and have good answers to just about all of the questions that I have thought of.
http://go-mono.net/faq.html
In particular:
Here is a repsonse to the patent issue that answers most of the important questions in a very satisfactory way.
http://go-mono.net/faq.html#patents
The CLI and C# are good technology. Even if MS breaks compatibility and changes things, a runtime that was engineered to support multiple languages is of intrinsic value and that cannot be "taken back" by MS.
So while it pays to be cautious, it also pays to think critically.
Okay.. it may just be me, but this guy seems to be more than a little paranoid about this. Lets look at his asumptions and projected serie of events: .net becomes successfull .net
- MS
- Mono starts gaining momentom
- MS, discovering this, starts secretly patenting key parts of
- MS, being greedy, doublescheming bastards who talks with forked tounges, conviniently forgets to tell anyone about their new patents, but instead makes it easy for Mono
- Mono, because of this, becomes successfull, and 'infest' (couldn't find a better word, sorry) the entire codebase of GNU/Linux
- MS, being greedy, doublescheming bastards who talks with forked tounges, suddenly remembers it's patents - and sues whoever is behind Mono
- GNU/Linux collapses, letting MS laught all the way to the bank.
Now, IANAL, but I've always been told that if you don't take steps to defend your patents as soon as you discover that someone is violating them, you effectively looses it. And considering MS earlier ways of dealing with people thye think may have violated one of their patents (strike early and hard), they would have struck allready me thinks.
Besides, it is usefull for MS to have GNU/Linux around - it gives them something to point to when peopel claim that they have a desktop monopoly.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
I thought the same thing as you, initially. This is all a bunch of overblown speculation. (Already, many Microsoft technologies are used in competing products, such as Samba. Heck, that's what gives Mac OS X the ability to claim inter-operability with Windows networks too.)
.Net bandwagon and quit developing alternatives - they deserve to have problems, really. We all know how Microsoft is with their products. Linux developers (of all people) should know better than to put too much trust in them and in their implementations of technology.
Upon giving it more thought - I think it's a valid concern, but only to the extent that it's always valid to "not put all the eggs in one basket". If Linux developers all hop on the
They'll see it as helping the Evil Empire man.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It's the start of the new Undocument API game again.
Microsoft will unveil most of the functions but will mantain undisclosed API to get speed and other functionalities to their MS Office and similar product. Of course again no other company would compete with MS products. Just like LOTUS and Wordperfect failed before.
Miguel de Icaza was pretty buddy-buddy with various folks from Micro$oft at OSCON. Perhaps Miguel is actually convinced that Micro$oft has the best of intentions. Perhaps they've got him under their spell, so to speak. I certainly don't trust them.
.NET) seems to have hijacked GNOME. I use KDE these days.
At any rate, Mono (and therefore
stop C# its an ECMA standard, sure the libraries arnt covered by the standards but the core language is, whats to lose?
They cant do diddly.
"Microsoft has several means at their disposal to effectively shut down Mono if it should ever gain critical mass."
Am I the only one who read this and first thought of mononucleosis, aka, "The kissing disease"?
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
I've never understood why anyone wants .Net fullstop, if you really want run anywhere etc use perl or what not, or a framework/lib that allows compile and run anywhere. Infact anything worth having in .Net can be had without .Net, so just dumb M$ and dumbNet.
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
My only fear is that they'll stop printing "Mono" on the cards, and leave us with just "Artifact" and "Artifact Creature".
That would suck.
What's with all the Mono-bashing?
Everyone seems to think:
Mono is to dotNET as WINE is to Windows
That's not the way to think about it at all, try it this way:
Mono is to dotNET as Linux is to UNIX
It's just an implementation, it doesn't matter if it's not fully compatible and that doesn't appear to be the goal. The goal is to make an Open Source implementation and improve on it.
If you look at it this way, suddenly Mono doesn't seem so bad.
I'm glad that Jesus Christ is coming to rule and reign over the whole earth from the hills of Zion, the evil liberals and atheists will be sent to their own place because of the evil they do and the blood they cause to be shed.And the sad thing is that it is their own choice. They should listen to the small still voice of their consciences and not deny the creator God Jesus Christ, who loved us and gave Himself for our iniquities.
According to the Linux people, NOTHING, and I mean nothing, good ever comes out of Redmond, ideawise or productwise (and don't even pretend that Linux people aren't like this, the hypocrisy is insulting).
So why are the Linux people trying to replicate an MS thing (.NET) that by defacto OSS judgement, has to be bad? And why are Linux people all up in arms about an anticipated breaking of a copy of a bad idea?
I fail to see the difference between your two scenarios. He got the drugs from different people? The state said it was okay? Why the f*** should that matter? Any law against any drug is tyranny, even if it's a tryanny of the majority. Rush didn't do anything that the state should concern itself with, and he wouldn't have if he got it on the street, either.
The worry is that Linux might not just fall out of step with UNIX, but that it might become illegal, and go away entirely... You're right that just being incompatible with UNIX will not make too big a deal... But if SCO was able to evaporate Linux, then you'd be pretty much stuck...
(I don't want to emphasise this too heavily, since I think that it's a small risk at this stage, but still, we need to be clear as to what is at stake.)
The mono developers (in particulap Miguel) have had enough meetings with Microsoft not to be too worried here. In addition, some of the patent issues fall apart since Microsoft has failed to defend it.
Although not all of mono is protected by the EMCA standard, the core is. Furthermore, since the implementations used in mono have (well, at least should) be independent from the
Lastly, the
Let's put it this way: what are the criteria for success for Mono?
.NET is nice, but I don't think it is the most fundamental goal of the Mono project.
Success depends on the goals you are aiming for.
Sure interoperability with MS's version of
I think Mono aims to be a great development platform for Linux and other platforms.
If you think Mono isn't justified. Can you argue where the Mono related resources would be better spent instead?
In my mind the main choice is whether to spend time improving Java or developing Mono.
The question then becomes: what are the merits of developing Mono versus trying to improve Java?
Some merits for improving Java:
Java has a large user base and community supported. It's already rather cross-platform.
Mono may help some devs migrate away from Linux.
Some merits for developing Mono:
It may help migrate devs migrate away from Windows. The CLR may have a better support for binding to native libraries and for multiple languages.
There is probably lots of other merits either way and the ones I listed have different weights (some are important merits and some less).
Also some merits might be conditional on some factors (like Microsoft's behavior) which introduces risk in the equation.
Now, I can't solve the equation for you. But so far, nobody convinced me that the value of Mono is less than alternatives.
or is this guy really missing the point? The beauty of the Mono project is not that it's an open source version of a Microsoft interface, but that it's a technology created by Microsoft and now adopted by the Open Source community so as to keep it in the "public domain" (so to speak, I know I'm using the term "public domain" very loosely when considering licenses such as the GPL).
