Slashdot Mirror
Miguel de Icaza on Mono, Ximian/Novell, XAML
moquist writes "Netcraft has an interview with Miguel de Icaza, of Gnome and Ximian fame. Icaza expounds his thoughts on Mono (the .Net framework for open source), the current direction of Microsoft's .Net, Novell's acquisition of Ximian, Novell's Linux desktop environment, Linux for grandmas and kids, and "the greatest danger to the continuing adoption and progress of open source" (Hint: it's pronounced "XAML".)."
de icaza is dying
Isn't that the most logical spelling of the word that would be pronounced "XAML"?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
HEY, that's my nickname because my last name backwards is LOMAX, they can't steal that from me!!!
MY SECRET DIARIES
Mono means monkey.
What an encouraging way to end the interview.
.. the interview summarizes neatly what Miguel has been saying for the past few weeks; it even links to the "two stacks" diagram. Hopefully distributions would start shipping with the unencumbered stack of Mono once Mono 1.0 is out.. between that and gcj/classpath Linux should see an influx of new developers.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
can somebody tell me what i'm supposed to be seeing...i don't have javascript enabled.
a word's English meaning will be considered before its Spanish meaning a vast majority of the time. dictionary.com has no mention of this 'monkey' definition either.
How the hell do you pronounce "XAML"?
It definitely looks like it is up to no good.
Here is the code (the only thing on the "page" -- it doesn't even have HTML or BODY tags....)
My guess is that it grabs your clipboard buffer and submits it back to the website... just a guess, but that's what it looks like to me.
in that case you wouldn't be scared at all...
Can't he talk about anything other than Mono and Microsoft Technologies? I swear he must be an employee.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
interview_with_miguel_de_icaza_cofounder_of_gnome_ ximian_and_mono.html
I, for one, welcome our new naming convention overlords.
jdif
Let's overcome our weakness.
It should also be very obvious to anyone who knows this stuff just how giant a security risk all that sort of technology would present. I'm sure g-man thinks they've got it all sewn up now with these hardware controls, but cracks in the structure are inevitable and one can only imagine a world where just clicking to visit a website, rather than downloading a trojan installer that may or may not complete, instead downloads a robust trojan installer that will complete. And people are already getting pretty damn sick of tithing to both Microsoft and Symantec. Keep selling that crapware until they can't swallow any more!
Meanwhile, the linux desktop is coming together more and more and Microsoft's uber-desktop is pushed back again to.. when?
Computers are cheap. And I can tell you from experience it's not that hard to convince someone to try linux after you've helped the reload their computer for the second or third time. It's up to the product to keep them there once they've made that transition - if we can't beat the crap MS has been shoveling with another two full years of development time, it won't be because Bill and Steve are to blame.
Umm, wouldn't this just turn into another class-action law suit accusing Microsoft of inadequately supporting 3rd party competition? That'd be great, because the schools out there need more free Windows machines to advertise to children and squash the competition further.
In the interview there is a link to MS's Longhorn XAML page and if you compare the code snippets and description to Mozilla's XUL they do appear to be very similar. I'm not sure when Mozilla's and Microsoft's projects were started, but it does certainly appear that MS is "embracing and extending" XUL for Longhorn, by adding proprietary .NET integration. What strikes me as odd, is that it seems like XAML will be totally incompatible with XP and 2K as well (MS touts it as a new Longhorn markup language), so widespread adoption on the internet seems unlikely (at least until XP is phased out...). It seems like Linux/Mono would be on equal footing with XP/the current .NET framework when it comes to handling XAML.
Netcraft is dying.
He acknowledges that the Microsoft replacement for HTML is a rich user experience to come, despite the fact it certainly is dangerous to a certain extent.
Do realize that, GNU/Linux zealots : you can say something is good from a certain point of view (usability), and bad from another (interoperability). Isn't that incredible ?
Really ; isn't that incredible ?
Regards,
jdif
Let's overcome our weakness.
This new technology is finally going to bring closer to the people with domain expertise the ability to create their own applications, without having to depend on technical specialists. HTML opened the door to many people with limited or no programming expertise. The .Net framework with Avalon and XAML will advance this even further. The Mozilla approach is something the Unix/Linux developers need to better understand and get on board with and contribute towards as the current stack used in the Unix/Linux community is already out-dated. Miguel is right-on-target!!!
.Net framework, Avalon and XAML in my opinion will have no peers unless the Linux community develops a competitive answer!
I've worked in Unix engineering environments since 1984 at HP and Sun (Operating Systems, Networking and Graphics). I've observed over the years that the Unix community took Microsoft very lightly and never very seriously. The unix industry has not traditionally worked with the same user community as Microsoft. But Microsoft has matured very quickly and now delivers some outstanding technology for developing applications! The
The stack that Microsoft is creating will not only empower more people to create more sophisticated applications, but will increase the productivity of application programmers by at least 30% over todays Unix/Linux development stacks!!!
Mozilla is a great start in the right direction, but cooperation between the Gnome, Kde, and Mozilla camps will need to occur in sort order to compete with the Microsoft stack when it comes to application interface development.
GigantanKramePithicus
I got as much information about Novell and the linux desktop than I did on microsoft and mono. It's a short but interesting interview. I'd hoped it spanned more than a single page, but despite only consisting of a few questions the answers are relatively in depth.
click-clack, front and back. I'm not moving this car otherwise.
I wish I could get excited about XAML, because I like the idea of a complete overhaul of HTML. This is the first I've heard of XAML. If you follow the links and look at the material on it, it looks pretty cool. What bothers me about it is that if and when it becomes dominant it will stop evolving, just like IE and every other dominant MS product. Its goal is not to change the world or fix the web, but to capture market share and make competition more difficult.
Having said that, why isn't there an far-reaching OSS project to replace HTML? For one thing I guess it's a lot easier to impose a standard on the world when you have the dominant platform. Will Microsoft convert the web into a network of C# apps? I hope not.
Mr. Gates,
My name is Miguel De Icaza, and you killed my father...
In the last 6 months he gave more interviews and opinions (even when not asked) than ever before, combined. Apparently, he enjoys the spotlight.
Understandable, but not necessarily very professional.
Could he, at least once, address the issue of KDE's future, now that the largest supporter is within Novell, and Ximian has a say, too.
Sigged!
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
So, what does everyone here say? Is XML an acronym?
I've had an ongoing discussion with a friend on this matter for weeks, and it needs closure.
I say XML is an acronym. He says it's only an abbreviation. I'm not even sure what he's saying anymore. He's said things such as "SoCal is an acronym", and I'm a bit confused.
If you'd care to reference the words "acronym", "initialism", "abbreviation", and "word" in Webster's Dictionary (and whatever other dictionaries you use), it'd be helpful.
Anyway: is XML (and other "non-pronounceable" initialisms such as SMTP, FBI, et al) an acronym, or do acronyms have to be pronounceable (such as NASA, FUBAR, etc.), making XML simply an abbreviation?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I dont get it, MS has failed numerous times before with "exciting" new technologies and i dont really understand why they are bound to success now. XAML might as well just be a failiure. Is it really a threat to linux? Not today and not tomomorrow since its just wapourware on paper as of today. Net was supposed to be the answer to everything but hasnt really gotten much of a foothold yet.
Sometimes i wonder if Miquel is just a pawn in a game and doesnt understand it. There are more than one way to skin a cat and i find it appaling that we should mimic Microsoft at all times and play catch-up instead of setting the pace and standards ourselves.
Maybe thats what Microsoft is most afraid of, to loose control over the heading of the software industry. Open source have control over web servers and can take control over the protocols on the web if we just do our own thing. If we only follow what Microsoft do we will always be number two and thats no where to be.
HTTP/1.1 400
considering....
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Ooops! Good thing most of use aren't running windows!
Miguel (and others) tend to over emphesise "competition" and "threads" to open source. In my opinion, there is no such thing. In fact, I would go as far as saying that his focus on XAML and other "competing" technologies is the only thread to open source.
Open source is _not_ about competing with anybody else. It is _not_ the goal to create a competing technology to win market share or anything. Open source is an exercise in technology, invention and freedom.
Why should we fear XAML or widespread adaptation of it? And why should we therefore pursue clone technologies?
We dont have the pressure to compete in any market place! We can look at the software _we_ use and see what we can do better. Maybe an XAML like technology is good. Lets think about the ideas. But maybe it isnt good, then lets do something else. You decide, not some abstract competition.
Technologies like Linux, Mozilla (XUL+++), etc. came not from the desire to do something that could lure _others_ away from somebody elses technology, but to enable the developer to use hard and software they way he wanted to and the way he thinks others may want to use it. Yes, open source takes lots of ideas, but then they are made better and often different. The drive should come from within, from excitement about the technologies and new ideas.
Instead of worrying about what others might do and how others will perceive our software, we should get excited about it ourselfs first and make it good and work well. There is no fight, there is no competition. Dont waste your thoughts about others, think about how you can realize your own ideas and make them better.
Maybe then we can focus on and enjoy development again.
Let others sleep bad at nights worrying about "the competition".
Regards,
Andre Eisenbach
It was expensive, didn't have the simplicity of HTML as a starting point and, perhaps, was a little ahead of its time. (Client/Server was still catching on.) The fact that few mainframe guys liked Macs may have been a factor, too.
Links:
"The only problem with the MacworkStation [a software program] is that instead of making it a public domain standard, Apple is licensing the source code for $1500 to 'interested' parties" - MacTech Magazine archived article
Apple Computer History Weblog
One thing I really give Miguel credit for; he is more than willing to put up with the political heat and flak for taking MS ideas seriously and seeing how they could apply to the Linux/Open Source/GUI world.
Given the popularity of Perl, Python, etc, it makes sense for a language independent VM and libraries for programming. Is the CLR the best for this? Well, no, but there's a good case that it is best thing right now, or at the least, good enough!
I think a killer Open Source project would be port Java over to the CLR. To be really evil and fun, make it a JVM->CLR rewriter. Of course, Sun will sue you like mad, but that not why it wouldn't happen (it helps MS too much), but it would break Sun's hold on Java a bit more. Especially with Mono in the mix.
And now to for the flamebait (This is a post with MS stuff it in, after all).
Microsoft does have true innovations in Longhorn. (See, I told you). And it is worth paying attention to and evaluating. Passing it off as vaporware or FUD isn't wise, considering the bits are getting into people's hands right now.
XAML is nicely balanced and really seems like the first truly usable markup-based GUI language (XUL was close, but not close enough. I think it'd be much more popular otherwise).
