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.
The news part is "but they actively have misrepresented things." Maybe MS misrepresenting things is not news either, but at least this is a new case of it. Mono didn't get enough votes to get in the conference, because they were not allowed on the supposedly "open" ballot.
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
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
"Nonsense. Mono is quite clean of Microsoft intellectual "property". There is no legal threat to the Mono project."
m ent_id=32499
.net as their claim that MS will never sue.
m ailserver.di.unip.....
*said by a Novell representative* Oh, wait!
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=11889&com
"1. It is not illegal to use mono or to develop mono.
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://
http://www.go-mono.com/faq.html#patents
Jim Miller's off hand email is the *only* assurance anyone has every 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.
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. 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 bye 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 and some gnome developers again)"
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_
Wrong on both counts.
.Net apps can (and in fact, do) require specific versions of certain libraries, or even certain versions of the runtime itself. When an app is built, it is built against a specific version of the runtime, and when run it will be run against the same versions. So if you only have .Net 2.0 installed (assuming Microsoft don't bundle 1.1 and 1.0 with it as well), you may well find yourself in a position where 1.0 and 1.1 apps no longer work. This is intentional, by design, and there's nothing you can do about it. You simply have to install multiple versions of the runtime.
C# /
Java apps may require a certain minimum version of Java, but I've never, ever seen a Java app require a specific version of Java unless the app itself is broken in some way. I've run stuff from Java 1.0 on a current Java 1.5 runtime, and it still works as well as it ever did (better, in fact).
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.
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.
Now, I'll admit it's not always perfect, but in my experience it works. I work on a large LOB application, which has been developed for the 1.0 framework. It runs fine (in fact, it runs somewhat better) on the 1.1 framework.
The only work we had to do to enable this was add a few lines to the configuration files on the machines which had both 1.0 and 1.1 frameworks installed. This forced the applications to use a specific version (1.1), not the version they were compiled against. I believe the middle-tier components, which are web services hosted in IIS, required a similar tweak to the IIS configuration.
Requiring specific versions of other libraries may well be an issue - I've not had any experience one way or the other. The project I work on deploys all the required dependencies alongside the application files, which I would expect to mitigate most versioning issues with the libraries we use.
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.
Is Sun nervous because Blackdown has made their own JDK? I highly doubt it.
Blackdown didn't make their own JDK; they just ported Sun's code to platforms where it didn't run before - and, of course, with Sun's permission.
I cry foolishness and an unwillingness to read.
.net library, which is almost certainly covered by numerous MS Patents and Trademarks. Everybody seems to want to take the republican approach to this issue and look the other way (no such issue exists; if we ignore it, it will go away; MS would never file suit against mono). This is a problem, and it will not be going away.
Per the ECMA site.: General Declaration: The General Assembly of Ecma shall not approve recommendations of Standards which are covered by patents when such patents will not be licensed by their owners on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.
The ECMA page totally backs what the AC said. And that is about the language itself. The ECMA standard has nothing to do with
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.