Microsoft can change whatever interfaces they want at this point, the technology is out there and actively being developed. This is a far better scenario than what Sun created with Java. Open Source demands now have the freedom to dictate the direction of Mono. If Mono is a success, then Microsoft will be forced to address the market that is using it and open their API's or suffer a withersome death at the hands of Open Source hackers using Mono. Worst case scenario, Mono is not that huge a success, and it becomes the communities job to write code that interfaces with Windows morphing API's. I fail to see how Mono loses in either scenario.
Frankly I think the creation of Mono was one of the most brilliant moves by the open source community ever. Take a technology that MS is depending on for their future products, and pull the behemoth's own "embrace and extend" maneuver in the Open Source community. Other projects should be as visionary.
---------- Hot Rats!
Anyone who has followed the trend of software patents must realize that Microsoft could have dozens of patent claims covering .NET before Mono rises to prominence.
You know, you could just look up the information yourself. And find out if MS actualy has any mono patents, rather then just flailing randomly and making crazy paranoid asertions.
Mono is stupid, I mean, why not create something new? But this article is paranoid. Anyway, I don't see many linux developers switching to mono.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I'm surprised: Reading at 0, I see no comments at all regarding the fact that nobody is running any significant mono apps anyhow. Caveat: I am not a Gnome user, maybe they are? I haven't read about it if so.
If mono is never adopted widely, I don't see the impact to Linux. I know just a couple dot Net zealots, and absolutely no mono fanatics, despite hanging around in a largely Linux nerd crowd.
The main advocacy that I hear for dot Net is about the class libraries; how is this different from Python and its everything-is-an-object modules? Obviously it is different because there is a compiler (an expensive one) in play, but otherwise?
what he thought about efforts to run .Net on Linux, once at a conference. He talked about Rotor, as if it ran on Linux.
.Net on Linux.
He also said that since most companies do not run Java on Linux, he doesn't think they would use
That leads me to think that Microsoft doesn't care too much, one way or the other, about Mono.
No data, no cry
Does this also apply to DotGNU? How do Mono and DotGNU compare?
it's very easy to start using Mono--it's just a nicer version of C++
You have a lot of reading, coding and listening to do. Then you will see the error of what you have said.
Stick Men
You worry that MS could change the interface and break compatibility with Mono. And yet, many, many vendors produce DBMSes with an SQL interface. SQL is horribly, horribly extended by all sorts of vendors, and has truly awful compatibility. However, it's a decent bit of work, and the abovementioned issues haven't stopped postgresql and mysql from rapidly consuming large chunks of the market.
I doubt Mono could ever be in a situation as bad as SQL is. The compatibility issues there are almost overwhelming, and yet I find it very fortunate that the MySQL and Postgresql developers did *not* decide to give up on SQL because someone else already had a closed SQL-using implementation.
May we never see th
Mark my words: it will all end in tears.
Stick Men
Now, if the Unix creators introduced a new API, or changed a Unix API when Linux was successful, did that change the success of Linux?
.NET into it's own world leaving the open and closed C# implementations incompatible?
For example, lets assume that tomorrow SCO introduces a new API call into SCO Unix, lets call it "hasuseraclue()" [1]. The system call is highly proprietary and undocumented. Now, will Linux and GNU users suffer from the lack of this API? I am going to leave that as an exercise to the reader.
Your analogy assumes that there is a single vendor for Unix that can unilaterally define a new API. This is _NOT_ the case. What is going to happen if Microsoft decides that Mono is getting too big for it's britches and really does start up the old game of smoky, non-standard API's for C#? Do you think that the Mono project really is worthwhile on its own if MS decides to break off
dotgnu.org seems to be doing the same thing ?
(but of course, they have developed a "Patent Backup" plan... based outside USA)... what about it ?
Would Linux be better or worse off without Samba?
What I've never understood is why they chose to emulate and extend Microsoft's rip-off of java. I mean, there are only a few minor cosmetic diffrences between C# and java? Why not make GTK-J? It would have worked just as well.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Come on.... your points are ridiculous.
The guy has points.
In the world of patents and IP , it would be good strategy of Monopolysoft to pull the rug under MONO.
Doesn't Monopolysoft have history of this ?
Ever heard of GNU Classpath?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Mono makes it easy to give access to all kinds of .net libraries from inside Parrot (the new high power VM for Perl and probably Python and Ruby.) And it makes it easy for Parrot to add the ability to turn perl code into .net code (I think. does anyone know how much mono code is being used in parrot?).
.net languages, java, perl, python, etc and allow them to cooperate and function together. Thank you Microsoft for making perl slightly better. Take your lousy languages and restrictive platforms and shove them, however.
.net languages. They will die long before these will. Although, who knows, maybe someone will build parrot compilers for those languages too. It's apparently very easy to add a language to Parrot.
Parrot is not at all what Microsoft wanted when they pushed for Mono, but it will be great platform for developers. Parrot will embrace and extend all the
If you really want to switch to a portable, high power platform, go to Perl or Python. Forget the
And for any fellow Perl developers out there, be exited for the new Perl 6 syntax changes. I wasn't but I started doing some reading and they are doing it right! The changes make a lot of sense and will make a bunch of things that were painful in perl 5, easy and straightforward. And there will be utilities to convert from old syntax to new.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
http://www.go-mono.org/faq.html#patents
.NET Framework is divided in two parts: the ECMA/ISO covered technologies and the other technologies developed on top of it like ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms.
.NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA, (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent): here.
Question 135: Could patents be used to completely disable Mono (either submarine patents filed now, or changes made by Microsoft specifically to create patent problems)?
First some background information.
The
Mono implements the ECMA/ISO covered parts, as well as being a project that aims to implement the higher level blocks like ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms.
The Mono project has gone beyond both of those components and has developed and integrated third party class libraries, the most important being: Debugging APIs, integration with the Gnome platform (Accessibility, Pango rendering, Gdk/Gtk, Glade, GnomeUI), Mozilla, OpenGL, extensive database support (Microsoft only supports a couple of providers out of the box, while Mono has support for 11 different providers), our POSIX integration libraries and finally the embedded API (used to add scripting to applications and host the CLI, or for example as an embedded runtime in Apache).
The core of the
Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose.
The controversial elements are the ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms subsets. Those are convenient for people who need full compatibility with the Windows platform, but are not required for the open source Mono platform, nor integration with today's Mono's rich support of Linux.
The Mono strategy for dealing with these technologies is as follows: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless. Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability, but it would still provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono.
