Slashdot Mirror
Mono Blocked from MS Conference
Anonymous Coward writes to tell us that Microsoft has apparently blocked the Mono 'Birds-of-a-Feather' meeting from being held at their Professional Developers Conference for the second year in a row. Miguel de Icaza discusses the circumstances in his blog. From the blog: 'It is their conference, and they have every right to control what they will allow to be shown there, but they actively have misrepresented things.' Not terribly surprising but infuriating nonetheless.
Typo?
Locked Blocked? or is there something I'm missing?
It is their conference, and they have every right to control what they will allow to be shown there. Is this news?
Sounds like left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.. Today's early "Race to Linux" thread about porting .Net linked to this article, which explicitly mentions mono as being an allowable language. This just seems odd to me, expecially because its also sponsored by the very same Microsoft Professional Developers Conversation..
One dev would be too many for a true Napolean.
There I fixed that for you.
"But teacher teacher, Steve started it first...."
Film at 11...
Come on now, is anyone surprised by churlish behavior by MS towards the Mono developers? Does "Samba" ring a bell?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Wake up with fleas
I'm not convinced that MS' only road to victory is to destroy everyone. I know it has kind of worked for them in the past but maybe they should consider other alternatives. I don't understand why they don't port .Net over to Linux. People who are using Linux now aren't going to stop because there's no .Net. So what's the point? Why not just get half a loaf of bread and get people to use .Net at least even if it's not on Windows. If MS really wants .Net to take off, they need to ensure that it's adopted by as many people as possible. Otherwise people will continue to look to Java and other languages for cross-platform applications.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Hands? Don't you mean tentacles?
Do you Gentoo?
since when was linux a japanese schoolgirl
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Right. It doesn't.
.Net into a Java killer. And they recognized that to do this, it must be cross platform. And to have an edge on Java, it must be an open standard (which Java is not). So Microsoft tried to engineer the perfect Java Killer. Unfortunately for them, .Net is likely to be a more effective Windows killer than a Java killer..... So now they are stuck. They are still *trying* to kill Java, but in the end they are realizing that they have built their own worst enemy.
I used to work at Microsoft and they have so much disorganized legacy strategy floating around that effectively keeps them from doing anything threating.
Ever wonder why Microsoft offered help to the Mono project at first? Because they wanted to make
So this largely explains their dilema, their disorganization, and their self-defeating strategy.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This is what we call "bureaucracy."
News agencies will pick up Microsoft's Race-to-Linux, but not Mono's Birds-of-a-Feather.
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
But when the guy essentially works for Novell, what the fuck did he expect? They didn't let the Oracle folks in either, eh?
The zealotosphere will of course take this personally and another round of "OMFG TEH M$ IS TEH EVIL!!1!" is forthcoming. That's fine. Just remember that Microsoft is not into giving competitors slots on their conferences just so they can come across as being nice. The PDC is not an all-access proletarian gig. If Icaza was still independent I'd put good money on him getting into the PDC to demo his stuff. With the Novell t-shirt however, things are a little different.
Oh, and BTW... OS News and every two-bit blog out there had this days ago. Slashdot is late to the party - again.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
It is correct to say that Microsoft can choose who they want to attend the conference. There's no disputing that. Technically, they don't even have to give a reason. HOWEVER, when a reason is given and it is blatantly and willfully deceptive or untrue, then it is not so much the barring as the use of FUD to damage competition unfairly.
Forget the barring. Ignore it. It isn't the important part of the situation. What is important is whether it is correct to say that other conference-goers are being given a line intended to intimidate or coerce. THAT is the important part, the conference itself is irrelevant.
You should also forget the rights a normal competitor has in the US. As a legally-declared monopolist, supposedly monitored for potential malpractice as ordered by the courts, and as an organization fighting the necessity for increased openness as decided by EU courts, Microsoft is (in theory) limited in what it can do to use negative advertising for causing willful harm to competitors.
If this was a "normal" situation, with a "normal" company, very little of this would matter one way or the other. This is NOT a normal situation, and Microsoft was ruled a monopolist by both the US and EU, making it definitely NOT a typical player in a free market.
Actually, the EU situation is probably the most relevant here, as it is entirely possible that the example of Mono may well be usable by the EU as proof that Microsoft's counter-case over the penalties and openness of its standards are without merit. If Microsoft is willing to obstruct a free market, even when in court for doing so, then it cannot be trusted to not do so by choice at any other time.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Microsoft is behaving exactly the same way they've always behaved.
Look, Miguel, it's pretty simple. You go play in the sandbox with a reknown bully, you eat sand. Most people figure this out before their sixth birthday. You want to do this mono thing, fine, but you _are_ going to get screwed every time you venture into Microsoft's playground and you aren't going to get a lick of sympathy from the rest of the world when it happens.
c.
Log in or piss off.
when they drop the hammer on the GNOME/mono group for using their IP, they will be able to tell the truth in court (for once) that they have never supported this project. In addition,they never fully understood how much of their IP this project walked on (I wonder if they can do that with a straight face?).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The Roman empire, as others, was built by dominating all possible enemies, or politically playing them off against each other. This works okay for a while, but eventually it always seems to lead to the empire's undoing.
The Roman Catholic church, following the fall of the Roman empire, in turn conquered much of the world by assimilation and adaptation.
Perhaps MS will take this lesson from history one day before it is too late?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
That's a good insight. I remember .Net being presented back in 2001 as the next Java, with the word "Framework" substituted for "Virtual Machine". As the years have gone by, I keep waiting for it to "become" Java, but all we've got to show for it is an architecture with the speed of Java (slow) and the portability of a native Win32 exe (not portable at all).
It seems more like a goof in their voting process as to which sessions would be included..
those conspiracy theorists would find malicious intent on behalf of Microsoft (but then, they'll do that for almost anything.. ) but I'm not convinced of it.
So sayeth the anonymous coward
RAGE AGAINST THE (SLASHDOT) MACHINE!
I wouldn't expect Microsoft to have a .NET Birds of a Feather group at a Linux conference. It probably wouldn't go over well with the attendees, I can just imagine everyone attending the MS BOF pointing out how what MS hasn't done for Linux. Furthermore, the sponsors may have political issues with them having a slot in the conference.
It seems very silly to hold them to a double standard. Microsoft is under no obligation to cater to Novell and their associates. Just as you would not expect groups associated with Linux to be under any obligation to cater for Microsoft.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
I don't understand how people can get so enamoured of the .NET world, devote their professional careers to C# and the MS universe, and then wonder what happened when MS decides to zig when they want to zag.
.NET just broke all their code in Windows Vista, but you can bet you'll see it on the blogs of less experienced coders.
