Richard Stallman Says No To Mono

twitter writes "There's been a lot of fuss about mono lately. After SCO and MS suing over FAT patents, you would think avoiding anything MS would be a matter of common sense. RMS now steps into the fray to warn against a serious mistake: 'Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C#, leads the community in a risky direction. It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use. .... This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. ... [writing and using applications in mono] is taking a gratuitous risk.'" Update: 06/27 20:22 GMT by T : Read on below for one Mono-eschewing attempt at getting the (excellent) Tomboy's functionality, via a similar program called Gnote. Update: 06/27 21:07 GMT by T: On the other side of the coin, reader im_thatoneguy writes "Jo Shields, a Mono Developer, has published an article on 'Why Mono Doesn't Suck,' why it is not a threat to FOSS, why it is desirable to developers and why it should be included in Ubuntu by default." LastGuyonEarth writes "Gnote was started on April 2009 by Gnome developer Hubert Figuiere, known also for his work on Abiword. The goal of Gnote is to provide a Free Software implementation of Tomboy that doesn't rely on Mono. The ultimate goal is to replace Tomboy in an effort to make Gnome and GNU/Linux distributions non-dependant on Novell's implementation of Microsoft's .NET platform. For our testing purposes, I installed Gnote 0.5.1 on Ubuntu Jaunty through a personal PPA, but I would love to see it officially packaged in the near future."

Comments

"M$"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what are you, four years old? Is it really that hard to just use Microsoft?

Where is the editor to edit this graffiti out? This crap does not belong on the front page of news site at all.

Re:"M$"

[gzipped_tar]

Wow, what are you

He was one and he was many... ;)

Re:"M$"

[ColdWetDog]

Well, it is from Twitter. So you're close. Hi twit! Glad to see you back with you're insightful erudite expositions.

Re:"M$"

[node 3]

OMFG, he used a $ for an S in MS! That's wonderful news. Instead of discussing the point he brought up, we can just complain about the $ and dismiss his criticism of Microsoft.

It might be childish to use M$, but it's more childish still to dismiss his argument because of it.

Re:"M$"

[siyavash]

Sir, I fully agree with you. Slashdot's quality is getting lower and lower each week it seems. :(

Re:"M$"

[miknix]

I $trongly di$courage the u$e of '$' when writing Micro$oft. A$ parent $ay$, it
i$ a childi$h behavior which make$ look like that Micro$oft unique purpo$e i$
to make $. Thi$ i$ totally fal$e becau$e we all know Micro$oft want$ to build
a better digital world where maliciou$ $oftware doe$ not exi$t.

Plea$e $top u$ing '$',
thank you.

Re:"M$"

[CarpetShark]

You're the one talking like a naive four year-old. The real world is much more complex than "just use microsoft".

Re:"M$"

[Anonymous Coward]

I misunderstood it the first time I read it as well. He means just spell out 'Microsoft,' not just install MS products.

Re:"M$"

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm curious as to what the big issue is. Whenever someone uses the derogatory "M$", we get someone complaining about it and the mods needed to bring it to attention. Why? What is so distracting about this behavior? Why is it such a motivator that we must have not only the original complain but a chain of posts that follow it?

Does the derogatory term distract from the discussion? Does it rile up the Microsoft fans? Does it bring out the shills? What is the motivation?

Re:"M$"

[CarpetShark]

Ahh :) Thanks for clarifying. Now I don't have to wonder how he missed that MS is bad :)

Re:"M$"

[jedidiah]

No. I am not "four years old". Are you?

I've been around long enough to remember MS-DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, the original Windows NT and all of the
application associated malware that Microsoft has subjected us to over the years. I have also been around long
enough to be aware of the whole OEM strongarm thing, the shenanigan with DR-DOS,the back stabbing of IBM over
OS/2, Microsoft "cutting off Netscape's air supply", Linux being a cancer and TomTom being sued over VFAT.

Been around longer than 4 years.

Used their stuff. Found it lacking.

So yes it is too much to ask to "just use Microsoft".

The same goes for McDonalds, Campbells and Ford.

Re:"M$"

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 90s, Microsoft was CAUGHT paying university administrators $10,000 to standardize their schools on Microsoft Office and Windows NT. Office for the Mac was written in a emulator designed to DELIBERATELY slow performance until users said "What's up with this slow Office on the Macs" with the idea being people would say "Just use Windows. Office 97 on Windows is better and faster." These are basic anti-trust violations.

This is America. It's A-OK (at least in this country) to criticize and mock public companies who are caught doing shenanigans not in the public interest. M$ makes some really nice software (NT 4 was a wicked desktop OS) and their development tools are really sweet. But that doesn't make them above criticism.

Re:"M$"

[WaywardGeek]

So... Microsoft having potential patent claims against your free compiler doesn't bother you? How about even using a "portable" language defined and controlled by Microsoft? Sure, if you only care about Windows, use C#. But Microsoft has a long history of jerking around standards that it controls to make them impossible for competitors to adopt. Consider Internet Explorer, and all the pain we have to go through to be compatible with that beast. How about Microsoft's attack on Open Document Format, and it's insanely huge and complex competing standard which only Microsoft implements? I think RMS has a valid point, and deserves consideration. This is a good place to air such discussions.

Re:"M$"

[hairyfeet]

There is a simple way to solve this. If you think Microsoft is to long then just use MSFT. Since that is their stock ticker and lately they've seemed to care more about their stock price than what many customers wanted it is still snarky and you don't look like a tool for using it like you do with that lame M$ shit. The M$ bit was old during the days of Win9X, and now many don't even know what the hell you are talking about.

So stick with MSFT. It makes your posts readable and doesn't make you sound like a tool. Thanks.

Re:"M$"

[K. S. Kyosuke]

As someone else has already remarked, he meant the word, not the thing it names. For lispers, he meant (use 'microsoft) and not (use microsoft). ;-)

Re:"M$"

[WhiteFluffyChest]

Interesting, I haven't heard this one before but it doesn't surprise me.

Just like with TomTom, Microsoft threatened to sue them for using FAT! I think that proves just how bad they are.

It is simple to me, Microsoft just want to make a big profit, that's all it is, making money!

They are not trying to bless the world with anything good, we already have Linux, Java and OpenOffice, OpenGL ...

They just want to trap you into their technologies and then make you pay for them, simple as that, that is Microsoft!

My advice is to avoid them at all costs, the world does not need Microsoft one bit!

Oh and by the way, they should of called ".Net", ".Windows" instead, cause that's what it is really!

Re:"M$"

[node 3]

Wrong. It's was childish of him to undermine his own point with that "M$" bullshit. You lose.

Too bad I stated that using 'M$' is childish.

Just as it was childish of me to mod your post down and bookmark your user page for the next batch of mod points.

Knock yourself out. You aren't the first, and you won't be the last. Just remember, each time you do it, that it demonstrates your insecurity and is a reminder of the impotence of your passive aggresive existence.

As for myself, it won't bother me in the slightest. Unlike a lot of folks here (judging from the 'don't mod me down just because you disagree' sigs), I'm perfectly fine with the fact that idiots are granted mod points. It's kind of sad that you'd rather waste them than use them to make things better for the rest of us, but whatever, they're your points.

No need to reply, as I have no interest, nor feel any compulsion, to carry on a tiresome argument with you.

Re:"M$"

[Jugalator]

No, it is just about using Microsoft. And hopefully being able to make your point regardless.

Re:"M$"

[Jugalator]

So you're unable to get your point across by spelling words properly?

That part would be the childish thing about this, anyway.

Re:"M$"

[Alex Belits]

They work for M$ marketing department.

Re:"M$"

[retchdog]

I've had a tenured fully-senior CS professor (at an Ivy League university, and in computational linguistics nonetheless) use "Micro$oft" on her slides. I therefore consider these claims and accusations moot.

Re:"M$"

[koreaman]

I am assuming it was originally M$, since as you'll learn by a quick perusal of Twitter's posting history, he finds it impossible to say "Microsoft" without changing the s to $.

Re:"M$"

[miknix]

They work for M$ marketing department.

Ah, it is explained then. Thank you for your comment.

But be careful, you are now on their blacklist.

Re:"M$"

[Larryish]

Just remember, each time you do it, that it demonstrates your insecurity and is a reminder of the impotence of your passive aggressive existence.

Also it means that he has a small wiener, and his Druid will never make it past 10th level.

Re:"M$"

[TarrVetus]

It pisses off Microsofties, who, being narcissistic freaks, can't stand being reminded that millions of intelligent people hate them, their software and their company with a passion.

I think it has more to do with wanting to see article descriptions that make an attempt at remaining neutral. Using "M$" is as charged and biased as saying "Linsux" or "crApple," and undermines the article post, making what would normally be a news post into an opinion editorial.

Many people want to make their own decisions, and not be told what to think of things before even investigating them. Isn't that kind of spirit how things like the OSS movement started, anyway--not being told what or how to do things, but doing them for themselves?

Re:"M$"

[hairyfeet]

I notice the Linux zealots modded me troll, that's funny as hell. I have karma to last until Judgment day so have fun.

If you would have read my post I said there was a REASON that you should use MSFT, and that is because as of late they seemed more concerned with the stock price that with their core business. Just look at Vista, which was rushed out way too early with serious bugs to keep the stock price from dropping further, or Zune(doesn't "playforsure" now, huh?) which was spit out to try to give them an Apple style buzz, the X360 which was rushed out with a serious flaw(RROD) to give them a head start on PS3, etc.

Meanwhile their core markets, the ones that cut them the big fat checks for software assurance and buy desktops by the thousands have been given the finger yet again. Why? Because Steve Ballmer wants the stock to be as high as Apple Inc and have the kind of buzz that Steve Jobs has. I can just imagine what it must be like in Steve Ballmer's office "And with Win7 we'll finally be as hip and as cool as Apple! We really will! Yes we will! STOP LAUGHING AT ME!!!!"

So say what you want about Bill Gates but that ruthless bastard could put out a good business OS. Ever since he left the company has bounced from one idea to another like all of Redmond has ADHD. I'm sure the Linux and Apple guys are laughing their asses off because we MSFT users are getting the same treatment Apple did under the Pepsi guy.

But anyone who has followed the comings and goings of MSFT(and I have since the days of Win3.xx) can say that they have lost their focus and seem more concerned about image and stock price than in putting out a good product. So that is why I think MSFT is a perfect shortcut for Microsoft and better than that tired old M$ line. MSFT points out that they care more about stock price than product, M$ makes you sound like a 14 year old asshat or Twitter. And is there anybody here BESIDES Twitter that wants to sound like him? Besides his sockpuppets of course.

Re:"M$"

[Mr2001]

How about even using a "portable" language defined and controlled by Microsoft? Sure, if you only care about Windows, use C#. But Microsoft has a long history of jerking around standards that it controls to make them impossible for competitors to adopt.

The standardized version of the C# language is not controlled by Microsoft. It's, you know, standardized. If you're paranoid about MS pulling the rug out from under you in the future, then stick to the ECMA standard, and don't use the latest whiz-bang C# 4.0 features until and unless those become standardized too.

Re:"M$"

[Alex Belits]

I think, it would be dishonest to conceal one's hostility toward Microsoft, pretending to be "neutral" while you are not. It's up to the reader to form his conclusions, so HE should try to remain neutral if he wants to. Journalists have this obsession with "neutrality" (or at least appearance of it), however they also happen to be incapable of presenting information clearly, so their attempts, even if genuine, are worthless.

Re:"M$"

[ClosedSource]

Yes, please do as he says. I'm out of work and not too proud to be a shill for MS (let's see "I love MS Bob!) or even RMS (hmm, "M$ is trying to steal by body hair". Think about it. I'm cheap and easy.

Re:"M$"

[Timex]

Actually, the reasons you listed are probably closer to the reasoning for the "M$" crap than the opening line in your reply...

"M$" has been in use as a childish stab at Microsoft since the heady days of Windows 3.11, if not before.

Re:"M$"

[Timex]

onsider Internet Explorer, and all the pain we have to go through to be compatible with that beast.

Let's not forget the drones that, for reasons completely unknown to me, decide to make their websites work only with IE... It annoys me to no end.

Re:"M$"

[Kjella]

The standardized version of the C# language is not controlled by Microsoft. It's, you know, standardized. If you're paranoid about MS pulling the rug out from under you in the future, then stick to the ECMA standard, and don't use the latest whiz-bang C# 4.0 features until and unless those become standardized too.

Spoken like a developer. And if I'm a user of some software? Everything is nice and crossplatform, but the primary platform is Windows. They go C# 4.0 and either Linux does too or it gets left in the cold. I get left in the cold. The whole concept is just as stupid as if Linux were to give up on OpenGL and try chasing DirectX instead, or abandon ODF and try chasing OOXML. It's the good old fashioned embrace, extend, extinguish again except Microsoft got us adopting their standards instead of the other way around. That they've managed to fool part of the community only means the community is being naive.

Re:"M$"

[TarrVetus]

I have always viewed sections of news sites that allow for two-way communication--such as this part--to be the place for neutrality to be flexible; the comments are where the discussion occurs, because we can argue back and forth on an equal playing field.

The primary news posts you see on the news listing pages are the information gatekeepers, and to get as much as we can out of the concepts they present, they should try as much as they can to remain neutral.

The news post is like raw materials, and the comments section is where we take what was in the post and make things out of it. The more you process and refine those materials before the participants on Slashdot can banter, argue, and debate the ideas into whatever they wish to build, the more you limit the creative possibilities.

It's a step toward groupthink. It's why we sneer when a politician skews information, or when a poster makes some incredible conjecture from a flimsy fact. The more we would let the root content of the site become heavily opinionated, the more it limits ideas and makes us more like the people we call narrow-minded and foolish.



On two asides: 1) I think MS's software has been getting flimsy for years, and it's an effect of their attempts to gain vertical market share. They want to control the raws, methods, means, and final products in an industry that is constantly diversifying and evolving. That strategy is gaining them a lot of enemies, especially since new enemies can appear and establish overnight.

And 2) It took me a long time to make an account, and judging from your account number, you remember the less fanboy'ed days as much as I do. But a lot of the cronyism set in because we stopped muting all of them, regardless of what they espoused.

If a fact is good enough to praise or curse, then the confidence in the logos should trump the need for any pathos. Hard data, when strong and convincing enough, carries more power, truth, and confidence than snide jabs--in fact, the spiteful comments detract from the communicator's credibility when they're reporting. When it's just the facts, that's news--that's when it's journalism. Otherwise, it's as good as a LiveJournal post.

Re:"M$"

[Locutus]

in the 80s and 90s they were able to control mindshare by controlling a few companies like Ziff Davis and PC World. Most all information was spread via hard copy press and Microsoft was very good at molding what was posted, when, and how. Today, they may still have some control over Ziff....C/Net and still purchase "market research" and get newbie authors to put their names on PR releases but blogs, /. and many other online agencies are able to poke such large holes in these kinds of things today, if this Microsoft fabricated PR releases were the Titanic, it'd sink in an hour with such large holes in it. It also helps that they can't make profits off of anything but the age old product that is Windows. MSN? nope. Windows Mobile? nope. MSN Live Search? nope. Zune? nope. XBox? nope. etc etc etc. So the writing is on the wall that this company is incapable of actually producing any other money making product but they keep trying. They also have such wealth from Microsoft Windows that they can spend 10+ years of losses on these other products and tell an analysts they are long term profit centers. So they are trying to have focus on something that'll make them money as Windows slowly dies. And they never really had any focus on Windows, it was a lucky chance they got that IBM contract and once they got it, they easily grew a distribution channel so easily controlled it's never mattered how poor Windows operated technically. They just needed to make it different the next upgrade/version so they could put a new label on it and force the OEM's to use it instead of the previous version. IMO
 

LoB
 

Re:"M$"

[dotgain]

No, I think I understand. You want to use "MSFT" to suggest they're interested in nothing but money, yet someone doing effectively the same thing, instead using "M$" comes across to you as a 14 year-old.

Additionally, and I hate to be the one to break this to you, but other companies are similarly interested in their stock price, and not so much their customers. Welcome to the 90's. Yet still I don't call my iPod an AAPL. Would you?

Re:"M$"

[Culture20]

For lispers, he meant (use 'microsoft) and not (use microsoft). ;-)

Your parenthesthisth are misthmatched.

Re:"M$"

[lfaraone]

Just as it was childish of me to mod your post down and bookmark your user page for the next batch of mod points.

... which is why we have meta-moderation.

Re:"M$"

[that this is not und]

And they don't have the Bush administration to cover for them any longer. They'd better hope they've kept Obama's folks fat and happy. I don't think so, though.

Re:"M$"

[Tubal-Cain]

It also helps that they can't make profits off of anything but the age old product that is Windows.

I am under the impression that their OS profits are relatively meager compared to what they make from Office.

Re:"M$"

[Tubal-Cain]

I think, it would be dishonest to conceal one's hostility toward Microsoft, pretending to be "neutral" while you are not.

I see it more as:
The author should make an attempt to actually be neutral. Using 'M$' shows a lack of effort towards that end.

Re:"M$"

[Tubal-Cain]

In what ways did the Bush administration cover for them?

Re:"M$"

[Mr2001]

And if I'm a user of some software? Everything is nice and crossplatform, but the primary platform is Windows. They go C# 4.0 and either Linux does too or it gets left in the cold. I get left in the cold.

Er... how is that Mono's fault, or Ubuntu's fault for including Mono?

An application that depends on .NET features that are only available on Windows is not a cross-platform application, it's a Windows application. The existence of more Windows applications doesn't harm you.

Mono doesn't make your life any harder as a user. It makes your life easier, by giving developers who want to make cross-platform applications an easy way to do it (by sticking to the common features that Mono and .NET both support).

Re:"M$"

[patiodragon]

"No. I am not "four years old". Are you?"

So... your comeback to "Are you 4 years old?" is "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?"

Sweet!

Re:"M$"

[Concern]

I think he's referring to the handling of the case after Clinton left office. The DoJ won the antitrust case right at the end of Clinton's 2nd term. So, before it was concluded and the remedies settled, the Bush people took over.

Very quickly after that, the Bush DoJ amazed experts by publicly stating it would not pursue structural remedies, and would drop its complaints about the (technically ludicrous) bundling IE with the OS.

The settlement they ultimately reached with Microsoft was essentially toothless and beyond the wildest fantasy that Microsoft could have hoped for, given the fact that the government had already won a categorical victory against them in court.

Whether this was the result of bribes paid by Microsoft (who went from being notably apolotical to Washington's largest lobbyist during the course of the trial), or simply because Bush's people leaned libertarian and didn't really believe in enforcing the antitrust laws, or a combination of the two, is anybody's guess.

Re:"M$"

[man_of_mr_e]

I hate to be all memeish and all.. but "citation needed". I've been around a long time, and i've never heard of either of those events, and google searches don't seem to show anything either.

This really makes little sense, since Excel was written for the Mac, and later ported to OS/2 then Windows. Word has been on the mac since nearly the beginning.

Re:"M$"

[WNight]

No, while it saves you a bit of time now it's ultimately more costly to leave these people uninformed about their shortcomings.

Had he simply been ignored he'd have heard that as a successful threat - someone cowed by the mod threat.

Instead he, and many others a similar mindset, have not only seen someone dissect why that is pathetic, but also ultimately useless.

While meta-mod would catch this in the end (and really, mod score is "what users think", so he's welcome to use it regardless) it'd be nicer for everyone, including him, if nobody had to play this little power-tripping game or cleanup after it.

Spend a little time now to create the community you want in the future.

Re:"M$"

[Jason Earl]

Actually, if you look at Microsoft's financials the Client division generated about $700 million more income, in Microsoft's last fiscal year, than the Business division (which includes Office). The Client division also has far and away the highest profit margin (the Business division drives more revenue, but it also has greater expenses).

Re:"M$"

[hairyfeet]

This will get me modded down, but who cares I have karma. You want to know why "M$" comes off as a giant douche to me and just about everybody else? Lets be honest here folks, that is the "LOL Windblowz!" speak of the asshats you find on any forum, ala Twitter. You could have the best argument in the entire world against MSFT but when you use that "LOL Windblowz" style speech, of which M$ belongs, most folks instantly think douche and tune you out.

So I am not saying this for me, as i am more than capable of thinking douche and bypassing anyone whose post has the M$ crap. I am saying this for those that may have a legitimate point to make that don't know this is classic lamer speak, like you'd see the 14 year old Halo players using. So don't be a douche. Use MS, use MSFT hell use Msoft, whatever. But be aware that when you use that tired old M$ crap you have just cut a significant portion of those that would read your post out, because the first thing they think when they see that is douche and troll and move on.

Re:"M$"

[dotancohen]

I have been very happy with Zim for about a year now:
http://zim-wiki.org/

Even as a KDE user, I find Zim to be the pest note-taking application there is. It even support checklists, something no other note taking software does as far as I know. It does all the little "wiki" things too like linking pages, hierarchies, and so forth. It's written in Perl and GTK, with a Python port in the pipes.

Re:"M$"

[daffmeister]

So out of curiosity, how do you spell McDonalds, Campbells and Ford when discussing their merits or shortcomings?

Re:"M$"

[Eirenarch]

I bet freetards are more pissed by the fact that millions of intelligent people some of which hate Micro$oft choose to use and pay for their product instead of downloading free software. :)

Re:"M$"

[tkinnun0]

Look at your post and then answer your question.

Hint: there's no mention of either RMS or Mono in your post.

Re:"M$"

[JuliaNZ]

Parent has it only partially correct, but here's your citation: http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/archive/2004/02/26/80193.aspx Word 6.0 for Mac was built from the same codebase as the Windows product, looked quite a lot like a Windows product, and used to occasionally throw Windows-style errors. The number of floppy disks required to install it on a Mac was equal to the number of disks for the Windows version plus 7 (?), which was the same number of floppies that Win 3.11 took. Hence why you'll see people claim it was emulated.

Re:"M$"

[cbhacking]

"Backstabbing" IBM over OS/2 is a slightly excesive claim. IBM drove that project into the ground, insisting on too much control and changing requirements so much that it was falling far behind schedule. Thus, Microsoft started a new project called OS/2 NT, which would have been an intermediate OS (among other things, it included compatibility with OS/2 applications in the first few releases). IBM never stopped driving OS/2 into a hole, and then MS implemented their new Win32 API (first seen in NT; at this time, OS/2 was still 16-bit only due to IBM's insitence that it run on 286) in a consumer OS (Win95). Win32 took off, MS took what they had and ran with it, releasing NT 4 (not firmly under the Windows brand), and telling IBM where they could stick their absurd requirements.

Re:"M$"

[notonthegrid]

As someone else has already remarked, he meant the word, not the thing it names. For lispers, he meant (use 'microsoft) and not (use microsoft). ;-)

now I get it!

Re:"M$"

[koreaman]

Very true. Sorry, can't make this post too long, got to go figure out how to make the alt key work in emacs...

Re:"M$"

[hairyfeet]

Uuhhhhh....how many times have you heard the expression "first impressions count"? Do you think I made that expression up? And I never used that "LOL" BS. I said that the Kubuntu theme is quite nice and pleasing to the eye, the Win7 and OSX themes are quite pleasing and eye catching, and the default Ubuntu theme looks like....well either dirt or poo, your call on that one.

You can't honestly tell me that with all the talented graphic artists that use FLOSS that is the best they could come up with. Look at screenshots of Kubuntu VS Win7 VS OSX VS Ubuntu and I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt you would find any average Joe that would pick Ubuntu as the best looking, or even give it a second glance.

Remember, we are talking about a product you need to sell to the masses here. They don't give a flying fart about your security model, just ask MSFT about trying to sell Vista on security. They care about looks and performance. You already have the performance down, why would you want to hamstring yourself with the looks? That just doesn't make any sense, and I have even seen developers from Canonical saying that the human theme is "an acquired taste" which of course we all know is a nice way of saying "it's kind of ugly but you get used to it". And don't forget the average Joe sticks with the defaults, so if your default is ugly he will just move on, as he has NO desire to tweak. Just look at how many themes and hacked MSStyles there are for WinXP, and I don't remember seeing a single one in the wild. Folks just stick with whatever it comes with by default and the default Ubuntu theme just isn't as nice as the competition.

It also doesn't change the fact that "LOL" speak instantly has you labeled a douche no matter how good a point you have. I think I have just demonstrated that I do have a point on the human theme, and I did so without having to resort to "LOL Unbongo" crap. See how easy that was?

Re:"M$"

[uassholes]

Whenever I've used Microsucks, Sucroshit, Fucroass, or anything else that's actually appropriate, I'm always modded as a troll, so I guess I'll just have to stick to plain old M$, whether you dipshits think it's lame it or not. What is lame as all shit is MSFT. What are you, a stock broker?

Re:"M$"

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Having programmed in versions of MS BASIC that limited variable names to 2 letters, I find the M$ moniker to be a rather sophisticated slur, albeit a somewhat obscure one.

Re:"M$"

[Mista2]

The issues here is that Mono is a "free" implementation of .Net, but there may be timebombs in any patents as to how it works, not copies of code.
The other thing is - who the hell actually uses Tomboy and how is this being used to trojan in mono???
It's just a freeking note taking app, with fairly average features, no network ability or sharing features for the notes you take, so they are siloed into your own data and cant be shared, and no implimentaiton of tomboy on other platforms like OS X or Windows so useless if you want to work accross platforms.
Is there something I am missing with Tomboy??

Re:"M$"

[Kalriath]

Actually, meta-mod doesn't work like that any more. It just picks random posts and goes "mod this up for the hell of it, or mod this down?"

It's basically just an extra set of mod points with no accountability now.

Re:"M$"

[Kalriath]

No it isn't. Go have a look at it - meta mod is just "here's 10 comments. Wanna mod them up or down?"

Re:"M$"

[Kalriath]

And even that is largely driven by the efforts of the Development Tools guys (uncertain what division that is)

Re:"M$"

[lfaraone]

No it isn't. Go have a look at it - meta mod is just "here's 10 comments. Wanna mod them up or down?"

From http://slashdot.org/faq/metamod.shtml:

Metamoderation is a second layer of moderation. It seeks to address the issue of unfair moderators by letting "metamoderators" (any logged-in Slashdotter) "rate the rating" of ten randomly selected comment posts. The metamoderator decides if the moderator's rating was fair, unfair, or neither.

Re:"M$"

[Tetsujin]

Maybe we can use the old "long-s" glyph when spelling Microfoft?

(This joke would work better if I could put the proper Unicode glyph in there... But Slashdot appears to foil my attempt at writing "MicroÅoft"... Check this box!)

Re:"M$"

[LaskoVortex]

First, no one cares about looks. Feel: yes, looks: no. As long as it doesn't *hurt* the eyes (violet letters on a red back ground for example), users don't care that much, especially if it the look is tunable. And don't confuse "hurts" with "ugly" here. Ugly is a matter of taste.

Users do care about performance and they do care about security. But what really gets users to buy operating systems is brand recognition and lock-in. This latter point is probably difficult for you to accept, but deep down you know it's true and I know it's true. And complaining about "lamers" isn't going to make the "linux fanboi" you hate so much ignore that one bit.