The patents do not apply in countries where software patents are not allowed.
For Linux server and desktop development, we only need the ECMA components, and things that we have developed (like Gtk#) or Apache integration.
Here is a shining example of the chaos Microsoft's .NET can cause in conjunction with local government. :-)
By seeking compatibilility with Microsoft, the Mono people let Microsoft set the agenda and ensure that they're always at least one step behind on them.
Contrast this to real open-source environments like GCC, Perl, Python, Php, where they take their own decisions in their own right.
What the hell else would they use? Cygwin and GCC?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Sun is an investor in SCO and hasn't said a word in defence in free software either in Java or Linux terms.
Who's calling who a traitor?
1000s Warcraft Gold while you sleep
C# is not bad as a language. Nothing revolutionary, sure but after using properties, easy native function calls (whoever came up with the JNI monstrocity?) and primitive type unboxing, I would rather write my project in C# than Java other things being equal. Also ASP.Net is very clean compared to J2EE.
UI on the other hand is exacly what the package name says - Windows.Forms. If you want canned dialogs from the resource editor fine. If you want resizable windows or to build a complex object hierarchy from scratch - good luck! Swing is very flexible and powerful by comparison, although Sun got carried away with complexity. I just wish Cocoa was cross-platform.
Forgive my ignorance, Can you do anything in PHP other then web pages? I mean, could you write a side-scrolling 2d game (for example) in PHP? Does it have multimedia APIs? (even shitty one's like java?)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Slashdot runs the same shitty codebase they have for the past 6 or 7 or god knows how many years. It's all perl.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Instead of saying, "What would I do if the sky started falling."
How about trying the "How the hell would the sky fall?" point of view.
Yes, if SCO evaporated Linux there would be other options. The point is that they're not going to be able to do it, there's always a way around it. Yeah, it may be a little work, but we can take out the offending code and move on with our lives.
Same situation with Mono. Mono isn't "WINE for dotNET". Mono is Open Source C#, just like Linux is Open Source UNIX. If there's any offending parts in Mono they will be corrected. And once again, we'll move on with our lives.
Would you be so kind to explain to me exactly how many technologies that .net has that makes it a superset of Java? Maybe you haven't investigated J2EE, J2ME and all the other technologies that are part of the Java platform. Besides, Java has a much larger free software community. Freshmeat, for example, lists 2382 Java projects (that's less than 100 frewer than C++). To be compared to the 46 C# projects.
Want to implement a SOAP web service? Check out GLUE. It allows you to distribute any java object as a SOAP service using only 2 lines of code (one to start the server and one to register the object).
And if you don't want to listen to me, why not read this list. It contains some good stuff.
Why people spend their precious time on a project like Mono with such an unstable (legally) base is beyond me. Why the Linux community seem to embrace .net more than java is even more boggling.
But Mono is using properly documented information isn't it? Wine is reverse engineering. Developers will have more of a reason to support Linux on a platform that works as expected.
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
Just an annoyance with no ground to stand on?
Or are you agreeing with me, and saying that Mono is a good technology and as it picks up interest it will become more popular than dotNET and when Microsoft is losing money and about to go bankrupt they will have no other choice but to file a frivolous lawsuit to boost their stock prices and sell out?
I'm not sure I follow your arguement...
Realize that linux is only a kernel. There are plenty of other kernels which are suitable for mono. You should use word open source/free software NOT linux to represent the whole software sharing community!
It would be useful if "journalists" could provide references and analysis of their claims. In this so called piece of journalism, the author makes the claim that Mono is patent encumbered. He also makes the claim that Microsoft releasing source code is enough to un-clean-room Mono.
I personally have not read the patents affecting .NET, but I would have to assume that Mono, and even more likely, Novell, have read the patents and think it safe to proceed. I would also have to assume that the FSF have read these patents before starting their dot Net replacement.
Please dont link to shit "journalism" like this on the front page of slashdot. It makes me think that slashdot is a waste of time.
Certainly not if you're even the least bit careful.
I've been developing a data collection and database system in Java that must run both on Linux and Windows. It does database access, low-level serial port access, answers phones, sends faxes and emails, and generates spreadsheet files and graphs. It also has a significant GUI component (written in Swing).
So far, the system is close to 30,000 lines of code developed on Linux, and so far zero lines of code need to be changed to run on Windows. So far, things have been highly write-once-run-anywyere.
Now, one could do things to make a Java program platform specific, as will be true in Mono/.NET/whatever, but if one plans ahead, write once run anywhere can often be achieved.
"Further, imagine that, in its success, Mono displaces a large portion of traditional Linux software development over the next few years."
That's quite an assumption to make (along with a few other assumptions), that Mono will 'displace' a large portion of tradition Linux software development. Let's just assume all sorts of stuff that we have no reason to believe will happen and then derive the results of such assumptions and pass those results of as a threat. That always make a good argument to do, or not to do something. Not!
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
From: Cmdr_Adolf_Torvalds@loonix.cx .Net Framework and Loonix
.net could be used with .net.
.Net Framework and Loonix
To: Questions@Microsoft.com
Cc:
Subject: Microsoft
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2003 11:19:07 +0000
Dear Microsoft,
I am a loonix user and was wondering whether
my free distro with mono. I feel that even though you are a company
that has to profit off of the products it puts out, unlike the creators
of my free operating system, I should be able to use your framework even
though your company had to hand large burlap bags full of cash to
programmers while the developed
Could you please clarify why you do not want to share your source code
with the rest of the world? Please don't use any complex terms like
"loss of profit" or "business model" that I or any other loonix user
couldn't understand. I am deeply interested in this subject and would
like to learn more about why you have to stand in the way of everything the
loonix community does to
bridge the gap between Windows and Loonix.
Cmdr Adolf Torvalds
From: Questions@Microsoft.com
To: Cmdr_Adolf_Torvalds@loonix.cx
Cc:
Subject: Re:Microsoft
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:20:34 +0000
Dear Cmdr Adolf Torvalds,
To answer your question, we at Microsoft believe that whatever source
code we create is actually ours unless we release it. You are right that we
do have to make a profit off our software and that is the primary reason
that we are not sharing the majority of our source code. If we were to
release our source code, our products would cease to be proprietary and thus
could be recompiled and sold by anyone. We are opposed to Loonix because
just like many examples in other fields such as the Pepsi/Coca Cola rivalry,
that Loonix is a direct threat to our profitability. Therefore we cannot help but
oppose a rival and hope for more opposition to Loonix like SCO. I hope this
answers your questions.