Avalon is nice, not totally groundbreaking, but it does kill bitmap-based windowing, and I haven't seen anything that suggest that Linux world is pulling that trigger yet. (X being a obstacle in the way) Apple did, and the results speak for themselves I think.
WinFX has some very interesting ideas in how you structure components, and has the chance to become the next big thing in components (after COM. Another Microsoft innovation! Flames rising).
Finally, WinFS is very, very cool stuff, even as vaporware. I'm not surprised they had to scale it back, because what there are doing is nothing short of rethinking the file system from the ground up. This is a bold thought to take seriously. The notion of extensible metadata alone is powerful. (Before, file metadata was fixed.) Add in searching, extensible relationships, etc and you have something worth paying attention too.
This is innovation, in my book. Invention is coming up with those rare new ideas. I see innovation is taking those ideas and making them applicable, or practical, affordable, widely available, better, used by many and so on.
I think Ford was an innovator for creating a practical way to mass-produce cars. He didn't invent the car, he made it a reality for many.
Microsoft has done that, for better or for worse. Not all innovation is a priori good for all.
Of course, one should never obsess with what MS is doing to the determent of all else. Pay attention, but focus on doing what you can do best, and let the chips fall were they may.
And just WHY do we need to replace HTML? Modern day HTML along with CSS does very nice things. HTML abused does not so nice things. Also not everything needs to be a rich browsing experience. For those RICH browsing experiences, you might want to look at Newsmonster and MAB, for an inkling of were things could be if people would get off their kesters and CODE instead of whining and worrying about what MS MIGHT do in 4 or 5 years.
Nice work, AC! WARNING: DON'T CLICK ON THE THE PARENT LINK: "GWB Denounces Open source!" IF YOU BY ANY CHANCE ARE VIEWING THIS IN WINDOWS!
Can An administator please remove that link?
..put them together.
a cromedia Flex</a>, however licensing for this product is a nightmare ($USD 12,000) which I think is a grave mistake on Macromedia's part.
? promoid=home_prod_ce_0111903">Macromedia Central</a> which allows flash apps to run naitively and interact with local data (download with one click, save network data locally) and its acutally a great app, but its licensing model is again completely proprietary and closed. This is where we (the OS community) come in..
l es/paradigm.html">MXML</a>, for interopability. It can be free open, and we have a full year to develop such a framework. There is a HUGE market for this. Particularly for people that are not ready to uprgrade their entire OS, but still want to use RIAs. On that not it will also be important to start devloping some of the killer apps (photo browsers, visual forums, real time easy chat for every page, data extractors, etc).
I do think that the man has a point. The web is just dying for more RIA, we will need to jump out of the request/recieve process, and if MS comes out with this system with no competition it will continue to dominate, and it will be huge.
However, all the tools to create such interactions are available now. I know many people are going to hate to hear this, but Macromedia Flash provides the framework for all of the things that Avalon envisions to do, the system for developing such apps just needs to be created. The Flash player is installed 98.6% of client systems on the internet. (!)
So hear is an idea: why not incorporate developent of such flash apps into Mono? The swf format is now open and documented.
Macromedia recently came out with a system to do something like this called <a href="http://www.macromedia.com/software/flex/">M
They also have a new (sort of) framework called <a href="http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/
So what is the idea? Just incoporate the functionality of Flex into Mono, you can even use the same format used by Macromedia in Flex, <a href="http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/flex/artic
The drawback is of course speed, and we can't really beat MS there. However if we can get something like this going then it will be a big incentive for Macromedia to offer perhaps a larger + faster version of the flash player. One of the best examples of moves in this direction still has many problems with it, but you can see it here:
www.ego7.net
But, the time is def. limited.
-Ashot
-ashot
"What Miguel is afraid of, I think, is not that this technology will be mind blowingly good, but merely that it will be good enough. Let's face it, Microsoft has been very good at "good enough". What do I mean by "good enough"? Well, potentially riddled with security holes that will be sloely patched over the 5-10 years following it's release - a debacle as far as security concious users are concerned - would still count as good enough. You see, the people in management who buy into these things are notorious for their lack of long term planning, and consideration of security. Look at what Microsoft has already happly foisted onto the corporate world - code riddled with exploits, but because it offered the right new features business bought into it."
Two things. One is it really safe to ASSUME (And yes we are assuming at some level) that "good enough" will always be good enough?
Two as has been pointed out in the past. The biggest choke collar for MS, is MS. THEY"VE ALREADY SATURATED THEIR MARKETSPACE. Now how are they going to force people to give up millions of dollors in investment. Both software and training, let alone the new hardware that may be required (WinTel). For the so far unproven benifits of LongHorn?
Avalon/XAML *is* scary - but Mozilla/XUL can/should trump the living heck out of
it. If the OSS community lets Microsoft
define the rules, we all lose. We need to
push the heck out of Mozilla/XUL. XUL needs
to become a de-facto standard. It should make
Avalon/XAML look like just yet another proprietary dead end.
It is time to shift focus
past the 3GL GUI toolkits (GTK/QT) and move
on to some much bigger, 4GL, app building
blocks. This is the only fight the matters.
The future 4GL "application platform" is being decided. Will Microsoft own the platform or will
it be open source.
P.S. Lets put Python into Mozilla/XUL (Javascript *is* a big drag)
Sorry, posted in plain text on accident..
Macromedia Flex
Macromedia Central
MXML
ego7
-ashot
When we make a protocol, MS can copy it perfectly, because they have access to all the neccesary documentation, and can even look at how we implemented it. When MS makes a protocol, we usually can't even get a look at the specifications, we have to reverse-engineer it, and therefore it takes us longer to make a product that doesn't always have all the functionality. It only seems like we constantly play catch-up to MS because MS doesn't really play fair.
Lagito ergo expectabo
Helloooooo, anyone home ?, once you get into creating 'elaborate' stuff in 'markup' then you are smack back into programming and code. Its that kind of thinking that gives us unmaintainable Excel or Word macros, JavaScript, ASP, Perl, Expect/Tk,...list goes on.
It IS programming and it IS in CODE because it has a syntax , a grammer and a vocabulary. Unless it is a natural language parser then its still a computer language.
I'm not knocking the language - I just think its being oversold by saying its not code.
Let the 15YMOUA begin!
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
"Of course, the only drawback is that this new interaction is completely tied to .Net and WinFX. So we see that as a very big danger. A lot of people today cannot migrate to Linux or cannot migrate to Mozilla because a lot of their internal Web sites happen to use IE extensions. Now imagine a world where you can only use XAML."
So that's the gist of his fear? So by that argument were's the open source clone of ActiveX? XAML==ActiveX all grown up and as bad ass as ever. Gee if I'd known that OSS was in the damsel saving business, I would have asked for money?
All logical spellings of everything have been trademarked by drug companies.
Zamil, for instance, helps firm up stool for people on low-carb diets.
Common side effects may include:
Abdominal pain, abnormal dreams, abnormal vision, agitation, amnesia, anxiety, arthritis, back pain, bronchitis, burning sensation, chest pain, confusion, constipation, coughing, daytime sleeping, decreased mental alertness, depression, diarrhea, difficulty breathing, difficulty concentrating, difficulty swallowing, diminished sensitivity to touch, dizziness on standing, double vision, dry mouth, emotional instability, exaggerated feeling of well-being, eye irritation, falling, fatigue, fever, flu-like symptoms, gas, general discomfort, hallucination, hiccup, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased sweating, infection, insomnia, itching, joint pain, lack of bladder control, lack of coordination, lethargy, light-headedness, loss of appetite, menstrual disorder, migraine, muscle pain, nasal inflammation, nervousness, numbness, paleness, prickling or tingling sensation, rapid heartbeat, rash, ringing in the ears, sinus inflammation, sleep disorder, speech difficulties, swelling due to fluid retention, taste abnormalities, throat inflammation, throbbing heartbeat, tremor, unconsciousness, upper respiratory infection, urinary tract infection, vertigo, vomiting, weakness, abnormal tears or tearing, abscess, acne, aggravation of allergies, aggravation of high blood pressure, aggression, allergic reaction, altered production of saliva, anemia, belching, blisters, blood clot in lung, boils, breast pain, breast problems, breast tumors, bruising, chill with high temperature followed by heat and perspiration, decreased sex drive, delusion, difficulty urinating, excessive urine production, e ye pain, facial swelling due to fluid retention, fainting, false perceptions, feeling intoxicated, feeling strange, flushing, frequent urination, glaucoma, gout, heart attack, hemorrhoids, herpes infection, high cholesterol, hives, hot flashes, impotence, inability to urinate, increased appetite, increased tolerance to the drug, intestinal blockage, irregular heartbeat, joint degeneration, kidney failure, kidney pain, laryngitis, leg cramps, loss of reality, low blood pressure, mental deterioration, muscle spasms in arms and legs, muscle weakness, nosebleed, pain, painful urination, panic attacks, paralysis, pneumonia, poor circulation, rectal bleeding, rigidity, sciatica (lower back pain), sensation of seeing flashes of lights or sparks, sensitivity to light, sleepwalking, speech difficulties, swelling of the eye, thinking abnormalities, thirst, tooth decay, uncontrolled leg movements, urge to go to the bathroom, varicose veins, weight loss, yawning
I am still a realtively new coder, with only around 4 years under my belt all in Microsoft shops, and even newer to the linux world about 3 months.
/. I was excited at the possibility of using the development tools and environment that I am familiar with and be able to deploy my code to Linux. The most exciting thing to me was the possibility of running ASP.NET on Apache. In the last 2 weeks I have really began to experiment with this particular aspect and was able to copy my compiled C# ASP.NET web app from my windows box to my Fedora Core box and everything ran with no problems.
When I first heard of the Mono project here on
I welcome further the possibility to continue to use the development environment I know while being able to deploy my code across windows and linux platforms. (I am not a fan of Java and say what you wish about C#, but I find it to be a very nice language.)
I wish the mono team the best of luck.
I am so creative, look at my cry for attention in my sig.
I don't understand Icaza reasons for pushing a MS technology that is (despite the millions dollars of investment in advertisement and gift) still strugling to survive ! Come on, wake up guys ! .net is not a success story. Of course part of MS legacy user have switch to it, but even if MS have "invented" a new language called Assmbler and told us that assembler was better TCO, those guys would have switch to it because it is MS ;-)
.net is not open-in-mind. MS hold lots of patents on it, and be sure that if one day Icaza success with mono (i mean 100% compatibility) then MS migh sue him.