Seriously. I see Spolsky and Sink congratulating themselves on how well they've managed to sneak out of the MS sandbox with clever PHP translation schemes and the like.
Gosh, guys, you don't have to give Redmond the remote control to your shock collars just because you want a little bit of leverage writing code.
Work a little bit harder and you can be free of Microsoft and in control of your own destiny. You won't see the Mozilla foundation complaining about how
1. It is not illegal to use mono or to develop mono.
.net as their claim that MS will never sue.
.net ecma standards ever has been comparably free.
2. C#/.net libraries are ECMA standards
However,
1. Microsoft has the right to charge a RAND (reasonable and non-descriminatory) fee at any time for the use of these standards.
2. They have never, ever, stated in any binding way that they would not do so in the future.
3. *any* fee, even minimal would result in the instant death of any OSS project dependent on those standards.
4. RAND can (and frequently does in the proprietary software world) mean several dollars per download! Or requiring build licenses for all developers producing binaries (every end user of gentoo for example!) that are in the hundreds of $ range. These are all reasonable and non-descriminatory in that context!
Miguel De Icasa and Ximian/Mono people *know* this full well but don't want to admit how dangerous mono adoption is for the gnome community. They cite a BS casual mailing list post from the head engineer of
See how much crap this is for yourself (from official Mono faq):
http://web.archive.org/web/20030609164123/http://m ailserver.di.unip.....
http://www.go-mono.com/faq.html#patents
Jim Miller's off hand email is the *only* assurance anyone has ever received that MS would never charge a RAND fee! If this were truly MS's commitment then they could release a statement or legally commit themselves to that! This email is not not not legally binding people! Until MS makes a legally binding agreement to never charge for use of these standards, it is not ok to use mono!
See also Seth Nickels' blog on this subject "Why Mono is currently an unnacceptable risk":
http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/2004/May
The two main arguments against what I'm saying are realy crap also:
1. Java is also proprietary:
Yes but Sun has licensed Java in such a way that they are legally prohibited from charging *any* royalties at all for existing releases of Java. We know with 100% certainty that Sun will never try and collect any RAND fee. Ever. The situation with Java is totally different for this reason. Even if Sun changed its mind or was purchased by a less generous company (like MS for example), existing releases of Java and alternative implementations based on existing released specs would always remain free as in beer. The no version of the
2. You are always infringing somewhere, worrying about this is wasting your time:
True, there is always a danger of unknowingly infringing. However, in this case mono is knowingly using patented software. If MS decided to collect or sue, mono and gnome would have absolutely zero defense! Furthermore, MS is well known for destroying threatening companies when it suits them to do so! They have done this many times in the past. Remeber how they *lost* an anti-trust lawsuit? It is because they are agressive, unscrupulous and incredibly rich and illegal monopoly that used its power to destroy competition. They can and will crush gnome if gnome threatens MS! Mono is the ultimate submarine. We build it, integrate it so gnome can't live without it, then they kill gnome by charging for builds. Bam. Gnome is dead on that day.
Take Away: Mono is cool but way too dangerous. Smart people and companies are staying away from it (which turns out to be *most* companies by the way. That is why Redhat and others are pushing Java as an alternative). People who back mono either have motive (ximian), are misinformed (most of the people on this forum), or just dumb (people who are really drooling over the potential of mono so they are ignoring the risk, probably ximian a
- For high-end computing - Mono runs on Sparc, S390, and Power support, Mono's really the only choice for high-end computing platforms.
- For embedded designs - Mono runs on ARM with MIPS soon to come, which makes Mono really the only choice for embedded platforms.
- For businesses - Many companies are able to provide support for the Mono engine, only one is able to support microsoft's implementaion. Any rational business will not allow any product that's sole-sourced from a single vendor, whether it's screws, bolts, gasoline, or software engines. With Microsoft's implemention your business is left at the whims of a single vendor who can pull the rug out from you whenever they feel like (remember Visual Basic 6, and the contempt MSFT showed business relying on that platform).
Basically, for any serious C# application, Mono is the only choice.Here you hear once more that developers who buy into .NET are not interested in developing or targeting other platforms other than Windows. Those who would want to have Linux then rather use PHP, Perl, etc. That is so crazy and ignorant that it doesn't make any sense! Or maybe, the people expressing those opinions are not "Real Software Engineers" -- or good business people for that matter.
.NET 2003 quite regularly. In fact, now that I have discovered the beauty of VMWare, it will be that much more comfortable to create projects in Visual Studio that are resting on a VMWare shared folder and use them instantly in the Linux host.
.NET 2003 with the intention to deploy and run in Windows boxes whose only .NET Framework runtime is the Mono for Windows SDK.
.NET developer that only wants to use .NET in Windows would be as silly as a PC user back in 1987 who only wanted to use IBM hardware.
.NET will be much bigger -- and better for everyone -- than Microsoft .NET alone.
.NET developer at the PDC or elsewhere that would not grin once he/she sees their application running on Linux or Mac OS X?
It is NOT an all or nothing proposition. You can develop in Visual Studio and very well target Linux, Mac OS X and anything else that runs Mono. As much as I use the totally cool MonoDevelop (a.k.a Bad Ass IDE of the future), I still use Visual Studio
But make no mistake, that is just one of those rich kids whim of mine. I have, for the past two years, used a Windows box that has mapped drives to my Samba enabled Linux boxes to achieved the same effect.
One must also keep in mind the great utility of Mono's Windows incarnation. Thanks to my add-in (sorry for the shameless plug) you can use Visual Studio and test in Mono without having a Linux or Mac OS box anywhere in sight. In some cases, I very purposefully create Mono applications using handy dandy Visual Studio
In the early 1980's IBM put out the specifications for the PC and regardless of what were their intentions back then, the world of IT has become what it is today because of all of the innovations that we later had by contributors like Compaq, Dell, HP, Apple, Toshiba and many others.
Today, being a
I say we have an extremely similar situation with the original submission from Microsoft to the ECMA of the C# language and the CLI specification. Now, in 2005, you have a great group of contributors that include Novell, Microsoft, IBM, HP and many others.
But perhaps the most striking difference from my IBM PC analogy is the role of the individual contributor. You see, I want to suggest that Open Source
No really, from a business perspective, you would have to be brain damaged to create an application or system of any sort and not hope that it can run in as many platforms (meaning customers that are willing to pay) as possible!
So you mean to tell me that there is some
For GOD sake, GET A CLUE!!!!
I ScuttleMonkey trying to tell us something in a series of Freudian slips?
Advice for my fellow geeks: before seeking out that threesome you dream of, you might see what a TWOsome is like first.
As the years have gone by, I keep waiting for it to "become" Java, but all we've got to show for it is an architecture with the speed of Java (slow) and the portability of a native Win32 exe (not portable at all).