Second, I'm amazed that people take the time to be offended by the abbreviation "M$". Really, what's it to you or anyone else? Why devote the energy to acting offended and why does it reduce people like you to childish name calling (a la "douche")? "M$" is a useful abbreviation that differentiates microsoft from multiple sclerosis or a Masters of Science. Hell, if microsoft had any sense, they'd trademark it. The only reason I don't use "M$" is because "lamer douche" abbreviation nazis would mod me down for it.

Re:"M$"

[fredrik70]

Yes, from what I recall Word was emulated back in the day. MS build a emulation layer for MFC so they could use the same code base. Don't really think that was something they hid or anything, just a money saving affair as they didn't really gave alot of resources to their mac division on the mac.
Yes, it did suck quite a bit, but it's not like MS are under any obligation to provide purrfect implementations on any of the 2 platforms it supports. I think they started to give the mac version more funding when they realised they needed to keep mac alive in order to avoid anti trusts rulings and now I suppose it make sense from a business point of view to keep it alive.

Re:"M$"

[spitzak]

I think it is interesting that you are so threatened by somebody associating your beloved company with dollars that you INSTANTLY respond with the "Oh if you put a $ next to an M you are a CHILD! A CHILD, I TELL YOU, A LITTLE LITTLE CHILD! BECAUSE I SAY SO! YOU ARE A CHILD!!!!! CHILD!! CHILD!! You are a child, because I say so! WAHHH!"

Oddly enough somebody here could post that Bill Gates eats babies for breakfast and it won't get such a response. The fact that you respond so quickly with the "you are infantile" insta-message, when in fact saying nothing would be much more effective, shows exactly where the insecurity and infant attitude is.

Everytime somebody posts this you people ask, "what about saying Linsux". But the writer did not write "microsuck". They wrote "M$". Why not ask if anybody would be upset if Open Source was called "O$$" (in fact I think that would be a very good name to use for people making a profit from open source)

Re:"M$"

[idontgno]

Sure, using a published standard created by a standards organization in collaboration with a proprietary inventor will always shield you from patent litigation.

Look at how well it worked out for Rambus' victims.

See also "Submarine patent" and "Patent ambush".

Re:"M$"

[PastaLover]

I think it is interesting that you are so threatened by somebody associating your beloved company with dollars that you INSTANTLY respond with the "Oh if you put a $ next to an M you are a CHILD! A CHILD, I TELL YOU, A LITTLE LITTLE CHILD! BECAUSE I SAY SO! YOU ARE A CHILD!!!!! CHILD!! CHILD!! You are a child, because I say so! WAHHH!"

*sigh* It's annoying because it precontextualizes any conversation on the subject. The first 400 posts always end up being the microsoft sucks against the microsoft alright crowd in any case, but this just makes it worse. That's why we oppose it. It's akin to the whole Obama/Osama thing, designed at weeding out anyone interested in an intelligent conversation and going straight for the name calling.

If you want I could write it in all caps tho.

Re:"M$"

[spitzak]

I just don't get it though. To my mind an unambiguious abbreviation just does not seem that bad, it's as though Microsoft's defenders see something evil in money.

It is pretty obvious that somebody calling Obama "Osama" does not like him, as he is using a name that is associated with an enemy of the US. Unless "$" is to you evil or an enemy, you cannot say that using that term is negative. If you think '$" is evil then I'm not sure if I want to talk to you. Also very strange that people who say '$' is bad suggest that the *stock symbol* be used instead, I believe there are more people who dislike stocks than dollars, though again pretty much in the minority.

Another way to look at it is whether there would be a problem calling Open Source "O$$" (or maybe "OS$").

Except for people insisting incredibly quickly and vehemently that this is "childish" I do not see any reason or logic behind it. And the fact that people are so incredibly fast to immediatly say "you are a child" whenevery somebody writes "M$" indicates that they are not very confident in their position either.

Also people saying this is "old" have not been paying attention. The old insulting name for Microsoft was "Micros~1", not "M$". I did not see "M$" until perhaps 2000 or so.

Re:"M$"

[Yfrwlf]

No, Slashdot is *completely unbiased* when it comes to computer operating systems. Hence their name. ;)

Re:"M$"

[Yfrwlf]

That's a very nice summary of the situation. Couldn't have said it better myself, thank you. While there are several more points that could be made about all the different ramifications and nuances involving patents and other angles about Mono, you've touched the main and IMO most important point. Microsoft isn't a neutral standards body. Anyone who thinks that is outright dumb. It has a platform to promote. I call that a pretty big agenda.

Re:"M$"

[hairyfeet]

So you would have NO problem with "Unbongo" for Ubuntu, or how about that lamer troll we get about once ever Ubuntu story with "Niggerbuntu"? Is that cool as well? You can't have it both ways you know. I'm willing to bet you find both the above "abbreviations" lame douche speak, yet we are not supposed to be offended by yours. Double standard there maybe?

And you can say what you want about "people not caring about looks" but the simple fact is they DO care, or Apple wouldn't have such a runaway hit with the iPod over MP3 players that have much more features than it. It has style, and style sells. Remember we are talking about an OS here. Something that ultimately you want to sit there on a shelf next to OSX and Win7. Do you honestly think that Joe Average or Sally shopper is gonna be walking down an isle that has Win7 and OSX laptops running and go "Hmmm... I'll take the brown one". Really? Because if you do I'd like some of what you are smoking please.

Apple and MSFT has spent major bucks on focus groups picking a default. Sometimes it works (OSX and Win7) sometimes it don't (WinXP "fisher price" blue) but they try. I have yet to hear a REAL reason for the human theme other than "we are keeping it no matter what the public thinks". And considering the amount of FLOSS talent they have to choose from, or the fact that the Linux OS is supposedly "free as in freedom" you would think they would let their users decide if that should be the default theme. But they won't. Not now, not ever. Why? Because they know the human theme wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

And yet again I have proven that language matters. Here I have demonstrated that it is possible to have an argument about the human theme without resorting to "LOL Unbongo" crap, just as it is possible to have an argument on the merits or lack thereof of MSFT software for a given situation without resorting to that "M$" bullshit. The fact that you want to keep that lamer speak simply shows that you frankly don't care if you are labeled a douche and a troll as long as you can keep your "LOL" speak. But as long as you use that crap just be prepared to be marked as a troll, because that is EXACTLY what you are. As I have demonstrated it is quite easy to have an argument on the merits or lack thereof for a particular OS subject without resorting to the name calling 14 year old Halo players and Twitter use. Do you really want to be lumped into the same group as them?

Re:"M$"

[Kalriath]

That's wrong. Go look at it: http://slashdot.org/metamod.pl

Re:"M$"

[el americano]

It's basically just an extra set of mod points with no accountability now.

Not so. If you metamod up or down, the comment's score does not change. The meta-moderation score is still used to detect bad moderators, whether they are doing it intentionally or not.

Re:"M$"

[Kalriath]

Ok. Well, that's just bizarre.

easy solution

[ionix5891]

rename it to GNU/Mono

Re:easy solution

[vivin]

Does that mean that by using GNU/Mono, we'd all suffer from GNU/Monia?

*ducks

Re:easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS originally tried to brand Mono as GNU Mono:

http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-07-09-004-20-PR-MS-SW

Re:easy solution

[Hurricane78]

Well, I would prefer a system called "Binaural". You know, better than Stereo, or even 22.2 UHDV channels. If configured correctly.

Re:easy solution

[clintp]

RMS has always had a case of monomania.

Re:easy solution

[syousef]

rename it to GNU/Mono

Better yet, rename Personal hygiene to GNU/Personal hygiene.

Re:easy solution

[dpilot]

Doesn't GNOME stand for GNu Object Network Model Environment?
Doesn't RMS own the GNU trademark?

If the GNOME foundation insists on Mono and C#, can't RMS send them a Cease and Desist over use of the GNU trademark, and turn them into "OME"?

MS not M$

[basementman]

WTF is up with these editorialized summaries. The abbreviation is MS, or Microsoft if you prefer the long hand. Let people form their own opinion without stupid name calling.

Re:MS not M$

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... There used to be much less M$ and Apple fanboys. And all in all much less lamers. Sigh...

Re:MS not M$

[flannelboy]

Technically, it's MSFT. MS is Morgan Stanley.

Re:MS not M$

[phantomfive]

Just in case you missed the picture of the borg Bill Gates? It's not like Slashdot has ever made an attempt at passing itself off as objective. It's a great way to blow off steam after having to spend the whole day working with Microsoft products.

Hopefully people around here can form their own opinion even WITH stupid name calling.

Re:MS not M$

[timothy]

You're right.

I didn't catch that in the original submission; thanks for seeing it.

timothy

Re:MS not M$

[Trerro]

Only if you're referring to stocks. If you're talking about anything computer-related and say MS, I think everyone knows who you mean.

Re:MS not M$

[Anonymous Coward]

You come here to watch guys jerk each other off?

Perhaps they should be laughing at you.....

Re:MS not M$

[osu-neko]

Technically, it's MSFT. MS is Morgan Stanley.

So, Morgan Stanley was behind MS-DOS?

Re:MS not M$

[Sir_Lewk]

Since I seem to have been unjustly voted overrated I'll back up my assertion with a quote from CmdrTaco himself:

Ravn: Slashdot is well known for its bias (if you'll forgive the term) towards Open Source Software. Slashcode itself is Open Source. Why is this? What was involved with the decision to make Slashcode OSS? Why do you think it is important? What, in your opinion, makes Open Source Software so great?

CmdrTaco: I'm a very biased person. And I bring many of my biases with me to Slashdot. No apologies are necessary ;) Slashcode is open source because my readers clammored for it in the late 90's. Today thousands of websites use the code. That's very cool. Unfortunately almost none of them contribute anything back, so while it was great for them, it continues to be a burden for us. Not every open source project is the kernel ;)

http://www.cyberarmy.net/library/article/994

Ok, perhaps that quote doesn't perfectly illustrate a pro linux and anti microsoft bias. If you need anymore comfirmation though I suggest you look no farther than slashdot's "borg Gates" image they use for any microsoft related story. For better or worse, slashdot does have a bias and anyone thinking otherwise is quite foolish.

Re:MS not M$

[CarpetShark]

The abbreviation is MS, or Microsoft if you prefer the long hand.

Kind of like hacker means a computer enthusiast?

If people want to associate MS's name with money, then that's what'll happen, and arguably rightly so. Deal with it.

Re:MS not M$

[friendofthenite]

It isn't moronic at all. Slashdot doesn't control people's comments, but it does influence the discussion markedly with it's choice of stories and the way they're presented. Phantomfive is right, while a lot of the criticisms are well-founded, there is almost no objective discussion about Microsoft (and various other subjects) on this site, and the Borg graphic and 'M$' label are entirely consistent with that.

Re:MS not M$

[tomhudson]

Sure, stick with MS - Vista certainly runs as if it has Multiple Sclerosis.

In people affected by MS, patches of damage called plaques or lesions appear in seemingly random areas of the CNS white matter.

We've all heard about the notorious MS patches screwing up things ...

No two people get MS in exactly the same way and the expression of each individual's disease is as unique as their fingerprints. However, the different courses of the disease, both within an individual and within the whole population, principally differ in their timing, location and severity. Underneath similar processes (including demyelination and sometimes other forms of nerve degeneration) are going on.

True - Some get MS pre-installed with their computers, some get it via an upgrade, a friend, bittorrent, but the damage ends up being the same no matter how you got MS.

In general, people with MS can experience partial or complete loss of any function that is controlled by, or passes through, the brain or spinal cord.

Wow - MS can make YOU blue-screen!

"That's sounds terrible - doesn't almost everything go through the brain?"

Well yes, MS can be and often is a very serious disease but almost nobody loses function in all possible areas and some people are affected much worse than others. People with MS can experience any of the following problems either fully or partially - numbness, tingling, pins and needles, muscle weakness, muscle spasms, spasticity, cramps, pain, blindness, blurred or double vision, incontinence, urinary urgency or hesitancy, constipation, slurred speech, loss of sexual function, loss of balance, nausea, disabling fatigue, depression, short term memory problems, other forms of cognitive dysfunction, inability to swallow, inability to control breathing ... you name it.

MS makes Open Sores software look positively benign ...

"Crikey, it sounds devastating"

Yes, but don't forget that it is usually a slowly progressing disease and few people, if any, experience all the possible symptoms. Three quarters of people with MS don't need to use a wheelchair and those that do find that it gives them greater freedom to do the things they want. Many people will require a cane after a number of years of disease activity. Other people will have only very mild and occasional symptoms. Still others have been found to have had MS as a result of an autopsy even though they never presented with any clinical symptoms during their lives. A minority of people with MS die as an indirect result of the disease in its later stages. The majority of PwMS will lie somewhere between these extremes. Adjustments have to be made, but most people with MS can live fulfilled and active lives.

Fuck that shit!

"Can you catch MS from someone with it?"

Absolutely not. Studies have been done on children adopted into families where one of the parents has MS and they have been found to have the same incidence of the disease as the background population [Sadovnick, Ebers et al, 1999]. Other studies show that the number of husband-wife copresentations is almost exactly what you would expect for a non-contagious disease [Ebers, Sadovnick et al, 2000]. This is worth emphasising - you cannot catch MS from a person with the disease. MS is not contagious nor infectious.

So it's okay to hook your linux or mac to a network with MS present and you won't be affected by the disease. Cool - I'm safe.

"Are their different types of MS?"

Yes, there are four main varieties as defined in an international survey of neurologists [Lubin and Reingold, 1996]. (All the g

Re:MS not M$

[westlake]

I suggest you look no farther than slashdot's "borg Gates" image they use for any microsoft related story. For better or worse, slashdot does have a bias and anyone thinking otherwise is quite foolish.

Bias I can live with.

But the Borg icon and the stained glass Window are simply flamebait from the nineties - and by now looking rather gray around the temples.

If Star Trek can reboot the franchise to restore some of it's integrity, perhaps it's time for Slashot to do the same.

Re:MS not M$

[tomhudson]

People with Multiple Sclerosis are offended that you want to associate them with Microsoft.

They shouldn't be - the symptoms and effects of both forms of MS are interchangeable.

Re:MS not M$

[shaitand]

I have to nitpick here. There is enough observed data and publicly available evidence to support most of the common Microsoft bashing at this point to say that a negative view of Microsoft would qualify as being beyond the hypothesis stage and well into the theory category at this point.

Re:MS not M$

[shaitand]

I am biased toward gravity as well. I probably have more support for my negative bias toward Microsoft than I have support for my belief in gravity.

Re:MS not M$

[shaitand]

/agree

Re:MS not M$

[Anonymous Coward]

i like it this way.

i came to slashdot and idiot mcse, not a paper one mind you, i had 30 servers in a data center.

it wasn't till i left that world and stepped into the world of unix/linux/bsd that i started seeing things through the developers eyes.

i also like the engineering aspect to this new world.

the old world had very little engineering to it. in fact it was getting dumbed down to the point that monkeys could do it. and management liked it that way.

i still carry my mcse card with me.

the man with experience always trumps the man without. i've used a multitude of platforms, and indeed still find a role for windows...just a minor one.

and when i get some jackass who wants to debate operating systems and platforms who has never written a shell script or programmed a lick of C, or used ANY linux/unix/bsd

after throughly crushing them with knowledge on a variety of operating systems including dos, wfw31, win95, winnt31, nt4, win2k, xp, slackware, centos, ubuntu, os7-os9 and osX, freebsd

i then show them my mcse card and ask them if they have any more questions.

Re:MS not M$

[celle]

Forget bias, how about history. Microsoft had befriended and then backstabbed various companies that were potential competitors -- apple(windows, mac/os), ibm(os2), etc.. and lets not forget lying to the courts(public) during the monopoly trial or buying off the ISO standards vote. Linux is a competitor whether you believe it or not and I'm sure Microsoft does believe it. Taking history into consideration, I'd say the linux world better be careful around this behemoth or the linux people might get their gnads fed to them.

P.S. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. We've learned, how about you?

Re:MS not M$

[RedWizzard]

I didn't catch that in the original submission; thanks for seeing it.

Good job. The word "Twitter" should have been a sign to look for trouble. You've been here how long?

You might have had a point if twitter hadn't created that username about eight years before Twitter appeared.

Re:MS not M$

[gbarules2999]

If you need anymore comfirmation though I suggest you look no farther than slashdot's "borg Gates" image they use for any microsoft related story.

Was I alone in thinking that was a joke?

Re:MS not M$

[ClosedSource]

"this websites role is a hefty counterbalance to the group think in microsoft-land."

I disagree. Like Democrats, developers in microsoft-land aren't very good at group think. That's a Republican and F/OSS thing. Think of RMS as the Rush Limbaugh of computing (without the money).

Re:MS not M$

[Sir_Lewk]

Of course it's a joke, slashdot doesn't sincerely beleive that Bill Gates was assimilated into the borg. That doesn't mean it's not a joke at Microsoft's expense though.

Re:MS not M$

[dpilot]

I suggest YOU take a look at a little computing/software history, and you'll see how an anti-Microsoft (See, I can do it without substituting "$" for "s".) bias has been earned and deserved.

And if you think an anti-Microsoft bias is unfair, give me a benign explanation of AARD. And if you can actually come up with one for that, there are several dozen more behind it.

While there appear to be some pockets of sanity and even enlightenment within Microsoft, I've seen NOTHING to suggest that the company as a whole has reformed.

Re:MS not M$

[Haxamanish]

No, that was Seattle Computer Products

Re:MS not M$

[mdwh2]

I use Windows, Visual Studio etc, I think Linux is poor, and I can't stand Apple. I dislike the way that expressing anything in support of Windows or against Apple is often seen as taboo here.

But I don't really care about someone who chooses to use "M$". If we do, we're now the ones criticising someone for what they write. And if we're going to criticise someone, at least criticise their views, rather than their choice to use a pre-existing shorthand expression for Microsoft.

Re:MS not M$

[TheRaven64]

And for those eight years, twitter (the article submitter) has been a troll, operating dozens of sock-puppet accounts, with such a strong anti-MS bias that even most Linux-using FSF members find faintly embarrassing. I'm not sure what the relevance of twitter.com is to this article, but thanks for mentioning it...

Re:MS not M$

[PastaLover]

This has to be one of the most moronic things I've heard. SD doesn't control the opinions posted here. Your opinion is yours. Grow up. There seems to be a lot of butt hurt kiddies here. For the adults here that mean sore ass adolescents.

Agreed. But then this is /. and it's always been like that. Maybe a bit less in the past.

Stallman, though unpopular, is right. He is saying don't get trapped into producing products for a closed architecture. He's saying it is just more of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Open and free is the key. And, for goodness sake, there's no need for tomboy to be included in any distro or repository. It doesn't have a crucial role in anything we do in Linux.

Look if you're gonna invent conspiracy theories all over the place at least make it an intricate one. Preferably fifty pages long with unscientific rambling and involving at least two secret government agencies. Let us know when you're ready to come back into the real world where idiots like you are trying to turn developers away from developing open software on an open, standardised platform because of unspecified fears of anything open source.

Don't even get me started on dismissing a desktop app out of hand because it doesn't "play a crucial role". By that reasoning we better just drop everything and anything that somehow includes a GUI.

And I'm counting curses.

Icon at the top of the page?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone tell me what the icon is supposed to be for GNU is Not Unix??

Re:Icon at the top of the page?

[Myrddin Wyllt]

Can someone tell me what the icon is supposed to be for GNU is Not Unix??

It's a gnu - I'ts a gnu
The g-nicest work of g-nature in the zoo
I'ts a gnu - how do you do?
You really oughtta g-know w-who's w-who
I'ts a gnu - spelt G - N - U
I'ts not a camel or a kangaroo
So let me introduce, I'ts neither man nor moose
Oh, g-no, g-no, g-no, I'ts a gnu!


(with apologies to Flanders & Swan)

Stallmans just mad because

[doas777]

he can't make us call it "gnu-mono", so it must be bad.

Re:Stallmans just mad because

[CarpetShark]

With a product named after an STD, GNU/Mono would be a definite improvement. Except that GNU would probably not associate themselves with it, because... well... it's an MSTD.

Re:Stallmans just mad because

[ClosedSource]

As I've stated before, if there's any patent that applies to .NET it would also apply to a lot of other non-Mono F/OSS code. Companies always make their patents as broad as possible, MS would never create a patent specifically for C# or .Net. That would offer them less protection in a defensive posture and less potential revenue in an offensive posture.

Re:Stallmans just mad because

[man_of_mr_e]

Mono is not an STD. It's called the "kissing disease", it's communicable by any direct contact with saliva, though. Unless you consider kissing to be "sex".

However, Mono is not named after that. Mono is the spanish word for "monkey", which is a play off Ximian's name which is a play off Simian or ape-like species.

But if you insist, Unix is named after castrated harem guards.

Yup

[MightyMartian]

I tend to think of Stallman as a bit of a nut, but I pretty much hold the same view of Mono. It's a trojan horse.

Re:Yup

[someone1234]

You meant: its a trap!

Yes it is.

Re:Yup

[Livius]

Why else did Microsoft put so much effort into plagiarizing Java?

Re:Yup

[Vahokif]

That would be J#. C# and .NET are genuinely better.

Re:Yup

[Vahokif]

And GNU is an AT&T trap, right?

Re:Yup

[pentalive]

Yes, but that trap is already sprung - no one got caught.

Re:Yup

[Vahokif]

So it was a good idea to make GNU. Why not Mono?

Re:Yup

[Mad Merlin]

That would be J#. C# and .NET are genuinely better.

That's really not saying much.

Re:Yup

[poopdeville]

Because it is potentially patent encumbered. So if Microsoft decides to sue, suddenly tons of software won't work without breaking the law or using their implementation.

Re:Yup

[HermMunster]

Because you don't run Linux...so why are you asking the question?

Re:Yup

[Ilgaz]

''That would be J#. C# and .NET are genuinely better.''

You should have added ''on supported Windows operating systems''. It changes things you know.

It is like ''I will code a end user application in GNUStep and I will have same features as Cocoa on OS X''. Well, good luck with it that. It is not impossible, it is just difficult, very difficult since you won't have Quicktime etc. to rely on.

People are tricked into thinking Mono can ever be a full feature replacement for Windows .NET and they even bug my Windows developer friends to ''click a button'' to ship their .NET code for Linux/Mono. It takes a while to explain why it is not possible.

Re:Yup

[kestasjk]

But the weird thing is that in the article he's not only against Mono, but against C# itself, which is as much of a standardized language as JavaScript. MS couldn't whip out any patents against C#, and as Stallman points out the FSF has its own C# implementation. So why is he speaking out against C#, a standardized language?

For once RMS has actually been too brief, and has left reasoning totally out of this brief memo.

Re:Yup

[Vahokif]

Linux is potentially patent encumbered. SCO tried to sue. See how that worked out for them?

Re:Yup

[Vahokif]

I do actually. Gentoo.

Re:Yup

[Vahokif]

Mono already supports the most widely-used parts of .NET and even some stuff .NET doesn't have, like SIMD.

Re:Yup

[Ilgaz]

People didn't install/link to some lame ass clone of ''SCO Unixware'' framework, that is how it didn't work with SCO.

If SCO saved Novell from chapter 11 with mysterious undisclosed agreements and that guy came up with some ''cool named'' (Tarantula?) clone of Unixware framework and people linked to it, it was included in Debian, we would see how it would work for SCO.

Linux won because it didn't steal. Do you think the community, slashdot etc. mattered to judge?

Re:Yup

[Ilgaz]

Most widely used doesn't really cut it. Can Mono run unmodified .NET 3.5SP1 code just like Java runs? No? Why does it exist than?

Why wouldn't MS release .NET 3.5SP1 for Linux? Let me tell you, they can't even if they want to since .NET is a WINDOWS FRAMEWORK, designed with Windows in mind and will save Microsoft for a while.

I am not against .NET BTW; I have run some pretty decent applications even on emulated Intel (on G5, MS VPC 7/XP). I am just against showing Mono as something it can never be.

Re:Yup

[Vahokif]

GNU's a Unix clone whether you like it or not. It is (was?) in exactly the same relationship to AT&T as Mono is to Microsoft, but I don't hear anyone saying itsatrap every time someone someone mentions GNU/Linux on Slashdot.

Re:Yup

[Vahokif]

OK, care to point out what ubiquitous parts of 3.5 Mono doesn't support?

Re:Yup

[Svartalf]

They didn't sue with anything in hand and it wasn't about patents, it was copyrights- SCO isn't a good example here in the slightest way possible. Try the TomTom lawsuit that Microsoft recently initiated. See how THAT worked out for Microsoft.

There were 3 claimed (doesn't talk to whether they're valid patents, only that they were granted...) patents that hit LINUX directly in that suit, despite claims of them not litigating patent infringement by Linux. Just because the case was settled in a manner that doesn't trip up TomTom with GPL licensing, it doesn't lead to Microsoft NOT doing another suit like it or bringing out something involved with .Net, which DOES have patents.

The Mono proponents can't or won't tell anyone how one could realistically get the offered RAND terms on the patents involved with .Net per the ECMA submitted spec- nor, for that matter, will Microsoft. It's beyond stupid to go forward with something along those lines going on. When you infringe, it won't be accidental, it'll be willful. And if you think Novell's little deal will protect you, think again. It's only applicable to the customers of Novell and only for a given time. When the time is up or if you don't buy from Novell (OpenSuSE doesn't count...) you don't HAVE any covenant regarding any of that stuff. You're on your own. Since there's announcement of patents in the ECMA spec, it's your obligation to obtain licensing on the same if you're attempting to implement it. If you don't, it's willful infringement. That's a nasty cesspool of pain you don't want to step off into- seriously.

When people say there's no risk on this, they're selling you a bill of goods or are very dangerously ignorant of what you're looking at here.

Re:Yup

[Vahokif]

Again, you're saying GNU was a bad idea because they made an open source clone of a monopolist's technology?

Re:Yup

[Ilgaz]

UNIX is owned by The Open Group, Linux isn't Unix, only certified operating systems which will pass and maintain their thousands of tests can be called UNIX. Interestingly enough, a operating system which runs ''X NOT UNIX'' kernel carries UNIX 03 branding now, OS X Leopard/x86.

ATT lost their position for Unix when they got too much greedy and they were actually ordered by court. The case of ATT and SCO has nothing to do with each other.

SCO was just a x86 Unix vendor who claimed Linux stole code (directly, like copy and paste) from their operating system. They can't say they own UNIX, open group owns UNIX.

Re:Yup

[Vahokif]

Forget SCO and explain how GNU is different from Mono.

Re:Yup

[DeVilla]

Mono is not a safe, Free (FSF type free) implementation of C#. Is there such an implementation? If mono's all we really have at the moment, then the language itself is a trap.

Sure, you could maybe try to write or stabilize an implementation that is not a patent minefield. I'm guessing Richard isn't really pushing for that because there is already C, C++, Objective-C, Objective-C++, Java and he's really a Lisp bigot. He probably isn't fond of any of the OO C based languages and isn't look to have yet another.