.net it is because they wanted to have THEIR kindergarden. They resign from Java platform because it was contraining them with compatibility of the public specification. Now they rule their own platform and own specification ! Of course to build a "smog effect" they have pushed some very core spec to ECMA (practicaly the only few that mono implements today), but this is useless. Because, with those spec you can not expect your .net program to ever run on the ECMA standardized spec ! The main reason is VS.net. MS fully control the dev environement and the platform and they can introduce whatever .net specific code to lock people on both ! Means that, VS will generate code that will only un with MS VM ;-) As a reminder this is what they did in 1998 with their Java VM, by making Visual J++ generate code that can only run on their home made VM !!!
;-)
:)
Icaza is wrong, mono does not help the comunity it endanger it ! Just because,
If MS has pushed
If you are a real OSS (and not a cryptic MS zeelot), you should push real OSS project that can benefit the commuity !
One good example is the FSF's GNU Classpath. Those guys are about to bring us the first full opensource VM that will be 100% complient (at least they are trying so). IT will be realy independant from any corporate interrest and fully controled by the community !
This was made possible because of the Apache Group involvment in making the JSPA (the license behind Java specifications) to be complient with OSS comunity requirements.
http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=176
"Sun plans to adhere to the proposed new JSPA licensing model for this JSR, including allowing independent implementations, licensing the TCK separately from the RI, minimizing shared code, and licensing any remaining shared code (such as the verifier) on simple non-restrictive licensing terms. In addition Sun plans to make it easier for academic and non-profit groups to obtain access to the RI and TCKs."
As you know all the Java specification are publically available. But this new policy means that the kit that say "your implementation is compatible, you can now claim it is !" is freely available (no restriction) for FSF (as an example) and of course it means that neither Sun/IBM/Oracle... can control your GPL code
Hence as soon as the J2SE 1.5 TCK is available (should be around july IMHO), Classpath can start to do complience tests. IF they pass the tests, they can show "Java complient" and claim to everybody "First full opensource full Java implementation"
So Mr Icaza, if you want realy to boost linux domination on the server side by making switch from comercial winXX to OSS tux they please forget about MS lockeddown techs, and take the opportunity to push for Classpath !
PS: you got skills and want to help OSS, join the GNU's Classpath project http://www.classpath.org
One thing that I noticed is this,
This XAML thing is like HTML, right?
Meaning you goto a webpage, and instead of a HTML page, you get a XAML internet application.
So you download the code and it gets setup by the dotNet crap, right?
So will you be able to see the actual Source, like on HTML pages? Couldn't you then take portions of one app and use it in another easily, or hack it to fix bugs or unlock features or whatnot?
I understand it won't be free, liscencing stuff still applies, but it will be open source and no-cost, right?
If it is like that it will be a huge boost to OSS stuff, if not free software.
Or would the application be "compiled" somewere else and you just download the entire app?
Or is it what all that DRM crap about? It will be "trusted" that you can't veiw the source code.
It's not like MS can be the only one developing a charging for software, while everybody else is having their apps downloaded in the form of webpages, or is that what their thinking?
He is pushing MS lockeddown technologies instead of pushing realy free solutions ! He s*cks :(
By the way, is he a MS stockholder or what ?
Now how are they going to force people to give up millions of dollors in investment. Both software and training, let alone the new hardware that may be required (WinTel). For the so far unproven benifits of LongHorn?
Shiny things. IT management loves shiny things. As long as there are lots of nice shiny features that they can market to death it will sell. The reason the uptake of XP and Server 2003 has been so slow is because they don't really do a hell of a lot more thna Win2k. Yes, there are some nice new bits and pieces, but I don't know of any major shiny new features that actually break any ground.
On the other hand, Longhorn is their chance to fianlly add some of these "new groundbreaking" features - it's an all out overhaul rather than the incremental stuff that XP and 2003 have been. Of course Longhorn is, for now anyway, the vaporware repository too: "Objected Filesystem? Sure, in Longhorn.", "Graphics card accelerated desktop with scalable graphics? Sure, in Longhorn", "Uncrackable security model, Dancing bears and World peace? Sure, in Longhorn."
Some of the talked about features will undoubtedly make it in. Avalon, I gather, is making reasonable headway. Some of them might not - every time I hear about WinFS it has been scaled back even further, and will do even less. The point is that there are potentially enough shiny things to impress managment.
The thing to remember is that management cares about shiny things. Vendor lock in and ensuing extortion, security issues, and pretty much anything that requires contemplating more than a quarter in advance are irrelevant. Look! Shiny things... oooooh.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Say hello to IKVM!. It works with Mono and MS's .Net implementation, and has already been demonstrated running full-fledged Java applications like Eclipse, along with translating between aspects of the Java and .NET world. It's a very cool project, and I look forward to seeing it completed.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
I think these projects are defeating the open source community and just strenghtening the hold MS has on the industry.
.NET as proprietry nonsense. If XAML ends up as a windows only thing, it wont get developer support, and wont take over the world, leaving linux and windows on a more level playing field.
Imagine a world where one can only use XAML indeed. If XAML is supported fully on linux eventually, MS will make sure that their version is always one step ahead. They have proven in the past, and leaked internal emails that were evidence in the recent european court cases brought out more leaked internal memos, that they deliberatly hide aspects of their APIs to give them an advantage. They deliberatly release bogis example software, and change the API too often, for reasons of confusing the competition rather then legitimate technical reasons.
They will definatly do this for XAML too, leaving windows as the dominate player in a XAML world at the expense of linux.
How can we avoid this?
Simple. The open source community must ignore XAML and
"This is a good idea, but XUL is dependant on Mozilla distribution; this will never happen, at least not in the next 1.5 years."
You'll be waiting for 1.5 years. The rest of us will be using LUXOR
Longhorn has kind of a scary technology called Avalon, which when compounded with another technology called XAML, it's fairly dangerous. And the reason is that they've made it so it's basically an HTML replacement. The advantage is it's probably as easy as writing HTML, so that means that anybody can produce this content with a text editor.
.NET language like C# or VB.NET if I'm not mistaken. Yes, XAML apps are similar to HTML pages, but they, like HTML, also need a scripting part to actually do something and not just be static. And that's what e.g. C# is for.
The main application code is supposed to be written in a
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Named "icazathon".
.net technology that has improved our world domination, we are lanching the icazathon. This program will act as a worm and collect funds that will be given to the a non-free software fundation based in Redmont,WA. /. has became to MS centric IMHO ! Everyday we got post pusing MS FUD. Who gona stop this ? We should limit the number of post related on the same topic one one week because it does not help to improve the debate and spread FUD and trolls :(
As a tribute to Icaza support of our
We need innovation, not CCing of MS techs ! Icaza has became a MS zeelot, i would not be suprise if he has hidden link with Redmont's firm.
de Icaza is a Microsoft punk - in the literal meaning of the word.
No. Thanks for trying to be censoring fascist though.
What's the difference? Is it easier to catch the evasive window on Linux?
Shiny things. IT management loves shiny things.
I'm not sure if that is true these days. I think IT management are looking much closer at what kind of bang per buck they are getting.
The reason the uptake of XP and Server 2003 has been so slow is because they don't really do a hell of a lot more thna Win2k.
And this can work to our advantage.
As far as I can see, the only real benefit of LongHorn to businesses is XAML and its "zero-install over the network" delivery. Businesses are swimming in custom written in-house applications such as billing systems, stock control system, client record systems, etc. I work as a programmer at a web developement business. We specialise in Content Management Systems and basically web based applications. Our clients absolutely love having these applications running centrally on a server while being immediately available (zero install!) on every machine in the office (and out of the office if needed). This is done via a web browser and HTML+Javascript of course. Now, XAML takes this idea and implements it properly and fixes a lot of problems that come with trying to create applications inside a web browser.
What Mozilla needs to do is get their browser out there and on desktops, but more importantly they need to document(!) and further develop XUL. Try to use it for making business applications like I've mentioned above (not chat clients, get serious). Find out where the weak spots and gaps are and fix and fill them in. At the same time they need to get things working happening on the server side. OSS is strong on the server, but we need proper libraries and support for XUL apps on the server written in Java, PHP, etc hell even C# if really want to use a window webserver. For the love of god Mozilla, get in touch with Apache.org, Tomcat and friends. Create a full and complete platform (server + client) for creating and delivery business/database applications. We already have the big pieces.
In 2 years time we want IT management to have to decide between:
--
Simon
I don't see mono helping Linux compete with Windows in the server market. Novell will do more for Linux, Sun will do more for Linux, Java will do more for Linux.
Linux is strong in the embeded and server markets, both which are competiting with Microsoft just fine on price value alone. Why do we need to copy everything Microsoft does? Compatibility? Thats the exact same mistake IBM made.
Mono is unless improved on is going to be a waste. Anyone who cares about compatibility with Windows will most likely use Windows and people who care about price will most likely use Linux.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
People who upgrade to Longhorn and
It is a complete waste of time to copy Microsoft and expect to survive, innovative products survive. Apple only outlasted OS2 because of its innovation. It only lasted this long because of innovation.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
The stack that Microsoft is creating will not only empower more people to create more sophisticated applications, but will increase the productivity of application programmers by at least 30% over todays Unix/Linux development stacks!!!
Not really. We already have Python in our development stack, which is 341% more productive than C#. I only see the productivity improvement over C++, and to lesser extent Java.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
This'll be just great for dialup users!
Right after saying:
"We cannot choose one desktop over the other - Gnome or KDE - because there's users for both code bases."
He then states:
"We're making the decision it's going to be OpenOffice, the browser it's going to be Mozilla, the email client it's going to be Evolution, the IM client it's going to be Gaim. So we basically have to pick successful open source projects and put them together."
The problem is that, as far as I know, these tend to be the default applications used on top of the gnome DE. Granted I would install OpenOffice when setting up a computer with KDE, but it would make more sense to use konqueror, kmail(/Kontact) and kopete instead of the other programs. In fact given time and if koffice manage to convert over to the openoffice file format (which I believe they are doing) it might make more sense to install this for basic users, as like the other programs, it is tied in well to the KDE DE. This leads me to the assumption that Novell will eventually, at least in the short run, ship Gnome as the default as KDE will have to load 2 lots of services (it's own + those for OOo/gaim/evolution/mozilla integration) and will thus require many more resources.
In the long term I hope that this kind of activity will help to unify the two desktops background services, allowing software to be written that works with an equal level of tie-in with both DE, however I guess this will take a long time and lots of carefull negotitation before it happens.
but Novell is trying to be a competitor to Microsoft. (Or, rather, they've been competiting since Windows NT.)
Novell's goal is to make a Corporate-friendly server and desktop combination.