And the security of ActiveX.....
Actually, it is not too unportable via Mono, but I worry about a non-sandboxed security model based on digital signatures.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
So now they are stuck. They are still *trying* to kill Java, but in the end they are realizing that they have built their own worst enemy.
Heh. This is just like IE and Firefox.
By using the monopolic practice of embedding Internet Explorer in Windows, Microsoft opened to the gates (no pun intended) to the information superhighway, without realizing that this would allow people to get organized and fight against their own monopoly - not only with Firefox, but also with other competing projects like OpenOffice.org, and now, Mono.
This is so.... ironic. And funny. Reminds me of the typical story about a wizard who summons a monster to rule the world, and then the monster kills him.
It's obvious that Mono will NEVER be able to run every .NET application. As soon as Microsoft starts seeing Mono as a thread, something will happen.
BTW, where's the big wave of .NET applications?
If you can read this, thank an english teacher.
I think the proper term is 'cock-blocked.'
Only in Japan would Linux be a Japanese schoolgirl.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
How difficult would it be to find a 3rd-party location for a Mono BOF? A few enterprising souls, a restaurateur who's willing to go out on a limb in exchange for some damn good geek cred (and his/her name on Slashdot, most likely) and Micro$haft can't do a damn thing to stop it.
de Icaza reportedly hurled his chair across the room and yelled, "I'll bury them!"
I worked at Microsoft game division a year prior the xbox launch. MS is SO clueless, they had projects for the PS2 going on. Needless to say one day they had a huge meeting...
Just to say I'm not surprised
Microsoft may have a disorganized strategy internally, but I think they aren't dumb enough to dig their or grave with .NET. Microsoft *is* trying to make .NET a Java killer and look open so they allow Mono to exist but they have two tricks up their sleave to make sure Mono doesn't get too far.
.NET and Windows.Forms.
.NET. Unlike Windows.Forms though Avalon will not be part of the .NET standard (it will be under the Microsft namespace) and will be very dependent on Vista technology. Developers will flock to this to make their applications "Vista-friendly" and kill cross platform interop with Windows.Forms.
1. Native calls.
Native calling is pretty easy to do in >NET and many developers use Win32 calls to gain missing (perhaps purposely) in
2. (Here's the real killer coming up)Avalon
Avalon is going to be Vista's killer API and it will be exposed through
Since when is Java slow? When was the last time you used Java and what did you use it for? I have been building enterprise software for 4 years with Java and the performance is just fine. In fact with the last three JREs, the performance has been excellent for most applications. Of course it all depends on what you are buildling. From what I can see on your website (very basic programs) you seem hardly qualified to make a generic statement like Java is slow.
lay down with whores...
:)
wake up with AIDS
"I don't understand how people can get so enamoured of the .NET world, devote their professional careers to C# and the MS universe, and then wonder what happened when MS decides to zig when they want to zag."
/.). They however are enamoured concerning .Net and I can see why when you considered what most of them have been working with the majority of their programming lives.
But the only people being "Zig-Zag(TM)"'ed are Miguel. That's what the whole storie's about. The people in the MS universe aren't complaing about MS (and hence no story on
"Work a little bit harder and you can be free of Microsoft and in control of your own destiny."
They are in control of their destiny...and they picked Microsoft. As much as that gals the OSS community (you know? the ones who talk about freedom...except to pick MS)
Microsoft's dominance in the corporate workstation market is largely due to superior development tools (compared to other rivals) for line of business tools.
.NET and Windows.Forms.
.Net's goal.
.NET. Unlike Windows.Forms though Avalon will not be part of the .NET standard (it will be under the Microsft namespace) and will be very dependent on Vista technology. Developers will flock to this to make their applications "Vista-friendly" and kill cross platform interop with Windows.Forms.
.Net to be this dangerous to them. But it is extremely dangerous.
.Net to kill Java and Software Assurance to lock people into subscription contracts, but people forgot about Linux....
For other tools (large scale/higher performance, nice-looking apps), MFC/VC++ is still the way to go.
Native calling is pretty easy to do in >NET and many developers use Win32 calls to gain missing (perhaps purposely) in
Sure but how many line of business apps need this? How many benefit from this? This was not
Avalon is going to be Vista's killer API and it will be exposed through
Line of business tools again?
The point though is that Mono makes it much easier to move from a Microsoft-centered shop to a Linux-centered shop. Even with Avalon, this is still a reality. Now with Avalon, I still think that you are going to see quick Linux compatibility develop, and so Microsoft will have a number of problems keeping developers there.
You have another issue. How many companies are still running Windows 2000 primarily? How fast will Vista be adopted?
I don't think that they ever intended to allow
The original strategy was to go with
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
There is no reason you couldnt build MONO to pass native calls through to WINE or similar.
.NET program makes a call in gdi32.dll, the WINE gdi32 can be used to implement it.
So when the
"My company is currently converting all their software from VB6 to C#."
.Net yet.
Well there goes the "C# is an ECMA/ISO standard" argument. And we haven't even gotten to
Sure, we *could* pass Win32 calls to WINE (hoping they work), but that defeats the whole point of using .NET to be a truly cross platform development API. We might as well ditch Mono and just focus on getting the Microsoft .NET runtime to work over WINE by your philosophy.
.NET for themselves, but the dream of "write once, run everywhere" is at risk if using native calls and Avalon becomes norm rather than the exception.
Native function calls and Avalon pose a major problem in having applications developed with only Windows in mind working on Linux. Of course Linux developers can still benefit from using
I admit to being somewhat of the loop on this. I used to Gnome, I ditched it when they dropped Sawfish in favor of Metacity.
.NET? And no, I wouldn't have gone Java.
But I was interested when they came to this conclusion that some sort of Application Development Framework, over and above what they could iron out of C(++) was needed. What I don't get is why
Why not go with Objective-C? Want the memory manager, link with libgc. It works GREAT! And if you don't feel the need to play ever catch up with Apple, you can link the GNUstep stuff with libgc, and fork off in your own direction. It's amazing to me what the GNUstep guys are able to do with such a small amount of developers. And then you can start playing with the StepTalk stuff being done in GNUstep, which gives you a *really* fluid application toolset. You get the C, the objects, the messages, the elegance (i.e. no need for the language to bolt on another 20 features every rev because it somehow never really figured out what it wanted to be, nee Java), and the uber fluid Smalltalk stuff at the top. And you can pick and choose, so you don't have the religous flamewars.
Am I on Slashdot??!?! Oh. Sorry. You caught me on my soapbox in front of my mirror.
One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.
Reminds me of the typical story about a wizard who summons a monster to rule the world, and then the monster kills him.