Re:Yup

[machine321]

Please don't say "Trojan" and "Stallman" in the same sentence again.

Re:Yup

[IntlHarvester]

AT&T's unix-related patents expired decades ago

Re:Yup

[Vahokif]

That wasn't the case when GNU was started.

Re:Yup

[IntlHarvester]

True, but it was by the time anyone shipped a commercial product containing GNU. (I think they expired in the late 80s...there's a Stallman essay around about this.)

And certain unix features were never implemented because of things like the Unisys LZW patent.

Re:Yup

[MightyMartian]

That was an entirely different set of claims, and they were claims that anyone who knew anything about the reality of Unix source code knew was B.S. (and it wasn't patent claims anyways). But Mono very much exists solely at the whim of Microsoft. You develop in it, you're developing with a potential time bomb if Microsoft pulls the rug out. There are other ways to accomplish writing software for both platforms that doesn't plunge one into a dangerous world of licensing, patents and reliance upon a company who has spent the better part of fifteen years being an enemy to open source, open standards or anything or anyone else that looked to be threatening its dominance. If .Net/Mono was the best goddamned platform in the history of the universe, I would not touch it with a ten foot pole.

Re:Yup

[ClosedSource]

The more interesting question is why Sun put so much effort into killing Java on the Windows desktop.

Re:Yup

[Abcd1234]

Just because something is a standard doesn't mean it is free of patent claims.

Then *show me one*. No, seriously. Show me a single fucking patent on any component of the C# language. No, not the library. Not some implementation of something built on .NET. C# itself.

Why? Because if you can't find one, then it's *too late*. MS can't go and patent portions of C# after the fact because the cat's already out of the bag: the USPTO doesn't allow patenting published inventions. And guess what? The C# standard is published.

So, please, show me a patent. Just one. I dare you.

Re:Yup

[Vahokif]

What made GNU any different back in the day with AT&T?

Re:Yup

[TheRaven64]

He probably isn't fond of any of the OO C based languages and isn't look to have yet another

I'd be surprised by this, as he was the one that forced NeXT to release their Objective-C diffs to GCC and was responsible for the first GNU Objective-C runtime (since rewritten twice by others). Unfortunately, GCC's Objective-C support these days is an embarrassment, being a blob of completely unmaintainable code and missing things like declared properties and fast enumeration (which Clang supports nicely on the GNU runtime). If it wasn't for the fact that there is not yet an LLVM back end for m68k, we'd ditch GCC support today.

Re:Yup

[bill_mcgonigle]

You're trying to compare a world without software patents to a world with software patents, when the topic at hand is software patents.

Re:Yup

[someone1234]

Patents, as it was already told to you.
Even if they are invalid, no one wants to risk a long lawsuit with M$, except some patent trolls themselves.

Microsoft, I said NO!

[eyepeepackets]

It's absurd that Stallman has to actually issue this warning considering Microsoft's history of behavior not only with competition but with their business associates as well. Anyone who has been both alive and conscious these past twenty-five years knows forming any sort of relationship with Microsoft, either directly or indirectly, customer or partner, is just asking for a raping.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[saleenS281]

Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of. I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously? Comparing them to rape? Grow up.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Zaphod The 42nd]

MS' treatment of open-source, calling it a virus, massively downplaying it, then stealing it and slapping their own licence on top of it, well, thats rape in my book.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[colinrichardday]

Does this mean I should stop waiting for them to support OS/2?

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[MickDownUnder]

What a crock.

Mono is a independent open source project. Microsoft has no real control over this code.

*IF* Microsoft tried to hijack or close down Mono, it would need to do so through the courts, when was the last time Microsoft won a case like that?

I think if Microsoft ever tried to do such a thing, the Mono community would simply do the same thing that Microsoft did to Sun's Java platform (the true origins of C#). When Sun tried to dictate control over their platform Microsoft simply stopped shipping the JVM on their OS and soon after started shipping the .NET runtime. The Mono crew would simply do the same, by simply forking and become something that is not .NET compliant,

This is simply sensless anti-MS zealotry. Applications written on Mono are no more of a risk than those written on any other platofrm

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[ammorais]

If he doesn't "have to", why does Debian included Mono?

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[weav]

Ask Spyglass, the company from which MS "licensed" what became MSIE, whether they felt raped when MS started giving away MSIE thus rendering the royalties to Spyglass $0.00 (plus the minumum quarterly fee)...

Maybe as a customer you haven't had anything to rape you for aside from license fees for products. If you were a developer / business partner, I suspect you would say differently.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[aztektum]

Rape doesn't simply mean forced sexual intercourse. As a verb... well...

Verb

Infinitive
to rape

Third person singular
rapes

Simple past
raped

Past participle
raped

Present participle
raping

to rape (third-person singular simple present rapes, present participle raping, simple past and past participle raped)

      1. To force sexual intercourse or other sexual activity upon another person, without their consent.
      2. To abuse an object in an extreme manner.

                    The loggers raped the virgin forest

      3. (slang) To dominate in a contest.

                    My experienced opponent will rape me at chess.

I'd say they have abused their dominance in the tech world to the extreme more than once.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's the point. He doesn't "have to." Every techie (possibly except him, though I doubt it) understood this years ago. By saying this now, though, he gets attention.

Apparently not EVERY techie else it wouldn't have been included into Debian in the first place.

He's saying it now because they are doing it NOW. Not because he is an attention whore.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Zaphod The 42nd]

I disagree. Its both business and personal. You have to succeed, but as Google (at least originally) noted, you have to do it while 'not being evil'. Ballmer and co. are hurting the industry.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Darkness404]

Lets see.... Have you noticed that when compared to other vendors your prices keep going up? Lets see, Windows XP Pro (OEM for system builders because I couldn't find anything else) currently costs $130 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116515), Windows Vista Business costs $139 for the same thing (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116475) and if you unlucky enough to not get a free Windows 7 upgrade, Windows 7 pro costs you $200 for even an upgrade version (http://redmondmag.com/articles/2009/06/25/windows-7-pricing-discounts-unveiled.aspx). On the other hand, Linux runs on the same hardware, is free, and support can range from free to pricey depending on distro, level of support you want and how many Linux-knowing techs you have. And if you had Mac hardware, the price to upgrade OSes would be $130 for Leopard (assuming in this that you had an x86 version of Tiger which as far as I know was not sold separately but bundled with the early x86 Macs) (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC094/Mac-OSX-Leopard?mco=MTIxMTY) and $30 for Snow Leopard when it comes out (http://www.pcworld.com/article/166327/5_things_you_should_know_about_snow_leopard.html). Sure, there is the costs of other things such as Mac only hardware, but either you aren't looking for alternatives or you are totally naive to see that MS has been screwing you with the price of its OS.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Directrix1]

So you are saying you don't like money?

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Blakey Rat]

They signed a bad business deal, and that's somehow Microsoft's fault?

Look, I'm sorry that the business world isn't all soft and cuddly, sometimes people who aren't careful (like Spyglass wasn't) get hurt. Tough shit.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Directrix1]

That is a very shallow analysis. If I recall correctly Microsoft successfully sued TomTom for violating FAT patents in the Linux kernel on their devices. Furthermore, yes, if Microsoft took a litigious stance on .Net, then Mono would just get rid of the offending code. Thereby, breaking every single program written that depends on that feature. And M$ (yes M$) could do that over and over again, effectively killing the ecosystem on anything besides Linux. Stallman is 100% correct in his opinion here. Mono is good to run shit written in .Net. But don't rely on it as a platform in a free ecosystem. It is unadvisable in the long run.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Directrix1]

EDIT: I mean to say "on anything besides Windows" instead of "on anything besides Linux", btw.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[myxiplx]

20 years? How many examples do you want:

- illegally burying Lotus 123, and replacing it with an inferior product
- illegally killing stacker, and replacing it with the inferior doublespace
- buying winternals, and burying one of the most promising security tools for XP I'd ever seen
- illegally forcing their browser onto the market, creating some of the biggest security headaches IT admins have ever seen
- changing file formats with every release for no reason other than to force companies to upgrade Office

I'm a big user of Microsoft software, but I'm under no illusions as to their business practices, motivations, or horrendous track record when it comes to security and interoperability.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[lostmongoose]

Because they don't answer to RMS, and neither does anyone else. Open source is supposed to be abotu freedom and choice, not asking how high when people like him say jump.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[twistedcubic]

Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.

I don't think you were supposed to take it literally.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

..Dead Borlander's society, violating California's predatory hiring laws, violating federal laws on multiple occasions, committing perjury in federal court, signing contracts with (Sun,STAC,Novell,IBM) and then stealing the technology, forcing them to sue, then settling out of court at the last moment, wilfully breaking DRDOS, wilfully breaking numerous free and open protocols via embrace, extend, extinguish.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[tukang]

Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of

Are you sure you're not suffering from stockholm syndrome?

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Ilgaz]

Try to switch from MS to anything else. Open source, half open source, closed source. That will be the time when you understand what ''rape'' is.

You know, mafia types are cool and friendly people until you do something bothering their business.

My attitude against Mono is something really different. If you want to use MS technology, fine, use it... Just don't fool yourself with half ass clones of it. What is the latest and greatest server from MS? Windows Server 2008? OK, buy it, install .NET 3.5, Visual Studio and have fun. Just don't be fooled by MS or their trojans since the open source planet who actually knows what open source philosophy about it laughs at you.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Repossessed]

You forgot:

          A name given to a variety or to varieties of a plant of the
          turnip kind, grown for seeds and herbage. The seeds are used
          for the production of rape oil, and to a limited extent for
          the food of cage birds.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[pentalive]

You mean he wouldn't have to other than because of a deep need for attention if mono was not being used by Debian.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[NickFortune]

Mono is a independent open source project. Microsoft has no real control over this code.

The concern that MS may have one or more submarine patents that apply to the framework. Open source development is a wonderful thing, but the protection it offers against a patent lawsuit is slim to non-existent, depending on the extent to which the aggressor relies on open source software.

*IF* Microsoft tried to hijack or close down Mono, it would need to do so through the courts, when was the last time Microsoft won a case like that?

That will be a great comfort to TomTom, I'm sure.

When Sun tried to dictate control over their platform Microsoft simply stopped shipping the JVM on their OS and soon after started shipping the .NET runtime. The Mono crew would simply do the same, by simply forking and become something that is not .NET compliant,

Bit of a pointless exercise, that. The only real draw of Mono over Java is compaibility with MS. Forking Mono would be a hugely stupid move. On top of which, most of the mono developers work for Novell, who are unlikely to worry about MS patent threats. On the contrary, they might well welcome such a development which, properly timed, it could leave them as the only enterprise-credible commercial distro. So that's another concern - the conflict of interest at Novell.

This is simply sensless anti-MS zealotry. Applications written on Mono are no more of a risk than those written on any other platofrm

I disagree. I'm not always Stallman's biggest fan (check my posting history) and I've used Mono professionally for the last four years. But in the case of Debian, I think Stallman's got it right. Not only does Debian not need Mono, but also in adopting the framework, it potentially leaves itself open to attack. Needlessly.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Ilgaz]

So, can you remember the leaked documents named ''Halloween'' something?

Remember the weak point of Linux as reported? Easy to divide politically. Icaza and gang really serves this purpose well.

I wonder if there will be one heroic developer with time to waste in hand will convert Tom Tom whatever that trojan is to GTK (remember GTK Icaza?) and Qt. In fact, while wasting time, I would use GNUStep and release same code on Windows, OS X and Linux. That would show what multi platform and open means to people spending time at Redmond while Open Suse releases a major version.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[StormReaver]

> Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.

Everything is fine if you're in lock-step with Microsoft's business plans. But try getting out from underneath Microsoft's thumb, and you'll start to understand.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Planesdragon]

MS' treatment of open-source, calling it a virus, massively downplaying it, then stealing it and slapping their own licence on top of it, well, thats rape in my book.

Open source is crying in the corner, bleeding from its private parts, doomed to a life of mental illness, and going to bear someone else's child?

Ok, aside from that last part, I can see your point. What MS did to open source is EXACTLY like rape.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Ilgaz]

No matter how you like to soften, it is the view of freedom, open source and it has been for ages.

It is anarchy, anti big corporation, some sense of communism, fanaticism. Don't let corporate monkeys like Icaza or Novell fool you.

A half ass fake C application and a clone of a clone of a framework has no place in Debian. It is not what Debian is. In fact, if this is the new policy of Debian, they should change the distro's name and allow people who understands what GNU/Linux is use the name.

If it was any other distro, it wouldn't bother people that much. We speak about benchmark of free software. Debian is actually used as reference when people get confused about some weird license developer uses. ''Does Debian have it?'' is a very common question in scene.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Ilgaz]

May I ask your connection with Mono and Microsoft?

If you have anything to do, shouldn't you put a disclaimer? Your post makes no sense especially since the Sun Java is actually GPL now, with all strings removed.

Microsoft conspired Java with their ''embrace and extend'' trick, the day Sun figured it out, they sued them, when MS figured they will be in huge trouble as court will likely decide siding with Sun, they settled outside court, for millions of dollars.

It is one of the several mistakes in your post.

MS doesn't need to do anything to Mono, Mono stinks all by itself because .NET is designed for Windows. Several important parts are missing, Windows developers are at 3.5 SP! level, beta people are already checking version 4. What is Mono at? 2? Without very important windows forms right?

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of those are bogus:

Microsoft didn't bury Lotus 123, Lotus shot themselves in the foot, then the head, and then the foot again. They then proceeded to walk off a cliff. They bet on OS/2 (which failed), and delivered a product for windows extremely late, that was buggy and not even close to what excel was delivering. They then attempted to do a rewrite for years that they never delivered, and then finally produced lotus symphony which was crap. Not until 1998 when they released SmartSuite 9.0 did they have anything that came close to competing with Excel. To say Microsoft killed lotus 1-2-3 is a joke. They killed themselves -- repeatedly.

Stacker? Stacker was simply a one trick pony that couldn't deliver a second product, and unfortunately their first product only had a short lifetime. Developing a product that only worked on MS-DOS 6.0 when windows was just taking off only left them a very short window. Their second product ReachOut wasn't accepted very well, especially when there were other products already on the market that did that, and more (pcAnywhere, etc). In the end, they walked away with both a good chunk of money, their own software sales, AND $5.50 for each and every copy of MS-DOS 6.0 that was sold. That's a pretty sweet deal considering it was also $25 million PER EMPLOYEE.

Winternals is still updated regularly.

The rest is your opinion, which I don't share. I appreciate my HTTP explorer built into my OS, just like I appreciate my FTP explorer, FAT/NTFS explorer, network exporer, picture viewer, sound/music player, calculator, and simplistic notepad, paint, and a graphical UI. Only those people with an axe to grind or a software suite to push think otherwise. These things are in almost every OS built today, and have been for a very long time (before Microsoft).

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[CarpetShark]

Rape doesn't simply mean forced sexual intercourse. As a verb... well... ...The loggers raped the virgin forest

I don't get it. What makes you think this isn't about sex?

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Teckla]

Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of. I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously? Comparing them to rape? Grow up.

There's more than one definition for the word "rape". Try looking it up, before you get on your high horse and condemn other people.

I've been a professional developer for 20 years, and programmed computers as a hobby for 10 years beyond that. Yeah, I'm old, I've been around a while. And I've watched Microsoft's behavior all those years.

Microsoft is very random about some things. You never know when they're going to blindside you (wielding their FAT patent bat, anyone?).

It could very well be they'll never raise a finger to discourage Mono. On the other hand, they could start rattling their saber (simple threats) or use outright litigation anytime.

I'm not a fan of Richard Stallman, or even the GPL/LGPL, but on this issue, I think he's right. Microsoft could step in and start causing Mono developers and users grief at pretty much any time. It's very risky and you can't trust that they haven't done anything yet (once again, may I mention FAT?).

Use Mono at your own risk. And it's quite a risk.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[SplashMyBandit]

You pay too much for the software you obtain due to a lack of competition in the marketplace. Microsoft have been found guilty (in California at least) of setting arbitrary pricing of their products due to their monopoly situation. This term "rape' is used with poetic license to describe this situation. It is good you are a satisfied customer, but please take your blinkers off.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Chees0rz]

Many survivors and secondary survivors of rape are pretty sensitive to the word... considering how just reading/hearing the word can trigger someone to pretty much shut down for a few hours or the rest of the day.

The GP wasn't defending Microsoft... I think he was pointing out the naivety of the poster to use such a sharp word.

My only goal for this post is to spread the idea that this word should only be used in the most serious of situations. It isn't a joke. And it isn't to be used lightly (this coming from a guy who used to say things like 'you fags raped me' in quake3). GP's point is valid. Grow up.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[aztektum]

Involving RMS? *shivers*

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[HermMunster]

They must be using the date rape drug on you.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[HermMunster]

It has nothing to do with Open Source. It is about anything that isn't Microsoft. In your stance, if you aren't pro-Microsoft you are anti-Microsoft. You seem to get confused easily.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Zaphod The 42nd]

fair enough.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of.

How many times have you been forced to purchased another Windows license when you already had at least 1 that wasn't being used?

I have 4 WinXP Pro licenses, but never used more than 1 at a time. I have 1 Vista license that I never wanted. It was forced on me. I feel raped.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[hey!]

Well, if you've ever had to make a business decision (as opposed to armchair quarterback), you'd know that "bad" is sometimes a relative term.

If the choice is (a) sign a deal or (b) compete against the company that owns the platform your software have to work on, the scales are tilted towards signing the deal.

Now you can argue it's Microsoft's right to use its platform control this way. It's a position worth discussing. But you shouldn't sneak that position under the "bad business deal" banner.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[pjabardo]

Actually a heroic developer has already done that:

http://live.gnome.org/Gnote/

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Ilgaz]

The application being based on GTK really should mean something to that guy who is behind all of this mess. Perhaps he can somehow remember good old days and why Gnome project was started at first place.

Hope they won't trick Gnome (3) to include/depend/link to Mono. It would mark the end of Gnome especially since Nokia owns Qt and generously made it all free.

Thanks for pointing it out, I thought it was some real crazy idea while writing it myself. It is some kind of a good point made with code.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[kestasjk]

You just raped the GP.. Rapist.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Tanuki64]

Good for you. But it just means you have nothing M$ is interested in and your are no thread for their profit.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Bill_the_Engineer]

If I recall correctly Microsoft successfully sued TomTom for violating FAT patents in the Linux kernel on their devices.

Actually, Microsoft did NOT successfully sue TomTom for violating FAT patents on their devices.

Microsoft threatened to sue TomTom, and TomTom decided to settle out of court.

This was after TomTom threaten Microsoft with patent infringements on Microsoft Streets. Microsoft even said that they usually don't enforce the FAT patents, but felt compelled to do so in this case as a defensive measure.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Luke has no name]

Doesn't mean what Microsoft did was illegal, it was just shitty. They are perfectly in their bounds to be that way, and we are perfectly in bounds to say they fucking suck, and want nothing to do with them.

I'm really surprised that Debian has allowed Mono into their "main", given how pure they tend to be.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Luke has no name]

The point about Debian is worth modding up. It is the foundation of pure open source (sans the occasional binary blob of the kernel). The controversial Mono being put into Debian is a big deal.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Mr2001]

Windows developers are at 3.5 SP! level, beta people are already checking version 4. What is Mono at? 2? Without very important windows forms right?

Wrong: "Support for Windows Forms 2.0 is complete. At this point, we are largely just fixing bugs and polishing our code."

I've written WinForms apps in Visual Studio that ran on Mono with no changes, and that was over a year ago. This month I've been doing command-line apps, and of course they work just fine on Mono as well.

Mono also supports many individual features of C# 3 and .NET 3.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[jeremyp]

Lotus buried Lotus 123. In the good old days of Win16 they had the dominant spreadsheet. It all went wrong when they failed to deliver a Win32 version of Lotus 123 in a timely manner.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[nidarus]

Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of

Are you sure you're not suffering from stockholm syndrome?

It's not rape if it's consensual

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[aztracker1]

it is GPL/LGPL software... Does Debian have Samba/CIFS or FAT/FAT32 support? These are far bigger threats to MS, just as patent ecumbered, and have already seen lawsuits regarding them. Mono is a platform for applications. MS doesn't care because if mono didn't exist said applications still would.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[egork]

Samba or FAT are not platforms. Applications accessing the files would still work and compile if these technologies were not available in GNU/Linux.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[man_of_mr_e]

No, MS did not successfully sue TomTom. TomTom settled. Also TomTom sued Microsoft (something most people seem to forget). They managed to get a complex patent lawsuit off the ground in only a couple of weeks, which indicates they'd been planning the suit for a long time, and considering TomTom has sued others for patent infringement, it's a pretty strong guess TomTom was planning to sue MS anyways, MS just got to court first.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[man_of_mr_e]

That's a ridiculous claim. I've seen Apple's source code for earlier versions of MacOS. It was written in Pascal. Windows was written in C. There's no way they could have used it. They could have based Windows on it, but then Windows would be substantially similar to MacOS at a low level... it's not. It's not even close. They both suck, but they suck in totally different ways.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[myxiplx]

Hmm, ok, I may be wrong about the Lotus one - checking again there are a few quotes about Microsoft attacking it, but no proof that I can see. They still have an awful lot of cases though showing them doing whatever it took to beat the competition - legal or otherwise.

And regarding Stacker, Stacker was a one trick pony, but what do you expect when your highly successful program is ripped off by the dominant OS vendor? The wind was knocked out of the company at the height of their success, and despite their program being massively better than doublespace, nobody was going to buy it when a 'good enough' equivalent was being given away for free.

I was a big user of Stacker at the time, but eventually had to stop using it as there were no new versions coming out, but doublespace corrupted my data so many times I couldn't use that either. End results - as a user I lost the ability to compress my data.

Making $5.50 for every copy of DOS that was sold wasn't a good thing for the user - Stacker still had no control over the software, no means of releasing updates, and essentially killed the company.

Winternals may be updated regularly, but try to find Winternals Protection Manager. That was a cracking product, launched 2-3 months before Microsoft bought the company, and which hasn't been seen in over 2 years.

Protection Manager was a way to massively increase the security of XP, running any program as a restricted user, with network admins able to grant higher permissions to only those programs that need them. Think Vista's UAE, but for XP, and perfect for network administrators. Unfortunately, that would have slowed adoption of Vista, and allowed corporates to roll Protection Manager out en mass on their Windows XP installations, so there's been no sign of the program since Microsoft bought the company.

And as to the rest: I don't mind having a browser in my OS, I just object to Microsoft stifling innovation to do it, and as a network manager, IE is an absolute nightmare when it comes to security. It's done far more harm than good having that included by default.

I've spent the last 8 years fire-fighting security issues caused by IE. They created a browser you can't remove, allowed it to run scripts, and granted it huge amounts of access to the OS. And the only reason it was coupled so tightly with Windows was because Microsoft knew that what they were doing was anti-competitive behaviour and wanted to claim it was an integral part of the OS and couldn't be removed.

So great, 8 years of security headaches because Microsoft didn't care about the law and wanted to muscle in on the browser market. Damn right I have an axe to grind.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[SpooForBrains]

- changing file formats with every release for no reason other than to force companies to upgrade Office

1. The .doc, .xls, .ppt file formats have remained (broadly) the same from Office 97 through to Office 2003 inclusive. That's four major (as in major version number) iterations of the suite.
2. The new OOXML file formats introduced with Office 2007 are actually better. Sorry, but they are. They are considerably smaller, and offer new features not possible in the old formats (for example, .xlsx allows significantly more rows that .xls).

Hell, they even produced a free converter to allow Office 2003 to open the new file formats.

I'm not a Microsoft lover by any means. They could have made these file formats completely open and unencumbered to allow other office suites on other platforms to interact effectively with them, sure in the knowledge that Microsoft Office can compete with its rivals on its own merits (which I honestly believe it can). But, of course, they didn't.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[gaspyy]

Well, it depends on how big the minimum quarterly fee was...

And please, don't toss words like "rape" around unless you mean a really traumatic event. In Spyglass' case, the proper word would be "tricked".

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[gyrogeerloose]

It's not like I made it up, you know. It's been pretty well documented and Bill Gates has even signed documents attesting to the fact. Microsoft also paid Apple for copyright infringement in 1998. Here's one good article on it that you might be interested in checking out.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Directrix1]

Interesting. Irrelevant to my point that M$ is not afraid to sue.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Directrix1]

They still did it. And over a piece of open source software. They can say what they want, but they were obviously testing the waters.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[man_of_mr_e]

That article only talks about Microsoft copying the interface, not using Apple's source code. Interfaces can be copied by simply looking at them, and Microsoft did have advanced access to them.

Basically, Microsoft did to Apple what KDE did to Microsoft and Apple.

Also, no.. Microsoft did not pay Apple for coyright infringement, they paid them for Patent cross licensing. There is "rumor" that there was a payment for copyright infringement, but the rumor is that this was for Quicktime related code, so that doesn't really back up your argument.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[howlingmadhowie]

this appears to be something like the following:

• tomtom implements a file system using FAT because it is the only file system they can use to communicate with home PCs. there is no other choice and without this implementation their products would be worthless.
• microsoft steals the most important technology tomtom has so they can create a direct competitor
• tomtom asks microsoft to stop
• microsoft responds by threatening to destroy tomtom's business
• tomtom and microsoft decide to settle out of court

oh yes, watch that totally functioning patent system work its magic!

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I agree that our patent system has its problems (to put it mildly), and I'm against software and business method patents. However, there some problems with your analysis:

tomtom implements a file system using FAT because it is the only file system they can use to communicate with home PCs. there is no other choice and without this implementation their products would be worthless.

Obviously there are choices, since TomTom was reported as agreeing to remove the FAT code from their devices. Also, FAT is not a file transfer protocol. FTP, NFS, and Samba are protocols that can be used to move files from PC to device.

The only issue I see is if flash cards are used, since most of them come formatted with FAT from the manufacturer. TomTom could make a utility to convert the card to ext2 or whatever.

microsoft steals the most important technology tomtom has so they can create a direct competitor

The claims that TomTom had patented aren't that unique and have been implemented elsewhere. The thing that surprises me is that when I think of map software, I think of Delorme and they weren't a party in this dispute.

tomtom asks microsoft to stop

I don't think so. Microsoft isn't currently in the stand alone GPS market. Microsoft does have a mapping program that interfaces with a GPS. This may have been TomTom poorly executing an attempt to coerce Microsoft into making their mapping software take advantage of any extra features of the TomTom (or at least advertise that it does).

microsoft responds by threatening to destroy tomtom's business

Dial down the hyperbole. Microsoft responded by filing a counter suit that claimed the TomTom was also using Microsoft patents without paying a royalty. Basically, this is a case of Microsoft saying "Sue me and I'll sue you".

tomtom and microsoft decide to settle out of court

TomTom came to its senses and asked to settle, and Microsoft agreed. The point being that if Microsoft was trying to enforce some monopoly through patents, they would not have settled and basically allow TomTom to drown in legal fees.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Ilgaz]

Every part of Linux/BSD is clearly documented and documentation goes on for 40 years non stop, without any kind of patent issues and mysterious agreements. It is not the case on .NET.