I would now like to inform you of an upcoming special release of windows
specially made for Loonix users. Unveiling October 31st, WindowsGA has
been specially produced in accordance to thousands of interviews with Loonix
users. Instead of the drab windows interface prior to the release of WindowsGA,
the colors will be flamboyant in pink and purple. Windows Media Player will
now have the option to download new gay porn starring such names as Steve
Wozniak and Mike Markkula. Internet explorer has been reconfigured to
automatically search for local bath houses and gay clubs. In addition to that,
daily updates for the more socially challenged will include such subjects as
"how to get out of your mother's basement" and "skintones: monitor tans are not
in for this fall". The recycle bin has been completely revamped to completely
(yes, I said completely) remove all child porn from your machine. If you pre order
WindowsGA before October 15th (hurry) Microsoft will include a free force
feedback buttplug, guaranteed to put a smile on every Loonix user's face.
Thank you very much,
Burt Hodgson
Microsft Help Desk
> This is just like the Wine project -- for years people have been promising that you'll just be able to install Wine and fire up any Windows app.
While it's true that you can't just fire up "any Windows app", I do have to say that my experience with Crossover Office has been pretty enjoyable. For any of the apps that they support, stuff "just works". (All of the Office suite works well enough I rarely reboot any more, in particular.) From time to time other applications will work as well. CodeWeavers seem to be very good about feeding their work back into Wine, too, which is important in being a good free software citizen.
I don't have any experience with TransGaming, but they seem to cover a different part of the Wine application space and what I've read about them has been positive - with respect to the technical half of the equation.
Anyways, Wine has been in development for years and I thought for a long time it would never get anywhere. I'm glad to see it's finally getting there.
... I like a bit of optimism with my morning coffee.
Learn to kwack / so you can duck / when the sky falls.
The fears presented in the article are part of a Microsoft FUD campaign against Mono. I don't know whether the author is part of that campaign, or if he sincerely believes what he wrote.
.Net protocols for Web Services (especially the Palladium authentication protocols) as their own proprietary domain. The idea was that C# would lead developers and users into becoming dependent on Microsoft Web Services. The developers would also become locked in, because, despite publishing the standard, Microsoft never really expected anyone else to implement C#.
.Net was to give Microsoft control of the Internet, and ensure an ongoing revenue stream from Microsoft's new monopoly on Web/Authentication Services.
Microsoft hates Mono. Microsoft would like to see Mono disappear. And what better way to accomplish that than to make people afraid to use Mono.
Microsoft released the C# standard as part of a lock-in scheme. The openness of C# was supposed to make everyone feel safe to use it. Meanwhile, Microsoft kept many of the
The ultimate goal for
But, by calling Microsoft's "C# Open Standard" bluff, Mono has thrown a huge monkey-wrench into Microsoft's plans.
First, by providing an alternate implementation of C#, Mono makes it possible for C#-trained developers to migrate from Windows to Linux.
Second, Mono does _not_ use Microsoft's Web/Authentication Services, rather, Mono allows developers to target anyone's web services, including, and especially, the open/free DotGNU services.
Thus, Mono breaks Microsoft's new developer lock-in, and it breaks Microsoft's planned Web Services monopoly.
And that, of course, is why Microsoft is working so hard to FUD Mono.
As to the fears expressed in the article, are they justified? The short answer is no. Let's look in more detail...
Fear #1: Microsoft will change the APIs/protocols:
This is a red herring, and has been addressed previously. The Mono developers fully expect Microsoft to break compatibility, but it is not a primary goal of Mono to remain 100% compatible with Microsoft's C#, any more than it is a goal of GNU GCC to be 100% compatible with Visual C. Mono's goal is to implement the C# standard as a good cross-language, web-enabled development tool for Linux.
As a secondary benefit, having a C# implementation on Linux also makes it possible for C# developers and applications to convert from Windows to Linux, even if it might require a bit of effort.
As a side note, when Microsoft does get around to violating the published C# standard, it may hurt them more than it helps. Given the new cross-platform awareness that came with the Internet age, the stability of Mono's APIs and protocols will be seen as a advantage over Microsoft's shifting sands.
Fear #2: Microsoft will attack Mono with patents:
This has also been addressed previously. In order to avoid patent dangers, the Mono developers have stuck to the published C# standard, and have avoided adding anything fancy that might involve patents.
Microsoft is unlikely to win if they attempt to make a patent claim on something that is part of the published C# standard -- the courts have rejected such attempts in the past, viewing them, quite correctly, as a scam.
And as to the DMCA, it is not a factor, since Mono has not done any reverse engineering -- once again, Mono used the published C# standard.
When it comes to intellectual property issues, other projects, such as Samba, Mozilla, and Wine, are at greater risk than Mono, yet we seldom see people expressing such fears about those projects.
Fear #3: Mono will be continually chasing Microsoft's tail:
As has already been explained, Mono has no plans to chase Microsoft down the decommoditized standards drain -- Mono is implementing the published C# standard.
Regarding features, Mono has no reason to worry, because Mono is progressing faster than Microsoft C
The biggest is advantage of Mono is that it will be easy to port Windows applications to Linux. I can't imagine Microsoft telling Adobe that it may no longer sell it's Linux/Mono port of Photoshop because of some MS patent. That would be war.
The fears presented in the article are part of a Microsoft FUD campaign against Mono.
For details, see my post further down:
The Article is Microsoft FUD
He was on Oxycontin? Well Rush & Jack Osborne share that in common, who'd have thought? Theres more than one way to take Oxycontin, too. Which way was Rush doing them?
just kidding. as far as we're concerned, it will be important to be far enough away from those fauxking foulcurrs, when the big flash occurs, so as to not get any of that whoreabull evile stuff on you/US.
we're refraining from promoting yOUR colonels until sum of the last gasper payper liesense FraUD execrable dissolves itself.
mono? that means won? in this case it means won more hobbyist soul DOWt. sorry to the remaining majority. tell 'em robbIE? yeah right.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. vote with (what's left in yOUR) wallet. get ready to see the light.
This may get moderated down as a troll. Nevertheless, I am completely serious about the following questions...
Why do we keep seeing FUD against Mono, but not against DotGNU, which also provides an implementation of C#?
Is it because Microsoft's plant at the FSF has removed the DotGNU threat (to Microsoft), perhaps by convincing them to make the DotGNU/Portable.Net license too restrictive for business use?
Is it because Mono is succeeding faster than DotGNU, or because Ximian is viewed (by Microsoft) as a bigger threat than the FSF, due to Ximian's better marketing abilities?
Is it because Mono, which comes from Ximian, represents a threat to Trolltech's future lock-in on Linux development environments?
I don't expect to learn the answer, of course, but we should always ask these sorts of questions.