Or instead of killing him, the monster just throws a chair at him.
Great analogy. But really, what more do you expect -- if you read up on innovation, you'll see that this happens all the time -- Micro$oft isn't going to cannibalize themselves voluntarily, but it will get them in the end.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
That strategy worked well in the Western World, but generally failed when the Roman Catholic Church went up against another major religion (like Islam). Much of the spread of western influence outside of the west happend despite the Church, with governments using the Church as a puppet to support their wars (the Spanish in South America).
I would say Christianity spread mainly by assimilation and adaption before it became the religion of Rome.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
You mean like IronPython: Python on the .NET Framework? MS frequently shows up at F/OSS and Linux conferences, in addition to MacWorld & conferences arounf another vendors' products.
The book seems to focus on being able to disrupt entrenched competition. Even barring the profit-margin issues, Microsoft seems bound and determined to destroy the entrenched competition in the desktop OS market. However, this is largely something that I think will misfire because it is badly targetted. Additionally, Microsoft is the largest competitor to Microsoft. So you can draw your own opinions regarding where this is headed.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
4. RAND can (and frequently does in the proprietary software world) mean several dollars per download! Or requiring build licenses for all developers producing binaries (every end user of gentoo for example!) that are in the hundreds of $ range. These are all reasonable and non-descriminatory in that context!
.NET development on Windows at the same time. There are tons of MS .NET developers now; MS wants them to use their tools. Non-discriminatory means they'd have to kill off their own fanboy dev armada in order to get at the Mono gnat.
Yeah, but that would ALSO kill all the
How about that one?
Miguel didn't say anything about "infuriating" in his blog. I'm sure the anonymous coward or ScuttleMonkey (whoever added that) was really infuriated (rolls eyes) over this.
So much wasted energy on rabid hatred of Microsoft. Give it a rest
You have apparently been fallen for the FUD from MSFT. This is totally not true. I have been developing very large java appications for years, and we've moved from 1.1 through 1.4 (and for trials I've used 1.5) in large banking applications. Everything has been perfectly backwards compatible, except for a few obscure bugs. Show me any code that doesn't have bugs.
For years we have been developing in a group of 20 developers. We didn't have anything standardized but 1.3. Everyone was developing on a different 1.3 version, and deployment was on yet another. I 2 years time this situation endured we have NEVER seen any version problems at all. We use mainly J2EE (serlvets, EJB, corba, JDBC) but no applets.
The only problematic area has been applets/swing in version 1.1, and especially the incompatability for those when switching from, you guess, MSFTs crippled java implementation to Sun.
It is very sad that to this day, so much time after MSFT's ploy to sabotage Java by bringing incompatible versions, people still believe this story. Please don't give MSFT so much satisfaction by repeating such nonsense, grrrrr.
That is some strange history writing...
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
For the obvious reasons:
I've been using Java for many years, and it has failed to mature as a general purpose programming language. For my work, it's either back to C++ or C#; Java is not an option anymore.
The CLR proves zonal security, which can be set at the enterprise, machine and user levels. By default you get Full Trust, Skip Verification, Execution, Nothing, Local Intranet, Internet and Everything. Don't like those zones? You can create your own and provide the conditions for an executable or loaded assembly to be placed in them. For example I have c:\sandbox\internet in the Internet zone. Any CLR exec I drop in there runs under that zone, despite being on the local hard drive, which by default has Full Trust.
Better still you have CAS, which allows you to specify what permissions you need. The permissions are granular and you can create your own should you need to. If the zone your code is starting in does not have the permissions you request the CLR will not run it. You can also request optional permissions, so if you optionally request to save to local hard drives, and you don't get it, you can remove that menu option/functionality.
So there is a CLR sandbox, there has always been a CLR sandbox. It's not ActiveX.
I agree, furthermore it will never catch up. MS will make sure of that. If by some miracle mono does close the gap they will be sued and that will stop them in their tracks.
.NET APIs, just like no open source Java implementation will ever catch up with Sun on Java APIs.
.NET, it's done in Gtk+ and other toolkits.
Of course, Mono will not catch up with Microsoft on
The difference is that with Mono, it doesn't matter. Open source software development and cross platform development in Mono is not primarily done in
Not when you java already exists, runs on every platform mono runs on, has proven to scale to massive proportions, can run on the tiniest of devices, had great IDEs, and is already mature and baked.
Repeating a lie often enough doesn't make it true. Java does not run on my Linux box, for example, while Mono does. Java has not "proven to scale" any more than Mono has; and while Sun was pushing Java for enterprise apps, their runtime had horrendous memory leaks. Finally, Java is not mature, it's frozen; there is a difference.
Imagine if Miguel put all that work into a better JVM for linux.
Then we would be stuck with yet another incomplete implementation of Java, a language and a set of APIs, many people have already decided not to use.
After years of programming Java, I have gone back to C++; Java simply isn't working out. Unlike Java, however, C# is worth another try.
The whole concept of Mono is somewhat confounding to me. Why not just implement something new? Why spend so much time recoding the .NET API?? When I first heard of Mono I thought that it was cool that existing .NET apps could potentially run in Linux. Then I realized that I don't give a ____ about these apps anyway. And I gaurantee I won't bother running some GPhoto type application in Windows. Anyone who uses this is just going to be using Linux anyway. On the server end.. I have to wonder what the ROI would be for porting apps from Windows-IIS/.NET to Linux/Mono.NET. It seems like a complete waste of time. Also, most people that write cross platform apps simply don't care about .NET and won't bother learning it, even if it really is as cool as Miguel says. Most of the Mac/Linux types quit coding on Windows a long time ago. Those that still do code on Windows usually do it as their job, which is usually in a position they've had for 5+ years.
.NETv2, complete with a whole new API and super-duper-mega-active server pages. Of course all of the IIS users (which will remain 99% of the .NET users) will pretty much have to "upgrade." Then the Mono developers get to do it all over again when they could have just started from an existing cross-platform kit or just created their own. Mono seems so much like a ship going way off course whith no one on board willing to question the path.
There are so many other ways to create cross platform code in a non-MS API. QT and WxWidgets are both quite nice. I do admit that I might consider Mono over Java though. If only just to avoid the "Java trap." Of course this only matters if I want to do some GPL type coding.
Sooner or later MS is going to put out
I hope I'm wrong though. If what the Mono developers say is true than it will be really exciting down the line. I've become pretty skeptical over the years though.. It's already been over a year since Mono 1.0 and I can't name one commonly used cross platform Mono/.NET app. There certainly seems to be way more resources getting dumped into it than results coming out.
*prepares for the flames*
From the article
.NET development tools available for alternative platforms, such as Linux."