Miguel is scared for Ximian and Novell. Mono is about Ximian and Novell, though the purists will likely get some benefit from it too.
As for me? I'm glad we have some people to put money into real user testing. We don't need a complex gui to do everything like windows does; after all, that's what we have the CLI for! I think that's the path Ximian and GNOME are taking, and it might be the right idea for all of us.
I think you mean GNOME, buddy...
There are 2 possiblities: 1. An open standard wins over XAML 2. XAML wins, and becomes a de-facto standard.
If #1 happens, the Miguel has wasted his time. If #2 happens, the FOSS community will NEED his work to be able to interoperate with the majority of the WWW.
So, on one hand, cloning XAML hedges our bets, but on the other, it helps XAML gain acceptance, because even the FOSS people can use it.
So, we want Miguel to continue what he's doing, but we also want him to fail!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
gDesklets are the closest thing I've seen to the kind of achitecture microsoft are trying to achieve.
I want to ask you a very serious question.
If you have to install a 7 meg browser (mozilla) to make your application work why not just ship an application that updates itself over the network? Better yet why not just write a java web start application. Either way you have to get some sort of a platform installed on each and every machine and keep it updated. maybe if Mozilla could get their act together and come up with a clever way to share a network installed mozilla amongst the desktops we would have a compelling solution. It's a lot easier to distribute an icon to every desktop then a full blown application and it sure would be handy to just upgrade the network copy and go home. Mozilla really needs to look into centralized management of user prefs, plug ins, bookmarks etc.
Where MS kills you is in forcing people who have windows to install IE and updating IE when they update their windows. Maybe what's needed is a XUL activex plug in so that XUL will work with IE.
I do agree with you about the database application thing though. 90% of all business applications touch a database.
evil is as evil does
When is there going to be an Open Source equivalent or alternative? I agree that WinFS is about the coolest thing that I've ever heard of from Microsoft (not that they necessarily came up with the idea).
.NET and XAML, when are we going to start on Avalon and WinFS? Or, if there is a project going on, where is it?
We're trying to compete with
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I was looking for a XUL RAD tool myself the other day and came across XULMAKER
Havent tried it yet, dont know whether its anywhere near mature or not.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
2 things.
1. In fact flash is fast and compact; when used correctly it can be faster and more adept at transfering large media (precaching, streaming, parallel downloads, download ques, guessing where the user will click, etc).
2. At one point I think that you are right, the rich interaction and experience that is refered to cannot hold up on the bandwidth provided on the telephone line. But I think that thats ok, because with Voice over IP in a few years we won't need telephone lines, and it will be cheaper to have a DSL line.. but then at that point you will be complaining about the fact that all of the 3d interaction environments take too long to load on your DSL because they are geared towards optical users. =]
-ashot
Yes, it definitely captures clipboard data... in fact if you RIGHT CLICK and download the stats.php page AND RENAME IT SO THAT IT ENDS WITH
1. Has anybody heard of YAML? That is an XML replacement too. 2. Giving descriptive names to documents is WIKI-Style and makes sense to me. This makes things more human readable and that is good.
Avalon is not really about providing dynamic "web pages", which is, at least based on my probably outdated understanding, what Flash is about...
Avalon is about providing actual *native* Win32 applications, but doing so with a simple XML-based format, and potentially in a way that is deliverable over the internet. The key difference between this and all other browser-based technologies that have preceeded this (including Flash and Applets) is the *native* part. Technically, it has been possible to do truly native stuff from the browser with ActiveX controls, but obviously this is an attempt at a technology which is far more robust, secure, and appropriate for web-based and non-web-based apps.
Will Avalon replace the need for Flash altogether? Perhaps some day, when "skinning" ability in native windows apps is so strong that you can easily throw a very fancy skin on a custom native win32 app as easily as you could design a Flash app with the same look and feel. But until then, Flash will still have it's place as a framework for "flashy" web-based apps that do not require the native win32 look-and-feel.
Yes, I know I'm using the word win32 a lot here, along with native - but let me clarify - that is just an example, since we are talking about Avalon within the Windows platform. But obviously once this XAML technology gains the potential to be "native" to any desktop system, such as GTK or KDE - so what I am talking about still applies, and even moreso - we are not talking about providing Flash-based apps that run on the native "Flash platform" which is a plugin inside the browser - we are talking about providing actual native apps that run on the platform of the desktop OS.
And in the end once the ability to do this becomes as easy (and "standard") as writing HTML, but combines the power of both native apps and fancy customizable look-and-feel of Flash apps, it starts to become clear that this is a new way of doing things over the internet that has the potential to make all of the other technologies in the browser (including HTML and Flash) become legacy.
I agree with everything that you are saying, but I think that putting everyone behind one of these options is in fact advantageous; it will end up favoring one app over the other, but as much as we love competition (and it is ok) one of the biggest problems with using OS solutions for consumers who are new to it is the fact that there are a dozen apps that all do the same thing and overlap in their functionality. There is a real need for standardization.
Altough, perhaps some sort of democratic process would be a better option; which leads to a more interesting possibity to help unite thoughts and ideas for the OS community. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of website (perhaps a section of sourceforge) which keep track of your ID and your contributions to different projects, allow you to vote on the contributions of parents, etc. Given this score you can use your 'power' to vote on the future direction of projects. This seems to be a great idea to me, particularly if choice was exponentially distrubted towards the top of contributors would give us a unified path and vision. There is also the side benefit of giving people more incentive to contribute to projects (I think this would be surprizingly effective in this regard)... I'd like to know what people involved think of this idea; alas no one will read it.. *sigh*
-ashot
ok.. I should have read over that one before submitting it.. sorry. =/
-ashot
I've checked out XAML and it appears to be EXACTLY the same as ASP.NET programming.(i.e. better). Microsoft are making web and client development exactly the same, on windows, so that programmers can effectivly do it all. And even non programmers can have a stab at it.
,or logic, to a main loop in GUI source code. GUIs are not procedural. They are event based.
.Net on linux so that XAML will work cross platform. This is a no hoper. OSS developers will just be constantly playing catch up with quaterly .Net updates and ultimatly it will just promote the EEE policy of MS.
.Net platform. Don't be fooled by the managed code aspect. .Net is all about locking people into the MS API's and hence Windows, just like visual basic before it.
.Net or Java or Mozilla or GNOME. It won't inherit a preference for one application. All OSes should be capable of using it. It will be the new way, the better way, the standard way ,of creating GUIs. A process long mired in outdated methods. Basically XML based, with NO MS APIs.
It's worth noting that XAML is _easier_ to develop in, and for that reason alone, it will do well. I'll repeat that. XAML is easier to develop in so it WILL succeed! Just look at visual basic. Why wouldn't you want an easier life. This is what people want. Easier XML based GUI's. There is no need
I hear a lot about 'cloning'
My advice is _screw_ the
What OSS needs to do is make, from scratch, a cross platform XML based GUI design with Open Source APIs. XGUI or something. It doesn't HAVE to run on
Never drive by the headlights of the guy in front. Turn on yours.
P.S. It's me ObsessiveMathsFreak. Can't log in for some ungodly reason
"Maybe thats what Microsoft is most afraid of, to loose control over the heading of the software industry. Open source have control over web servers and can take control over the protocols on the web if we just do our own thing. If we only follow what Microsoft do we will always be number two and thats no where to be."
If they (Microsoft's management/people who make the big decisions) are really afraid of losing control of the heading of the software industry, they certainly don't show it. The software industry is ultra-competitive. Microsoft is an ultra-competitive player in that market. They always have been. Bill Gates started by being a key player in the way people developed software for what we think of today as toy or hobby computers. He made the compiler of an easy-to-use language. BASIC became the first programming language that millions of people ever used. And they used Bill's BASIC.
Bill didn't invent BASIC. He just implemented it, marketed it, and was the first to sell rights to use an implementation of it. That concept of licensing a piece of software was what *made* Microsoft what it is today.
Bill didn't invent the Operating System, or the Word Processor, or a Web Browser. What Bill did was to enter each of those spaces and offer what people were looking for at the cheapest price with some innovative features. Linux/OSS may be offering an interesting proposition, but the products speak for themselves. Linux/OSS is like the imitation product made by people who are smart enough to figure out how to make a clone and tweak a few things. Now, imagine you are at a counter of a camera store. The salesperson behind the counter shows you a $300 Canon camera, and a $50 Kanan. Do you buy the Kanan, made by people smart enough to roughly clone the original and maybe add a few differences?
Are Microsoft managers worried about how to keep up earnings and revenue. Sure. Every successful company has leaders who worry about that. But you will note that Microsoft hasn't been firing off its employees like Sun, IBM, et all. Basically, the strategy at Microsoft is to have a deep development pipe. Build it, and sell it, and build it, and sell it. That's what Microsoft is. It's a highly organic code factory. Microsoft has 2 strategies.
1) Make it work.
2) Make it depend only on Microsoft technologies.
Microsoft will never lose control over the heading of its own industry (no, I'm not saying that Microsoft is the whole software industry, just a large industry within it).
Let me make an analogy. Say I buy a Canon Digital camera. It comes with Canon software. The store that sells me the camera may or may not sell me Canon lenses for the camera, but most people will buy Canon accessories for their Canon camera. In the case of the Digital SLR, Canon Lenses, Canon Flashes, and Canon accessories out-sell the 3rd parties in the Canon market. Now you can say that maybe that is because Canon is better than its 3rd party vendors, or maybe it is because people are afraid of breaking the device with third party stuff, but most people buy 1st part accessories. And if Canon is (as www.dpreview.com's statistics seem to indicate to me) the leader in the market (I own 3 Canon cameras, so I'm quite biased in this regard, but please ignore my bias for argument's sake), then you can imagine that being the leader, the market will follow you. Of course, the only way to stay a leader is to produce more of what people want to buy. Canon's offerings in the digital camera space match Nikon, Kodak, Olympus, Sony, Fuji, Sigma, etc.
Similarly, Microsoft's offerings match IBM, Novell, Oracle, Sun, etc. Granted, each of these companies competes in different segments of the markets, Microsoft is vertically integrated (depends on products produced by itself) and horizontally integrated (offers products in most/all categories in the industry in which it competes) specifically with regard to software.