I know people who happily runs Unix software on their Windows server blades getting first class support if they want to. Yes, not widely known but Windows can run all kinds of server software, not just Apache.

Flame wars? Oh yes, try to ask any community about any kind of issue, e.g. tell OS X community that your OpenGL performance mysteriously dropped half of what it was on Tiger when you upgraded to Leopard. See what kind of feedback you get. So? Pack it up, send a bug report to OS/App vendor and get professional support, find good communities, use Usenet...

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[EvanED]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what an OS does

And you're deliberately misunderstanding the parent. The term "OS" is commonly used to refer to not just the core OS, but the shell too. Probably more commonly than just the kernel and even user libraries.

For instance, from Ubuntu's home page: "Ubuntu is a community developed [sic], Linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers." Note that it does not say "Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system, desktop environment, and set of applications..."

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Trillan]

And what influence do you think Stallman has over Debian? And do you think that influence waxed or waned as a result of this little public temper tantrum?

So he has little influence, and he lost more as a result of this. So he "had to" do it, eh?

Stallman is irrelevant. His writings are a reminder that another side to an argument exists, but so polarized as to be useless as to what that side actually is.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Trillan]

No, it doesn't mean they're ignorant. It means they've decided to have other priorities that Comrade Stallman's mission, and do something different. Something they think will benefit users.

And I or anyone else can find 10 articles on Stallman's attention whorism in a second. The only reason it would take more time to find more is that Google returns 10 results per page.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Directrix1]

FTP, NFS, or Samba are fairly irrelevant. This is not a network connection. This is a device hooked up over USB. The logical and best way to expose this is as a disk, and the filesystem that Windows supports best is FAT. They are only doing this for Windows compatibility.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

nd I or anyone else can find 10 articles on Stallman's attention whorism in a second.

And you wrote two of them.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Bill_the_Engineer]

FTP, NFS, or Samba are fairly irrelevant. This is not a network connection.

It doesn't have to be a USB file device either. Regardless of the underlying protocol, nothing dictates that the FAT file system must be used.

Nothing prevents the GPS from appearing as a high speed serial port or even a USB based network adapter.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[Directrix1]

Yeah, well that requires a custom protocol. Exposing it as a file system is the most flexible and easy way.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO!

[alexo]

Can you stop arguing for a moment to realize that FAT isn't patented?
VFAT (long file names on FAT) is, but using 8.3 naming for a GPS storage is a reasonable, royalty-free, alternative.

M$ ??

[rotide]

M$? Overly biased summaries are a disgrace. If you don't like a company, fine, but this kind of nonsense is just immature.

Sorry for the rant, I just simply come here for a little higher caliber discussion.

Re:M$ ??

[iggymanz]

no big deal, investor's newsletter might give glowing recommendation of MIcrosoft's stock and use that abbreviation also. they have lots of cash, they make lots of money. they plan to charge even more money for their wares which run 97% the world's computers. M$ makes sense.

Re:M$ ??

[migla]

Can't we just lay off the "M$"-bashing, allready?

(and by that I mean the bashing of those who write "M$")

Yes, it may be childish or purple or whatever, but let's just settle on that Microsoft is bad and not bicker and argue about unimportant things like how to spell it, ok?

Re:M$ ??

[YourExperiment]

I just simply come here for a little higher caliber discussion.

You must be... ah, fuck it.

Stallman also says no to web browsing

[langelgjm]

Stallman also says no to web browsing.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[colinrichardday]

I would think that Stallman could spell "daemon" correctly, or does he really have Satan's minions working for him?

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Stallman also says no to web browsing.

No he doesn't. As the linked post says, he doesn't browse the web for PERSONAL REASONS. That's a completely different thing than advocating against using software that is patent bait.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[e2d2]

Daemon simply means demon in mythology so I would bet in his eyes the term is interchangeable, it is in mine.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[stephanruby]

I'm going to try that. I'm wasting so much time browsing the web, instead of doing real work. This might help.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[Razalhague]

"Unix users sometimes spell daemon as demon, and most usually pronounce the word that way."

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[bonch]

"Personal reasons" = he's a kook.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[Razalhague]

...because he obviously does that for security reasons instead of personal reasons as he claims in the post.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[osu-neko]

Daemon simply means demon in mythology so I would bet in his eyes the term is interchangeable, it is in mine.

Um, no, this is pretty much the exact opposite of the truth. In modern usage they've become nearly synonymous, but in mythology "daemon" refers to the ancient Greek beings that are really more closely analogous with "angels" in modern usage. Daemons are intermediaries between men and the gods, including everything from minor divinities down to ghosts of dead heroes. Of particular interest was the "agathos daemon", which is rather like a Greek "guardian angel".

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[poopdeville]

And from a Judeo-Christian perspective, they are all pagan demons...

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[poopdeville]

Or maybe he doesn't care for your type of inane babble, and uses the internet solely for his academic pursuits. You know, the same kinds of reasons some people don't watch television, or fall in line with your every whim. PERSONAL REASONS.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[DerPflanz]

Stallman also says no to web browsing.

No he doesn't. As the linked post says, he doesn't browse the web for PERSONAL REASONS. That's a completely different thing than advocating against using software that is patent bait.

Should the entire open source community follow a guy that does not use the web for personal reasons? Should we take him seriously still?

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[gyrogeerloose]

Actually, it appears that you're both right to a certain extent. From the Oxford American Dictionary:

daemon (also daimon)
noun
1 (in ancient Greek belief) a divinity or supernatural being of a nature between gods and humans.
an inner or attendant spirit or inspiring force.
2 archaic spelling of demon.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[colinrichardday]

And why would an atheist such as Stallman sanction such usage?

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[ajb44]

Knuth says no to email. You think that means his views should be discounted as well?

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[hairyfeet]

No Shit. And the guy just gets fricking weirder and weirder as the years roll on. By now I'm sure everyone has seen him eating toe cheese on stage, and THIS is the guy you want to listen to on the direction of Linux? Really?

If there has to be a guy at the head, like Bill or Jobs, then let it be Linus. He always seems to have a smart answer and a good head on his shoulders. With RMS, hell MSFT couldn't ask for a better spokesman. If I worked marketing in MSFT I would just make a clip showing Gates or Ballmer talking about some complex PC interaction and compare it to RMS eating toe cheese on stage and say "Which guy do YOU want directing where the OS you are using is headed?". Lets be honest here, the guy is a nut.

And I agree with the other poster that taking advice on an OS who biggest selling point is how well it works with the web from a guy that doesn't surf is just nuts. It would be like Apple taking direction from John McCain. But what do we expect from Twitter, "King of the sockpuppets"? I'm sure anybody that dares to say something bad about RMS will be modded down by his sockpuppet legions.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[langelgjm]

Remind me again of the part of my post where I say that Stallman's views should be discounted because he doesn't browse the web? Oh, that's right. You can't, because it's not there.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[Ilgaz]

So the point being? Why are you trying to change the direction of discussion?

Guy made a good joke and you tail at his comment with a completely irrelevant thing which you misunderstood from the beginning.

Are we doing basic politics on slashdot now?

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[poopdeville]

Because he doesn't care?

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[langelgjm]

Guy made a good joke and you tail at his comment with a completely irrelevant thing which you misunderstood from the beginning. Are we doing basic politics on slashdot now?

Inform me how I "misunderstood" what Stallman said?

Jesus Christ people, all I do is link to an interesting tidbit about Stallman not using web browsers, and you want to crucify me for it.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[gyrogeerloose]

They are pronounced the same, too.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[rohan972]

Daemon simply means demon in mythology so I would bet in his eyes the term is interchangeable, it is in mine.

Um, no, this is pretty much the exact opposite of the truth. In modern usage they've become nearly synonymous, but in mythology "daemon" refers to the ancient Greek beings that are really more closely analogous with "angels" in modern usage. Daemons are intermediaries between men and the gods, including everything from minor divinities down to ghosts of dead heroes. Of particular interest was the "agathos daemon", which is rather like a Greek "guardian angel".

My understanding is that the "demon" of modern usage would be the same being as a "daemon" but from a viewpoint affected by Christianity rather than Greek polytheism. In Christianity, demons are fallen angels, so your point ancient Greek beings that are really more closely analogous with "angels" in modern usage really doesn't say anything about them being different.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[dbIII]

THIS is the guy you want to listen to on the direction of Linux

Although he proposed changing the name of linux to LiGnuX and later gnu/linux he was never actually involved in linux at all. He's the gnu and FSF guy not a linux guy. He wrote the GPL, which stands on it's merits no matter what it's author's attitude to passwords, web browsing or whatever are. Unfortunately some people decided he's a hero to be followed slavishly instead of just a guy with a few brilliant ideas to consider. He's our Lindberg - an impressive pioneer with embarrassing extreme views on occasion.
Anyway - WTF is toe cheese although I probably don't want to know?

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[Ilgaz]

Your comment is OFF TOPIC and I don't know about your intentions but it really seems to have some kind of background behind it.

No, everyone doesn't like to browse the web genius. I have a very rich businessman uncle who doesn't even care to learn what Web browser is, his secretary and the media watching company prints out the interesting stuff and he reads them. It doesn't make him a weirdo as you like to show RMS.

I am sure if I checked enough, I would come up with something showing why you may have posted this comment right under +5 funny post but be glad, tired of your clone framework spammy and abusive junk talk which is going nowhere.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[Sark666]

Are they? I always pronounced it 'day-men'.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[langelgjm]

It doesn't make him a weirdo as you like to show RMS.

First of all, RMS is a weirdo. I bet if you asked him, he'd say so himself. I've had the opportunity to meet him as well, and he is pretty weird in person. Interesting, though.

I am sure if I checked enough, I would come up with something showing why you may have posted this comment right under +5 funny post

Feel free to search through my comment history for that, because you won't find jack shit.

Then, when you're done that, you'll realize that you misread my comment, took it the wrong way, and assumed that I was bashing RMS, open source, or whatever.

For the record, my offhand comment spawned some 76 comments underneath it at the time of this post, and I learned something interesting from one of them.

Y'all really need to take a chill pill - I'm fine with being modded down by people who thought I was trolling, but I don't care for comments in which the poster assumes I have some unstated agenda when that's completely absent from the original post.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[belmolis]

"da(e)mon" is a Greek word, which was spelled delta-alpha-iota-mu-omega-nu. It was borrowed into Latin with the spelling "daemon". Around 200 B.C.E. the diphthong spelled "ae" came to be pronounced as [e:], both in native Latin words and in loans from Greek. This change in pronunciation was only gradually reflected in Latin spelling, which was conservative (just like English still spells "knight" with the no-longer pronounced "k".) The result is that when borrowed into English you can get spellings both with and without the "a". The same is true of words like "arch(a)eology".

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[hairyfeet]

I'll start at the back and work my way up. To answer your question what is toe cheese, it is that funky shit that builds up between your toes, usually made of lint, old skin cells, and other funk. The fact that RMS thought it was okay to pull off his socks on stage and eat that shit should be a pretty good indicator of how batshit the guy is. This is also the guy that uses a Loongson ARM Netbook because the OLPC wasn't "open" enough because the BIOS and wifi chips weren't GPL'd. Which puts him at a fringe of less than 0.0001% of PC users, if that. so his opinion on anything other than GPL is automatically suspect to me.

And I personally think the "cult of RMS" and the going overboard with GPL is what is hurting Linux adoption more than anything else. With Windows a hardware manufacturer can write just 4 drivers and have the entire Windows ecosystem covered for a 14 YEAR stretch. There is no reason why Linux couldn't have the same functionality, which would make it easy for every device manufacturer to put a "Linux 32/64" folder on every CD and give MSFT a real run for their money, but RMS and his GPL hoarde would never allow it. Even Linus won't use GPL3 for the kernel! That should tell you something about how far GPL has gone from mainstream. And according to Wikipedia you aren't allowed to even interview him unless you agree to use "his words" for everything, and according to him "He is a "squatter" on campus at MIT". And THAT is the guy they want to listen to? Really?

If there HAS to be a figurehead then let it be Linus. He always comes off as intelligent,intellectual, and has a smart answer for just about any question you can throw at him, and most importantly seems to have a grasp on reality. The entire world is NEVER gonna embrace GPL for all their code, no matter how much toe cheese RMS eats. in real life there is always room for compromises. In the world of RMS it is "GPL or nothing". Which is fine if you only want to use a Loongson ARM Netbook and "surf" by using email daemons, but the rest of the world doesn't work like that. If Linux would gain a stable ABI so device drivers could be "write once, use forever" like they are with Windows then there would be no reason why shops couldn't put Linux boxes right next to Windows and let the public decide, because everything would "just work".

But by insisting that the only way to play in Linux is "GPL or nothing" you have guaranteed that Linux will stay a tiny niche. Because all these home consumer manufacturers just don't want to play your GPL game. I wrote an article for Linux Insider pointing out ways that the problem can be partially negated, but in the end a stable ABI and "write once use forever" must be deployed. Because there simply isn't enough GPL coders out there to reverse engineer the millions of device coming to market, and if the only way to support Linux is to embrace GPL than those companies simply won't support you. In the end it is simple as that, no matter what RMS says.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[GreatBunzinni]

So what? Donald Knuth doesn't use email since 1990. Does that also mean that, like what you are insinuating about Richard Stallman, he is somehow incompetent in the field of CS and IT? What does that mean, actually?

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Simple as that, and yet every year the world moves more towards RMS's vision and further from yours.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[Kjella]

Every time the "stable ABI" is brought up, the problem is that proprietary Linux drivers tend to be crap. They simply will not be anywhere near as good as proprietary windows drivers are. The solution is to instead create good classes of devices like for USB you have Human Interface Device (HID), Mass Storage and Video which in Linux is covered by a single driver. Make it to spec and it doesn't matter who makes it, even some Chinese knockoff that's never heard of Linux will work just fine. I would also say that if you're putting together a laptop today an OEM should have no big problem finding only Linux-friendly components.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[langelgjm]

Does that also mean that, like what you are insinuating about Richard Stallman, he is somehow incompetent in the field of CS and IT? What does that mean, actually?

I think if you re-read my comment, you'll see that I was insinuating nothing of the sort. See how you linked to an interesting fact about Knuth? Now, imagine that you just provided the link, without the accompanying commentary. Would that mean you were insinuating that Knuth was incompetent?

I hope this clears things up. If not, please see my several other comments to posters who misinterpreted my original post.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[e2d2]

Um, yes. Did I describe "demon" in a way that your description contradicts? They are the same.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[egork]

lost in translation, it seems.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[e2d2]

Everyone in the industry seems to, including me even though I know the correct pronunciation. And there lies the problem. The mispronunciation(?) leads to thoughts of differences between the two words, daemon versus demon but there is none afaik.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[sznupi]

Except in places where they were more or less simply renamed to the hundreds of deities of larger part of Judeo-Christian adherents.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[sznupi]

But "GPL only in the kernel" is a policy of Linus (who you seem to prefer)...and ultimately it has the potential to bring much better drivers (with a HUGE bonus of being independent from CPU architecture)

BTW, small nitpick - Loongson isn't ARM.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[jjohn_h]

> ...and THIS is the guy you want to listen to on the direction of Linux?

No, he is Linux allergic.

> If there has to be a guy at the head, like Bill or Jobs, then let it be Linus.

Linus *is* the head of the Linux kernel project. Free software has no head in that sense.

> "Which guy do YOU want directing where the OS you are using is headed?".

Please be advised that the issue at hands is not any OS, it is the Mono programming language.

> ...anybody that dares to say something bad about RMS will be modded down by his sockpuppet legions.

Quite possible, but how many sockpuppets are necessary to dump you in the gully?

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[hairyfeet]

Sorry, I thought it was an ARM ripoff when actually it is a MIPS ripoff. It still doesn't change the point of the post, which is a toe cheese eating squatter at MIT has major effect on one of the three major OSes, and the only one that has a real snowball's chance in hell of ever making a real challenge to MSFT.

But there is still too many problems and a lot of it has to do with RMS and his followers with their "GPL or Die" attitude. If I am a device manufacturer, is the GPL gonna indemnify me from any and all lawsuits from patent trolls if I open up my device drivers? Didn't think so. Look at the companies that HAVE released under GPL. IBM, Intel, AMD, HP. What do those companies have in common? A big patent portfolio which they can use like an anvil on any patent trolls that come out of the woodwork. Most companies don't have that so it would frankly be stupid to release ANY of their drivers under GPL. I'm sure any lawyer worth his salt would tell you the same. It just isn't worth the risk.

What they WOULD do is be happy to release a "Linux 32/64" driver for your OS, ala Nvidia. But as it is now writing a binary driver for Linux is like hitting a dartboard with a live bumblebee. There just isn't stable anything, from the kernel on up. I personally would love to be able to sell Linux boxes right next to my Windows ones. Instead it looks like I will be buying some extra Win7 licenses on the 1st. Why? Because less than 20% or so of the items sold in Staples, Best Buy, and Walmart work in Linux. Those that do often need serious CLI work to get going, and any problems? better be ready to "open up bash and type" which shoots my after market support through the roof. Your OS is nice, but it isn't worth bankruptcy.

Until the problem is fixed I'm betting their will be quite a few retail outlets just like me that refuse to sell Linux. And if Joe consumer can't find your machines in stores like he can Apple and Windows you will always be a niche. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[jipn4]

That's a completely different thing than advocating against using software that is patent bait.

And which software "is" patent bait? Microsoft has claimed patents on the Linux kernel, Linux compilers, and lots of other Linux tools. Sun, IBM, Oracle, Apple, Xerox, and others probably have many more patents. By your reasoning, we should stop using all of that. In terms of patents, C# is much more in the clear than most open source software.

As the linked post says, he doesn't browse the web for PERSONAL REASONS.

You wouldn't take advice on how to tune a high performance sports car from someone who rides around in a horse and buggy "for personal reasons". In the same way, Stallman's comments on Mono are not relevant anymore: he is out of touch and doesn't know what's going on anymore.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[novakreo]

No Shit. And the guy just gets fricking weirder and weirder as the years roll on. By now I'm sure everyone has seen him eating toe cheese on stage, and THIS is the guy you want to listen to on the direction of Linux? Really?

If a guy can eat his own earwax and become Prime Minister of Australia, I don't see what's quite so bad about eating toe cheese.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[andrewa]

I always thought that RMS advocated the potential advantages of RFC1149.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[LingNoi]

He does use email.

My secretary prints out all messages addressed to taocp@cs.stanford.edu or knuth-bug@cs.stanford.edu, so that I can reply with written comments when I have a chance.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And which software "is" patent bait? Microsoft has claimed patents on the Linux kernel, Linux compilers, and lots of other Linux tools.

No they haven't. They've waived their hands with nothing distinct. But C# and dotnet - they've filed patents on an disclosed those patents to ECMA when they submitted their stuff for standardization.

You wouldn't take advice on how to tune a high performance sports car from someone who rides around in a horse and buggy "for personal reasons".

Typically bad analogy, so completely far off the mark. RMS still writes code and he still pays close attention to IP law, its pretty much his full time job. So yeah, he is the one to be talking about how IP law applies to coding. And, FWIW, Seth Green completely disagrees with your horse and buggy/sports-car inferences.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[fritsd]

If there has to be a guy at the head,

Whatever gave you the idea that that's necessary?
And btw why would it need to be a guy?
It's a bit like saying "science needs to have a guy at the head", or "religion needs to have a guy at the head" (ok.. coming from a catholic background that's a bit contentious I realize..)
I've seen Stallmann once and he is NOT my messiah or "guy at the head" as you put it, however I think the man thinks deeply about things from an original point of view, and this makes his opinions valuable to me, regardless of whether I think they always make sense or are practical/feasible.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[jipn4]

No they haven't. They've waived their hands with nothing distinct.

Which is what I said: they have claimed that they have patents.

But C# and dotnet - they've filed patents on an disclosed those patents to ECMA when they submitted their stuff for standardization.

That is wrong. Microsoft has filed *a* patent on .NET, but that's not relevant to Tomboy or other Linux C# applications because those don't use .NET. Microsoft has not filed any patents on C#.

RMS still writes code

Yeah, but who actually cares? 20 years ago, people waited with bated breath for his new releases; these days--not anymore. I assume he fixed bugs in GNU C, but that makes him part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Which is what I said: they have claimed that they have patents.

I'm lazy.
Microsoft has created C# and dotnet from scratch and indications are that they have a very strategic and aggressive system in place to protect their interfaces with patents. Their aggressive patent strategy (judging by the number of patents they have acquired/sought in recent years). How can you compare a patent Microsoft might have related to a kernel or compiler that was developed years after the creation of the kernel/compiler/whatever with following a standard to the T that Microsoft created all by themselves (as mono does)?

that's not relevant to Tomboy or other Linux C# applications because those don't use .NET.

They use the runtime, that's part of what Mono is.

RMS still writes code

Yeah, but who actually cares?

Anyone who is paying attention instead of looking for a way to turn "doesn't use a gui web browser" into "doesn't know anything about software or IP law." Give it up.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[Ilgaz]

We all know what off topic, unrelated comments which results in 78 (!!!) other comments taking the basic discussion totally out of hand right?

Look it up...

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[triso]

"Personal reasons" = he's a kook.

He may be a kook but he's basically a good, warm-hearted kook. Now Michael Jackson, there's a real kook. The king of kook.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[jipn4]

Microsoft has created C# and dotnet from scratch and indications are that they have a very strategic and aggressive system in place to protect their interfaces with patents.

The set of possible patents that Microsoft holds on C# and related technologies is easy to look up and verify. Microsoft has applied for *one* patent on the .NET APIs, a patent that simply has no bearing on Mono as it is used on Linux.

As for "aggressive systems", Mono has never been threatened by Microsoft (in fact, they have supported it). As an example, by comparison, Sun has made legal threats against several open source projects and several vendors over Java.

How can you compare a patent Microsoft might have related to a kernel or compiler that was developed years after the creation of the kernel/compiler/whatever with following a standard to the T that Microsoft created all by themselves (as mono does)?

They aren't comparable at all; the situation with the kernel or compilers is obviously much worse.

Microsoft's patent application on the .NET APIs is specific and clear, and it is obvious that it has no bearing on Mono as used in Gnome, Debian, or Ubuntu because those systems don't use those APIs. Even if Mono did violate the patent somewhere, it would be easy to work around.

In contrast, the patents that Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Oracle, and other companies hold on kernel and compiler technologies likely do cover technologies used in the Linux kernel, GCC, Gnome, KDE, and lots of other tools we use daily. That's not a matter of "if", you can find them on the USPTO site. If Microsoft wanted to sue open source developers, they already have a much better basis for that then Mono.

Anyone who is paying attention instead

Well, I hope you're paying attention to RMS's other pronouncements as well, like, for example, not using Java.

Personally (and I probably have known the guy longer than you have been alive), there's some things he's really good at and a lot of things he's completely out of touch with.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[jipn4]

[that's not relevant to Tomboy or other Linux C# applications because those don't use .NET.]

They use the runtime, that's part of what Mono is.

That part isn't covered by the patent. Just because people like you sloppily refer to Microsoft's patent as the ".NET patent" doesn't mean that it covers everything Microsoft ships under the name ".NET". Come on, many, use your head and don't be such a marketing victim.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[spitzak]

RMS is certainly not involved in why the binary api for kernel modules keeps changing. The GPL is not really involved either, you can certainly imagine a stable binary api that is GPL'd, as well as a changing binary api that does not require the modules to be GPL'd, both would have some or even all of the problems you are complaining about.

You might want to not go off on incorrect tangents, because the basics of your argument are sound: RMS should not be a spokesman other than perhaps an indication of an extreme position (this can be useful to catch astroturfers: somebody agreeing with one extreme position of RMS but disagreeing with a less extreme Linus+RMS position at the same time is trying to make a bogus strawman argument). But accusing RMS of having something to do with the non-portability of binarly kernel modules is incorrect.

I do believe that technically the drivers will eventually move to user space except for the very high-speed ones such as disks/memory (where oddly enough there seem to be no real problems with GPL and changing binary apis), and that will solve this problem without compromising the kernel. Though this is really accidental I'm sure a lot of Linux fans will jump on the success of this as a big win for Linux and ignore the history.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[dbIII]

With respect you have been badly misled - there are several thousand linux developers that have far more influence on linux than RMS. He wrote the licence around twenty years ago, others actually wrote the code.
As for your other point there are many hardware manufacturers that manage to do it without a great deal of effort. I'm curious as to where your "less than 20%" comes from and if it is a guess I hope you put a bit more effort into your published articles.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That part isn't covered by the patent. Just because people like you sloppily refer to Microsoft's patent as the ".NET patent

"The Patent" - sorry, but what are you talking about? I never refered to "a" or "the" patent. Essentially I referred to every patent MS has, and that's a lot since they have been #1 or #2 in terms of the number of patents filed for probably close to a decade now. Patents which are deliberately written to be as obtuse and indecipherable as possible so as to maximize their applicability and minimize the ability of others to glean any useful knowledge from them. If you really think that there is only one patent that MS thinks applies to dotnet, then I can't sell you a bridge because you've already bought it.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[hairyfeet]

I came up with my 20% by walking into a Walmart supercenter and writing down what i saw. geeks never seem to get this, but consumers just don't think or work like us. I have actually saved links on a woman's desktop saying "Buy RAM here" and watched as she drove 50 miles to best Buy to pay double what she would have paid to buy RAM online. That is just how they are, they want something, they want it now, they are willing to pay. That is why Walmart and Staples and Best Buy are still selling computers and peripherals. And most simply don't work in Linux. Or if they do it is of the "Well, here is a driver some guy wrote a couple years back for a different model that you can hack and it'll mostly work".

Here is what happens when you sell Linux retail. They buy the PC/notebook/whatever, they then go to the big three, Walmart/Staples/Best buy, they go "ooohh...sale!" and put some stuff in the cart. Said stuff doesn't have Linux support, because as I said from my trip to the supercenter about 20% there does. Then they bring it back to you because it is "broken" and expect you to "fix it", which of course you can't. So you either burn the customer and word quickly spreads and you go out of business, or you take it back and eat the difference between what the unit sold for new and what you can get for it used.

Or I can pay $89 for XP Home or $139 for XP Pro32/64, pass it on to the consumer and all those problems just melt away like ice cream in July. My after sale support costs drop to zero and the only calls I get from my customers are "Can you find the time to fix/build my (insert relative) a PC?". And please don't bring up support contracts or bundling. Support contracts are fine for businesses, but consumers hate them with a passion. Just look at all the hatred Best Buy gets for trying to push extended warranties. And bundling will bankrupt you unless you can buy the items in Dell/Walmart sized loads, which I can't.