"the majority were not interested in having
Certified, compatible implementations are available for just about any relevant platform you can imagine (yes, probably not for BSD's but that's because they are not relevant).
In comparison, .NET framework is really available only for Windows, mono doesn't cut it.
Do you mean that anyone should be able to extend or modify the "standard" Java APIs anyway they choose? Why? To ensure that only their virtual machine can be used to run a particular piece of software? I think that Microsoft tried to do just that in the 90's, and got sued.
Licensees can *implement* the API's in any way they choose, as long as the API does what it's supposed to do thus ensuring compatability between different virtual machines.
I don't know if there is something in Sun's licensing policies which prevent a fully GPL'ed SDK being done by someone, but I really couldn't care less about "open source" Java SDK or runtime environment. SDK's are essentially free anyway and they work well; whether they are open source or closed source is totally irrelevant.
Hey, wasn't Java supposed to be cross platform or something? Those poor *BSD people don't have someone like IBM behind them to pay for the certification.
I don't know if there is something in Sun's licensing policies which prevent a fully GPL'ed SDK being done by someone, but I really couldn't care less about "open source" Java SDK or runtime environment. SDK's are essentially free anyway and they work well; whether they are open source or closed source is totally irrelevant.
So in which way is Sun Java policies any different in effect than Microsoft's .NET policies?
It is a private meeting, not for public.
SDK's are essentially free anyway and they work well; whether they are open source or closed source is totally irrelevant.
That is true only when you look at the initial cost and ignore anything after it.
http://go-mono.com/sources/mono-1.1/mono-1.1.9.ta
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/gc_s
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/gc_s
for merging the latest Mono's release.
The anti-marketing tip is
That was a doomsday scenario.
MS could simply require registration. That alone would probably do serious damage to such a strongly OSS project.
When a geek can't get enough sex to get a real STD, they name their software after one?
.condom?
"I've got mono" is never going to catch on (or is it?). Will Microsoft's next product be
http://www.mamashealth.com/stds/mono.asp
-- it must be true, it's on the internet.
...because Mono exists, I tell them: "Yeah right, and Windows is cross-platform because WINE exists"
On top of that Microsoft is pushing things called Application Blocks (ABs) which a useful bits of functionality such as logging and caching. There is already an enterprise library version of the ABs (backend stuff mostly) and MS is poised to release ABs for UI development for .NET 2.0. In theory this sounds like a great idea, but you just have to grep the source of these ABs for PInvoke and you realise they're infested with Win32 calls. So anyone who uses an AB may unwittingly be tying themselves to Win32.
I suppose in theory, the ABs could be fixed to remove the calls - calls to high performance timers and so on - but where is the pressure going to be to do that? Microsoft most certainly won't care to do it, and I suspect there will be all kinds of rules to prevent developers doing it.
So at the end of the day whether .NET is allegedly cross-platform, the reality is that it isn't. Not while MS continue to push and enable native calls by default.
Well, your argument only applies to countries with broken/messed up legislation on intangible goods. I for one come from china and I am more concerned about the use of blogsoftware and other dangerous free speech tools, as it can turn me into a dissident...
A benign but exploitable control signed by MS (for example) can be forced on a user by a malicious site and then used to compromise their machine. i.e. the trust model is completely broken.
Microsoft have been increasingly deemphasizing ActiveX because of all the problems with it. I think that IE7 is going to be extremely restrictive of what ActiveX controls can do. ActiveX controls are bad news and even MS know it.
So what's going to replace it? I expect to see XAML and .NET being pitched as the alternative solution for sites that want interactive content. In theory a .NET application could run in a sandbox mode just like Java and still provide useful functionality but it really depends what security policy MS set and how the secure the design and implementation are before knowing that.
The standards might be freer, but the implementations are less free. Right now, there is a working, free, implementation of most of .net. Despite the best efforts of kaffe and classpath there simply isn't a truly usable free java.
I am trolling
Java is okay for many things. And probably if you do graphics animation you could do some nice things too. But still a good build native program will always start faster and run certain things more efficient, than something like java (or .NET).
.NET's Virtual Machines are not helping here either. Why can't they make C# like Delphi, just compile it and run it, it will be very small, and very very fast...
I heared that with the 1.5 or 5.0 version of Java they would at last make the VM such that it would only be loaded once, when starting one or more programs. That would be an improvement for one... But still programs have to be compiled from P-code to native at the moment they are first started.
Computer have become much much faster now. But to be honest, I don't feel that programs have become faster. I liked Wordperfect 5.0 on my 486DX/2 66Mhz, it was really really fast. I pushed the return key on the dos-prompt, and within half a second wordperfect would be startet. Now adays my computer is 50 times faster. But everything is so much slower. It takes a long time before Word 2003 is startet.
Things like Java's and
Most people don't care that they can run it everywhere. If they can compile the sources without changes and it runs there where they want it too, a lot of people would already be happy.
Ofcourse what you have now a days are good VM's, which of course are better than bad programmers. But good programmers can make a program without a VM much faster that with a VM. All be it just starting faster or using less memory....
But today we have loadbalancing, well too slow? No problem just put another PC next to it. Which is much cheaper, than spending a few weeks extra optimizing the code. By the way you mention Enterprise Software, well the loses you have there in performance are not because of the programming language but because of network-connections. So even if your program becomes 10x faster, when sending XML over the network it will still be slow. So Java is a perfect language there.
Ofcourse there is more, C# / Java (without GUI) is much easier to program than C++ so it is cheaper because you can do it faster, you need less skilled programmers (they think). It is less buggy because you have a garbage collector. And so on and so on....
Now we go to Linux take KDE, every new version has more features less memory inpact and feels faster... Can't do that with VM's.....
It would be pretty nice to setup a table outside the conference and hand out free Linux CD's and Mono brochures. ;)
A LiveCD would be perfect.
I have it on slashbot authority that M$ are loverly fluffy bunnies who will allow C# / .NET into FOSS code without causing any ripples whatsoever because they are lovery friendly Good Guys. Unlike BAD Evil Sun (boo hiss!!)
There have been a lot of reports out of Redmond to the effect that Microsoft is being strangled by internal politics and endless meetings. The most recent report, and a very significant one, is a cover story article in next week's Business Week magazine.
In that article, Ballmer comes across as being out of touch and in denial of the problems. It is no wonder why Microsoft is unable to put forth a coherent and consistent strategy on anything.
Do you honestly believe had the effort that went into mono been put into the open source java implementations they would not have been just as good as mono?
I've had this thought the whole time mono has been in development. Why give the company most bent on your destruction leverage over you? Even if the leverage is not THAT much, it still makes zero sense.