Sony is an example of a company which is similarly vertically and horizontally integrated in th
"Remember, >90% of the world uses Windows, and Internet Explorer. "
Here's some serious questions and I want serious answers. What is your source for that 90+ figure, and how was it determined, as well as how old is it? Plus what is the breakdown figures for that 90? How many are DOS? How many are Win3.11 or WFW? How many are Win95 or 98? How many are W2K and XP? How many will even be capable of handling Microsoft's new technologies? Why should the owners of those machines potentially lose their investment in what they have, for the (at this point) dubious benefits that these technologies promise? Don't you think we should be looking at the whole situation through the eyes of a Windows user, instead of through Linux eyes? What effect will security and patch issues and MS's reaction to them have on their adoption? What about the global picture, and the actions of other nations (China, EU)? How will that affect the adoption of these wonder technologies?
Why are we taking such a simplistic view of the whole situation, and what does that mean for our strategy when it comes to these new technologies?
Oh, you didn't know that about de Icaza? Miguel doesn't just like some of Microsoft's ideas - Miguel wishes he were working for them.
Don't forget the role that UML can play in sandboxing large scale.
you seem to agree with me on so many of the details, yet disagree on the final prognosis, so perhaps either you or me (I think you :) are missing something. I will address each of your points seperately.
Avalon is not really about providing dynamic "web pages", which is, at least based on my probably outdated understanding, what Flash is about...
Not just dynamic, but rich/interactive. Flash started simply as a way to create easily downloadable vector animations, but it has become much more than that with recent releases of both the Flash player and editing software along with now Flex and MXML. People have been slow to get out of the "flash intro" rut however and realize Flash's potential. There are many reasons for this one of the most prevalent is that coding in Flash has been difficult as the editor (Flash) wasn't menat for coding large projects and also on the flip side of the same coin, most of the people involved with Flash have been 'artists', not coders, and hence the user-base, altough large is not suited in creating the framework and community necessary to create more complex flash apps.
(notice the lack of responses to this post from slashdotters). Macromedia has been desperatly trying to change this, but has made some serious errors (as I outlined in my original post).
Avalon is about providing actual *native* Win32 applications, but doing so with a simple XML-based format, and potentially in a way that is deliverable over the internet. The key difference between this and all other browser-based technologies that have preceeded this (including Flash and Applets) is the *native* part. Technically, it has been possible to do truly native stuff from the browser with ActiveX controls, but obviously this is an attempt at a technology which is far more robust, secure, and appropriate for web-based and non-web-based apps.
Yes thats true, and I did say in my post that the one advantage that MS will have that is not beatable is their ability to provide this sort of seamless solution across local and network based apps; not just in looks but also in communication. However, in the long run this too can be combated. We can provide such a solution using Mono (the same XUL can create both the flash UI and a native front end, and can be comiled either way).. so even this is not totally out of the question. The important thing is that the ability to create rich clients exists in a uniform, cross-platform solution installed in 98.6% of www clients. This is an extremely powerful resource for combating XAML in particular.
Will Avalon replace the need for Flash altogether? Perhaps some day, when "skinning" ability in native windows apps is so strong that you can easily throw a very fancy skin on a custom native win32 app as easily as you could design a Flash app with the same look and feel. But until then, Flash will still have it's place as a framework for "flashy" web-based apps that do not require the native win32 look-and-feel.
You have some point there, but weather or not Avalon comes to replace Flash will depend much more on if writing XAML internet apps will be as easy and as widely spread. Which it in fact can be, even without longhorn.. perhaps in an IE "plug-in/patch".
Again, "flashy" use of flash is in fact a mis-use in this context. Perhaps they need to change the name..
Yes, I know I'm using the word win32 a lot here, along with native - but let me clarify - that is just an example, since we are talking about Avalon within the Windows platform. But obviously once this XAML technology gains the potential to be "native" to any desktop system, such as GTK or KDE - so what I am talking about still applies, and even moreso - we are not talking about providing Flash-based apps that run on the native "Flash platform" which is a plugin inside the browser - we are talking about providing actual native apps that run on the platform of the desktop OS.
I th
-ashot
You know.. its funny but flash can now fill exactly the void to which you yourself refer to here. Good gui, cross-platform, possibility for rich clients..
-ashot
f you have to install a 7 meg browser (mozilla) to make your application work why not just ship an application that updates itself over the network? Better yet why not just write a java web start application.
How is installing mozilla on each and every desktop different from installing java on each and every desktop?
With java you can have web-start applications - with mozilla you can have XUL applications.
I may be missing something, but as far as I can see, there is no difference at all.
Yes, if MS can take over and make XAML the dominant format, then it will win.
.NET is far easier (and more powerful) than VB/COM, etc... This is just the next generation of that Windows GUI technology. However, the main difference this time around is that this technology has the potential to cause browser (internet) GUI technologies to converge with native windows technologies.
This is the one area where I think we are looking at this from different angles. In my opinion, there is no question about whether XAML will be the "dominant format" for it's target platform, which is Windows native apps. In other words, IMHO the question you are posing above is not even relevant.
Let me try to clarify - I believe that XAML is first and foremost designed as a technology for replacing the way standalone Windows apps (non-browser, non-internet, etc.) are built, from the UI perspective.
There are already many solutions for creating native apps using XML layout
On the (dominant) Windows native platform? I'm not sure I am familiar with any good examples of what you are talking about here - surely none that would be considered as having the potential to become the de-facto "easy" way to build Windows apps.
The fact that it will be a standard markup language that facilitates browser download, and thus makes it possible to deliver these apps over the web through a browser, is just an added benefit - although once the full vision comes into scope, it is a HUGE benefit, and obviously makes this technology much more than what I am claiming is it's primary goal. But I want to stress that this doesn't change the primary goal - to make it easy to build native Windows apps.
Thus, there is no question about whether this has the potential to become the dominant way to build apps on it's target platform - standalone native Windows apps - because if that's the direction MS says Windows apps should go, that's the direction it will go. Not that this will be the only way to build apps on Windows in the future, but that it will be by far the easiest - just as MFC was by far easier than C with low-level APIS, and then VB/COM was by far easier than MFC, and then
Thus, the question about whether this could replace Flash (and all other non-native browser technologies) is not a question about which is easier or more powerful, etc., as a framework for building dynamic (and interactive - touchee) web applications - it is a question about whether this is the technology that will finally bring native Windows apps "into" the browser.
However, there is still hope for MXML and XUL to fit into the picture.. perhaps.
Only as long as the browser maintains it's status as an acceptable outlet for "non-standard" or "non-native" applications. Some day, I believe there will be full convergence between native apps and delivery through the internet, perhaps no longer with the browser as we know it today. The idea that every website will support it's own proprietary or non-native (yes even throwing HTML into this category) UI technology will become a relic of the past. Some day, going to slashdot and posting a comment will be no different than opening up Outlook and reading my mail. Slashdot will have a fully customized user-interface, but it will be done in such a way that the actual GUI I use is a fully native Windows-rendered GUI, not something that requires non-native browser-based protocols and standards in order to be rendered. A button will always be a win32 button, and a checkbox will always be a win32 checkbox, and more importantly, the background will be a win32 Window, not a browser panel that is being rendered with text. There will be no need to render tables and images to make things look like frames and panels and sub-windows - these will simply be actual win32 frames, panels, and sub-windows, on an actual win32 window. Right now the browser is basically at the point we were at with lots of DOS applications back when Win3.1 was just release
You know.. its funny but flash can now fill exactly the void to which you yourself refer to here [slashdot.org]. Good gui, cross-platform, possibility for rich clients.
Wow, you are right - I totally forgot about that discussion - we are basically answering many of the questions that were brought up there! Interesting - the slashdot world goes round and round...
Please.
What prevents the Mozilla team from implementing a XAML interpreter?
-6 Flamebait
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
torvus is lenin, miguel is stalin
You've just described what DCOP does in KDE. Contact info is offered by the address book component, which can be queried by the email suite, the IM tool, etc. The entire desktop is built upon this approach, in fact.
The Freedesktop group has begun working on a generalization of DCOP called D-BUS, primarily geared toward exchanging message between backend (hardware detection...) and frontend (desktop environment), if I got it right, but I think that GNOME will also eventually be able to use it to tap into KDE components as well. This would be really nice.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Moz developers out there? Excuse my ignorance, but this XAML beast sounds an awful lot like XUL. So in a sense, the OS world has had a XAML alternative for a few years now - just a damn shame the Moz platform isn't ubiquitous enough to promote proper takeup of XUL. And if XAML is such a threat (and I see why), is it being developed along some standards? Is M$ going to submit this to ECMA as well? Why can't Moz/XUL start publishing "HTML New Generation" specifications, get corp buy-in from the likes of IBM, Sun, Novell, etc. to try and get XUL and XAML to converge?
-- Manik Surtani
If M$ are going to try and push the "next generation" html and its only on windows platform how long before we see another Media Player case like the one we had in europe recently?
European Patent Application EP1338960
US Patent Application US2003156138
Alongside your existing directory tree, an automatically maintained virtual directory tree of the form [Calendar Date]/[Subject]/...
Claim 1:
Note that MS is claiming the idea of arranging the files by date and then by automatically analysed subject-area -- the patent is directed entirely to the user-interface concept, not any particular algorithms to deliver it.
Well whoop-de-doo. Their problem. They were warned, and if they chose to ignore the warnings, they'll have to dig themselves out of it, or pay someone with a clue to do it for them. There are enough clueless designers around to keep consultants in business until Stardate 4096.
> Now imagine a world where you can only use XAML
Oh good grief. Get a life. It's just XML. It's not rocket science (or if it is, I know several unemployed rocket scientists who can help). Yes it's big. So is DocBook. Yes it's badly designed: the inclusion of executable code in a different syntax is a silly mistake, and only someone who has never used ISO 8879 before would allow Mixed Content in top-level element types. Unfortunately there are people like this at Microsoft, as well as plenty of people who do have a serious clue...but with a marketing-driven organisation, the marketing droids will always win, and if they want it that way, that's the way they'll get it.
It'll be a pig to write, a pig to maintain, a pig to understand, a pig to document, and a hog on resources, but that isn't really anything new. If it's XML, I can always open it and reprocess it using standard tools. Bill Gates (or his successors) will come to rue the day he bet the farm on XML.
The best cure for seasickness is to go and sit under a tree. --Spike Milligan
Claimer: yes, I do run the XML FAQ. No, my opinions are not those of the University I work for.
He spreads FUD about KDE and QT, because he does not want to admit that Gnome lacks behind.
No, suse/Novell will not switch to Gnome.
You've fallen into your own logic trap. Re-read what he said: you choose the successes.
;-)
Mozilla is not the ideal browser for Gnome, nor is it the default Gnome browser, but you choose it because it's the one that's most widely used.
Open Office is not the ideal office suite for Gnome, nor is it the default office suite for gnome, but you choose it because it's the one that's most widely used.