Now do you see the problem? Linux is fine for servers, its intended job, because companies like Oracle and Red Hat spend major bucks on making sure everything "just works". Linux is fine for geeks that are willing to research every single purchase they make for the life of the PC for their "free" OS. But that just cut out 95%+ of the market, including all of my customers. And if there is even the tiniest problem in Linux the first, last, and usually ONLY advice you will get is "open up bash and type" which is fine for a geek with IT experience, but for actual consumers? You might as well be telling them to go paint themselves blue and dance naked in the back yard under the full moon. Which means that they have to bring it to me, again raising my after market support costs.

Whether Linux fans like it or not, it all comes down to money. And MSFT Operating Systems end up costing me less in support and headaches than your "free" OS, which due to the lack of drivers, lack of even basic tools like "runas" being included in the defaults, and having to often drop to CLI to fix even basic problems, quickly becomes "free as in worthless" to my customers. That ain't FUD, that is reality. Geeks don't buy computers from retailers like me. They buy online or build their own. I have to serve my customers needs, which are Joe and Jane average. And your OS just isn't ready for them, and with the elitist attitude I get from a lot of Linux forums I doubt it ever will be. Sorry.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[dbIII]

Thanks for the reply. Since I'm in a different country I have to take your word for what Walmart has however in Australia the vast majority of the computer parts or peripherals you can get from any computer shop are linux or usually even mac compatible whether you are looking for that or not - I wouldn't be able to find 20% that won't work unless I only looked at 5 things. It really is the sort of post I would have expected before 1997, but as I said before, I was not there with you when you were looking at the items, and I do believe you despite it being vastly different to my own experience since most likely different brands I've never seen dominate your market (eg. recently came across an expensive pile of crap pretending to be a panasonic toughbook under a brand called Twinhead which is apparently big in the USA but can't compete against asian brands elsewhere).
However I have to say that in my opinion it's only recently with the eeepc that there has been a mass produced, polished, "mac like", already prepared linux based PC "that just works" where nobody should really care what the underlying system is. People are willing to put up with all kinds of crap and malware on MS Windows because that is what they are used to so usually a different system is only worth a go if it gives you different features - like the first series of netbooks. XP netbooks are slow in comparison even with decent processors - I don't know why they didn't put an MS Windows CE descendant on the things to compete.
I also have to agree that the typical linux user is the sort of person that would put their computer together from parts since it's now such an easy thing to do. The last few dual head systems I put together even had two DVI outputs on the motherboard. So just 3 parts, shove it in a box with a few wires to connect and you have a midrange graphics workstation better than anything SGI put on a desk.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[hairyfeet]

I really hate to be the bearer of bad new, but ASUS is getting out of the Linux Netbook game. I'm willing to bet my last USD it is because like MSI they saw 400% returns on their Linux product.

You have to give the people what they want. The people want to walk into Best Buy/Staples/Walmart and drop anything in their cart and have it work in Linux. I hate to again be the bearer of bad new but AU is about as opposite as you can get from the USA. here very little works with Linux. Lexmark? BWa ha ha! Those USB TV and Wifi tuners? In your dreams! Those webcams? Maybe, but since most of the cameras "features" are actually in the software, which won't work on Linux, you end up with a camera that only does 1/5th of what is advertised. Not good.

This is why Linux got slaughtered on netbooks, which were practically designed for it. It wasn't a conspiracy, with MSFT paying everybody off, it is because geeks don't think like consumers. As an OEM, which one of these is easier? Trying to walk the user through a huge list of arcane Unix commands and hoping they don't mistype and bork the whole system, or telling them "Google name of device XP driver". I know which one I prefer, because it saves me time and time is money.

I know Linux is supposed to be "free as in beer and freedom" but if you are an OEM selling to Joe and Jane average it will bankrupt you. Sorry, but it is true. There are still way too many devices that don't work, or that will work after endless hoops but with reduced functionality, simple things that would help the user such as "runas" not being included because Linux geeks feel more at home in bash than the GUI, and even the most simple problem there is rarely a default tool to get the job done, and most of the time your answer will be "open up bash and type". When you see that you might as well say "Please go have someone put Windows on it for you. Thanks" because that is what happens. Geeks don't get that for MSFT and Apple users there is NO CLI in their OS. None at all. They have never even used start>run before. To them there is only the GUI. And I'm sorry but Linux just isn't ready for them yet. No Sale.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[dbIII]

Hmm, 4 times the number of laptops sold returned? Now I know where that "20%" came from :(

You obviously have very strong views and are evangelical about them and may have convinced me in 1997 but I really do not care now. My users are on linux and solaris simply becuase that is what the software runs on and so long as it is a trivial exercise for me to find suitable hardware (and it is despite your number), then it isn't a difficult task.
Also, have you actually used any of the asus netbooks? The only time I've used a command line interface on one of the things was just to see if it was there, you don't actually need it.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing

[hairyfeet]

I didn't say there was any problems with the netbooks. they are fine as long as you don't..oh i don't know, need to actually print anything since Lexmark is 3 out of the top 5 sellers for all in one printer scanner faxes here and I have yet to see one actually get full functionality.

If Linux works for you then I am truly happy for you. I notice you said "so long as it is a trivial exercise for me to find suitable hardware" which means you having to do all the shopping for your users or it is just you. Again, much easier in a corporate environment where you can be a BOFH and set strict rules on what comes into the office. Selling to home users you just don't get that luxury. The customer is completely out of your control once they leave your door, but you still have a 30-60-90 day(depending on the model) warranty you have to deal with. And they don't care why it don't work, to them it is "broke" and you need to fix it.

I have tried selling Linux 4 times in the last 4 years, the last Ubuntu 9.04. In every single sale I ended up with the customer bringing it back with some gadget they got at Walmart that refused to work, and after spending a half a day or more of my own time trying to get it to work i couldn't get it going either. So I either have to burn the customer and go out of business when the bad word spreads, or take the box back and eat the cost difference between what it sold for new and what I can get for a used machine.

Like I said I just can't afford to sell your "free" OS as I will go bankrupt. Geeks that actually know about Linux simply don't buy retail. they build it themselves or order online for cheaper than I can sell it because they are getting it straight off the boat from China. So I have to sell to the market I have, which is home users and SMBs. And for them Linux just has way too many problems to recommend. It is literally cheaper in the short and long term to simply figure in the cost of a Windows CAL than it is to try to undercut the competition by selling Linux. As the link I gave in the previous post showed, MSI found the same problem I did. Their Netbook could run like a dream but when they go to plug in that printer, TV tuner, webcam, etc and it doesn't have Linux support the netbook comes back.

I truly hope in the future that changes. I want there to be free market competition and Apple is simply too expensive for the common man. But I also have to be a rwalist. If I, with 15 years of IT experience can't get the @$%#@%$#@ Bradcom Wifi card to work in my fricking laptop with Linux, what are the odds my customers will be able to? Or the Lexmark printer? Or my PCI TV Tuner? In every case after trawling forums the best I got was a bunch of "open up bash and type" huge commands that....well they didn't work, or in the case of the Broadcom didn't work with any reliability. So until the problems are fixed I am glad that Linux works for you but my customers will be getting Windows. It is simply a better value for me and for them.

Manged Code

[digitalunity]

Just say no.

I've been writing some winforms applications and all I've got to say is "no". As a long time Qt programmer, I found winforms initially familiar, but it's got a lot of quirks that drive me nuts.

I'll stick with Qt on C++ thank you very much.

Re:Manged Code

[modmans2ndcoming]

quirks like what?

You do realize that QT and winforms are completely different toolkits right? it should be expected that they implement functionality in different ways.

Re:Manged Code

[DrXym]

Winforms were originally based on Windows controls which may be why they're quirky. For example, they more or less assume that each control is a window in its own right with a WNDPROC which messes with all sorts of things such as z-order, clipping, theme etc. And of course Mono has to hack around any Windows dependencies. However, these days you can use WPF instead which is a lot more platform agnostic and the UI is defined in XML which is a huge bonus.

Anyway (and this isn't necessarily QT's fault), if your goal is cross-platform development then choosing C++ as your language introduces heaps of problems all by itself so its not without its own quirks.

Re:Manged Code

[digitalunity]

Winforms and Qt are actually very similar from a UI API perspective. Function names aren't identical, but there are so many similarities that I can switch back and forth between MSVC/Winforms and C++/Qt pretty easily.

Quirks? For starters, rich text boxes in winforms are still wrappers for legacy WIN32 text boxes, meaning reimplementing them to add functionality is a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Using unmanaged code and managed code in the same project is made intentionally inconvenient.

Re:Manged Code

[digitalunity]

I've encountered relatively few problems so far with cross platform Qt/C++ applications. The most difficult part is when I am relying on external libraries that aren't cross platform, but this doesn't happen very often.

You couldn't pay me enough to want to use WPF. Thanks though.

Re:Manged Code

[jcupitt65]

Mono is just like Java: it's a compiled, statically-typed, managed language. So you get near to the speed of C/C++, but memory errors are mostly impossible. The downside (compared to C) is typically a doubling in memory requirements, though it depends a lot on the program.

Eliminating memory errors produces a surprisingly large increase in productivity. The first Java program I wrote was about 5,000 lines of code, and once I got it through the compiler, it pretty much worked first time, except for some tuning. A very different experience from my C programs, heh.

Having said that, I still prefer a mix of C/C++/Python myself.

Re:Manged Code

[harlows_monkeys]

I've been writing some winforms applications and all I've got to say is "no". As a long time Qt programmer, I found winforms initially familiar, but it's got a lot of quirks that drive me nuts.

Generally, you would not use winforms when writing a Linux application using Mono. You would use the Mono GTK bindings. You'd only use winforms if you were trying to make an app that runs on both Windows and Linux

Also, winforms is not part of the ECMA or ISO standards, so if you use winforms you actually do run a patent risk. Winforms is covered by Microsoft patents, whereas the ISO and ECMA parts are not known to be covered, and if they are covered, Microsoft has promised they will license them royalty free and on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

Re:Manged Code

[modmans2ndcoming]

Again.... they are different toolkits so they should not be expected to work the same. Microsoft choosing an easy way out for .net is a valid complaint, but calling it a quirk is a little to far.

Re:Manged Code

[digitalunity]

No, even a quirk isn't the right word.

The .NET controls being wrappers for the WIN32 controls is just stupid. The whole point of Winforms is to encapsulate UI classes and events into a logical object oriented structure. When you have to delve into WIN32 messages to handle what should be basic events because you want to add a small feature to a preexisting control, it's a sign there is a problem.

In my opinion, Microsoft did this(partly) because if .NET reimplemented all of the Winforms functionality, it would give software developers MORE portability. Right now, writing cross-platform with Winforms is virtually impossible if you need to subclass controls. If cross-platform were easy, more big software packages that drive Windows dominance would begin to appear for Linux.

Did RMS get back on his meds?

[Anonymous Coward]

He actually didn't make himself look like the raving lunatic he usually does. His argument is hinged on the idea that one day Microsoft is planning to ruin C# for everybody, which I don't think will happen, but he raises a valid concern nonetheless.

Also, get off it with the "M$" bullshit. Yeah, companies like money.

Re:Did RMS get back on his meds?

[Yvan256]

You mean like APPL€?

Re:Did RMS get back on his meds?

[binarylarry]

lol, I love that.

It reminds me of the old apple logo with the scanlines. :)

Re:Did RMS get back on his meds?

[Haxamanish]

Or like IB|¥|?

Yes to Mono!

[burisch_research]

I'm a C# [doze] developer, but I'm with the Linux/GNU crowd when it comes to FOSS ideologies. Installing mono by default on all Linuxes I think is a great idea, because it gives me the opportunity to port my apps painlessly to the widest possible audience! This includes mac.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hook. Line. and Sinker.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[IRWolfie-]

but as stallman was saying: there is still the risk if people starting writing new apps in C# that there will be a big dependency on it which could be crippling if removed a time later

Re:Yes to Mono!

[burisch_research]

Try removing GCC from linux ... that would effectively cripple things ya?

Re:Yes to Mono!

[iggymanz]

but recent gcc can't be removed with future patent or other legal claims restricting use or rights that exist now. GPL 3 license forbids it

Re:Yes to Mono!

[Erikderzweite]

Do you remember WISE? Windows Interface Source Environment. A program that purportedly allowed developers to write software to Windows APIs and run the resulting programs on Macintosh and UNIX systems. It was issued in 1994. By 1996 Microsoft had captured a large share of the corporate market and has proceeded to the next step: Microsoft has extended the Windows API without copying its changes to the WISE program. This meant that developers could no longer smoothly port applications to UNIX and
Macintosh. In public, however, Microsoft continued to lead developers into believing that this software was still fully cross-platform. In 1997, Bill Gates noted in an internal email that those developers who wrote applications for the then-available software without realizing that it would not port all APIs to UNIX and Macintosh were "just fucked."

Re:Yes to Mono!

[Planesdragon]

but recent gcc can't be removed with future patent or other legal claims restricting use or rights that exist now. GPL 3 license forbids it

A license is the least effective instrument of law. If, for example, the state government of California decided to release a Linux distribution that violated it, right now there's NO recourse -- because state governments currently cannot be sued for copyright infringement.

And that ignores what would happen if Congress amended the copyright law to treat software differently from fiction. "Open Source" could become "Public Domain" very easily.

(And this is just talking about the United States; let's not even get into what India or China could do.)

Re:Yes to Mono!

[phantomcircuit]

The default install of ubuntu does not ship with gcc. You have to install it as a separate package. Ubuntu works just fine.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[gbjbaanb]

so what if they did. See, GCC is an open-source program, go ahead and download the source code. There you go, you now own that. It doesn't matter if Stallman turns into a recluse, forbids use of it or whatever, its out, you have it, the licence says you can do pretty much what you like with it (the only stipulation upon you is to release any change you make to it - so others get the benefits you got when you downloaded it).

Mono, on the other hand, already has a patent-licencing agreement in place with Novell. That means that you do not have that same agreement, and that there is an axe hanging over it, should Microsoft ever decide that its patent licence needs to be enforced. That enforcement will probably happen when Mono apps become popular enough that Linux 'sales' increase to the detriment of Windows marketshare.

Now, if you want to talk about what would happen in California ripped Mono off, perhaps so it could save billions on Windows licences and run everything on Linux, then things would be interesting!

Re:Yes to Mono!

[blackest_k]

The problem with mono is making it a dependency for the Desktop, Ubuntu (I can't speak for debian) has 2 default applications written using mono, fspot photo editor and one other that has been ported (i forget its name but the replacement binary is 4 meg). The default install of mono requires about 50 meg of disk space.

Now there is no reason for me to waste over 50 meg of hdd space for 2 mono applications I don't use, is there?

I'm not a hairshirt fundamentalist, I accept that there could be a Mono App I'd like to use.
So apt-get install your.app will get me your app and the dependencies it needs which would be mono.

If I don't want your app, then I don't need mono. If the worst came to the worst and Microsoft did invoke its mono related patents then I lose a few apps, if its a dependency for the desktop to install then it gets a bit more complicated, much more if there is some fundamental part of the desktop without a monoless alternative.

As long as mono isn't a dependency its relatively safe to use it. In fact as a developer writing mono apps your in a worse position if MS throws its weight around and your users are forced to chose between your app and getting sued.

Like I say use mono but keep it from being a system dependency. Adobe Flash for example is probably on most installations but it isn't a system dependency and installed by default. Heck maybe install mono by default just keep it removable, fair enough, should keep most of us happy.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[PAjamian]

The flip side to that argument is that it allows your bosses to justify that you continue to develop in C#. Without Mono they would have to allow you to develop in a more free language if they wanted their apps to run on platforms other than windows.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[markkezner]

The difference here is that, AFAIK, Microsoft would not have a leg to stand on in claiming some IP in GCC. They had nothing\little to do with its development or design. The danger of someone forcing the free software community to abandon it is not significant.

Mono, on the other hand, is made to be compatible with .net programs as much as possible. Microsoft created .net and holds patents associated with it. Thus, they could make legal arguments based on this which some judge\jury somewhere might agree with.

That's the danger here, not the concept of dependencies in general.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[clintp]

I develop on both Windows and other OS's. (25+ years of writing for Unix and Windows.)

Mono's great for the occasions that I need to write code that work fine on Linux and Windows. The tools are fine, the porting is seamless, and it just works. If MS decides to submarine-patent Mono somehow (which still hasn't been specified *how*...) then I'll move my tools to something else. In the meantime it works and its easy to use.

These FUD sessions are unproductive for everyone. Go write some code.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[Luke has no name]

Mono is required to RUN Mono programs, like openjdk or sun-java is required to run Java programs. gcc isn't required to run compiled programs.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[phantomcircuit]

Uhm yeah that was kind of my point.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[rohan972]

I'm a C# [doze] developer, but I'm with the Linux/GNU crowd when it comes to FOSS ideologies.

So you are someone who lives contrary to their ideology then? Perhaps I've misunderstood your post. It appears to me that you are a proprietary software developer, yes?

Installing mono by default on all Linuxes I think is a great idea, because it gives me the opportunity to port my apps painlessly to the widest possible audience! This includes mac.

burisch_research, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you earning your living that way. However, Free software is not made to cater to your ways, neither is your opinion on the direction Free software should take sought or valued.

If I've read too much into your post and got it wrong, my apologies.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[Mr2001]

Mono, on the other hand, already has a patent-licencing agreement in place with Novell. That means that you do not have that same agreement, and that there is an axe hanging over it, should Microsoft ever decide that its patent licence needs to be enforced. That enforcement will probably happen when Mono apps become popular enough that Linux 'sales' increase to the detriment of Windows marketshare.

The licensing arrangement between MS and Novell doesn't mention Mono specifically, and really has nothing to do with Mono.

The arrangement you should be looking at is Microsoft's obligation to provide reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing of any patents needed to implement the ECMA standards for C# and CLI, and their decision to go even further and offer these licenses royalty-free.

Worst case scenario: the community has to scrape together some money to buy a one-time license if MS decides to go that route. But even that's unlikely, IMO. No one ever seems to be able to point out any actual patents that could be used against Mono anyway.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[armanox]

It may not ship with it, but it was built and linked with it.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[IntlHarvester]

Do you know of any commercial software that used WISE? Aside from whatever strategic considerations, my impression was that it was cancelled because it sucked and nobody used it. (Including MS internally.)

Re:Yes to Mono!

[aztracker1]

First, this is highly unlikely as the risk/reward is too high. MS has seen so much backlash from comments earlier in the decade they've done a big 180. Second, the mono platform is based on a published standard, with the non-stanfard bits having alternatives. Third, eliminating mono wouldn't serve MS at all because the applications that run on mono would have alternatives, or soon be ported to other architectures thus remaining as competition.

So in essence eliminating mono could only harm Microsoft, as it could create even more ill-will. Providing patent protection wouldn't help either, because in the recent past deals that have provided said protections haven't improved the anti-ms sentiment anyway.

By letting mono exist, and even furthering efforts by providing additional resources to mono under MS-PL (a bsd-like license), MS generates good will. it allows for applications developed for non-windows platforms to be easily ported to windows (tomboy is available on windows thanks to mono/gtk# efforts). And doesn't detract from windows as a platform, or the features that MS createsas value-ads for the windows and ms platform.

The anti-MS zeolotry behind the anti-mono movement are guided by a lot of FUD, plain and simple. There is no logical motivation behind it that isn't rooted with a level of hypocrisy (fat/32 and samba support).

Re:Yes to Mono!

[dbIII]

Not as much as you think - embedded versions of linux use a different libc already.It's also fairly irrelevant since it's not a thing that is going to happen on the word of RMS alone. For example, he nearly lost the gcc team from gnu when he tried to get them to stop putting linux only optimisations in and to focus on only things that helped hurd. People should remember that RMS has projects of his own and that linux is run by others (despite the stupid attempt at a name change to LiGnuX etc for "advertising" reasons).

Re:Yes to Mono!

[molnarcs]

I heard the cross platform argument before, so I'll bite. Mono has been around for how many years exactly? And in that time, how many great, or wait, I settle for useful cross platform applications has been written that run on both *nix and windows?

Care to point to yours or anyone else's windows app written in C# that I need on linux (and is actually feasable to port)?

Re:Yes to Mono!

[mvdwege]

What decision to go royalty-free? Where is the official statement that Microsoft will license any applicable patents in C# royalty free? Because the only thing I have been able to find were informal statements on mailing lists and in interviews.

There is no royalty-free license for C#/CLI. If I am mistaken, please provide me with a link to one.

Mart

Re:Yes to Mono!

[Mr2001]

There is no royalty-free license for C#/CLI. If I am mistaken, please provide me with a link to one.

Sure, right after you provide a link to the paid license and the patents it applies to.

"Informal statements on mailing lists and in interviews" may not be the sort of evidence you'd prefer, but they still beat "wild speculation on Slashdot".

Re:Yes to Mono!

[mvdwege]

It doesn't work that way. Microsoft, the Mono developers, and the fanbois, keep asserting that Microsoft provides royalty-free licensing for any patents in C#/CLI. It is up to you to prove that assertion. Until you do, the opposition is fully in their rights to assume there is a patent problem.

So, where is the official royalty-free license to any patents that may apply to C#/CLI?

Mart

Re:Yes to Mono!

[iggymanz]

it is still an open question in law whether states are immune from copyright infringement, however the federal government of the U.S. is immune. But whatever power and dangers exist apply to closed as well as open source softwares in that regard, in theory the government could assume ownership and control of any code.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[clintp]

I tend to scratch my own itches, or those of my employers.

For personal use last Halloween I wrote a distributed, synchronized display system for the house. The server running the show was a Linux system (debian). The clients were all netbook/notebook class Windows systems running XP and Vista. All of it written in C#/Mono and written (almost) exclusively with Visual Studio.

It's useful and cross-platform. Just because you didn't need it, want it, or know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't useful. A lot more software is unseen than seen.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[imtheguru]

Ubuntu (I can't speak for debian) has 2 default applications written using mono, fspot photo editor and one other that has been ported (i forget its name but the replacement binary is 4 meg).

Beagle, 4657k.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[Mr2001]

It doesn't work that way.

Oh, I see. How convenient that your position -- that there exists a means by which Microsoft could pull the rug out from under Mono -- requires no evidence whatsoever, while the opposing position requires solid proof. Why, it's almost as if you're imposing a double standard in your own favor.

Microsoft, the Mono developers, and the fanbois, keep asserting that Microsoft provides royalty-free licensing for any patents in C#/CLI. It is up to you to prove that assertion.

Meanwhile, you get to make all the assertions you want with zero proof. Funny how that works.

Until you do, the opposition is fully in their rights to assume there is a patent problem.

There might be goblins following me around, hiding out of sight and moving quickly enough that I can't see them when I turn my head. Some people claim there aren't, but they have not proven their assertion. Until they do, I'd be fully in my rights to assume there are goblins following me.

Of course, I'd be a paranoid lunatic if I made that assumption. In the absence of evidence -- or, hell, even in the face of opposing evidence -- you have the right to believe whatever you want. But that doesn't mean all beliefs are equally reasonable or deserving of respect.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[mvdwege]

Microsoft implies very heavily that there are patent problems, and that they at least will license them RAND, given their official statement with ECMA-334. The Mono fanbois assert there is no patent problem because Microsoft will license the patents royalty-free.

You assert, you prove. No amount of trying to twist around from under your burden of proof is going to save you. It's just going to make you look like a Microsoft shill.

Mart

Re:Yes to Mono!

[Mr2001]

Microsoft implies very heavily that there are patent problems

So you'll believe that without questioning it, but you won't believe them when they say they'll offer a royalty free license.

You assert, you prove. No amount of trying to twist around from under your burden of proof is going to save you.

And yet you seem to think it'll save you. Same standard for both of us, buddy.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[mvdwege]

Actually, I've given a source. You, so far, haven't. So if we're going to apply the same standard, why don't you put up or shut up, Mr. Shill?

Mart

Re:Yes to Mono!

[PastaLover]

but recent gcc can't be removed with future patent or other legal claims restricting use or rights that exist now. GPL 3 license forbids it

People take ridiculous patents out on existing technology all the time. Hell you could probably take out some patents right now and sue the hell out of the main gcc developers or the gnu project. That doesn't mean you will though. It's not because it's Microsoft that they've suddenly completely lost all common sense.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[Mr2001]

Actually, I've given a source.

All you've done is mention ECMA-334, which includes a boilerplate legal message stating that Microsoft will "grant, on a non-discriminatory basis, to any party requesting it, licenses on reasonable terms and conditions, for its patent(s) deemed to be necessary for the implementation of the ECMA Standard".

You have not given any evidence that any such patents actually exist, or that anyone has been or will be charged for a license (i.e. that the statement about royalty-free licensing is untrue).

You, so far, haven't.

My source for the royalty-free claim is a mailing list posting, archived here, in which Jim Miller says "Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a 'royalty-free and otherwise RAND' basis for this purpose."

I assumed you were already familiar with that source, since you said earlier "the only thing I have been able to find were informal statements on mailing lists and in interviews".

So if we're going to apply the same standard, why don't you put up or shut up, Mr. Shill?

Please, call me Microsoft, or Mike for short. Mr. Shill was my father.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[mvdwege]

A mailing list post. Right. And that is a patent license in your eyes? Go pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Mart

Re:Yes to Mono!

[Mr2001]

A mailing list post. Right. And that is a patent license in your eyes?

It's exactly what it appears to be: a statement from a Microsoft employee that in the event any patents are necessary to implement the standard, they will be available royalty-free.

You're claiming that the statement is untrue. You have no evidence for that claim; all you have is FUD.

And don't forget, the existence of those patents is still essentially a myth. The boilerplate notice you cited doesn't mention any specific patents, or even indicate how many there might be.

Go pull the other one, it's got bells on.

OK, you have FUD and snarky remarks. Unfortunately, all the FUD and snark in the world still doesn't add up to one shred of evidence.

You've been dodging long enough. Please don't waste my time with another reply unless it cites positive evidence that (1) Microsoft actually has patents necessary for the implementation of C# or CLI, or (2) the statement from a Microsoft employee regarding royalty-free licensing of any such patents is untrue.

Re:Yes to Mono!

[mvdwege]

Actually, I am not claiming it is untrue. So you are not a shill. You're just stupid.

Mart

MS is smart enough not to do this

[nateman1352]

Microsoft sueing the mono project and forcing it underground through software patents would be an enormous shoot to the foot. Mono does nothing more and proliferate the .NET platform, often at the expense of Java. The thing that Microsoft likes so much about .NET is that while mono and Portable.NET provide a way to make true cross platform apps, there are many, many Microsoft specific extensions to the core, which makes it very easy to make a .NET app that is not portable. In the late 90s Java was the same way thanks to Microsoft's JVM with builtin COM support, and various other Microsoft technologies. The Java of today however is designed in such a way that it is difficult to make a Java app that is not cross platform, which is why that hate it so much. Mono makes .NET exactly what Microsoft wants it to be, technically open yet easily locked to thier platform.

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[satch89450]

Add to that the fact the M$ published the spec under a recognized standards body and that was the point at which the zealot's heads began to swell until the point of explosion.