MS can create NET 2.0, but is has to be backwards compatible with older versions or people wouldn't use it. People don't download critical patches, why would they install NET 2.0 even if it was free ?
.NET applications, and only time can tell.
Therefore, if Mono only supports NET 1.1, most people get from it what they want. AFAIK samba didn't support all brand new server features right away and still did a decent job for most of us.
As far as Wine is concerned, it would do much better if people desparately depended on it. I use linux at work and find it much easier (and cheaper and more rewarding for my employer) to use Mozilla, OpenOffice and gcc than fiddling with Wine and the respective Windows equivalents.
If people really depended on MS-Software, Wine would rock by now. The same goes for Mono, it'll only live if lots of people care about
1) Microsoft can use its market dominance to extend their .NET standard in ways that you can't foresee. No, that won't affect your software, but it *will* affect the installation base of Mono, and therefore, Linux in business.
.NET standard and use the DMCA to prevent open source developers from reverse engineering them. (Yes, I know there is a DMCA exception for RE, but if the exception were limitless, DMCA would mean nothing -- and I don't feel that lucky.)
.NET. What do you think they intend to use them for?
;)
2) Microsoft can continue to extend the
3) Microsoft *will* have patent claims that cover parts of
The example of WINE has been brought up as an analogy. MS hasn't shut down WINE, how is Mono different? I see two obvious differences. First, WINE is too Windows-dependent to ever be a significant threat to MS. Its market penetration in business must be near zero. Therefore, Linux (in 'the enterprise') would suffer virtually no ill effects of losing it. Hence, MS ignores it. If WINE *were* hugely successful to the point that Linux would be severely damaged if WINE were suddenly patent-locked, would MS continue to ignore it?
I'm not sure MS has the key patents to cover (at least the original) key concepts of Windows -- I think MS only got serious about patenting everything about 10 years ago. If that is the case, the WINE example may not be such a solid patent case as more recent MS technologies.
I think there are enough ways, if the karma loss were worth it to MS, to shut down any work-alike of *any* non-trivial and recent MS technology.
I think that MS will continue to ignore Mono -- until it becomes inconvenient. I only hope that any MS action doesn't deal a major setback to Linux at the same time.
And, yes, I *am* paranoid.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Sun is a coward in this case, not a traitor. Yes they could and should defend against SCO, but instead they are trying to stay out of the line of fire and let IBM solve this issue.
However, given their current problems, I do have some understanding for their cautious approach.
From the article:
The optimum time to shut down Mono will be after much Linux development has committed to it. By then, Mono technology will have infected many projects.
"Infected" many projects? This sounds like a sentence lifted straight from a Ballmer speech about GPL "cancer". Perhaps the author means "spread" to many projects?
And stop spreading fud.
;)
While it is correct that Java is owned by Sun, they specifically licensed the API's to the public domain. You can write your implementation and call it "Kaffe" as some did.
Sun could theoretically do something similar to what you describe. So could Microsoft. Sun has been responsive to the OSS community and in fact contributed many things well before such a community existed...
Well who would I choose, a mostly open company that has a good history a fine product and several binary implementations for Linux, a company that lets the APACHE group handle most of the standartization on the server side! Or do I choose a company that did EXACTLY what you describe countless times before and will do them again!
Hmm.... Tough choice
don't worry my friend...I can't see a future were linux developers all start using a .NET clone like Mono. maybe I am short sited, but linux is a C programmers haven. yeah I write mostly C++ code and a lot of the people I work with still use Fortran *gasp*.... So let me ask again dot what?
what?
C# is a language tha has been designed to improve on Java, so your accusations that it is worse than Java need evidence.
... (java doesn't have an equivalent)?
Have you tried to program in it? Do you know the first thing of what you are talking about?
Do you understand the choice between delegates and inner clases, properties and get/set methods, attributes and
Do you realize how important it is to have a bytecode language that is not tied to a single language?
Care to explain your reasoning with facts, or are you technological views based entirely upon your politics?
Sun had these shares well before the current issues with Sco! Why should they dump them?
Sun HAS to pay Sco since they do actually use the Unix code base (as in Solaris) IBM also paid Sco a much larger sum in the past.
Your posting reeks of defamation, grow up.
Correct me if I had the wrong end of the stick a couple of years ago but didn't MS announce that the CLS was to be ported to every major platform when they announced .NET only to then perform a U turn and announce thet the CLS would only be released by MS for MS OSes but other developers may port the CLS to other platforms if they wished.
.NET at this point as I already knew java and the JVM is provided by sun for a large majority of OSes (we won't talk about write once debug everywhere).
I gave up following the development of
Given this stance MS surely welcomes Mono. So what if the world stops running MS OSes, MS makes more than enough revenue from it's office suites, productivity tools and develop environments to suport itself well into the next 10 years.
Plus not manufacturing the OS or CLS removes the responsibility for MS having to make them secure (a headache I'm sure MS would love not to have - especially in recent years).
I see this not as MS rubbing it's hands in glee waiting for linux users to become MS dependent and then screw them through undocumented APIs or legal infingements. But MS runbbing its hands with glee at the revenue stream provided by Linux users becoming MS dependent for thier apps rather than the OS (come back into the fold O open source users Bill will make it all better here is the MS office you loved so much).
Paul Gogarty
One of my first stops every morning is Slashdot. The anti-Microsoft fervor here guarantees that Slashdot will be posting about the latest virus alert or vulnerability sometimes catching things that I missed but need to know about.
It isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you. Maybe these warnings about being locked in to yet another proprietary "standard" should be listened to.
The absolute last thing Microsoft wants to do is shut down the mono project. There is nothing MS would love more than for every Linux application compatible with GTK to install and run natively on Windows with no changes. Sure, some of those apps compete with Windows apps - but let's face it, open source GUI applications rarely have enough HCI attention paid to them so that they would be a serious competittor to Microsoft. The sheer propaganda value would be overwhelming.
.net. Look at the Rotor project - MS themselves commissioned the development of a runtime for FreeBSD and MacOS X. The more platforms .net code runs on, the more success Microsoft will gain. A big part of .net strategy is web services (translation: SOAP. We're not talking big-brother Passport authentication here, just your standard old SOAP remote instantiation.) If Apache/UNIX servers adopt C# and SOAP, the net win for Microsoft would be much bigger because they could provide an instant migration path away from Linux for those fed up with the high maintenance costs.
.net patents Microsoft recently obtained are there to keep some other loser from claiming them. They don't want to get locked out of their own invention! Sure, you'll see the .net API branch out to include Office with a huge proprietary class library, but that won't affect Mono even a little bit.
.net in return, MS would care much less. So stop whining.)