We build it, integrate it so gnome can't live without it, then they kill gnome by charging for builds. Bam. Gnome is dead on that day.
;)
Harsh as this may sound, I am actually hoping this happens. It would have a number of very necessary consequences:
- the entire OSS community would learn to never ever rely on proprietary tech again, it would lead to a code purge in the major projects, where the line between open source and proprietary has been getting increasingly blurry (like the linux driver including proprietary firmware, or X relying on proprietary drivers for credible 3D use).
- with gnome dead everyone would standardize on KDE, which would be a dramatic advancement. Not that I have anything against gnome, KDE could die just as well, but regardless, either these guys work out a way to truly have their desktops interact, or one of them is going to have to die. The current situation leads to too many problems that the end user sees for a truly useful desktop product to ever result from it.
- the EU would likely go after MS again. This is always a good thing. No explanation necessary
"Of course we blocked mono! We wouldn't want everyone getting sick, right?" ..... "Oh.. The software? .. Whoopsie!"
1) I wonder what His GNUness would have to say about this potential pitfall for GNOME.
2) I know there is some limited work being done to standardize certain things between KDE and GNOME. Check some of the projects on freedesktop.org.
That said: I like some of the GNOME projects, but I think KDE has more going for them; the monolithic nature of their DE is working to their advantage at the moment.
3) Hey, I don't like hearing "we told you so"s, such as the XP N fiasco. If you're going to go after them, be correct and be thourough.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Mono is basically a dance with the Devil. Now Mono is surprised they have fleas after laying the big Dog, but I'm mixing metaphors. With M$ themselves distancing themselves from .Net proper Mono is facing less adoption.
I was about to write an enlightening post telling you the truth, but it seems that a few people beat me to it.
What???
Java does not run on my Linux box, for example, while Mono does.
I work on Redhat, CentOS, Debian and Mandrake boxes and each and every one of those runs Java just fine.
Java has not "proven to scale" any more than Mono has;
Right, all the Fortune 500 companies use Mono for their enterprise apps instead of Java. (Yes, that is sarcasm.)
and while Sun was pushing Java for enterprise apps, their runtime had horrendous memory leaks.
Yeah, version 1.1 was buggy, but that was ages ago. Early linux versions were not so great either. Software can improve, you know.
Finally, Java is not mature, it's frozen; there is a difference.
Have you even looked at Java 5? The list of improvements is enormous.
Come on. There are plenty of real reasons to praise Mono. Don't try to make up false ones.
Almost all big companies are like this. They have so many divisions, and so many people doing different things, that it's impossible for everyone to know what everyone else is doing. This is why companies like Sony produce CDRs and yet the music production part tells everyone not to copy music. It's the same reason why some computer manufacturers offer the same PC for different prices for home use than for small business use. Microsoft did make PC games, i'd be more surprised if they didn't have PS2 titles in the works at the same time they were developing the XBox. They probably started that development before they heard about the XBox, and they didn't want to have a cancelled project on their shoulders.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The entire Mono project is based on the false assumption that Microsoft will bestow its blessings on those who clone .Net (and its tools). Given Microsoft's predatory and paranoid history, I can't imagine why Miguel persists in his Quixotic quest.
All about me
Microsoft didn't play fair with an "unauthorized" technology - surprise, surprise.
Just wait until there are actual Mono users, it will only get worse.
with gnome dead everyone would standardize on KDE
That would be an unbelievably stupid response.
If someone manages to kill Gnome then that would show the importance of having alternatives instead of being locked down to one approach. We would be able to rely on KDE and XFCE while other alternatives are developed. Same if someone launches a succesful attack against KDE, we can focus on Gnome and XFCE while repairing the damage / starting new alternatives.
Saying "oh look, a mistake can lead to a DE being wiped out, let's rely on just one" would be insane. (Yes, I know, you're thinking "well but the kde developers would be prescient superhumans who would never make a mistake letting their project be vulnerable", but honestly anyone who thnks like that deserves what they get).
...that this surprises him is evidence that he loves Microsoft. Love is blind, and you'd pretty much have to be blind not to see Microsoft's pattern of playing these games.
In trying to compete with MS, I hope that OSS doesn't make the same mistake IBM has made continually: refusing to assume the worst scheme possible on the part of MS. Perhaps that was a bit hyperbolic (and no disrespect to the savvy minds at MS), but the point remains that IBM never looked far enough ahead to compete with Microsoft in a number of areas.
BenCurry.net
I wouldn't want Mono at my conference either! http://www.monobrex.com/
"The point though is that Mono makes it much easier to move from a Microsoft-centered shop to a Linux-centered shop. Even with Avalon, this is still a reality."
You have it backwards. Mono will make it easier to move from Linux to Windows. Moving from one to the other, is the process of addition. The other way is subtraction.
This happened with the whole BitMover/BitKeeper(TM:) debacle, and it seems that nobody had learned from it.
Eclipse, and many its plugins, are open source. Perhaps you're referring to closed-source/commercial tools based on Eclipse. (e.g. WebSphere Advanced Developer). Here's more about open source stuff on Eclipse.
I wouldn't say that slowness of Java is its main problem, although it is certainly relevant in some areas.
The real problem with Java is religion, ie. the mantra held throughout Javaland that it is the One True Faith. Integration and inter-operability with other languages are simply irrelevant and derided by its devotees. I was on one project where the Java faithful were totally open to integration with Python, but only if the Python in question was the version rewritten in Java. WTF?
The Java hoards simply don't understand that engineering has nothing to do with tool religion. The language will die in due coarse, it's inevitable, because its supporters live in an altered reality.
The Mono project develops software that allows .NET client applications to be run on various operating systems including Microsoft, Linux and Mac OS X. As Mono is a competitor to Microsoft's .NET implementation, de Icaza said it may make the software giant "nervous".
.Net so that it can be implemented under any OS. Mono is becoming more and more mature every day so that it can duplicate the features in MS's compilers. Visual Studio is just a set of tools to interface with the compiler. Mono doesn't steal customers away from MS, in fact it probably increases the .Net developer and user base. It leverages the .Net technology away from just Windows+x86 environments and for this MS should be happy.
Is Sun nervous because Blackdown has made their own JDK? I highly doubt it.
MS has provided the datasheets for
It's also worth noting that it's possible to run Java un-sandboxed with a proper certificate. This is what the Java SSH and SCP applets do. Thus, it's all a matter of policy. It just happens that Microsoft doesn't have the best track record for implementing the most secure policies...
-Rob Ewaschuk
Thank you. That was HAWT.
Certified, compatible implementations are available for just about any relevant platform you can imagine (yes, probably not for BSD's but that's because they are not relevant).
Thank you very much, but I want to decide for myself which platforms are relevant.