That "publishing under a recognized standards body" didn't stop RAMBUS from trying to pull a fast one. It all depends how Microsoft presented the specification that determines what they can and cannot do in court to cripple use of Mono. Most of the recognized standards bodies have required that the contributor(s) grant licenses to use the ideas described by the standard. The licenses do not have to be royalty-free, just "reasonable" and uniform. Most licenses have a fixed payment per use, which means that "free" is not an option.

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[shutdown -p now]

Could you come up with real specific examples? Because all I see, year after year, is Mono progressing.

Mono still has no WPF, and no present plans to implement it in foreseeable future.

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft sueing the mono project and forcing it underground through software patents would be an enormous shoot to the foot.

Kind of like suing TomTom was a major shot in the foot? MS kept their patents, got their licensing fee from TomTom, and no one cares. What would really happen if popular applications were written for the Common Language Runtime (say, Firefox or OpenOffice) is that as soon as Microsoft sued Linux distributions who shipped Mono, users would just switch to Windows to run their applications. If there's anything to learn from the MS/Linux battle, it's that applications matter far more than operating systems.

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[nateman1352]

First of all, between COM Interop and P/Invoke, it is very easy to inter operate with native code from managed. This can be very handy, it enabled easy ports of GTK, Win32 (via Windows.Forms), Qt, WxWidgets, SQLite and many others to .NET. But the biggest use for P/Invoke in typical .NET applications is to make calls to the Win32 API directly, because the framework doesn't have managed libraries for every Windows API. This of course creates applications that can only run under Windows. A lot of times .NET apps will run under Mono for Windows, but not Mono for Linux because of this.

Even of course there the fact that MS drives the direction of .NET, and the Microsoft implementation will always be ahead of the game because of that. Mono is missing most of the new features in .NET 3.5 WPF, WCF, etc. The main exception being an almost complete LINQ implementation. Moreover the DLR stuff will be coming with .NET 4.0 very soon, which will just put them even further behind. And Mono is likely to never have support for XNA applications.

In summary the total common feature set between both implementations is less than the total feature set, and a lot of what is missing is cool new stuff. So apps that only work on the MS implementation are common. This is exactly what they want, its technically an open platform, but not really in practice.

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[nurb432]

If it threatens their base, its gone. Currently its just a bunch of 'outsiders' that have zero impact on Microsoft's bottom line.

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[Svartalf]

Add to that the fact the M$ published the spec under a recognized standards body

They did so, also claiming patent coverage for the stuff under that spec.

Unless you have a patent license that is compatible with the GPL for those patents from MS, you have a problem using it. Moreover, unless you have a license (so far, I've seen NOTHING indicating anything of the sort...MS and Novell's covenant is only applicable to Novell's customers, not the community at large...), implementing a version of that standard can open you up to the risk of committing an act of willful infringement (look it up...) of the said patents.

It's ill advised from the start and you can frame it however you like- unless you can produce a proper covenant or license that actually does something to protect the community at large, you have no protection and it's like sticking your head in the jaws of the lion.

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[Slothy]

People say things like this, and it just makes me wonder if people realize that this logic dooms EVERYTHING. Any standard, any proprietary non-patented open source app. At some point you have to write code, and with our current legal system, you are now in a state of "who knows if this violates someone's patent, when anything can be patented?"

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

Being the user of many different *nix systems, I hate to say it, but we're so behind the curve on so many things.

Could you come up with real specific examples?

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[bertok]

It's even worse than that.

Microsoft goes out of their way to make their .NET libraries skip 10% of what a typical developer actually requires.

To my eyes, there are deliberate looking 'holes' in the API. If you Google for a solution, lots of helpful web pages explain how to do native Win32 interop. Some of these come from Microsoft themselves. Seems helpful, right? Except that if they know that there's a problem, and they know that enough developers are experiencing it that they need to put up a technet article about it, then why isn't it already solved in the standard library? It's up to version 3.5 now, surely, they've had the time!

The answer is that Microsoft is forcing developers to calls small bits of the Win32 API so that their .NET applications will never be truly portable.

Similarly, there's a 'convenient' WebBrowser control that you can use to display HTML. Of course, it's always the IE control, and behave just like IE does. Good luck porting that piece-of-shit to any other platform! Sure, you can embed Webkit or Gecko or something on another platform, but then no application that relies on specific behavior of the WebBrowser control will work 'as-is' on Mono.

How many patents does Microsoft have related to IE? Dozens? More? How are you, some hobbyist developer, going to avoid THAT landmine?

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft goes out of their way to make their .NET libraries skip 10% of what a typical developer actually requires.

To my eyes, there are deliberate looking 'holes' in the API. If you Google for a solution, lots of helpful web pages explain how to do native Win32 interop. Some of these come from Microsoft themselves. Seems helpful, right? Except that if they know that there's a problem, and they know that enough developers are experiencing it that they need to put up a technet article about it, then why isn't it already solved in the standard library? It's up to version 3.5 now, surely, they've had the time!

For the most part, I've had the experiences that you describe when using Windows Forms. That API is fairly clearly Win32-centric, and always had been (heck, its Control class has a WndProc method!) - which isn't surprising to anyone who has seen J++ and Windows Foundation Classes before, since WinForms is really in many ways WFC ported to C#.

However, it's a very different story for WPF. WPF doesn't deal in, or leak, Win32 abstractions - it's a much higher level framework, which does all rendering, layout etc itself - like Qt - so it is much less likely that you're ever going to need Win32 interop in a WPF app.

Well, not quite - you may still need it, but only if you want to do deep OS integration - i.e., if you want to deal with concepts that are OS-specific (like, say, the new Win7 taskbar). Even then, it's the same scenarios that you typically cannot do in Java+Swing at all, or can only do using JNI.

So WPF, in theory, is very much a cross-platform toolkit by design. If Mono would implement it, it would make writing cross-platform CLR applications so much easier. Which is why I'm surprised there are no plans to support it. Yes, it is large and fairly complicated to implement, compared to most .NET APIs - but it would be well worth it...

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[man_of_mr_e]

Silverlight aka Moonlight is substantially similar to WPF. I don't see why they won't take their moonlight code and use it as a basis for WPF.

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[WorldMaker]

Mono has had an implementation of the WPF subset most commonly referred to as WPF/E in Moonlight for some time. (1.0 is out there and very usable; 2.0 is in beta.) WPF/E is a strong enough subset that converting a WPF app may not be "trivial", it is doable, and it is "straightforward". WPF/E is also a "good standard" at this point because, in addition to Moonlight, Microsoft has took upon themselves to deliver official WPF/E support for Mac OS X (in Silverlight).

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[shutdown -p now]

Silverlight aka Moonlight is substantially similar to WPF.

Unfortunately, it's only superficially similar. There are a lot of very significant differences if you actually try to use the same codebase for both (one company I worked with tried to prototype that - it was an epic fail).

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[shutdown -p now]

WPF/E is definitely subset. It's so much a subset it doesn't have many widgets that you are going to need in any moderately complex desktop applications.

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[cbhacking]

Making a non-portable Java app is trivial; all you need is to use a native library that isn't available on every platform. Interestingly enough, this (not MS-specific extensions) is also the primary reason that not all CIL apps are portable between .NET and Mono. The vast majority of pure managed code applications are quite portable, although it si true that Mono is still behind .NET in terms of implemented API.

Re:MS is smart enough not to do this

[WorldMaker]

Even better: many useful "official" widgets are available as Open Source in the Silverlight toolkit:

http://codeplex.com/Silverlight

This toolkit is great even for WPF developers because they are liberally licensed (the MS-PL is like the BSD or MIT/X11 licenses) and thus quite customizable for WPF applications that need to do things that normal WPF controls can't quite handle.

what part of mono?

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of mono is he saying is dangerous?

the language c#?

the class library (API)?

the intermediate byte code spec?

All of the above? C'mon now. The pragmatic approach is to identify what parts of the mono project are supposedly at risk and figure out how to get around them. There are many languages that target mono. Not just C#. What about them? One could branch mono into a version that uses a completely different class lib (API) if that's the issue. One could rebuild the back end intermediate byte codes it uses to stay clear of patents if it were really necessary. All would cause pain, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Re:what part of mono?

[cheesybagel]

RMS mentioned C# because that is the language that the application Debian decided was so important they needed to include in their distribution, Tomboy, was written in. Mono has many possible patent issues, for example, it implements WinForms. Experience with past MS behavior in the past means they shouldn't be trusted to keep the platform vendor neutral.

Summary for those who didn't read it

[coryking]

In short:

Microsoft is evil and is "probably" planning to kill every independent implementation of C#. We have no proof of this, but you have to trust us.

Also... use our C# implementation "DotGNU Portable.NET" instead. We are immune to everything I just said in the article and I won't bother you with why.

In otherwords, I'm confused. Does he like C# or not? If he doesn't, why does the FSF have their own .NET implementation? What makes theirs so special?

Re:Summary for those who didn't read it

[kripkenstein]

As he explained, a C# implementation is useful in that it lets you run C# code that already exists, on non-Windows OSes. That is a good thing, and that is why he says he has no problem with the implementations. But, he says, writing our own apps in C# is a bad idea.

Feel free to disagree with him, but I thought the distinction between the C# implementation and the act of writing apps in C# makes a lot of sense.

Re:Summary for those who didn't read it

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Does he like C# or not? If he doesn't, why does the FSF have their own .NET implementation? What makes theirs so special?

The FSF provides a C# compiler for people who already fucked up and wrote their code in C#, but they do not encourage people to do so from the start.
As he wrote in TFA:

The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.

Re:Summary for those who didn't read it

[hedwards]

Because it's GPL and as such it'll buy you beer. Also it's paranoia compatible and fits in your average overhead bin.

Re:Summary for those who didn't read it

[cbhacking]

Actually, I'm curious why they have their own implementation anyhow. From their site, it sounds like they're doing much the same thing as Mono, but are maybe a bit further behind. Mono is already open source, so... why?!?

Re:Summary for those who didn't read it

[IBBoard]

Given that Stallman recommends using the GPL rather than the LGPL to force people to open source their code rather than make use of a good library, that doesn't make much sense.

It's fine to take a standard, make an open source implementation and then use it to run existing (generally proprietary if he had his way) apps in Linux (or GNU/Linux, or whatever), but writing open source apps that will run on that open source implementation is bad? What kind of logic is that?

Being a 25 year old software developer/coder, I agree with the "why Mono isn't bad" post. Most people's concerns could be worked around, and as long as you stick to the standardised stuff and treat it first and foremost as "an implementation of a language" rather than "a port of Microsoft's technologies" then you should be fine. I use Mono because it's flexible, powerful, easy to distribute, easy to work cross-platform, and I can concentrate on the important things (functionality and design rather than malloc() calls). The fact that my app will generally work in MS's .Net framework and not just the Mono one is a bonus.

Re:Summary for those who didn't read it

[IBBoard]

Also... use our C# implementation "DotGNU Portable.NET" instead. We are immune to everything I just said in the article and I won't bother you with why.

In otherwords, I'm confused. Does he like C# or not? If he doesn't, why does the FSF have their own .NET implementation? What makes theirs so special?

Not just that, but they even implement the "not set as a standard" part - System.Windows.Forms! Of all the bits that's most likely to have patent issues, you'd have thought it'd have been that. They'd have had a marginally better argument if they'd just implemented the standardised part so that they could at least say "there's dangers implementing/using the non-standard parts, but stick to the standard and you might not be compatible with the latest MS changes, but at least you've got a great framework to work with"!

Re:Summary for those who didn't read it

[howlingmadhowie]

Most people's concerns could be worked around, and as long as you stick to the standardised stuff and treat it first and foremost as "an implementation of a language" rather than "a port of Microsoft's technologies" then you should be fine.

the problem is, that isn't your decision to make, but rather the decision of the microsoft legal department.

also i see no relationship between rms's comments on mono (implementation for existing software until we can write replacement software is good, but writing software in a language which can be taken away from us at any moment just adds to the problem) and his comments on preferring the gpl to the lgpl for certain projects. i can only assume you are either just trolling here, or having a bad-hair day, or are really, really stupid.

Re:Summary for those who didn't read it

[IBBoard]

If it's an international standard and the creators of the standard (a few companies, including MS) have said that any patents that cover it will be available royalty free, then where is the risk in implementing the standardised core? And if MS do push the .Net in to patented territory, why does Mono have to follow, why can't it just be based on the international standard? If Mono is written to the standard and only to the standard then how can it be taken away?

As for the GPL/LGPL and comments on Mono, if you think that's a troll then you're looking way too hard for something that isn't there. RMS has said that you should use the GPL rather than the LGPL where there isn't an existing library so that people have to make their code GPL if they want to use it. His comment was something about not being swayed by the promise of more users. Implementing .Net's S.W.F is, to my mind, doing the opposite. They are implementing a potentially patented, non-international standardised part of the .Net framework. That on its own seems like a risky decision if Mono/.Net is so bad, and the only reason I can see for going in to potential patent territory is to basically do what he says not to do by chosing the LGPL - picking an option to improve up-take with a wider range of non-OSS apps.

It's not Debian that needs to be discouraged

[eugene2k]

It's GNOME. AFAIK Debian developers basically want to lessen the amount of resources devoted to repackaging GNOME.

Confused

[wampus]

Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries, right? What exactly do you risk by using it?

Re:Confused

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries, right? What exactly do you risk by using it?

Submarine patents for one. Investment of effort into technologies where MS can break compatibility for two. Buying into standards MS has too much influence on is simply asking for them to use that influence to hurt you at a later date. After the 20th or 30th such instance you'd think people would learn to be a little less shortsighted.

Re:Confused

[binarylarry]

Being owned in court by Microsoft due to patent infringement.

Or more likely, losing customers because mid development cycle Microsoft starts threatening to sue companies using Mono, as it infringes their patents.

They've rattled this sabre before.

Re:Confused

[modmans2ndcoming]

exposure to sun light by coming out of the c/c++ cave?

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

.Net is a large technology stack that is growing by leaps and bounds through the daily efforts of thousands of Microsoft engineers. The ECMA standard is a snapshot of a couple portions of that stack; it is already several years out of date. It is an "unequal standard" in the sense that Microsoft controls it; they control the vast majority of deployments to businesses and consumers, and they have the vast majority of personnel assigned to maintaining and upgrading it. Extensions to the standard most likely will fail in the marketplace unless they are backed by Microsoft (typically by having been originated by Microsoft).

Now, it is true that other software companies can develop and sell applications based on .Net. But (as we've seen from the testimony and documents from the DOJ antitrust suit) as soon as any software company enjoys significant success, Microsoft sees them as a competitor, even as a threat - and Microsoft will use almost any means, fair or foul, to derail them and capture their market share. One weapon they have often used in the past was control over the Windows API (Win32 and DCOM/Active-X in the old days, those plus .Net today). These API are so vast that nobody can master them all, even if that were a full-time job (yes, I'm sure even top MS Press authors such as Jeff Richter or Charles Petzold would readily acknowledge that). How easy is it to slip in some API that are more robust and/or much better performing than the "tried and true" API used by competitor's applications. This is a game they played early and often all through the '90s (Andrew Schulman wrote a couple books about this, now out of print).

BTW ECMA is Microsoft's favorite standards organization. Back in the '90s, when Java was a rising threat, Microsoft went to ECMA and had Active-X and DCOM certified as ECMA "standards". What a joke! Many of the key interfaces used by Active-X for Object Linking and Embedding made explicit reference to Win32 constructs such as Windows handles and handles to a Windows device context. There was one European company that tried to implement the "standard" on Unix, but they eventually gave up.

And as C# and other framework languages, CLR, and especially the .Net framework libraries grow and evolve, leaving the ECMA standard in the dust, who can be sure that Windows-specific references will not creep in (if they haven't already), or that Microsoft will claim and enforce patent rights to some of it. Nobody can, that is the point Stallman (and others before him) is trying to make.

I'm not saying I agree with his conclusion about not pre-installing Mono, but I would say that based on Microsoft's past history, he has a very valid point.

Re:Confused

[Directrix1]

I believe the issue is that the ECMA standard doesn't state the terms that patents pertaining to the standard are licensed. And no one seems to be able to contact Microsoft to find out what the terms are.

Re:Confused

[synthespian]

Nothing. This is Stallman FUD. This issue has been beaten to death. Mono works with an ECMA spec. That's it.

Let''s do the rational thing: ignore Stallman. He's going the way of the dodo. More and more projects are open source and please-use-this-in-your-business-without-restrictions and he hates that world. He'd like everyone to catch his virus, but it's not happening.

Re:Confused

[wampus]

If MS wants to change the spec and not release this one as a standard what happens to all the software that was written using the current implementation?

NOTHING. It still works!

Re:Confused

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As non-american (your senseless patents don't apply), I'll re-ask the question again.

Don't be absurd. Just because software patents don't apply in a given country doesn't mean they can't cripple Linux development in that country. Do you really think forking Linux and having all the countries that currently enforce software patents and all the companies that do business in that country developing one fork and the rest developing a different fork would not be a crippling blow to Linux? I don't care where you live, if all the Linux developers in the US are stopped from using the Linux after it started to include Mono and have to go back and rewrite all the subsequent application built upon it in 5 years time, that will hurt all Linux users around the world and significantly slow progress.

You also failed to address my point about intentionally incompatible versions of standards. Since you're posting AC you're probably a troll. Get an account or make less trollish posts if you want further replies from me.

Re:Confused

[c0d3g33k]

Even more customers and potential customers are being kept away by giving in to fear so that even the brave have no alterative but to use the only solution available to them. I thought FLOSS was about offering choice and greater freedom, not being the safe bet.

Re:Confused

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If MS wants to change the spec and not release this one as a standard what happens to all the software that was written using the current implementation?NOTHING. It still works!

That's true, but not the point. If MS moves to a version for the standard OSS developers cannot for licensing or patent reasons, then they can use their desktop OS monopoly to get pretty much every company developing for Windows (most of them) to jump to the new version as well. Then developers of .Net applications have a choice of abandoning Linux and using a standard that will continue to advance, or abandon Windows and use a standard that is frozen or being developed very slowly by only a few percent of developers. By breaking compatibility in this way, MS leverages their monopoly influence to hurt Linux by getting application developers who tried to move to a cross platform solution to drop or freeze the Linux versions of their programs. You don't see how that ends up hurting Linux as a platform given that the alternative might be those same developers adopting Java and moving forward with a cross platform standard MS can't break compatibility with and where the courts have already intervened to censure MS?

Re:Confused

[cheesybagel]

Cleanroom implementations protect you from copyright infringement. Not software patent infringement.

Re:Confused

[gmack]

Forgotten what Rambus did to the spec all the memory makers follow already?

Just because it follows a spec it does not mean there are no patents waiting in the sidelines.

Microsoft likes to rattle the patent saber against Linux as it is. How do we know the spec isn't designed around one or more of their patents?

Re:Confused

[cheesybagel]

Mono implements WinForms, for one, which is not ECMA spec. The ECMA spec is mostly static and the .NET platform and its languages, like C#, have kept evolving. You cannot implement a GUI application without using APIs which are not ECMA spec. How many of those are you interested in developing or using that couldn't be done just as well in another language? .NET is a trap, and only an idiot thinks otherwise.

Re:Confused

[Matthew Weigel]

This from the guy who says in his signature: "Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts."

You haven't invested the time in this issue to understand it, never mind make pronouncements on it.

Re:Confused

[vainvanevein]

The original goal is to develop an excellent system based on linux, GNU software, and other free software. If all of your .NET developers jump to Windows, you are failing (to the extent that your systems use .NET). I guess you could call that a religion, but I think calling it a philosophy would be more accurate. Honestly, if you don't see the importance of that goal, why are you even posting in this thread?

Re:Confused

[peppepz]

No, you’re talking about cynicism, which you’re trying to sell as pragmatism.
If you do not understand the motivations behind free software you’re more than welcome to keep using closed software, but you cannot criticize the free software community for trying to survive.
Microsoft has already applied for patents on the .NET framework, and when they will start suing all the companies who distribute free software based on it - just like they have already done with tomtom - all free software based on .NET will be *gone*.
So avoiding .NET from a free software point of view is not “religion” - it is basic, concrete, rational strategy. There are plenty of alternatives to .NET available to free software developers.

Re:Confused

[peppepz]

Since I deem you already know well what you might risk by using .NET on Linux, I’ll rather tell you what you actually get by using it.
You get somewhat-compatible development tools, which always are one or two versions behind the Windows equivalents. The programs you write using them will always run better on Windows, and the users, who do not care about the language a program is written in, will just find that Linux is a worse place to run them.
Compare with what happens when languages are based on truly open standards: C and C ++ get the new features on GCC *years* before Microsoft offers them in Visual Studio. Java (which basically C# is a copy of) has an open source reference implementation with feature parity on Linux from day zero after a new version is out. Of course, the same is true for Python, Perl, Ruby, Scala, PHP, TCL, Groovy, Caml, even Fortran.
The only problem is with .NET. So you see that from a developers point of view, .NET on Linux constitutes a regression. So the smart choice is to avoid it. Mono is great as an interoperability tool, but basing free software development on it is careless.

Re:Confused

[peppepz]

No. Mono (justly) implements much more than the ECMA spec, and the programs make use of much more than the ECMA spec (which is so basic that you can’t actually code much by targeting it alone.)
For instance, tomboy makes use of classes from the .NET framework that is not part of the ECMA specification.

Re:Confused

[Mr2001]

You cannot implement a GUI application without using APIs which are not ECMA spec.

You can, however, implement a GUI application without using Windows Forms. Use GTK# or QtSharp instead if you're worried.

Re:Confused

[telemachuszero]

Being owned in court by Microsoft due to patent infringement.

Or more likely, losing customers because mid development cycle Microsoft starts threatening to sue companies using Mono, as it infringes their patents.

They've rattled this sabre before.

They'll have to disclose the patents that they believe cover the implementation. Then the patents can be worked around, and the issue is solved. They'll also have patents for many things, from the kernel up to the desktop. If they're going to sue users of Mono, why wouldn't they sue users of other software that also 'infringe' their patents? Mono at least has the excuse that it's implementing an international standard.

Re:Confused

[Abcd1234]

Submarine patents for one.

Yeah, except the rules in the US have changed, so now patents expire X years after filing, not X years after publication. This would be why you don't see submarine patents anymore.

Nice try, though.

Re:Confused

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Yeah, except the rules in the US have changed, so now patents expire X years after filing, not X years after publication. This would be why you don't see submarine patents anymore.

What!?! Are you joking? Twenty years from the filing date is not long enough for a patented technological mechanism to become silently adopted and then for lawsuits to be filed? In the software industry?

Re:Confused

[smash]

Investment of effort into technologies where MS can break compatibility for two

Newsflash: microsoft can break compatibility with ANY technology if they want to, whether they were the originator or not.

They've done it with Java, they've done it with CSS, they've done it with HTML; fuck, they even did it with ASCII text. If you think that just because .net is a microsoft platform they'll be MORE LIKELY to break it, you're deluded. I'd say they'd be LESS likely to fuck compatibility up, if the huge amount of crap kept in windows soley for compatibility reasons is anything to go by.

Re:Confused

[Abcd1234]

My bad, there's actually more to it than that. Not only is expiration calculated based on the filing date, but all applications are now published within 18 months of filing (and .NET has been around much longer than 18 months). Of course, you can choose to keep your application secret, but if you do so, you can no longer apply for patents abroad.

So, unless Microsoft was willing to obviate their right to file their patents abroad, there's simply no reason to believe any such submarine patents actually exist.

Re:Confused

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Newsflash: microsoft can break compatibility with ANY technology if they want to, whether they were the originator or not.

But it's only damaging in specific instances.

They've done it with Java...

Yes, but already went to court and were convicted and so are highly unlikely to try it again.

...they've done it with CSS, they've done it with HTML

Yes, but not until after they had gained market dominance with IE. They don't have market dominance with dev tools/language especially for cross platform apps targeting Windows. If they are blocked from gaining significant share, introducing incompatibilities is just a minor annoyance.

I'd say they'd be LESS likely to fuck compatibility up, if the huge amount of crap kept in windows soley for compatibility reasons is anything to go by.

They wait until they get adoption then they break compatibility with Linux while providing an easy upgrade path for Windows. This means minimal damage to them and maximum damage to Linux and mixed Linux/Windows use. It's a well used strategy of there's at this point, one that can be avoided by avoiding the technology in the first place and sticking with something they can't easily break, like Java.

Re:Confused

[fritsd]

Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries, right? What exactly do you risk by using it?

From what I've learned (on Groklaw ;-) ), cleanroom implementations help you indemnify your software against copyright violation allegiations.
Stallmann is here saying that there is a possibility that Mono violates Microsoft software patents, and that in that case, software *depending on* mono (i.e. written in C#) is at risk if mono ever has to be de-installed because of patent violation allegiations.
In fact, there's a famous other article by Stallmann about copyright, patents and trademarks, where he claims the use of the word "Intellectual Property" should be stopped, which directly addresses your confusion: I really, heartily, strongly recommend you to read it, it's mindblowingly easy to read and I found it very enlightening:
Did You Say âoeIntellectual Propertyâ? It's a Seductive Mirage
IANA(P)L and I don't actually know much about .NET or Microsoft software but his arguments make sense. Also bear in mind that the Microsoft-Novell software patent deal of 2006 (here, here, here), where Microsoft promises not to sue Novell's customers for a limited period of time, expires in 2011 or so. So maybe then Ballmer will divulge what he meant with his "235 software patents Linux infringes" (maybe it should have been 205 software patents ;-) but it's very possible that Ballmer is completely truthful here). Then again 2011 is years away and maybe software patents won't exist anymore in the U.S.A because they wanted to harmonize with the rest of the world, which doesn't have them.

Re:Confused

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So, unless Microsoft was willing to obviate their right to file their patents abroad, there's simply no reason to believe any such submarine patents actually exist.

Microsoft has already filed dozens o patents that do apply to .NET and dozens more that may or may not apply. They just don't advertise that fact while pushing for adoption by others.

Re:Confused

[Abcd1234]

Great. Cite them.

Re:Confused

[PastaLover]

See this is a great reason not to develop in mono (if you care about not having C#3.0 the day it's released), but it's not a good reason not to bundle it in the distributions or not to run mono-based software (which seems to run just fine, tyvm).

Re:Confused

[PastaLover]

You cannot implement a GUI application without using APIs which are not ECMA spec.

You can, however, implement a GUI application without using Windows Forms. Use GTK# or QtSharp instead if you're worried.

Which is what all linux mono apps do anyway, AFAIK. (the winforms implementation is not really up to scratch)

Re:Confused

[bill_mcgonigle]

They'll have to disclose the patents that they believe cover the implementation.

This might be in progress:
    http://www.osnews.com/story/21586

Then the patents can be worked around, and the issue is solved

FWIW, Microsoft believes certain patents are essential for implementing C# and CLI:

If they're going to sue users of Mono, why wouldn't they sue users of other software that also 'infringe' their patents?

Yes, they keep threatening this. See also SCO vs. IBM, et. al. vis-a-vis Baystar Capital.

Mono at least has the excuse that it's implementing an international standard.