MS is still struggling to legitimize
Besides, the bad PR would be overwhelming if they did otherwise. And as we've seen recently with Eolas, MS doesn't want to "start any @&*#" as far as patents are concerned - they'll just open themselves to legitimizing more lawsuits from tiny companies that want their share of MS cash in return. Honestly, who would they even sue, Novell? Yeah, that would be profitable.....
I firmly believe that the
(Yes, I know I'll get a load of replies whining that I give Linux less credit than it deserves in this article. Actually, I give it more. If Linux wasn't a legitimate competitor, support wouldn't help legitimize
((Yes, I know my karma is headed down the tubes. Don't hate me because I'm right.))
The last few releases have really come a long way and I, for one, am looking forward to the day when I can use Mono on Windows as a complete replacement for the MS.Net binaries.
.NET overlords.
I, for one, welcome our new (open- or closed-sourced)
MS knows mono is being worked on, they know its a .NET alternative, if they keep quiet then any judge should not uphold the DCMA against mono simply because MS knew it was happening but waited and waited to say anything about it.
Its the same as if you were being robed, you held a gun, but waited untill months later and shot the rober walking down the street, it just wouldnt hold up.
But then again MS has the money to bribe....er i mean give campaign donations.
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
Rather than let microsoft dictate what .Net and mono should do, the open source community could embrace and extend the specification
Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
They'll release a version of Windows with a BSD foundation, ala OSX.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
...to recommend Parrot for purposes other than what its designers say it will be good for.
.NET bytecode) at OSCON 2003. He said, "Yes, Parrot will run .NET bytecode," but emphasized that it would not run it at a speed which would make it competitive with the CLR. If it was competitive, it might be a big threat to Microsoft (since MS has had trouble getting the CLR to handle dynamic languages). But Dan was very specific about being convinced Parrot's .NET capabilities would not be any kind of threat to the CLR.
I asked Dan Sugalski about precisely this prospect (using Parrot to run
It will be interesting to see how fast it runs compared to Mono.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
If Microsoft decided to make our life really hard in terms of compatibility, it would also hurt its own customers.
Why does Miguel assume this would prevent Microsoft from doing that? Bill Gates worries about many things, but customer satisfaction is not one of them.
As long as the .Net developement is being done in C#, the code can be ported to Java if need be. I've coded in both languages (C# and Java) and they are extremely similar. .Net that might cause problems (WMI, native calls, etc.) should be avoided if possible when writing C# code with mono anyway. I don't think that Microsoft can successfully enforce a patent on an API. Just change the name of the language. Call it "D--" or something.
The bits of
I must confess that it made my YEAR when this story broke.
There are few things that I like to see more than a holier-than-thou preaching HYPOCRITE being exposed as a complete fraud. All those years of preaching to the world about how drug addicts are a lower class of human being and that anybody can fix any problems they have in their life on their own with little difficulty, thank god the world now sees him for the liar he is.
Adios motherfucker, its over. Don't let the door hit you in your fat ass on the way out.
HA HA HA you fat piece of shit!!!
Why not read this article instead. Though obviously Microsoft could do a 180 and change their mind, so far they've supported the Mono project.
Everything will happen exactly as he describes. It has been foretold by zarlog the spitter. Mono will be destoryed on the fortnight of Zarlog's comming! The .net framework will be filled with propritary api's that are illeagally impossible to copy with out having your intestines devoured for alleternity by the mighty zarlog's minnions. All glory to the comming of Zarlog!
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Mono needs patron saints with their own patent portfolios (and cross-licensing arrangements with Microsoft). For example, Novell's sponsorship is better than Ximian because (I recall) that Novell has entered into several cross-licensing agreements with MS (though how current these are, I can't say).
A big plus would be IBM, Apple, and/or Intel's direct sponsorship (not just code contributions), since they also maintain large patent portfolios and cross-licensing agreements with MS.
Then it simply becomes a matter of horse-trading.
and have the open source community momentum to kick MS .NET in the nads...
[rant]
I think "Mono" was dorky idea to being with... "Lets take something from a closed source extermely powerful company and create a project that is totally reliant on them or better yet show them how to do something better and let them roll my free code into their cash cow malware junk..."
The team working on Mono obvilously wants to be the lead porting team to work at Microsoft for half a seven figure salary and bring this crap to Mac and Linux. Mini-Darl McBride clones...
[/rant]
Mono=Roy .NET=Tiger
--JAV--
Umm, Miguel you know that SCO doesn't in fact control the UNIX certification don't you? You also realize that there are already different UNIX specifications that companies can certify too?
.NET compatible when the original vision you pushed was that you liked the ideas BEHIND .NET. Well fine, use those ideas, portable byte code, multiple languages, etc, but cut the strings from MS. You're never going to convert a .NET shop to Mono and as long as you try to stay close it will only be viewed as a liability.
I think the problem is that you're trying to sell Mono as
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
You are, for free as in beer, providing Microsoft with a well-made tool for helping them to get people to migrate off of UNIX and onto Windows.
.NET compatibility, such as it is, is a way for Windows programmers to migrate to UNIX/Linux. That seems like a good thing to me.
.NET because they usually have lots of dependencies on Linux libraries. For example, of all the screen shots on the Mono home site, almost all of them are Gtk# based.
Mono's
Migration in the other direction is not a real concern when using Mono: most Mono applications will simply not easily work on Microsoft
Of course, if you work at it, you can use Mono to write cross-platform applications that also run on Windows, but, then, you can do the same thing with wxWindows, FLTK, Python, Perl and lots of other toolkits and environments. Mono doesn't keep you from writing something that will work on Windows, but it certainly doesn't encourage it.
The real danger is Sun. It is Sun's stated goal with Java to make the underlying operating system or native toolkit irrelevant. That is Sun really is trying to migrate people off of Linux by getting programmers to develop in and for Java APIs. Of course, they would like to migrate them to Solaris, but they might more readily migrate to Windows. Even without all the legal b.s. from Sun, that alone would constitute a big threat to Linux.
... for every time something that could vaguely be percieved as a threat to Microsoft suddenly get posted on Slashdot as going to die/possibly dying/dying soon. The truth is, for every thing that competes with Microsoft and gets squashed, there's at least five other things that keep going. The biggest example is in the Haloween docuements. I'm still waiting for Microsost to act on that one...
As much as we all hat to admit it, Microsoft does have competition. Just not a lot. It's loosing it's monopoly hold and Windows is on life support. We as Linux developers have to be ready to cater to the masses when Windows finally falls.
When, not if
Peter M. Dodge,
Chief Executive Officer,
LiquidFire Studios
Platinum Linux - www.