I don't know if there is something in Sun's licensing policies which prevent a fully GPL'ed SDK being done by someone, but I really couldn't care less about "open source" Java SDK or runtime environment.
There are no third party Java implementations at all, whether commercial or open source or free. Java isn't a language or a platform, it's a proprietary implementation from Sun that's been ported to a few platforms by various licensees.
SDK's are essentially free anyway and they work well; whether they are open source or closed source is totally irrelevant.
I've been through this cycle several times before: whether platforms are proprietary or open does matter a lot. You'll eventually figure it out for yourself when you have to stop shipping a product or pay inflated licensing fees.
Oops, forgot the source: http://uwstudent.org/article/2002/09/13/134115000
-Rob Ewaschuk
"...but they actively have misrepresented things.".
Imagine if MS used that line for anything
I understand some of the goals of mono -language independent library linking is great...even linking C++ applications has always been a bit hit and miss.
.NET code to Linux. Which helps legitimise .NET. They even do things like XBuild, which is a clone of the MSBuild build tool, which is itself nothing but a ripoff of Nant/Ant. Better to embrace NAnt as the mono build tool, instead of trying to mirror every single feature of the .NET system. Particularly because the Microsoft runtime exposes its windows underpinnings everywhere. The semantics of many CLR calls are exactly those of the windows things underneath, be it ::OpenFile or ::CreateProcess, which makes it hard to be truly portable...
But too much of Mono's focus has been on doing a clone of the windows APIs, letting people port
Why is this on slashdot?
Well the OP's proclimations nonwithstanding. I don't see a mass adoption of Mono by the Gnome community. At most it's a handful of apps. None critical to Gnome.
So it appears that the only one who hasn't learned is...Miguel. Which many of us have been pointing out for months.
--
The "are you a script" word for today is deluding.
I'm know there are Mono / .NET apps out there that are clean but many apps that use PInvoke or COM interop to function.
.Net than with other Microsoft development environments, so the porting work won't be that much harder. I certainly think it would be easier to port apps via Mono than with something like Winelib...
I think though a lot of this is legacy code that will eventually be made cleaner for the sake of making the app easier to maintain.
Interestingly, I wonder how hard it would be to reroute COM interop calls to some sort of DCE/RCP library on Linux and then run the components via Wine. DCOM and DCE are pretty interoperable....
Secondly, as Linux becomes more common on the desktop, there will be more pressure to put in the effort necessary to have cross platform apps. The barrier to creating such apps will be lower with
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Dear God, How could I forgot about that! MOD UP PEOPLE!!
Sadly it's not legacy. Microsoft's brand new and shiny application blocks contain PInvokes. Any app written off of them will become instantly incompatible with Mono on other platforms. I haven't checked but I have my doubts that the MS licence would even permit the application block code running or being ported to non-MS platforms. I suppose it would be possible for Mono to special-case certain PInvokes if they're used in well-defined ways such as ABs but I fear that this is not likely to be fool-proof.
I would like to think that there would be more pressure to make apps cross-platform but I don't think it is happening. I work for a major finance company which is doing lots of .NET stuff. I raised concerns about using the MS Enterprise Library because it might not work with mono and I was told it wasn't on the company's radar. Their concern is coding stuff now on time and on budget, not worrying about how much it will cost to port it to another platform later. This despite the huge amount of Java code they have which demonstrates what a good idea cross-platform code is. I think this attitude is representative. Managers with a budget and a deadline don't care beyond the end of their own noses.
Worse is that Mono is doing itself no favours by the way it is being propogated. Mono offers an alternative development stack, but who bothers with that? It's impossible to develop to it with on Win32 without dropping to the command line. Meanwhile MS offers Developer Studio with wizards, syntax highlighting, form designers and whatever.
MonoDevelop could alleviate some of this but AFAIK it doesn't even run on Win32 which somewhat contradicts the whole point of Mono. I've never even gotten it to run on Fedora despite trying very hard. The only other IDE that seems to fit the bill is #Develop and that doesn't work on Linux. So there is a gulf between Win32 and Linux which wouldn't even exist in Java-land. There is nothing comparable to Eclipse by a long stretch.
If Mono or others can't even produce cross-platform IDEs, I don't hold out much hope that others will make the effort. I lay the blame squarely with Microsoft here. They could have set the default policy of .NET to ban PInvoke & COM controls but they didn't. They could have set coding & quality guidelines that banned PInvoke and COM but they didn't. Instead they decided to throw the switches and in the process ensure that .NET is heavily Win32 dependent. The water is so cloudy that it will take years if ever to settle.
On top of that .NET is a nebulous term for the CLR, .NET Framework and anything else they feel like including under it. Microsoft are in the position to change the definition or toss in other assemblies which are by their nature Win32 dependent such as ASP.NET.
I truly believe that this was their intention all along - to allude to being another cross-platform solution such as Java but being so infested with Win32 specific things that this is a complete lie.
The picture you paint of Java being painless with the exception of MS's broken version doesn't reflect my experience at all. I find Java the only language that fails to run on 75% of my many and varied Unix-type boxes, out of well over a dozen primary languages.
The portability of Java is a complete myth, and I've tried pretty much every version out there. My current Mozilla and Firefox don't even have Java capability now because all attempts at installation (both source and binary) have failed repeatedly. And it's all going backwards, since older versions of the browsers did run Java, albeit with continual crashing.
Since Java's primary goal was "run everywhere", it's just a complete failure from that perspective, I'm sorry to say.
How is this a better (i.e. more secure) policy? It even works cross-platform, which pisses me off, as a Linux user.
If you don't care much about speed, why use Java and not Python?
Python has a better learning curve, better readability, much more power and yes, better portability.
So why Java?
Sadly it's not legacy. Microsoft's brand new and shiny application blocks contain PInvokes. Any app written off of them will become instantly incompatible with Mono on other platforms. I haven't checked but I have my doubts that the MS licence would even permit the application block code running or being ported to non-MS platforms. I suppose it would be possible for Mono to special-case certain PInvokes if they're used in well-defined ways such as ABs but I fear that this is not likely to be fool-proof.
Two things... Anything abstracted from the developer can be reimplimented in Mono without PInvokes, simply by reproducing the interfaces. My guess is that like Windows.Forms, however, we will start with a Wine-based implimentation and then later move into native implimentations entirely contained in Mono.
Worse is that Mono is doing itself no favours by the way it is being propogated. Mono offers an alternative development stack, but who bothers with that? It's impossible to develop to it with on Win32 without dropping to the command line. Meanwhile MS offers Developer Studio with wizards, syntax highlighting, form designers and whatever.