DVD, h.264, myriad others? Patent licenses are frequently required to implement standards. Mono's official position is that if Microsoft comes after users based on patents (windows forms is the more likely target) they'll try to invent around it and if that's not possible, break compatibility. So then you have a product that somewhat works cross-platform, and Microsoft is the thought leader for your development platform.

If all those risks seem to be worth it, then who are we to get in the way? Competition is healthy.

C# / .NET is a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not going to be revoked, it cannot be revoked.

Although initially this seems to give support to the MS platform, IMHO this is a move that will start to break the idea that to use C# one must have windows and say that you can write the same applications on linux.

Once people can write an application and deploy it anywhere, users will have real choice, even if C# isn't the best basis to stay on for life. Worry about getting users to the platform and then worry about putting the code in C/C++.

Re:C# / .NET is a standard

[schwaang]

AIUI, Stallman's position is not against C# as a language, or implementing C# on Linux. FTA:

The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://swpat.org/ and http://progfree.org./ This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.

I wish some knowledgeable folks would weigh in how possible it would actually be for MS to do this for C# in particular. (Do they already hold relevant patents?)

Whether you like MS and think Stallman needs a shave and a bath or not, it is an indisputable fact that MS has threatened to use patents against Linux in the past.

Re:C# / .NET is a standard

[Sir_Lewk]

The issue at hand is does microsoft have patents that could one day be used to prevent other people from implementing that standard, for whatever microsofty reason they wish. (Think MPEG, standarized but patent restricted) Some people seem to think this may be the case and are therefore concerned.

(I don't really care about .NET/Mono enough to have looked into this myself, or even really give a damn)

Re:C# / .NET is a standard

[daemonburrito]

For the particulars on what they're going to do, you would have ask Novell or Miguel. However, it's pretty clear that Microsoft is reserving the option.

There is a patent covenant for anyone that downloads [Moonlight] from Novell [...] as to extending the patents to third parties -- you have to talk to Microsoft.

Miguel de Icaza, MIX '08

Q. What does the patent agreement cover with regard to Mono and OpenOffice? A. Under the patent agreement, customers will receive coverage for Mono, Samba, and OpenOffice.org as well as .NET and Windows Server. All of these technologies will be improved upon during the five years of the agreement and there are some limits on the coverage that would be provided for future technologies added to these offerings. The collaboration framework we have put in place allows us to work on complex subjects such as this where intellectual property and innovation are important parts of the conversation.

Also, a lot of people like GP are going to talk about standards. They don't really know what they're talking about, and are victims of a little semantic game. That something is a "standard" or even an "official" ECMA standard doesn't say anything about how patent-encumbered it is. ECMA standards are allowed to have so-called "reasonable and non-discriminatory" patent licensing. RAND licensing is incompatible with free software.

Re:C# / .NET is a standard

[gbjbaanb]

There is a patent covenant for anyone that downloads [Moonlight] from Novell

there you go. There is a big, nasty patent waiting to bite your ass, unless you have the special tame one you get from Novell. Getting it from Debian means you aren't covered.

Re:C# / .NET is a standard

[daemonburrito]

Apologies if I wasn't clear or if I'm misunderstanding your comment, but I am definitely on the "Avoid Mono" side of this argument.

It's funny that with RAND Microsoft doesn't even need to sue to hurt FOSS. All they would have to do is charge a penny for it. It would be a GPL crisis, with all the big Linux vendors suddenly being forced to keep track of copies of Mono, or drop it.

This whole thing is so crappy that I'm about to avoid Gnome altogether. I can only hope that Gnome is all we would have to cauterize if the worst was to happen. I'm almost positive that the damage will at least go that deep; Microsoft won't pull the trigger until they have a good shot.

Re:C# / .NET is a standard

[gbjbaanb]

cool. I think Mono is dangerous, regardless of how much some people think its a holy grail of software development. Maybe they work for Microsoft :)

I wonder what would happen if Novell went bankrupt?

Re:C# / .NET is a standard

[peppepz]

I wish some knowledgeable folks would weigh in how possible it would actually be for MS to do this for C# in particular. (Do they already hold relevant patents?)

I do not know about C# in particular, but about .NET, yes, they hold relevant patents.

Re:C# / .NET is a standard

[Mr2001]

It's funny that with RAND Microsoft doesn't even need to sue to hurt FOSS. All they would have to do is charge a penny for it. It would be a GPL crisis, with all the big Linux vendors suddenly being forced to keep track of copies of Mono, or drop it.

Except Microsoft has already stated that any potential licensing would be not just RAND but also royalty-free.

Re:C# / .NET is a standard

[PAjamian]

I do not recognize the ECMA as a valid standards setting organization anymore after the mess with OOXML. When they will basically rubber stamp any standard given to them by MS they are just an extension of MS.

It is not going to be revoked, it cannot be revoked.

Although initially this seems to give support to the MS platform, IMHO this is a move that will start to break the idea that to use C# one must have windows and say that you can write the same applications on linux.

Once people can write an application and deploy it anywhere, users will have real choice, even if C# isn't the best basis to stay on for life. Worry about getting users to the platform and then worry about putting the code in C/C++.

MS has patents that cover various aspects of the .Net standard. At any time MS could choose to only license their patents in a manner which is not compatible with free software and aggressively pursue free software applications that use programming techniques and interfaces covered by the patents. This could have the effect of killing off the free software programs that rely on the standard not to mention the legal headaches that a programmer can run into if MS decides to pursue you for patent infringement. MS does not even need to have a valid case, just the costs of defending yourself in court is enough to effectively screw you over.

Re:C# / .NET is a standard

[Mr2001]

Here you go.

The ECMA process requires that all patents held by member companies that are essential for implementing its standards are available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms" for the purpose of implementing those Standards. This is the normal condition used in all

International Standards organizations, including both ECMA and ISO.

But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis for this purpose.

Re:C# / .NET is a standard

[Jamie Lokier]

C# version 2 is an ECMA standard. But the current version of C# is not.

C# is covered by patents. You can tell because ECMA has a letter from Microsoft promising to license any patents under reasonable terms.

But Microsoft does not promise to license C# patents under royalty-free terms. So they retain the right to block any free / open source implementation, at any time in the future until the patents expire.

.NET is not a standard at all. .NET is much like Windows, but better documented.

fatwa issued against Mono

[Anonymous Coward]

Check. We'll see what the other FOSS clerics say.

Re:fatwa issued against Mono

[synthespian]

Hahahahaa...somebody rescue this poster from Score 0!

Java?

[lsdi]

Ok, but what about Java? It's just a matter of time before it licensing model changes. What are we going to do? I don't think I will start coding ERP applications using C,CPP, PERL, etc. I would pretty much install Windows or something that would get the job done faster.

Re:Java?

[binarylarry]

Licensing wise, Mono and Java are fine. However, the patent arsenal for Java has been approved for use by anyone. Microsoft has not done the same with .NET.

Thus, using Mono you are in a very real situation involving IP litigation. With Java, Sun has publicly pledged anyone can use Java, so they'd be hard pressed to sue you for using it.

Re:Java?

[pizzap]

See http://www.mono-project.com/License :

But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went
further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C#
and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis
for this purpose.

This was in 2003, years before sun made java 'open'.

Re:Java?

[moon3]

If you use any of those corporate controlled runtime languages you are asking for trouble.

Re:Java?

[xoluxo]

Sun *patents* have been granted to people that are using Java.

But Sun can not grant patent rights to anything that Java might infringe. For an actual sample see the Kodak vs Sun lawsuit where Java was found to be infringing Kodak's patents.

The same applies to Java today. As Java evolves, it will likely infringe on third party patents and you could be liable for that infringement.

For instance, consider .NET's attributes. This feature was copied a few years later right into Java and given a different name "annotations".

If Mono is not kosher because of Microsoft patents, then neither is Java's use of features that they copied back from .NET.

Re:Java?

[daemonburrito]

"royalty-free and otherwise RAND" != Libre

Additionally

(C# + CLI) != Mono

Re:Java?

[Daishiman]

That is not correct. The sections of .NET that are standardized under ECMA are under no dangerous provision that might go against their use. The "dangerous" technologies are the reimplementations of Microsoft libraries that do not fall under the standard, such as Windows Forms and ADO.NET.

Using the standardized section of .NET puts you at the same risk of patent litigation as using Java or any large framework where some patent troll could come from below and throw a few lawsuits.

Do note, however, that due to the Open Invention Network, waging a patent war against Mono is the equivalent of a patent nuclear war. Among the OIN members are IBM and several large corporations with massive patent portfolios.

Re:Java?

[HRbnjR]

I don't see the quoted text on the linked page.

The really important point that page fails to mention is that neither ECMA nor ISO require patent disclosure, let alone a grant, on a submission being standardized!

Re:Java?

[HRbnjR]

Java technology is both created and licensed under the GPL by Sun - meaning they, the creators, have licensed any patents they may have obtained while creating Java.

.NET technology was created by Microsoft, but the Mono implementation was created by Miguel/Novell (and licensed under the GPL by them). So, although Novell's GPL license gives you a patent license on any patents _Novell_ has covering the technology (none) - it is completely meaningless with regards to any _Microsoft_ patents covering the technology (likely many).

Sun can use the GPL to license their own patents, but Novell can't license what isn't theirs!

Citing third party patents to make it sound like these two technologies are in the same Patent situation is just disingenuous handwaving, as they aren't anywhere near being the primary concern in this scenario. With all the fuss, Microsoft could easily ship Mono themselves under the GPL or make some kind of libre patent license/declaration surrounding the technology - and they have NOT. If you read the remarks surrounding the MS/Novell deal, they have done exactly the opposite.

Re:Java?

[jrumney]

RMS used to say the same about Java. But now Sun's reference JVM is released under a free license, so things are very different compared to C#/.NET.

Re:Java?

[xoluxo]

You have a point, the risk is larger with .NET than it is with Java, but it is not zero for either one of them.

That being said.

Microsoft could only have obtained patents on anything that did not exist in a technology before (prior art).

Considering that everyone on Slashdot keeps claiming that .NET is a poor copy of Java it seems to me that the patents that Microsoft has on .NET will be weak or not even valid.

Neither .NET or Java are safe from Kodak though, and open source redistribution of Java (for example by Red Hat) would likely require Red Hat to license Kodak's patents as well.

Re:Java?

[mvdwege]

Key words: 'will be'. So where is that royalty-free RAND license now, 5 years later?

Mart

Re:Java?

[EvanED]

Considering that everyone on Slashdot keeps claiming that .NET is a poor copy of Java...

The sad thing is that, other than the fact that you need Mono to be cross platform and Mono lags behind and doesn't keep full compatibility, C#/CLR is actually a really good copy of Java. Or more precisely, it's not a very good copy of Java because it doesn't suck as badly as Java does.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that MS took almost all of the good parts of Java, removed some bad parts of it, and added a few more good things, so it winds up being, I think, a rather nicer platform to actually program in.

This is sad since because it's actually pretty nice, I have to decide whether losing the cross-platformness of Java is worth the improvement. If C# and .Net sucked, then there'd be a clear winner when I wanted a Javaish environment. So I go program a little in C++ with Qt instead, or in Scheme, and don't use either.

Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?

[jjb3rd]

Mono is a free (GPL) reimplementation of commercial software. Isn't that how GNU got started in the first place? Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software? Wasn't he potentially violating patents? Why was it okay then when it's Unix, but not okay now when the technology came from Microsoft? Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)? Mono is 2 generations behind Microsoft, yet has a pretty good stable offering and makes a very nice easy path for the majority of all developers in the world (WINDOWS Developers) to make the transition to Linux and GNU...this isn't something Stallman should be against, IMHO.

Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?

[synthespian]

*Good* point! But, due to the size of the members of the Church of Stallman, I'm guessing you won't be modded up.

I mean, geez, this issue has been beaten to death. Only fools would take Stallman seriously. Not even Debianites listen to him anymore wrt C#/mono.

If anything, getting away from so much C is gonna make Linux apps safer, instead of this endless stream of security bugs.

Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?

[Sique]

No, Richard Stallman was always very concerned with NOT violating patents. For instance gzip was developed especially to avoid a patent clash over compress, the commercial compression utility shipped with UNIX.

Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?

[Schnoodledorfer]

Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)?

At and before the time Linux was developed, yes, they behaved very differently. As a matter of fact, the real owners of the patents have always behaved differently. SCO never actually owned the patents, after all.

Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mono is a free (GPL) reimplementation of commercial software. Isn't that how GNU got started in the first place? Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software? Wasn't he potentially violating patents?

No.

Software was not considered patentable back then.

Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?

[SplashMyBandit]

Actually, back at the beginning operating systems and tools were originally open source. Once managers muscled the engineers aside stuff started getting closed up. Open sharing is what Stallman wants to get back to.

Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?

[JohnnyBGod]

Wasn't he potentially violating patents?

Given that there weren't software patents back then, I'd say no.

Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?

[ricegf]

Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software?

Gnu's Not Unix. I read that somewhere...

Wasn't he potentially violating patents?

All software implementations potentially violate patents. Mono just happens to likely violate those of a convicted monopolist who has called the GPL a "cancer" and claimed Linux violates hundreds of unspecified patents in order to FUD the credulous into paying Microsoft for inferior software.

Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)?

Welcome to the 21st century. SCO does not own Unix; Novell does.

Mono is ... a very nice easy path for the majority of all developers in the world (WINDOWS Developers) to make the transition to Linux and GNU

Don't be silly. Mono is a very nice path to ensure that free software is dependent on real Microsoft patents, as opposed to the imaginary ones that Ballmer is always ranting about between chair tosses. It's the equivalent of George Bailey taking a job with Mr. Potter because "you won, George... you've beaten me". But Microsoft "sits around here and spins your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn't, Mr. Ballmer. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider. And... [turning to his aide, Miguel de Icaza] And that goes for you, too!"

If you're a Windows developer looking to make the transition to Linux and GNU, try something that's actually innovative. QT4 comes to mind at random. Or Python for quick IT apps (it works for Google). Or Android for phones. Now, welcome to freedom.

Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?

[Abcd1234]

No, Richard Stallman was always very concerned with NOT violating patents

And that's a good idea. Luckily, as far as I can tell, there aren't any patents filed against .NET (if there were, I'm sure someone in this debate would've posted links... in this case, I'd say absence of evidence is evidence of absence), and given large portions of .NET are now published as standards, there *can't be*.

Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I posted a response to a comment similar to yours here.

Short answer: there are patents, uncertain licensing, uncertain motivations, and the presence of a standard in no way precludes patent licensing requirements, just that the licenses are available.

another reason:it doesn't play to Linux's strength

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason to avoid Mono is that IMHO it doesn't play to Linux's strengths.

C# is almost kinda almost neat on Windows because it interacts nicely with windows's objects. On Unix/Linux where things more often communicate through pipes, streams, files, etc, it seems to me Python's a better tool for most jobs.

And another gripe with C# and .java is that they don't seem to me to ever be the best tool for a job. They're horribly inefficient to develop in (python's much better), mediocre OO languages (ruby's better), bad at doing low level stuff (C's better), etc. I'd say that Python + C extensions is a better solution for almost any problem C# can be used for except for interacting with Windows internals.

contradiction

[kova70]

what amazes me is that RMS is saying at the same time that it is good to have a C# implementation, but warns against writing apps in it... if not outright imbecile, that's at least a very stupid position

Re:contradiction

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

what amazes me is that RMS is saying at the same time that it is good to have a C# implementation, but warns against writing apps in it...

Except that's not what he said. He said it's good to have an implementation but bad to include that implementation and applications that reply upon it in GnuLinux distros and components. It's akin to saying that it is good to have support for FAT filesystems in Linux, but stupid to include a FAT partition by default when installing Linux along with applications that only work on FAT.

... if not outright imbecile, that's at least a very stupid position

Not everything you don't comprehend is stupid. Sometimes, you're just a little bit stupid instead, and so misinterpret the words of others in stupid ways.

Re:contradiction

[Odemia]

The real point is what could happen? What are the risks in a few years after the Debian community has more widely adopted Mono as a basis for many apps and then it comes under threat of patent suits. The point made by RMS is that including Mono in the default installation encourages it's use/dependence by an increasing portion of the community. This larger portion of the community could then come under threat from patents, possibly taking all the apps that rely on it with it.

1) I agree with 99Bottles... with the FAT analogy. Just look at what RMS said, it doesn't say don't include Mono or Tomboy, just says not to include them in the default distributions:

we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions.

2) To those comments regarding the mention of GNU Projects implementation of C#. The comment by RMS about the GNU implementation of C# was in braces (like this). It was a side note. And no where does RMS say to use the GNU Project's Portable.NET over Mono. He was pointing out that even the GNU project is putting effort into supporting C#. And therefore he must not be totally against free implementations of C#.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[doshell]

When I used to use Bulletin Board systems to download software most of it was in the public domain. Now evil software licenses like GPL have ruined the public domain. It's quite sad to impose so many restrictions on free software.

I don't get why you keep trying to influence what others choose to do with the software they write. Why do you feel the need to keep pushing your GPL-is-evil-but-BSD-is-nice-and-public-domain-is-better agenda when the GPL is one of the most successful licensing models out there? I just don't get it. You're not the only voice and if someone chooses to license their own software under the GPL, that's their choice, not yours.

I just don't get why you keep meddling in the affairs of others.

the dangers I see

[lorenlal]

I don't know if this is overreaction. But I can certainly agree with him under some circumstances.

1) Is there a licensing concern using the C# language, or any of the compiler technology? Specifically, are there any software patents that could be leveraged against the open source community for using the C# implementation that could result in a massive court action? I do not know the details of any agreements (if they exist) but knowing Microsoft's stance on OSS, there is certainly potential for future abuse. Something along the lines of "Use of C# on any non-Microsoft platform is henceforth prohibited."
2) Is C# considered an open standard? Secondly, is the specification controlled by Microsoft directly? Or, is it influenced by the communities? Java is a similar monster, but it's been my observation that Sun (Oracle) is a willing participant in the Linux/Unix space so it hasn't been such a problem. An Example here would be something like, "C# compilers and applications now depend on a library that is currently available on Windows platform, any reverse engineering or decompilation or efforts to replicate this library will result in criminal penalties."

I'm certainly hesitant to use C# in anything simply because I don't trust Microsoft. I admit it openly. It doesn't mean I won't use what they make, and I think a healthy distrust isn't always a bad thing. If I end up using anything based on C#, I'll keep it in the Windows space.

Re:the dangers I see

[ray_mccrae]

The problem people seem to have is that they seem to have a hard time understanding that something can be a published standard and still patented.

Here is the Patent declaration by Microsoft to ECMA body

"This letter is to inform you, in the event that ECMA adopts an ECMA Standard for C# Programming Language and the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI), Microsoft Corporation will grant, on a non-discriminatory basis, to any party requesting it, licenses on reasonable term and conditions, for its patent(s) deemed to be necessary for the implementation of the ECMA Standard."

Note that what is reasonable is at Microsoft's discretion and can have a monetary value which would be the kiss of death for a free project.

Re:the dangers I see

[Mr2001]

1) Is there a licensing concern using the C# language, or any of the compiler technology? Specifically, are there any software patents that could be leveraged against the open source community for using the C# implementation that could result in a massive court action? I do not know the details of any agreements (if they exist) but knowing Microsoft's stance on OSS, there is certainly potential for future abuse. Something along the lines of "Use of C# on any non-Microsoft platform is henceforth prohibited."

Since C# and CLI are ECMA standards, Microsoft is obligated to offer any such patents under reasonable and non-discriminatory licenses. That would rule out banning the use of C# on non-MS platforms. They've also gone further and said that any licensing would be royalty-free.

That said... the idea that patents covering these technologies even exist seems to be a myth. I've never seen any actual patents referenced in any of these Mono threads, only scary hype about the possibility that they might exist undetected.

2) Is C# considered an open standard? Secondly, is the specification controlled by Microsoft directly? Or, is it influenced by the communities? Java is a similar monster, but it's been my observation that Sun (Oracle) is a willing participant in the Linux/Unix space so it hasn't been such a problem. An Example here would be something like, "C# compilers and applications now depend on a library that is currently available on Windows platform, any reverse engineering or decompilation or efforts to replicate this library will result in criminal penalties."

The C# language, the CLI (virtual machine) and core framework are ECMA standards. Microsoft could release C# 5.0 without submitting it to ECMA and impose draconian terms, but you could keep on using the older standardized version.

Re:the dangers I see

[lorenlal]

Thank you. I, quite seriously, did not know for sure. That's why I asked.

If anyone is still hanging out back in these threads... I wasn't going for trolling. These were honest questions. I apparently don't know enough about C# to realize those were dumb questions.

My bad.

Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...

[nweaver]

As much as Stallman would like to say otherwise, Linux is not GNU/Linux, and GNU is not all free software.

And lets face it, Debian has a choice:

Either not include a useful application for the sake of "purity", or include a useful runtime and applications which use it.

IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?

Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...

[PPH]

IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?

I define useful as something that doesn't contain legal entanglements.

Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As much as Stallman would like to say otherwise, Linux is not GNU/Linux, and GNU is not all free software. And lets face it, Debian has a choice.

True, but then Stallman has every right to voice his opinion about that choice.

Either not include a useful application for the sake of "purity", or include a useful runtime and applications which use it.

"Purity". You make it sound like the Aryan Brotherhood or something. I'm about the furthest thing from an OSS purist. I've developed closed source software that combines with open source software I developed on an open source platform and sold the hardware at, well, more companies than I care to remember. I'm running Mac OS X to type this, a very useful blending of closed and open source. So when I say I understand and agree with Stallman's assessment you can't accuse me of doing so because I'm interested in "purity". It is strategy pure and simple. Sometimes it pays to take a longer view of things and learn from history. I have no problem with Mono in general or in c# or .NET applications. I don't think Linux distros should be including them by default for the same reason I don't think Linux should be including a reverse engineered copy of ActiveX and applications that rely upon it. It is, quite simply, too dangerous a move to include standards that may or may not have patent issues and which are almost completely controlled by a monopolist who has many times abused that monopoly to harm others. Relying on MS to obey the law is an idiotic proposal at this point. It's like building a business model on working with the Mafia and relying on them to obey the laws in your dealings.

IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?

The goal is to create a useful system in the long term and not encourage the adoption of one more trojan "standard" from Microsoft which can be used against us at a later date.

Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...

[jmorris42]

> IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?

Until now Debian has been clearly in the pure camp. Debian, moe RMS Pure than RMS over the GNU FDL. Debian, endless wanking over whether firmware blobs have to get yanked for two major releases. And so on. Now suddenly they are taking the Novell "Mono is just another managed code environment licensed under the GPL, nothing to fear here" position. when everyone else DOES see something to fear even if they ship Mono/Tomboy. Fedora is planning on tossing Mono out of the standard install and RH has never shipped it in RHEL because their lawyers are uneasy.

In the end, if the system isn't fairly Pure it isn't ultimately going to be useful. Patents exist, FUD attacks work.

Basically the only sensible way to treat C# is like Win32. It is OK to import Windows applications using Mono or Wine but basing core parts of the Free World on such apps is unwise. If for no other reason than basing our application stack on APIs controlled by people who want to destroy us is about as wise as the Western world basing our economy on oil imported from the Middle East. An argument can be made that we have little choice regarding oil but we most certainly do regarding Mono as we didn't creep into a dependency over decades we are being asked to walk into this trap with our eyes wide open.

Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...

[Odemia]

The use of "GNU/Linux" does get a bit annoying and he does come off as a purist. But the argument of:

"purity" vs "usefulness"

Is a straw-man version of what RMS said. He never said don't include anything C#. Just not to include it in the default installation. Not where people will be encouraged to use it and an ecosystem of apps grow around and become an integral part of the community. And I see his argument if Mono (or C# more generally) becomes a integral part of the community it becomes a target.

So, is encouraging the use of C# in Linux distros worth it? To answer that I guess we have to ask the following: How safe are the free implementations from patent threat? How much will the software ecosystem around Mono grow if it is installed by default vs if it is an additional package that needs to be installed post install? How many apps can safely rely on Mono without making the cost of loosing Mono x the probability of loosing Mono too much?

Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...

[bmo]

One of the goals of a useful system is not to build within it a method of self-sabotage.

Miguel and Novell have /never/ come clean as to whether Mono (and now Moonlight) infringe upon Microsoft patents. They have skated around and doubletalked. Steve Ballmer has said that Linux infringes upon 135 (or so) patents. Novell and Miguel /expect/ us to take their word for it that Mono is somehow "safe"? With no evidence? I guess it's supposedly safe to Novell because Novell signed a non-aggression pact with Microsoft (peace in our time, eh?).

But what about everyone else? Nobody else is "protected" by that contract. It is /dangerous/ for the mainstream Linux distributions to incorporate Mono as a core technology, because some day Microsoft can come along later and point out "Hey, you infringe on /these/ patents. Now Pay Us $699 per user."

No. No quarter shall be given to /any/ of that bullshit. Microsoft has considered itself above the law ever since the Doublespace debacle and has no intentions, as far as I can tell, of changing its behavior.

Miguel de Icaza is "setting up us the bomb" with his Mono project whether he realizes it or not.

Hanlon's Razor can be turned and combined with a Clarke quote to say that "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."

Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...

[wiredlogic]

Debian is the only distro to work hard at maintaining purity in the freeness of what is distributed. They have an isolated "non-free" section for packages with restrictive licenses and cross dependencies with packages in the normal archive are disallowed. Their dissatisfaction with the Firefox trademarking led to the creation of the Iceweasel fork. Why they would cave on mono escapes me. It may be GPL but the MS patent guillotine is hanging over the neck of every open source developer who uses it.

Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...

[Slothy]

How do you determine if a piece of software has legal entanglements?

Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...

[man_of_mr_e]

I have a question for you.

Based solely on Microsoft's claims of patents, why is it that you dismiss the fact that Linux may violate MS's patents, but believe it as gospel that Mono does?

Both are equally vague. Both are voiced from the same source. But yet you choose to dismiss one, but be ultra paranoid about the other? That really doesn't make sense.

Ok, so Microsoft created the specs for C# and the CLI, which Mono Implements. But they also created the specs for other technologies used in Linux. Samba, (v)FAT, hell even XML has Microsoft persons name on it (as do a number of RFC's impelemented by Linux). Did you know that Microsoft bought most of SGI's 3D patents in 2002? These include patents relating to OpenGL.

Seriously, if Microsoft wanted to use patents on Linux, there's a HELL of a lot better targets than Mono.

Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...

[PPH]

That's what I pay lawyers to do.

Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU...

[PastaLover]

Until now Debian has been clearly in the pure camp. Debian, moe RMS Pure than RMS over the GNU FDL. Debian, endless wanking over whether firmware blobs have to get yanked for two major releases. And so on. Now suddenly they are taking the Novell "Mono is just another managed code environment licensed under the GPL, nothing to fear here" position. when everyone else DOES see something to fear even if they ship Mono/Tomboy. Fedora is planning on tossing Mono out of the standard install and RH has never shipped it in RHEL because their lawyers are uneasy.