Does anyone here have ANY idea about how happy Microsoft is about Mono? Does anyone here know why? It isn't because "Now we have a tool hanging over Linux's head that can bring everything down!". No, stupid-heads, it is because it means that their monopoly is being extended without them spending ANY money! People are using Microsoft technology on non-Microsoft operating systems! That's great for Microsoft! Exposure, marketing, public opinion, portability! There are PLENTY of reasons that Microsoft would want Mono to succeed, and they don't need to include our little fears and scares - they aren't bad for us... so get over yourselves, and take a closer look at the big picture here...
Until Microsoft can come up with a case, this discussion is all just hot air.
Shutdown isn't ever going to be a good option for Microsoft so I'd suggest that those spreading FUD about Mono should back off.
Mono works in Microsoft's interest. They're in a battle with Java. And I'm glad. The competition is pusshing both platforms forward.
What's always going to happen is what an earlier commentator mentioned. Microsoft will always be a release ahead. But so what? You can develop really great programs in C# and ASP.Net and having alternate hosting options is going to be great.
Even Windows Forms applications will survive. After all, the new stuff in Wibley isn't going to be required to run a succesful application. And it's the applications that matter most to the success of the underlying platform.
Unfortunately, Linux would be the big loser if that were to happen.
No... that honour will always belong to Microsoft.
I think that's the funniest post I've read all morning. I nearly blew coffee out my nose! Well done!
Well ... it would be a stretch to say MSFT doesn't already use (mostly) one codebase for their apps. You can read an interesting account of this, specifically about Excel in Steve Maguire's excellent book Writing Solid Code . Maguire was initially hired to work on MSFT's Mac apps, and subsequently was a big proponent for moving to cross-platform code, and spent much effort in improving shared libraries. So the statement was correct years ago but not now, although perhaps they have taken a step back since Maguire wrote the book. Especially seeing how quickly they got the Mac Office versions out there, it seems doubtful that would've been possible had there been separate codebases.
.NET will definitely make it even easier, but the real benefit won't be for Linux/MONO users, it'll be for the variety of Windows users - cross platform meaning Win16, Win32, Win64 etc. I agree with the other posters in that MONO will suffer from the same problems as WINE, MSFT will make sure things don't work just quite right unless it's 100% .NET inside, and MONO will always be behind the curve - software does not stand still, and MSFT won't be waiting for MONO to catch up. That's some pipe dream.
Folks,
.NET initiative. In short, the basic .NET concepts become widely adopted quickly by two very large user bases (Windows and now increasingly Linux/FreeBSD).
I think people are assuming all kinds of wrong things about Ximian's Mono project.
Look at it this way: why is Microsoft not really putting down Mono? The reason is simple: if Mono does become highly successful, it means that the Open Source crowd will be running Web services almost identical to what Microsoft plans with their
This is particularly bad news for Sun Microsystems, because the wide adoption of Mono will put a quick kibosh to the much-touted Liberty Alliance web services project, a project that has Sun as its biggest supporter.
Microsoft is all about embrace and extend. They see .NET as a way _out_ of the operating system game which is quickly becoming a high-cost, low profit venture. Fewer people are buying new PCs and they face serious challenges in the server front. If the trend continues, the Windows cash cow will turn into a anchor within 10 years and they see it coming. Microsoft also believes they loose billions a year on the piracy Office and Windows (hence the Activation crap) -- the cash cow that will keep giving and giving for the forseeable future. .NET provides them with a path to become the worlds largest ASP. They want to saturate the world with .NET -- the PC XBox, TiVO, PocketPC, wherever. The wider the adoption of .NET, the wider the potential market of customers to rent Office, Money, and their cadre of low-cost, high-profit products. It also neatly solves their problem of piracy. Since their would be no local copies of software, it would become far more difficult to steal, and much easier to track down those would do. Why else would they go to ECMA to get it standardized? They want to people to be able to easily implement the runtime.
.NET has a long way to go before it will be able to support this model and Microsoft has a lot of porting to do, but hey, it is a ten year plan.
As such, I am sure that within the privacy of their offices, the Microsofties loves to Mono. They see the hope of being able to lease you and I Office without ever having to spend a dime. Of course,
Since Mono is not building some things like Winforms, your point is moot - the bulk of systems built using .Net will also use bits from most of the libraries, but especially Winforms - which is not being ported. So Mono is not really a viable option for migration.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well, what about DotGNU? People seem supportive of that. Would that be affected or not? Why?
DNA just wants to be free...
This is ridiculous... "The Dangers Posed." .net platform. What's the big deal with that? .Net platform is extremely powerful for us Windows developers, and I can only imagine that the same will hold true for open source developers that employ it.
As a Windows developer, I am EXCITED by the Mono project. Here is my chance to program in a non-Windows environment. It also further standardizes the
I hardly feel as though MS will take action against the Mono project - I feel it would be a bad thing for them to do. The
This article is just another cry from a hurt and revengeful open-source community.
But considering the weight MS is throwing behind .NET, and my own personal experiences developing Java and C# commercially, I would be more inclined to use Mono over anything else.
:)
Plus, Mono will let Gnome move to a better base language support. Have you compared Gnome 2.2 to KDE 3.1 lately? It's obvious which system is more mature, thanks to a better OO base
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Have you developed in C#? Then you won't know what you're missing. It's like trying to explain to people who haven't done Eiffel programming the benefits of design by contract, there's no basis for understanding without a whole lot of writing and examples. Just go work through a C# book and do some GUI design with it, then you'll know.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
But C# is Java++ essentially. IT does everything Java does, and improves on a few key components. The GUI libraries that C# can access via .NET are very polished towards OO design, as well. Working with the VS.Net layout and signals connecting in C# is so easy, you'd swear you weren't doing GUI development.
I want that kind of setup for my Linux desktop. I can get close to it via various design environments I can install, but never quite there. I'm hoping Mono + a good shell will let me do great GUI design on Linux. I want to be able to have my apps look seamless with KDE or Gnome, since Java's own Swing doesn't offer this (and nothing else is guaranteed to be on the target).
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
There will be no monoculture in the Open Source world. The very people that drive it are too independant, too individualistic and too smart to ever settle on one solution to a problem. Unix is 30 years old and is nowhere near a monoculture, even when Linux has come to be a strong force in the market.
Actually, I can think of one monoculture we have - X. We have so many desktops, toolkits, languages, web servers, ftp servers, dns servers, MTAs, etc: Why haven't the X alternatives gained any traction? Multiple drivers too hard to write? X really is good enough? Has the X monoculture helped or hurt *nix?
Bleh!
I got Mono in college. It was no fun.
-=- Many seek good nights and lose good days.