Fair enough, but this is sort of a separate issue really. There are a lot of Windows developers using Mono. Maybe not as many as Microsoft's framework, but....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Interesting but still not nearly good enough. Even requiring any registration for developers would kill gnome if it were deeply integrated. Any constraints are contra to everything gnome stands for. They could require that all people using these standars license there apps under a very broad set of licenses that possibly do not include the gpl!
Remember how the very small change in the license to Xfree resulted in its utter expulsion from the OSS world? These things are very important in OSS. This letter you refer to is insufficient.
If any loophole exists at all and gnome or linux threaten MS, they will exploit that loophole to kill gnome. Zero question about that.
My litmus test for these things is Redhat. When redhat feels ok to bundle mono, I'll get on board. That they (and many others) are refusing to do so tells me that my concerns are well founded.
Because it's not common for a Java applet to require authorization to run, whereas every ActiveX control must.
You don't get used to pressing "Accept" to run the Java applet on Linux because it happens so rarely. It doesn't become a routine.
Also, many browsers won't run unsigned Java applets outside of a sandbox at all, whereas Internet Explorer will (or at least used to) simply say "This applet is unsigned. Do you want to run it?" or something to that effect.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"... the entire OSS community would learn to never ever rely on proprietary tech again, ... (continues) ... with gnome dead everyone would standardize on KDE ..."
*sigh*
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Nope, there isn't, in fact the Harmony project is building an implementation of J2SE 5.
And Kaffe has been around for years, an open-source vm.
If every ActiveX control pops up a dialog asking for permission, then you have a point: That amounts to potty-training the users to "just click OK". Which is pretty much what Microsoft Windows did throughout the 90s.
"You just did something! Are you sure?"
[OK] [Cancel]
"Something just happened! Are you sure?"
[OK] [Cancel]
Then along came the web, and the occasional nagging turned into a torrent of unhelpful popups. The rest is history.
I'm a bit surprised that googling for "OK buttons considered harmful" did not bring up any hits.
My perception is that Mono jumps on the fact that Java wasn't open-sourced. Yes, Miguel plays it up that programs written on Windows can be ported to Linux, but this seems like a total red-herring to me. I may be way off base w/Miguel's intentions, but Mono doesn't necessarily need to continue following the .net framework.
The real win seems to be GTK#, and just C# - not laching on to everything that MS does with their framework.
I may be wrong, but if Mono is a "submarine", I don't think it's going to submarine Gnome. Why is WINE still kicking? Why can Linux implement an interface that Unix used? That was kind of the whole premise behind Linux in the first place, same interface different implementation.
That C# was to be an open standard for all to use. Hullo, what gives?
Oh right. by "open" they mean "anyone is free to use it, so long as they use Microsoft"
bock-bock-bock-bock-buckake!
6 579&t=1&c=1">Allegations of animal cruelty: CONFIRMED</a>, <a href="http://www.metrobeat.net/gbase/Expedite/Cont ent?oid=oid%3A3385">Allegations of animal cruelty: CONFIRMED</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pag ename=article&contentId=A13701-2003Jul5¬Found=t rue">Disgruntled spokesman (former Seinfeld actor JASON ALEXANDER) about evidence of animal cruelty: CONFIRMED</a>, <a href="http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:1mtYnFM vzgsJ:www.uncoveror.com/chicken.htm+%22KFC+has+bee n+a+part+of+our+American+traditions+for+many+years .+Many+people%22&hl=en">Accounts of genetically-manipulated chicken to minimize costs (genetically engineered to have reduced skeletal system, no beaks, no claws, etc): CONFIRMED</a>
I clocked 4 bock(ii) in that stream. Now that's some fast buckake! I wonder how much buckake Kernel Sanders has locked-up...<br><br><a href="http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=
It helps if you just don't think of .NET as a cross-platform framework, but rather a bunch of convenient wrappers around Win32 that make it a lot easier to use. The best thing about VB6 was that it made writing Windows applications (including everything from fat clients to small backend DLLs for websites) easy, not that it ran in a VM and could in theory be cross-platform (except for whenever a VB6 program uses a 3rd party control or Win32 call, which is almost all the time).
I guess MS was pushing it like that in the beginning -- I suppose if Mono has a real effect than that was stupid for MS to do, and if Mono turns out not to matter then it was smart.
"... I declare our city to be a free and independent state to be named Tri-Insula!" --Fernando Wood, Mayor of NYC 1861
Not if they include a license with every Windows license. That would be a very effective way of getting what they want.
Then it wouldn't be non-discriminatory.
Why wouldn't it? Show me some reference to some document that says that that is not a legal thing to do. The RAND promise is only a reference to price and availability, as far as I know.
This isn't really true. There are compatible third-party implementations of all Java variants, except J2SE (ie, J2ME, J2EE, etc).
And the GNU Classpath guys have an awfully good start on J2SE at this point.
Throw the bums out!
Yeah, I wasn't particularly implying that it was adequate, but I think it is the most clear, complete and official statement on their attitude that I've seen.
-Rob
-Rob Ewaschuk
It's also not news, because many (myself included, though not in AC form) have been asking since the initial announcement for Mono what concrete, written guarantees Miguel has that MS won't pull the rug out from under them. MS has never tolerated competition, even in markets they don't own.
There are so many ways that MS can monkey-wrench Mono and no visible assurances, aside from Miguel's, that MS is willing to allow competition. Miguel, can we finally have some sort of clarification of MS' guarantee of cooperaton or else an admission that there isn't one?
Yes, I do. Lots of people have wanted open java for years before .net even existed, there are four or five different efforts going at it, and none of them is far enough to be truly usable. .net is released, has less people wanting to use it than java, but within a few months there's a pretty decent implementation, not perfect, but better than any open java version. It's possible that things were better organised, or more people contributed solely to spite microsoft, or something, but I think the most plausible explanation is Java is flipping hard to implement.
I am trolling
I'd very interested in ANY person who has worked with linux, forgetting about it. To me, PAYING for the same thing over and over again is symptom of forgetting.
I think the keyword here is "Buy". Does this really state that they're not switching because they bought into MS's BS? Or does it mean that since they have sunk so much money into MS they can't afford to change.
I love this statement too "people who bought into the Microsoft world I'm glad I must be existing in another plane of existence.
Personally I'll have another cup of Java
Nope, there isn't, in fact the Harmony project is building an implementation of J2SE 5.
There were plenty of GIF implementations, both open source and proprietary, before Unisys asserted their intellectual property. So, the existence and toleration by Sun of attempts to implement J2SE is not evidence at all that Java is open or can be freely implemented; quite to the contrary, it is suspicious.
Actually, ACMA standards are RAND+Royalty Free. That means thay are, humm, free.
This Miguel fellow should take a look at Python.