Evolution is probably the most widely used groupware client for Unix-like systems, but honestly it's also a Ximian product, and I think Miguel would have cited it regardless
Gaim is the default messenger for Gnome, but it's also the most widely used IM client uner Unix-like systems.
Your choices on the other hand are: go with the KDE default. Not exactly the break from the desktop you seemed to advocate....
With all due respect, let's not give up the present to focus on an uncertain future. Microsoft has become legendary in their grand hand-waving about future products, and billg is one of the worst offenders, so betting our farm on what they say will happen two years from now is just not a solid product policy.
/deployment tool, and like VB.Net, ADO, or .Net, they do not really make Microsoft any money; they're just part of the Monopoly infrastructure.
The fact is, Microsoft makes almost all their money on just two products: Windows (XP and 2003), and Microsoft Office. Two products that multiple sources have free equivalents. Even if XAML is the hottest thing going, it's still a development
How about we focus on pounding on the two products that matter; particularly Office, since we can run OpenOffice multi-platform. If you manage to get 15-20% market penetration, you can effectively influence the market, much like AMD has done with Intel (most people don't realize that AMD only has about 15% of the market). That is an achieveable goal by 2007, which is about how long it will take before large-scale deployment of Longhorn would begin, assuming it ships Summer 2006. If you have 15-20% of the Office market and the Linux market is trailing at 8-10% (but growing), it would create such a disruption that XAML would quickly become a back-burner issue.
Again, with all due respect, I would suggest focusing on those fights that are going on now and have tremendous potential, rather than allowing billg's intimidation to confuse our resolve. If you get 15-20% of the market that matters, history changes. Development tools are a sideline gig. Web client lock-in "standards" will quickly get scrapped by MSFT if their shareholders are letting management go because their two cash cows are losing ground.
Miguel, there are many articles and white papers that literally list out the deficiencies of desktop Linux and OOo vs. Windows and MSOffice, and you are in a position to influence developers and resources to fill those gaps, including improving solidarity between the Gnome and KDE efforts. I certainly am in no place to suggest to you how to proceed with your already stellar career, but take this as just as it is: a humble request to give it some thought.
Eventuially, people will start disabling it in IE, and then everyone can relax.
"What Mozilla needs to do is get their browser out there and on desktops, but more importantly they need to document(!) and further develop XUL. Try to use it for making business applications like I've mentioned above (not chat clients, get serious). Find out where the weak spots and gaps are and fix and fill them in. At the same time they need to get things working happening on the server side. OSS is strong on the server, but we need proper libraries and support for XUL apps on the server written in Java, PHP, etc hell even C# if really want to use a window webserver. For the love of god Mozilla, get in touch with Apache.org, Tomcat and friends. Create a full and complete platform (server + client) for creating and delivery business/database applications. We already have the big pieces."
Exactly - you clearly Get It.
Let's say there's an existing database in MySQL or whatever - if you could write an interface to it in XUL and have the "browser" construct a rich client front that understands transactions, field validation and persistence - that would be heaven. The Eclipse RCP project is very close to doing something useful and usable in this domain but it still seems to require too much hand coding for the front end.
One of the things that I like to do is find the Silver Bullet of tools. So I keep searching the internet and keep installing new tools. Yet here is an interesting result, am I closer to getting my app done?
We developers always like new and neat tricks, but yet it seems we are still building the same apps at the same speed. It took the Mono team about three years to build the Mono stack. Well, you know I could probably write most of my apps in three years.
I am not trying to rail C# or Java, as my point is that maybe we should be thinking about how to code properly. Maybe the language is not THAT big of an issue....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
What protocols have *we* created lately?
-- Bryan
It is possible to park the mozilla email files in the DMZ partition, so that you can use the same tools irrespective of operating system.
This is a killer feature: why should your operating system be in the way any more than the BIOS?
Thus, until Evolution undergoes the requiered genetic changes to compile under 'Doze, I shan't pay't heed.
Aside: all these lameness filters make doing a simple diagram a right PITA. If they actually kept out the regrettable stuff, they might be a help. Then again, I probably wouldn't want to see
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Amen. The most correct assessment thus far.
Microsoft is a _platform_ company, and their objective with XAML is to kill browser-based apps and get people to go back to writing Windows-specific client apps. They must be terrified of the potential for XUL or other web standards to remove many of the limitations of browser apps in a platform-independent way, thus XAML. And in many ways it is a LongShot for MS, as so many line-of-business apps are browser based and more come on line. Businesses have browser apps that run quite well on MS's older OSes, and XAML will force an OS upgrade. In a way, pursuing (and temporarily winning) the browser wars has cost MS dearly in the platform wars (not in the sense that there are fewer Windows clients, but that there are fewer that _need_ to be Windows), and may prove fatal. So the 2 year window represents a real opportunity for OSS/XUL/web-standards which right now are ahead in delivery, if not mindshare.
Miguel is dreaming if he thinks businesses will move their Microsoft-API apps off of the Microsoft platform (too much risk), that's why MS is unafraid of Mono. His strategy of chasing MS is a dead end. If you start behind MS you definitely lose.
Mozilla should trumpet (and doc) XUL as 'XAML here today, free and cross-platform', and do what's needed to make it a web standard. And the focus needs to be on zero-install use of XUL, not install-in-chrome.
In the end, it will come down to businesses considering Mozilla/web-standards as a viable client target, getting their in-house web apps to support it, and demanding support of Mozilla/web-standards from their 3rd-party vendors. Not unreasonable, as that path will require less effort than a Longhorn/XAML upgrade, and leaves them with substantially more freedom.
This guy does a better job marketing Microsoft than most MS employees! Do you know how important it is for people even to know what the freaking buzzwords are??? I wouldn't have known what the hell Avalon or WinFX was if it wasn't for this dope in an interview basically giving MS a free commercial. I'm so scared of Microsoft's big new technology push. They are so inevitable! wah wah wah.
Let me give you a clue - while it may remain fun for you to "keep it real" by coding on open source, .Net and the Avalon/XAML platform threatens to displace a lot of the progress Linux has made, at least on the desktop. And we know that when MS owns the desktop they have great leverage to push on the server area. Every time MS comes up with something, the first reaction is to downplay it and shout that it has already been done before. IE was a joke too. Windows was a joke to. You can keep laughing, but unless there is a viable open source alternative to what MS is providing, we stand to get our lunch eaten. That is what is scary. That is what is scary for a lot of open source companies which are essentially loss-leading by pouring tons of money into free software and HOPING that by doing so they can open the market and reap rewards later. .Net and Avalon/XAML threaten to crush that. It's not enough to say that it's nothing new or not a big deal. When all of Microsoft developers, and a large segment of the industry that MS influences, starts adopting it in droves, it WILL be a big deal. When MS develops something that will give their customers some value (whether or not you think it gives /you/ value), it is not enough to shout "bogeyman!"... you actually have to compete.
.Net.
I am a Java developer, and I for one don't want my career derailed because there was never an open source alternative to compete with
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The problem with technologists deciding where technology goes is that they are not customer focused. They are technology focused. From the Microsoft blog featured here the other day, MS was at one time (and probably still is) extremely customer focused. Maybe they've lost it a bit, I don't know.
It's always an internal battle within organizations. Should we embrace some cool tech or not. Boss asks why, IT guy says, "'cause it's the future." Which begs the question.
Is it going to help ME in MY business?
I think the beauty of OS in general is that we make commodity blocks, which we can then adapt to a wide range of uses. When I meet with a client, I ALWAYS start with business questions.
"What are are your current challenges? What would you like to do better?"
Sometime they respond with specific answers about technology. I usually back them up one more step and try to get them to think about the bigger picture, macro style. They have an "A-ha" moment, and then the flood gates open. It usually boils down to wasted time and effort performing some repetitive task.
"Ah, well you know, that's the stuff computers are really good at. Repetitive tasks, that is. Let's reduce the time your people spend managing computers, and put them to work managing your business."
It's so simple, it's revolutionary. Microsoft did a lot for computing, but they mostly were able to make people slaves to their personal computers.
OS turns it back into what it should have been all along, Business Automation.
And all this talk about MS's new tech, or .NET or whatever... I have only question: Can a technology by itself really be a magic bullet?
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
Microsoft Drives me batty with their absolute flaunting of supporting open formats. Take for instance Avalon which they describe as "Microsoft® Windows® Vector Graphics (WVG) . . . and it is familiar to users of Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG)" Everytime I read a MS programming book, I feel like they have branded everything that should be considered a basic fundamental Computer Science (Use your Microsoft® Windows® mouse® to type in a Microsoft® Windows® int®). I know this is so they can prevent competition, but I just can't get over how accepting computer users are to this as a whole.
This obsession about copying Microsoft will give us a Unix that works and looks the same as Microsoft OS's. There will be no difference in the end it seems.
Great.
eh...
If you have to install a 7 meg browser (mozilla) to make your application work why not just ship an application that updates itself over the network?
That would be an option if Java were free, so that the appropriate initiatives could be undertaken to have a decent way to run web applications.
Starting back in 1995, various companies asked for a number of features in Java necessary for launching web applications efficiently over the web -- licensees of Java paying Sun the big bucks. I was in one of these companies. Sun has never gotten what it would take to make Java a serious advantage for applications that trickle down to the desktop over the web.
There are many examples of things that would be needed and were repeatedly requested, that I have never seen materialize -- for example (one of many) a really-intelligent class loader that understands how to make applications work instantaneously and reliably over the web. The design doesn't seem that hard, but it is very different from anything that Sun has undertaken. I and other people made presentations to Sun, and they ignored it all, being a server company. Without free software, that leaves no options. This was 9 years ago, and Sun still has not figured most of it out. Companies cannot wait for Sun to get it.
As it is, I couldn't care less whether Sun or Microsoft wins, because it is 6 of one or half a dozen of the other, they will be limited by their own lack of vision. Licensees of Java were ripped off, believing they would be helped by Sun for all the money they paid.
It isn't that companies are not willing to pay. It is that Sun isn't willing to deliver even to those who pay who see how to bring Java out of the box where it is now (and have seen since the beginning).
Create frameworks that allow programmers to declaratively layout GUI's. It's not special or even new. For custom GUI's you're still going to have to write custom stuff and XAML will do nothing for you. It's just another way to do windows forms and produce more ugly GUI's.
Well, it's actually called the GNU Network Object Model Environment
All's true that is mistrusted
For those that don't speak Spanish but English with latin stems, mono* is a prefix meaning single or singular, e.g. monotheism - the belief in one god.