The article's right -- we'd be better off depending on a proprietary standard which you can be sued for extending. Pass the java!
No, seriously, if Mono were successful MS couldn't shut it down and *I* could have
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
All the grandstanding by Microsoft and the .net architecture, plus the fawning over its API by Miguel and the arguments for and against are forgetting a least two dynamics that are not being mentioned:
.NET push mean economically to most IT departments? It means having to spend more money to do the same thing you could already do in C,C++,J2EE,Python or a hundred different ways. If I see one thing clearly in IT departments its the fact that they are getting tired of MS running their future. Yes, they use Windows as their primary platforms but they are growing more annoyed every year with MS and their draconian licensing games and their changing the chess board everytime it looks like someone might be compatible with them. Make no mistake. This .NET transformation is the same game they have played since the DOS days. Ever since the've had a monopoly they have always been focused on embrace and break. The old joke in Seattle was "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run." For those of you too young to remember, Lotus 1-2-3 was the application suite back in those days. You wouldn't even seriously consider using Microsoft "applications" at that time. Hell, Windows 1.0 was an extreme embarrasment. It was the Mac, but broken and filtered through Bill Gates greedy autistic brain. By breaking Lotus they broke the back of anyone seriously competing in the core application spaces. Same sordid story a few years later with DRDOS.
1. Security. Corporations are just beginning to move away from the ultra-distributed, operating- system-is-not-important, paradigms-are-everything mindset. Why? Because it makes securing the enterprise at least 100 times harder and more expensive and it doesn't add value that would justify those dollars. The more heavily distributed your systems are, the more difficult it is to decide on the correct zone structure and keep information (like MS's Halloween docs) from slipping out. If there is a massive push towards any new paradigm, its not at the API layer. Corps don't really care what sort of API/object structure benefits MS the most, they want to see profits and $ saved. Highly distributed, diffuse, nebulous object hierarchies and APIs serve no function other than to look cool to CompSci students (yes I have a CSc degree) and be the subject of endless debates about who is doing what to whom.
2. Economics. What does the
The real problem is that Corps got wise to this a long time ago, but there used to be nothing they could do about it. Now with Linux etc etc they are able to finally chart their own IT paths again. Not only that, but they have re-discovered thin client computing. Those used to be called mainframes, but these days they are modern and flexible. I'm predicting that cheap OpenMosix clusters and thin client that can talk both X and MS RDP will be the end of MS. No dual booting worries, no having to run Norton or McAffee everytime to boot up. No personal firewalls, unless you want one for your personal laptop.
All the CIO has to see is that when the staff is running OpenOffice using a Linux thin client through an OpenMosix cluster, their support, hardware and software costs nearly disappear while their security and reliability increase exponentially.
When the same user hits F2 and flips over to their Windows session, they pay a MS non-Windows client tax, a Citrix tax, a Windows Terminal Server concurrent user tax and then the tax for the Windows 2000 Server licenses and the $30K for Citrix (if you want it done right). I forgot to mention the tax for the corporate site license for MS Office.
Then when the US dollar isn't worth squat because Shrubya just flim-flammed the US taxpaying sheep into a war of senseless agression which costs a significant percentage of the gross national product, that CIO is going to be *highly* motivated to save IT dollars.
At the end of the day all he cares about is delivering the computing goods to the corporation at the lowest possible
Do you know how much a trial and discovery cost a large company?
.net went with mono instead.
I would bet it would cost MS 1 million each month a case is opened and multiples of that amount later on. So its best to wait to get enough for a prima facia (case stands on its own merits)
In the case of mono, MS would be best waiting for them to see damages, ie a customer that considered
"Consider a future where Microsoft has succeeded in migrating most Windows development to the .NET framework." .NET wagon. Of course, this will be different this time. MS won't get bored with this technology a few years down the line and developers will never have to worry about there skills going out of date, because you can trust good old MS.
Unfortunately there are too many people who have been screwed once by MS, but still come back for more.
Look at the history of development tools that MS release, develop up to a point, then abandon.
First MFC: they did a great job with version VC 4.2, but then stopped making any more improvements - but still released further versions (VC 5.0 and VC 6.0 ), because they knew all the idiots would upgrade matter what they do. Now they have abandoned all new MFC development. Theyre excuse was because it was aging and it's time had come. You know STL is around longer than MFC and it's still being improved.
Then have a look at VB: VB4 was good. VB5 more improvements. VB6 a joke! VB6 has no new features and doesnt even have the bugs that were in VB5 fixed.
So now everyone jumps on the
Suckers!
Mono can't succeed because it requires that Linux make their O/S look and act like Windows. Linux is doing fine as long as it is operating under its own agenda, but, as soon as it tries to out-Microsoft, they will be chasing a moving target with 45 billion dollars in the bank.
There's much ado about the power of open source to produce good quality software. And, maybe it's true. But even if open source were decidedly superior from a features and reliability perspective than closed source projects, there's no reason that a large company like MS could not use open source techniques for its own projects. They have email and version control and group software just as much as the free software community does.
In a game where Microsoft is setting the developmental agenda for an API, is driving the actual form factor of computers themselves, then, Linux's only real shot, and, the shot of every MS competitor, is to, dare I say, "innovate", in that, one should not try and beat MS to where MS is trying to go. Rather, one should do something completely different.
Putting
WHY DO YOU EVEN WANT LINUX TO BE A CORPORATE OPERATING SYSTEM.
Where's the RESEARCH in your open source RESEARCH O/S?
WHY DESTROY AN ACADEMIA CULTURE SOLELY TO SPITE MICROSOFT?
Have the imagination to do something different and something new. Copying the Windows U/I to Linux seems such a waste of time? Is the desktop GUI MS makes really that invincibile that it should be cloned? Now you are trying to clone
This is my sig.
that is what my sister use to say, but then again she couldn't date for a year.
They are still hashing out the 12th change to their function calling conventions in 2 years. There is no hint of any sort of Perl support (Perl6 or otherwise). I would not bet a dime on Parrot - use something that works today - not the promise of a better thing next decade. The only hope for Parrot is Leo.
You're quoting James Michael Dupont's opinion?
God help you.
And that is my point! Granted, maybe PHP isn't a GOOD example, but it's the general idea I was after. Stuff like
I just think that trying to play "keep-up" with MS is very bad in this instance. MS will always have the cooler tools, and the better implementation. Linux is at the point that nobody should bother with following MS anymore. Just make sure that any cool new stuff works on windows too [like apache, mysql, php, etc] Like various others have said, if MONO was ever REALLY popular, MS would yank the rug out [legally, technically] in a heartbeat. They are only working to further MS monopoly buy giving the illusion that Linux users care about