For those that speak slightly geeky American English, mono is short for mononucleosis, which is another term for glandular fever.
For those that speak common English, mono means a single sound source, i.e. monophonic as opposed to sterophonic.
But for the Spanish speakers of the world... it's Monkey.
* I know not it's true etymology.
I'm not running binaries, sandboxed or not! The web is about information, if you want to create interactive TV then feel free, but I wont be watching.
The idea that people who can't even get a simple web page right (without requiring flash or js) are going to be more empowered if we let them run full featured apps on our machines is simply retarded.
HAND
Honestly, De Icaza is one of the few free software/OSS activist with really clear ideas on the subject and some objectivity.
Really? Honestly? I think real vision would be recognizing the technologies such as XUL when they originally appear in open source, not waiting for Microsoft to corrupt them to say we should copy what Microsoft is doing. He is a Microsoft watcher, which does not make him a visionary.
I think you and your company are on the right track.
Programs used to be controlled by the user with windows on a desktop. Now, more and more programs are controlled by an interactive webpage while it's running on the server.
There are huge advantages to that, like the ability to run the program from anywhere where you have access to a browser. For example, you can check your webmail without having your PC with you to run your E-Mail program. You just need a simple, web-only, cybercafe with a standard browser. Like you said, zero-install. There are a lot of other advantages and some disadvantages.
It's obvious for you that this is the future of interacting with programs because you build web interfaces for a living, but if you think about it it should become clear for anyone that this is better in most cases. Programs that are real-time like games and video editing need (non MS) window interfaces, but a lot of non-realtime programs can best be controlled by a webpage. I encourage everyone to program interfaces like this, it eases transition to Linux.
Mozilla interfaces are a level higher than the webpage interface. Mozilla needs to be installed, pages don't. You probably know of a lot of interface things that can only be done with higher level interfaces like Mozilla's XUL windows but I think we should put the emphasis on enriching the lower level webpage-only interfaces for programs.
With things like the upcoming vector drawing (SVG) and Javascript for webpages, most tasks can be handled without having clients install Firefox/Mozilla specifically to use your programs. Ofcourse that won't be as bad as requiring clients to install Windows XAML because with Mozilla/Firefox XUL you are locked into something which is Open source and Free, with XAML you'll get raped by Microsoft and will be stuck on Windows.
However, I'm curious about Mozilla/Firefox XUL. As far as I can see, it's like this:
- Native windows are the fastest and know all the tricks
- Mozilla/Firefox XUL has a couple of tricks, is cross-platform and is easier to program than native windows.
- Standards compliant webpages are limited in interactivity but are the easiest to make and are even more cross-platform (mobile phones can't install Firefox).
Can anyone give me more examples that are only possible using XUL as opposed to standard webpages/XHTML? And what are the chances of XUL being used as native windows for Linux/*BSD? Is it fast enough for games or video editing?
- -- Truth addict for life.
However I feel that the choice to support both KDE and Gnome was a political decision, due to the fact this kind of decision often causes huge outcry and doesn't fit well with the "choose the successes" statement.
The fact remains that this combination of browser, productivity suite, groupware client and instant messenger is fairly biased towards Gnome. This means that a smaller, less memory intensive setup is likely to be realised with Gnome, making KDE kinda superflous.
To me it doesn't make much sense to claim to support KDE and not it's default set of applications as well because as it is all you are doing is loading Gnomes services and libraries behind KDE, which isn't really supporting KDE.
Your choices on the other hand are: go with the KDE default. Not exactly the break from the desktop you seemed to advocate....
Until the 'anointed' apps have stuff like DCOP interfaces, desktop notification, KDE theme support, etc.. I'll stick with the KDE stuff. I like kicker popups, they're almost as slick as OS X bouncing dock icons.
OTOH I'd get out of Kopete and KMail in a NY minute if the freedesktop apps built in that KDE integration, if only to avoid the philosophical issues related to those apps... (filtering IMAP by header is wrong because 'it's supposed to be done in sieve'? FUCK THAT! Behave like Mozilla mail!!!!!!)
Mono - it's the one true monkey!
What is it you don't understand? That link generates malicious code that will worm itself through windows machines... Is that censorship?
Please don't flame. It's an honest question.
... ?
A lot of people mentioned XUL. But, isn't this also a lot like what Glade offers ?
I thought you could feed XML to a Glade application, or have the Glade-application get the XML over the network/web
Please enlighten me.
Do you really think that if Miguel wanted to work for M$ they wouldnt snap him up in 10 @#$#ing SECONDS????!!!!!!!
Get real man.
-ron
XUL sounds a bit like the bad guy from "Ghostbusters".
:)
"There is no Dana, only XUL!"
Somebody please cross those beams and close off the portal!
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
More Miguel/MSFT stories...
Google for: miguel "don box"
Or even: miguel "don box" "your ass"
I assume, he turned down the offer.
XAML was more like a way of using XML to design your user interfaces, integrated completely into Windows. It's not designed to work with anything but Longhorn
If it's XML, couldn't one write a processor that does XAML -> XUL transformations?
Tweet, tweet.
"mono a mono"
This cross product just might produce all the sides to the Slashdot discussion regarding Mono, including all the monkeys.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
The difference is that you need a web browser anyhow. No one needs Java on their desktop.
Besides which, it is far easier to create a GUI in XUL + Javascript (and coming soon Python) than it is to create a Java GUI. Basically the idea is to lower the bar for application development so that the folks currently doing HTML + Javascript can create rich client front ends.
It's already being done, it's called IKVM, and it works.
XAML is nicely balanced and really seems like the first truly usable markup-based GUI language (XUL was close, but not close enough. I think it'd be much more popular otherwise).
Yes XAML is a copy of XUL (Netscape were well ahead of their time with that one). It's easy to improve on something.
Avalon is nice, not totally groundbreaking, but it does kill bitmap-based windowing, and I haven't seen anything that suggest that Linux world is pulling that trigger yet. (X being a obstacle in the way) Apple did, and the results speak for themselves I think.
Avalon is a direct copy of work done at Apple. Of course, you could do all of this using X running on an SGI machine 10+ years ago. You will find that Longhorn's window model has more in common with X than any previous version of Windows. X is better designed and more advanced than you realise.
WinFX has some very interesting ideas in how you structure components, and has the chance to become the next big thing in components (after COM. Another Microsoft innovation! Flames rising).
Corba.
Finally, WinFS is very, very cool stuff, even as vaporware. I'm not surprised they had to scale it back, because what there are doing is nothing short of rethinking the file system from the ground up. This is a bold thought to take seriously. The notion of extensible metadata alone is powerful. (Before, file metadata was fixed.) Add in searching, extensible relationships, etc and you have something worth paying attention too.
BeFS
This is innovation, in my book. Invention is coming up with those rare new ideas. I see innovation is taking those ideas and making them applicable, or practical, affordable, widely available, better, used by many and so on.
And in case you think I've missed your point, in my opinion microsoft has held back the computer industry, stifling innovation by pushing even potential competitors out of the market, intentional or not. Longhorn will be nothing new to me.
use mono/.net. Same end result, no java needed.
not sure, but perhaps you're actually thinking of "mano a mano", which means "hand to hand" (as in, hand-to-hand combat). still though, your point is valid ^_~.
not-so-random men in tights quote: "mano a mano, man to man, just you, and me, and my... GUARDS!"
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
Perhaps I'm confused, but isn't the easiest way to get "zero-install" applications within a company simply a networked FS? I have tons of "zero install" applications available from my workstation through NFS. It even has a nifty caching architecture, so stuff I use is local and fast but stuff I don't isn't using my disk space, but of course is still available.
Install a 7 meg browser? Why? It's already on the network! So what sense does it make to use mozilla (or java) to distribute these apps when we already have an efficient delivery system -- the one you use to run mozilla/java!
This is of course totally different than the extra-corporate world, where eg you want a home user to use your app. But for within a business -- even out-of-office, with VPN -- "zero install" is an ancient, solved problem.
What am I missing?
The enemies of Democracy are
Probably. I think the worry is that XAML has access to whatever interface bits are native in Windows, whereas XUL only can access the interface bits in Mozilla. The two sets likely won't line up perfectly, and one can guess the set for Windows will be larger.
Open source should be fun, not a crazy fight for survival. If Microsoft do end up owning the framework for the web competitors will still want to interoperate with it.
As you say MS will have a great deal of success with this. It may turn out to be a very significant test of the interoperability provisions of the DMCA.
I think the first step of braking the MS monopoly on desktops would involve licensing of some sort. This licensing may be forced on them one way or another as part of government deals etc. Microsoft will still be in a very powerful position with it's licensing tax.
Once competition is established I would hope that the pace of innovation would cause a license from MS to become optional depending on quality, rather than mandatory.
Any chance of a development job, btw?
Oh, god, like you are so damned important. Sun is being whined at by thousands of people, each with a different "but I want this" and "but I want that." Do you think Sun are omnipotent and can do it all?
Thanks for making the argument for me. With that sort of argument, you probably work for Sun. It progresses as Sun wants it to progress, not as it's users need it to progress. It will not be effective for many general purposes such as the one the parent of my original response proposed until someone who understands the domain is able to take ownership enough to provide what is necessary.
Look at Java and how it has come along over the years. It has always been progressing and in very non-trivial ways (the JRE has a full-blown software MIDI subsystem for cripes sake). Just because your little corner in the world hasn't been peed on, yet, doens't make Sun incompetent or evil.
Certainly it has been "peed on" by Sun, who then sits back and claims victory wondering why no one uses Java Start (if you call today's following success, I guess you are in denial). That is what leads many to believe that Sun will never do it right or well, even though Java zealots claim Java does it all very well. You could make the same argument about emacs having made so much progress over all the years, but that still does not make it suitable to most tasks even though it can be used for nearly any task.
When Midi becomes more important than how a web application launches and myriad other failures in their client strategy, I would suspect there are still domain experts better than the ones Sun hired who could do a better job in a non-proprietary environment.
I think Avalon/XAML is second in utility to WinFS. WinFS is supposed to bring capabilities formerly found only in document management systems to your OS, and that will be very attractive to big enterprises and CIOs. Finding the right document, and the latest version of it, is a huge problem in enterprises. It is something the end users care about, and something the CIO cares about.
Introducing avalon is a good move from Microsoft, but I don't see it being the reason anyone would buy Longhorn. Not until it is in wide use, and that will take few years. Avalon simply offers a nicer version of HTML that is useful in developing GUIs for your custom solutions. For most enterprises, that is definitely not enough for a justifying a major expense like upgrading the OS in every computer in the enterprise.
While Avalon is nice for the developers and offers also richer user experience, I think developers and IT people will be won over Indigo, as it will (supposedly) make writing distributed systems much much easier than before.
WinFS makes the end users and CIOs want to upgrade to Longhorn, and Indigo wins over the IT staff. Avalon's role is to make sure that after people start to use longhorn, they cannot switch back to any OS that does not support Avalon, ie. for anything non-windows like Linux.
Until the 'anointed' apps have stuff like DCOP interfaces, desktop notification, KDE theme support, etc.. I'll stick with the KDE stuff. I like kicker popups, they're almost as slick as OS X bouncing dock icons.
Which, of course, you are welcome to do. KDE vs Gnome was not the question at hand (and can we all just grow up and get over waving our desktop's flag around?). The question was centered around the choice of applications, in theory being based on their popularity alone, but in the final analysis being Gnome-centric. I think I covered those issues well enough in my original post.
However I feel that the choice to support both KDE and Gnome was a political decision [...] all you are doing is loading Gnomes services and libraries behind KDE, which isn't really supporting KDE
First off, no it's not political it's practical. There are KDE desktops out there. The goal is to target them for deployment of this suite along with everything else. Nothing surprising or political here.
And why on earth is "running under KDE" not "supporting KDE"?! If it said on the box "supports KDE" and I took it home to find that it ran under KDE, I can't see being too upset about that.
I think you're tilting at windmills. Everything said in the article, as far as I can tell, is true. You just don't like that the apps chosen based on popularity aren't the apps you want to use. I understand you pain. Please don't try to share it any further.
In theory, if according to what many people are saying XAML == XUL, then a xslt stylesheet should be all that's needed.
Only if the UI models are equivalent. Take container packing models. In Windows, the tradition was to explicitly place components in their locations. XUL, OTOH, uses something similar to TCL and Gtk where components are arranged in boxes, and the container "packs" itself in order to lay the widgets out... ie, there's no explicit positioning done.
Don't forget the role XPCOM and XBL can play in doing rich clients. Look at Newsmonster, OEone and Komodo for what's possible.
I'd work for Microsoft if I could as well.
In fact, if you asked around, I bet a lot of the developers around here would if they could. It's a living and it pays well.
What does this have to do with the fact that he recognizes good technology and so ports it to Linux for everyone to use?
This community bashes Microsoft UI all the time, then embraces start menus, task bars, and integrated filesystem and HTML browsers. I guess because Windows 98 did it.
The majority of KDE apps use QT, dcop, the arts sound server.
Whilst Gnome apps can be loaded from within KDE (unsuprisingly) it will require the GTK libraries and are unlikely to use dcop and arts. They might as well say it would work under any desktop environment given the required libraries are installed.
I like the apps, if I was currently using Gnome I'd use them.
If this was purely practical they would choose one desktop or use a strategy that is completely desktop agnostic.
"How is installing mozilla on each and every desktop different from installing java on each and every desktop?"
It's not.
"With java you can have web-start applications - with mozilla you can have XUL applications."
My point is that you can do a hell of a lot more with java then you can with XUL. If you are going to install something on the desktop anyway you might as well install the JRE which is smaller then mozilla.
evil is as evil does
Actually a good project in this area exists already, the MyXaml project.
From the DotGNU perspective, XAML isn't particularly scary. We can simply support and recommend (and perhaps distribute) MyXaml.
Really, from the perspective of the Free Software community, XAML isn't particularly scary. XAML may make the deployment of apps easier, and some of those apps may have been written to run only on MS platforms, but that cannot possibly be worse than the current situation with most apps for desktop computers running only on MS platforms. If indeed the IT world switches to XAML, that's not something to be scared about (except perhaps from a security perspective) because supporting XAML+.NET on free operating systems is in fact easier than supporting native "Microsoft Windows" executables.
So I come to the conclusion that while I don't know whether XAML may perhaps be scary for Novell from a business perpective, or it may be scary for Miguel personally (because the MyXaml project is independent of Mono, and Miguel has historically found it difficult to interact with independent projects in a contructive, mutually beneficial manner), but certainly XAML is not a big threat for anything that I particularly care about.
There was a comment left on my weblog, apparently by a manager in the Avalon team, saying that XAML is not XUL.
I would urge everyone who believes that supporting Microsoft's proprietary platforms to reconsider.
.NET is not yet an industry standard. Soon it will be if free software projects rush to promote it. The result will be more power for Microsoft; their implementation will be superior and be the standard. Any imitations will fail as second rate.
It would be better to spend time encouraging Sun to make Java free software than to support Microsoft in their monopolistic practices.
You can read more about the GNU project at http://www.gnu.org/.
but you already do that.. unless you claim to be part of the .04 percent that has flash disabled..
-ashot
Particularly in a bad economy, IT departments are faced with increasing pressure to justify their own existence. It's hard to show how important you are until it's too late (you've been laid off and the network goes down), so it's important to roll out new projects and software installations even if nobody uses them. It gives you bullet points to present when the executives ask what you've been up to.
Ok Novell, but one thing.
If the OSS community and companies are going to develop an Avalon (or Avalon-like) implementation, they should write it for Linux, not for Mono.
If they write it for Mono (ie. in C#) then it will be portable to Windows and the Mac. But Windows will already have it and MS will license it to Apple, so that will be meaningless.
If they write it for Linux (ie. in a GCC language) then it will be usable from all Linux development platforms.
Tom.
It is an extended discussion, although novices obviously give such a simplistic answer.
It should be obvious that it was completely impossible in 1995 and a number of years after that, which killed the project at the time, which would not have been the case had distributing a forked distribution with our own modifications been an alternative.
To make a good, intelligent loader, it would need to tie in to a much greater extent to surrounding code than simple overloading of public methods allows, and is likely to require native modifications.
Such a thing really needs to be built into a distribution so every application that tries to launch itself intelligently does not have to have special privileges, etc.
This is a long discussion of design, your answer is a non-starter, and the class loader is just one part missing of many that needs to be thyere in a dfistribution.
Sun should try to get outside their stupid box a bit more. Net will eventually bury Java for people who like the proprietary mind set because Microsoft can copy faster than Sun. Proprietary is not for me, and open source will be forced to produce something more-open to innovation. Sun would rather sue than let someone else do something that they have no experience or vision to do themselves with Java.
Your contradictions in priority are exactly the reason people should be free to do what they need to with the Java engine, or find / create something better.
Your point is noted. However one in this brave new world must be careful in not seeing everything as a nail(1). Does Slashdot per your example, really needs to have a front-end rich client? All we do her is basically read, and reply.
Also as pointed out in another story(2). The glass teletype can be faster than GUIfying everything in sight.
(1) Feature Creep.
(2) The counter at an airport, and the POS at a retail store were given as examples were GUIfying reduced productivity, not increased it.
just leave Sun alone. Why Sun? You have a problem with OpenOffice? Sun has certainly been more friendly to the community than microsoft.
It's trivial to extend XAML with C# or any other CLR source language, too.
Your XML reprocessor is going to do *what*, exactly, when it encounters some inline C#? And to what are you going to translate the whizzy graphics, animations, videos, and other effects?
XAML is just the surface, an easy-to-use XUL + Flash language. Scratch below that and you get the Avalon engine and the .NET runtime. That combination is not something lying around on today's Linux, and not something you can whip up in an evening.
Although Mono gives us a good start on half of the substance behind XAML....
IE wasn't a joke, it was a ripoff of netscape, which ended up costing a billion bucks to microsoft when they lost a court case.
Windows is a ripoff of x windows. DOS a ripoff of digital's CPM.
My point is that you can do a hell of a lot more with java then you can with XUL.
An example of something you can do with java that you cannot do with XUL would be nice. Not required, but nice.
Java is a very rich environment. You can do anything you want to with it. For example you can write applications that interact with j2ee servers, servlets or go straight to the database. Java has a huge library of commercial and open source products to help you get done whatever you want in a repid manner.
According the mozilla web site XUL database access isn't even baked yet. Without being able to access databases you'd be hard pressed to write a useful application don't you think?
evil is as evil does
The Freedom to ditribute malicious code? come on, you jerk! GTFO this forum!!!
Ever hear Don Box speak. He flat out says he is going to hire Miguel.
A lot of you don't like Miguel because he points out the shortcomings of *nix. He realizes if you are not writing drivers or the OS you need to get the hello out of the low level languages. He is one of the smartest people to touch the pile of steaming *nix in a long time who actually has a clue of how to make it better.
But the apps listed, for the most part, weren't Gnome apps anyway, so it's moot point. Stop playing political football with applications and use them to get work done.
Why is it that KDE folks get upset every time someone advocates using a non-KDE app? Isn't that the kind of provincial thinking we're trying to get back away from? I use some KDE programs and some Gnome programs along with apps like Mozilla, XMMS, Open Office, Emacs, and other non-Gnome/KDE apps. Why would I want to limit myself in any other way?
You obviously don't have to install PC's for friends and family on aging hardware, where easy of use is of prime importance.
Which, AGAIN, has nothing to do with Miguel's points (in fact, in so far as it MIGHT, you seem to be defending his assertions).
You select the applications that users prefer. You integrate them tightly with eachother and make them work well under various dekstop environments that people use.
Done.
I'm not too sure where you're getting your information on IT managers. When you're a manager in IT, you have to be concerned not only about the latest software, you also have to support every peice of ancestor software that is still in use. In many, many cases, this software was written some time in the 80's. This removes the "shiny things" from the equation, since the managers are looking for "less shiny" things.
If MS marketed an OS that was 100% backwards compatible with every MS OS, and that it is stable, secure, and powerful, then every IT manager would be biting on it. Of course, new features would be bene, but they wouldn't be the selling point. Many IT departments are just now getting into Active Directory, realizing that support for NT Domains has finally dropped off of the end of the world.
An IT manager won't be concerned with a 3-D accelerated desktop, because it just won't be useful to them. Non of the in-house apps that they use require this desktop, nor can they be run more efficiently. Then again, there's also the issue of a considerable investment in hardware. Most machines that are purchased for business have all integrated components, and if it could be found without a sound card, so much the better.
MS hopes the sell the flash, but unfortunately it is you that has bitten on the MS marketing. Normal IT guys are going to look at it and wonder just why it's necessary for them to upgrade, when what they have works just fine. It seems that the only way for MS to push businesses into buying / upgrading is for MS to drop support for the OS completely.
Lastly, even IT managers have to answer to the bean counters. They all have budgets, and those budgets were cut drastically in 2002-2003.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Heck, I didn't realize that they had that much of the market. Good for them!