Ehm, fedora and RH don't quite count as "everyone". Perhaps you'd do better to put a little faith in the Debian leadership, who have tangled with such complex issues in the past and have as of yet shown better judgement than the average /. 'tard you just dubbed "everyone". I know bashing Debian is popular and all, but now you're just being silly.

Pot calling the kettle black

[Vahokif]

GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology from convicted monopolists as Mono is. QFT

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[wampus]

How is this a troll? C and UNIX were both developed by an even bigger, eviler company than MS could ever hope to be.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Sorry about that. I was modding at such haste and I'm a bit drunk as well... It looked trollish at a quick drunken glance, but I have posted elsewhere in the conversation to undo my erroneous mod now.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[Anonymous Coward]

C is an international standard and isn't owned by any company, nor is it or its standard library covered by patents.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[Vahokif]

That's true for C# too. The only iffy parts are the nonstandard libraries that are nonetheless in widespread use, like ADO.NET.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[jmorris42]

> GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology...

A couple of important differences.

1. The patents have long since expired on the core ideas in UNIX. we are rapidly approaching the point where Linux has existed longer than a US patent is allowed to exist and BSD embodies almost all of the user visible APIs and goes back even longer.

2. C is an ANSI Standard that again is older than any patent could threaten from. C++ is more recent but was developed by real standards bodies vs ECMA, thus any IP issues would be out in the open.

3. C#, the CLR and the rest of Mono/.Net/etc are the sole creation of Microsoft Corp. Any changes can only originate from them, the tech is new enough to have patents pretty much anywhere and by their sole control of the language the can introduce whatever they want and we get to chase their tail lights because they won't have to disclose any of the new bits until they ship production code.

So yes, had the GNU Project been operating in the toxic software patent environment we now have it is doubtful they would have been able to release GCC when they did, instead being forced to wait out the patents, but history is what it is.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[VGPowerlord]

How is this a troll? C and UNIX were both developed by an even bigger, eviler company than MS could ever hope to be.

Which should be obvious when you look at their old logo and notice it looks like The Death Star from Star Wars!

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[Vahokif]

AT&T and SCO would like to have a word with you.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[phantomfive]

AT&T is no longer in a position to abuse their monopoly position, so it's ok. When they were in that position, they did try: they had a long painful lawsuit going with BSD. Do we really want to risk a repeat of that? Microsoft has shown great ingenuity in finding ways to abuse their power: if they can use their position to screw you and gain an advantage, they will. That is why you should not give them any advantage whatsoever.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[10101001 10101001]

GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology from convicted monopolists as Mono is.

Yes, but at the time GNU and GCC were created, neither work being cloned were under any considerable control of said monopolist. Further, AT&T didn't seem patently aware of what a goldmine Unix could be (almost probably because of their focus on Multics), so that even when there final was a lawsuit brought upon anyone (BSD), sufficient modifications had been made and reintegrated into the main branch that AT&T couldn't subsume ownership/control over the whole work. Now, perhaps the same circumstance will happen with Microsoft and Mono. And perhaps Mono itself is sufficient to override nearly any legal claim by Microsoft to patents, trade secrets, etc, but people are reasonably uneasy about circumstances as they exist today.

This, btw, was true with BSD as well, which is one main reason GNU/GCC were created and prospered as well as they did since every degree of seperation, either in time or implementation, tends to offer further protection against lawsuits. So, a significant fork of Mono or a reimplementation of Mono would likely be sufficient to cement Mono as a safe platform--not that Mono isn't necessarily safe anyways.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[DeVilla]

They are both old. They are well published. There are no trade secrets left in C or UNIX and there have not been for decades. I don't believe the public knows what was in that agreement between Novell and Microsoft. Mono is fertile ground for another FAT or RAMBUS case. Maybe one day it will be safe, but for now, no Free system should risk becoming dependent on Mono.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[putaro]

Hmmm...that was a very interesting and disingenuous comparison that he made.

AT&T had a monopoly in telecommunications, not in computers. AT&T did not have a long history of embrace, extend, extinguish as Microsoft has. AT&T did not have a history (successful, at least) of using its monopoly to create new monopolies in other areas unlike Microsoft (for example, Microsoft leveraging their OS monopoly into a office suite monopoly).

At the time that GNU was started, software was not patentable. Cloning a copyrighted system only opens you to legal problem if you actually copy the code. Cloning a system with patents will leave not just the cloner but also any users open to patent infringement lawsuits.

The two situation are not as parallel as the glib comment would make it.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[Vahokif]

The point is that if you're paranoid about Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot and killing Mono as their long history of antitrust cases would suggest, you'd have to say that GNU was just as dangerous when it was started.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black

[putaro]

And as I said the situations are not at all parallel. When GNU was started (and I remember because I was very interested in Unix at that time) there was no worry that AT&T would be able to kill it, except if there were copyright infringements.

Computer software was not even copyrightable until 1980. Prior to that, if you got a copy, you would be able to copy it. The Unix source code was protected by "trade secret" before then. GNU got started in about 1983.

The whole regime of patents, copyrights and other "intellectual property" did not really apply to the software world at that time and there was not nearly the level of paranoia about them.

If that was true

[coryking]

Then why is he pimping his own c# implementation in the very same article? Their project sounds exactly like Mono.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[IRWolfie-]

Thanks for the anti-stallman rant there, but I dont think he's saying Mono is "evil". Its that future lawsuits by microsoft may cause it to be removed and everything that depends on it

Re:FFS edit the summary

[east coast]

Remember years back when the bulk of Slashdot could poke fun at Digg without being a bunch of hypocrites?

Yeah? Well...

Welcome to the new Digg.

As much as Digg was the punching bag of Slashdot for a number of years it seems that management went out of it's way to seem like Digg 2.0.

Re:Richard "Dick" Stallman also says no to...

[selven]

You're bastardizing his name wrong. It's RM$.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

[ketilwaa]

Interesting, compared to this which has been his comment earlier. Nice to see RMS give the Mono haters more fuel to their flame wars, so that developers can get tangled up in endless discussions about this in stead of actually hacking away. Again, this is one of the reasons GNU/Linux is not gaining more than it does. All MS needs to do in order to keep hackers busy not making great software (and cloning already great C# apps instead), is issue some kind of new vague statement on the nature of .NET. Then, we all lose. Like we've been doing since day 1. Nice. Thanks. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Re:With friends like these, who needs enemies?

[iggymanz]

since there are no essential nor important free software apps written in C#, who gives a shit if its use in free distributions of software are hindered?

Re:With friends like these, who needs enemies?

[ketilwaa]

I think you're missing the point. Check up on what free software commentators have been spending their last 3-4 weeks on. Not only are the devs behing F-spot, Beagle, Gnome Do and Tomboy getting side tracked, a big chunk of the FLOSS community are too, getting absorbed in this endless discussion. If you think that topics not directly related to their projects are not eating into the 24 hrs that every day of a distro developer consists of, think again.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[ubersoldat2k7]

Won't ... feed ... the ... troll ... must ... resist!

Stallman - growing increasingly irrelavant

[TheKingAdrock]

Does anybody really care what he has to say about Mono & C#?

After fighting a decade+ long losing battle about Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming, he just enjoys trying to continue controlling others and telling them what to do and not do.

Re:Stallman - growing increasingly irrelavant

[peppepz]

Does anybody really care what he has to say about Mono & C#?

I do.

After fighting a decade+ long losing battle about Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming, he just enjoys trying to continue controlling others and telling them what to do and not do.

I see him as fighting a winning battle about bringing free software into relevance.
The "Linux vs GNU/Linux" naming issue is negligible when compared to the other issues he cares for.
And I don’t think he can actually control anyone. In the free software world, coders have the power.
Sometimes he says, well, stupid things and people just ignore him. In this specific case I think he’s right - his statement have nothing of extremist or preconceived. He’s just issuing a warning that makes sense from his point of view.

Re:Stallman - growing increasingly irrelavant

[TheKingAdrock]

I'm glad you've been "instructed" so that you know what to call it.

He also doesn't belive in "root"

[coryking]

Why GNU su does not support the wheel group (by Richard Stallman)

Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest. For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and keep- ing it secret from everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.)

However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual su mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with the ordinary users, he can tell the rest. The "wheel group" feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers.

I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find this idea strange at first.

su manpage - GNU Shell Utilities

Re:He also doesn't belive in "root"

[beelsebob]

So, he's in support of not using wheel because it's more secure to do so?

Re:He also doesn't belive in "root"

[pjt33]

I think that much was already evident from GPP. What I don't understand is why the wheel group is relevant to this.

Re:He also doesn't belive in "root"

[ls671]

1. Create a wheel group in /etc/groups
2. Change the permissions of the su command so that only those in the wheel group may run it.

That's all there is to it.

http://administratosphere.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/the-wheel-group/

Re:He also doesn't belive in "root"

[egork]

Remember the story with that admin which kidnapped a city network in US, was it San Francisco? May be this would help you to put this in a context.

Re:He also doesn't belive in "root"

[Ilgaz]

Funny enough that I am running the exact setup he suggests without knowing it. Single admin with shared password and I always choose to get tortured by su command instead of having ''root powers''.

Wonder if we dig well enough, can we find OS X, Unix 03 OS with 10% market share actually carries his recommendations? While people think they are Administrator on OS X, they are more like a super user with good powers. The real ''root'' is even disabled by default. Perhaps at the end, he was proven to be right just like in 5-10 years from now on, we may have to bitterly laugh and tell some that ''We told you'' regarding using .NET on Linux.

You sure know some of the tools, policies on now 40 years old UNIX originates to 10-15 client networks and single sysadmins right? So, the reason of su not accepting wheel doesn't sound that crazy just like watching OS X calling terminals ''teletype'' on 1080p screen doesn't sound crazy too. There were times people saw the inventor of Web's mail address when they typed ''netstat'' and see port 80 open.

Re:He also doesn't belive in "root"

[MichaelSmith]

I think that much was already evident from GPP. What I don't understand is why the wheel group is relevant to this.

Its an example of something trivial which RMS got pissed off about once, but which is now part of GNU for that reason only.

Re:He also doesn't belive in "root"

[Requiem18th]

How old is that document?

Before the age of personal computers the only way for a hacker to play around was using the large, centralized, university mainframes. I'm sure he felt oppressed in that environment.

Nowadays I don't think he is as opposed to the wheel group as back then.

Re:Richard "Dick" Stallman also says no to...

[ketilwaa]

No, it's RMÂ

Re:FFS edit the summary

[binarylarry]

So you don't like it when they call M$, M$?

Re:Richard "Dick" Stallman also says no to...

[ketilwaa]

That was supposed to be the judicial paragraph sign, but it was screwed up...

People don't seem to be "getting" his point...

[davide marney]

Love him or hate him, but at least listen to what he is actually saying.

1. He isn't saying that he doesn't "like" C#
2. He isn't saying that he is "against" C#
3. He isn't saying that Portable.NET is "better" than Mono
4. He isn't saying that "just because" it's .NET, it must be teh 3vil

All he is saying is that Microsoft has already publicly claimed that Linux violates a couple hundred MS patents. Recently, Microsoft invoked the Linux angle in a patent suit it filed against Tom Tom.

Therefore, he says, it should be obvious to all that MS intends to enforce its patents. So, the more one uses software based on MS technologies, the more likely it is that you may be impacted by a suit in the future. He calls this a "gratuitous" risk.

Or, in his words:

The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.

Re:People don't seem to be "getting" his point...

[MarkWatson]

I think that your post makes the most sense, so far (I have a few more comments still to read :-)

Besides, if/when Microsoft starts to run out of their large pile of cash (LPOC), they might get even more aggressive.

Re:People don't seem to be "getting" his point...

[PastaLover]

The problem isn't with Tomboy. The problem is that parts of Mono might be patented, which makes it risky to build upon.

Pure FUD really. I'd hope we're above that as a community.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[93 Escort Wagon]

I just don't get why you keep meddling in the affairs of others.

Look, given that you're quite obviously pro-GPL, isn't this really a silly statement? Isn't the whole point of the GPL to "meddle in the affairs of others"? After all, it tells you specifically what you can and can't do with GPL-licensed software.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the GPL - I'm just pointing out that being pro-GPL and then disparaging someone for "meddling in the affairs of others" is inconsistent to the extreme.

Not true.

[John Hasler]

> "Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation..."

Mono is not included in the Debian "default installation". It is merely pulled in by one of the several "tasks" that the user may (or may not) choose to select. The Debian "default installation" -- all pacakges of "standard" or higher priority -- does not even include X.

Re:Not true.

[grege1]

However there is a proposal to make mono part of the default installation of both Debian and Ubuntu in their next releases. Debian's next stable release will be a lot further into the future than Ubuntu's next release, at least allowing Debian time to have a serious debate on the matter.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[doshell]

Cute. But I'm not a famous person with an agenda. I'm not a person with HIS OWN OPERATING SYSTEM and many other programs under a license which HE WROTE to IMPOSE HIS WILL upon the unsuspecting masses in a duplicitous game marketed as freedom when it's really restrictions.

I'm simply a user that is fed up with all the restrictions put onto software by the likes of Stallman. I'm not forcing anyone to choose anything. I just don't like it when others tell me that good software like "mono" is evil because of it's licensing terms or some silly issue involved with it.

Yes I prefer Public Domain over BSD/MIT/Apache/... and over GPL and even GPL over Commercial but I'm not forcing that upon you. You can choose what you want doshell. That is a key difference. Stallman on the other hand goes out of his way to influence people to choose GPL, he gives talks, people fly him all over the world to opine, he gets many perks not mentioned to anyone. He is a major political advocate yet his GPL is highly successful and he continues pushing his BORG like agenda. Like Microsoft he's won already! Give it a break!

Stallman does not have the power to impose anything. Proof of that is the fact that Debian is shipping mono anyway. And even if Stallman somehow prevented them from doing it, even you or I could set up our own distribution including mono.

He is famous and has an agenda, but what do you expect him to do? Do you think he should refrain from expressing his opinion just because he's actually heard when he does so? I might not like Stallman's stance on software licensing, but I will be the first in line to defend his right to express his views.

You also seem to miss one very important point: it's not Stallman who puts restrictions on software, it's the developers. Stallman may have written the GPL, but it's still up to the developers to pick the license they will be using. If you want to be mad at someone because there's too much GPL software in the world, be mad at the developers who wrote it (which include Stallman, of course).

Chill out! If you don't think mono is evil, just ignore RMS already and keep going. You can choose what you want, just like everybody else, and he won't stop you from doing so.

Re:another reason:it doesn't play to Linux's stren

[ubersoldat2k7]

Completely agree with you. I don't see how Mono is any better than most of the programming languages out there that have a great support and communities behind them. I don't see what's so great about Mono that you can't just build on, for example, Python. And no, I don't want Windows applications and DLL's running on my system. If I see a stupid .exe file I'll delete it into oblivion. I'm just sorry for all the effort that the Mono Project and related projects are wasting when they could be making something else more useful.

so use basket...

[dkh]

http://basket.kde.org/

oh, wait, that's a kde thing... I forget, is that evil or not now?

Re:so use basket...

[Sir_Lewk]

Wow, way to try dragging desktop enviroment/window manager arguments into this.

Troll.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[Sir_Lewk]

People have agendas and they often like to voice them. He simply has a different point of view from you but he is by no means less entitled to express it. Everyone has the right voice their own opinions and it really irks me when people get mad about this.

In other words, why do some people feel such a need to try to impose restrictions on other peoples freedom of speech?

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[Daemonax]

When I used to use Bulletin Board systems to download software most of it was in the public domain. Now evil software licenses like GPL have ruined the public domain. It's quite sad to impose so many restrictions on free software.

There was an article the other day talking about copyfraud. Lazy people that want to take old work, charging for it while stopping anyone else from also distributing it.

The GPL stops this kind of harmful behaviour. It still allows anyone to profit from the software, there is no restriction there. But it stops you from taking from the community and distributing without giving back.

I can speculate as to what kind of person would like to see all that great GPL software fall into the public domain... But I'll keep such speculations to myself.

For *Tomboy*?

[Grendel Drago]

Oh, hell. Isn't anyone concerned that this is all for Tomboy, an app which is frequently so sluggish as to be completely unusable? Remind me why we're not all simply using Gnote?

Re:For *Tomboy*?

[Temposs]

What kind of hardware/OS are you using that Tomboy is unusably sluggish? My computer is almost 5 years old and Tomboy works great!

Also, this is not all for Tomboy. Ubuntu is bringing in Banshee music player in version 9.10 (released in October 2009), and that's written in Mono too.

Re:For *Tomboy*?

[tenco]

Also, this is not all for Tomboy. Ubuntu is bringing in Banshee music player in version 9.10 (released in October 2009), and that's written in Mono too.

I tried a recent version of Banshee and it's even slower than Tomboy. It often pauses for several minutes between songs, doing nothing. Then, suddenly, it starts playing again. It's simply unusable.

Re:For *Tomboy*?

[Temposs]

I've never used Banshee myself, but I've heard some good stuff about it, at least. I guess we'll see how it turns out once Canonical is done optimizing it for Ubuntu for the next release.

Re:For *Tomboy*?

[ion.simon.c]

Remind me again why this effort is not being put into Amarok 2?

Re:For *Tomboy*?

[PastaLover]

Remind me again why this effort is not being put into Amarok 2?

Have you seen Amarok's UI?

Re:For *Tomboy*?

[PastaLover]

I've never used Banshee myself, but I've heard some good stuff about it, at least. I guess we'll see how it turns out once Canonical is done optimizing it for Ubuntu for the next release.

It's already in universe. Works great.

but it does point to a mind out of touch

[circletimessquare]

if i said i didn't believe in blood transfusions, would that color your impression of any medical ethics opinions i might have?

lets be intellectually honest here: anyone who doesn't browse the web is completely out of touch with the main thrust of anything and everything computer related in the last 15 years

you say its not related. i'm saying it is

Re:but it does point to a mind out of touch

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Your analogy fails.

if i said i didn't believe in blood transfusions, would that color your impression of any medical ethics opinions i might have?

The equivalent of what RMS said would be: "I don't take blood transfusions for personal reasons"
- maybe he doesn't take them because he's concerned about getting a blood born disease (virus), maybe he's got allergies that most doctors aren't even aware of (celebrity status), etc.

lets be intellectually honest here: anyone who doesn't browse the web is completely out of touch with the main thrust of anything and everything computer related in the last 15 years

Honest? Just because the guy doesn't take the well-worn path he's out of touch? You always have been an intellectual conformist.

In fact, as he wrote, he does use the web, his browser just has a mail interface instead of a a GUI interface.

Re:but it does point to a mind out of touch

[tomhudson]

lets be intellectually honest here: anyone who doesn't browse the web is completely out of touch with the main thrust of anything and everything computer related in the last 15 years

He still browses the web - he just does it via a method that works:

1. even if he doesn't have a net connection when he wants to actually view the page (which might be later on in the day at a conference, or in a cafeteria) - the page is in his email, so he can download it now, and then view it later offline with his email program
2. without downloading all the associated crap that most pages are infested with
3. while providing him with a permanent copy of the stuff he's interested in

Other people also use other means to "browse" the web that don't involve conventional interactions with a web browser. Programs like JAWS (a screen reader for the blind) and blinux don't meet your metaphor for accesing the web - BFD, get over it.

Also, computing is much more than just the web. For many researchers, email is a LOT more convenient, and more important, than the web ever will be.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[itsybitsy]

Ditto.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[doshell]

Read the OP. The words are his; I adapted them to point out his dubious stance of criticizing Stallman for calling mono evil and pushing an agenda, while he himself calls the GPL evil and even says that more software should be in the public domain.

I'm not "for the GPL" or "against the GPL"; if I ever release source code it will probably be GPL'd (or BSD'd if I deem more appropriate), but I'm not denying anybody the choice. The OP on the other hand seems to think that developers shouldn't have the right to choose the license for the code they write (or I got him wrong).

Open Office? Wine? Drivers?

[Trerro]

Is Stallman also saying Open Office should be discontinued because it can read a Word document? The .doc standard is closed, heavily patented, rigidly controlled, and arbitrarily changed... yet I think we all agree an office suite that wants to be relevant better be able to save files in that format. So sure, use .odf as your default... but if you can't convert to .doc, you pretty much can't use it in the business world.

What about Wine? That implements the entire freaking Win32 API. If Mono, which implements a single language and a single programming technology for using multiple languages (.net) scares him, Wine must have him jumping at shadows.

Hell, even drivers could fall into this category. If you allow an MS mouse to function in Linux, are you afraid of patent suits there too? I certainly hope not, as mice are something you very much expect to work with zero effort.

C# may have been developed by a big bloated corporation that many consider evil (or at least unethical), but so was C! (AT&T - anyone boycotting C/C++ over warrantless wiretapping? Didn't think so.) Does anyone coding in C or C++ (or making a compiler or IDE for it) seriously fear a patent lawsuit from AT&T?

.net was clearly built as a Windows technology, but that's simply because MS made it. MS pretty much CAN'T claim patents on it, because .net itself implements so many languages that MS had nothing to do with developing, that I think it's safe to say any .net-based patent suit would die in seconds.

I'm no fan of MS, but I really don't see a problem with Mono unless you have Stallmanian paranoia.

Re:Open Office? Wine? Drivers?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Is Stallman also saying Open Office should be discontinued because it can read a Word document? The .doc standard is closed, heavily patented, rigidly controlled, and arbitrarily changed... yet I think we all agree an office suite that wants to be relevant better be able to save files in that format

The difference here is that the .doc format is already entrenched and the damage is done. MS has monopoly power in the office suite market already. For your analogy to work we'd have to be rewinding to a time before .doc was dominant, when MS was first introducing it. Further it would require there to be a competing standard already in existence, not created by MS and with a vested interest in cross-platform compatibility. If we could rewind the clock and throw the support of a a segment of the market behind, say WordPerfect's formats we could perhaps have avoided a lot of trouble and needless work and lock in for Linux developers for a decade and promoted the adoption of Linux. How many times over the years was lack of .doc compatibility cited as a reason to not migrate to Linux. Do you really want lac of .NET version X to be another reason and another way for MS to lock people into Windows?

What about Wine?

You think Stallman or any other reasonable person thinks building WINE into Linux and writing core applications to run in WINE is a good idea either?

Hell, even drivers could fall into this category. If you allow an MS mouse to function in Linux, are you afraid of patent suits there too?

MS doesn't have a monopoly on mice it can use to leverage against Linux.

C# may have been developed by a big bloated corporation that many consider evil (or at least unethical), but so was C!

If you think that is the reason Stallman said we shouldn't adopt it, you have problems with reading comprehension. Otherwise, this is a strawman.

.net was clearly built as a Windows technology, but that's simply because MS made it. MS pretty much CAN'T claim patents on it, because .net itself implements so many languages that MS had nothing to do with developing, that I think it's safe to say any .net-based patent suit would die in seconds.

Thanks for your legal opinion. I think you're 100% wrong, since they don't have a patent on C#, just lots of vital components that went into it, and even if it was, legal posturing and barratry can do plenty of damage even if MS were to eventually lose in court.

I'm no fan of MS, but I really don't see a problem with Mono unless you have Stallmanian paranoia.

Paranoia is an unreasonable fear, like thinking the people in the grey coats are out to get you. After the people in the grey coats have beaten you with clubs a few dozen times, it is no longer paranoia, just being sensible.

Re:Open Office? Wine? Drivers?

[SplashMyBandit]

The early versions of the Word format are undocumented "trade secrets". They can be reverse engineered without a problem.

Re:Open Office? Wine? Drivers?

[grege1]

It is not the C# language that is the issue, it is the underlying mono libraries that may infringing patents on parts of the .net libraries. If no one can say yes this is clean and clear then why use it. As for Wine, Wine is not part of GNU/Linux or Gnome itself, it is an add on to allow some programs from a foreign OS to function through GNU/Linux. If Wine disappeared it would be sad but Gnu/Linux would continue on. There has been suggestions by Mr de Icaza that Gnome, or parts of it, should be re-written in C#. The threat is where Gnome itself becomes dependent on patent encumbered libs and one court case can stop all comercial sales. It is not simple and it is not easy.

paint-mono

[cong06]

Aw...
And I was just trying to find a way to install paint-mono since Gimp sucks.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[itsybitsy]

Look anyone is free to opine, it's just that Stallman's opinions are just so much wining about how the world isn't yet fully following his glorious GPL agenda and that if we don't it's dangerous. Very sad indeed considering how much software is licensed under the GPL.

Yes, developers choose to follow the cult of GPL and that is their choice. It is a free society in some parts of the world so they have that right.

But so what? Let people choose what they choose! Instead Stallman rails against other's choices without saying let them choose. He wants you to do it his way rather than letting you choose. He wants you to give him the power.

I say no. I say it too restrictive. Public Domain is the true open source software. However, I also say you too can choose as you wish. Don't force your choices upon me with your restrictive licenses is all that I ask. If you make good software let it be truely free as public domain or another non-restrictive based license. You choose.

Stallman's incongruent position.

[xoluxo]

Richard Stallman over the years has made it his goal to encourage and promote the creation of free software alternatives of commercial products, patented or not.

RMS decided to clone Unix when he started his GNU project. This was at a time when ATT might have hold patents on the technology:

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

Microsoft has been vocal about their patent portfolio, but the danger of patents extends beyond anyone that is vocal.

As we saw with SCO, a company that is desperate for revenue will start taping into whatever they have at their disposal. SCO lost market share and tried to capitalize on the Unix IP.

The same can easily happen to any software company today that owns patents and finds itself in financial trouble. They will either try to license their patents or sell the patents for a third party to buy.

SGI was in such situation in 2002/2003 when they sold their OpenGL patent portfolio to Microsoft which now owns the OpenGL patents.

Smaller companies go out of business constantly and sell their patents as a last resort or as part of the bankruptcy proceedings (Chapter 12) that force a company to sell their assets to pay their debt.

Today the FSF is requesting clones for a number of technologies as can be seen here:

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html

As the FSF becomes more irrelevant, their list of tasks becomes more irrelevant as well. Most of the work is now driven by external communities and there has not been a need for RMS to push for free implementations of key pieces of software as he did in the past.

Or they sponsor projects like GNUstep that would violate Apple/Nextstep patents as much as Mono would violate Microsoft patents. The only difference being that Apple is more litigious than Microsoft. It is part of their culture.

Re:i wonder what RMS uses

[PenisLands]

Apparently he uses gNewSense.

Oops

[daemonburrito]

Link to Novell Microsoft FAQ

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[doshell]

Yes, developers choose to follow the cult of GPL and that is their choice. It is a free society in some parts of the world so they have that right.

You assume all developers using the GPL follow some kind of cult. I don't think that's the case, I can just choose a license that fits what I'm willing to let people do with the software I write, and be done with it...

I grant that Stallman is too much of an extremist sometimes, but let him do what he think he's right. (I actually think he's right on this one, but not because of licensing issues... it's the Microsoft patent trap that gets me worried).

But so what? Let people choose what they choose! Instead Stallman rails against other's choices without saying let them choose. He wants you to do it his way rather than letting you choose. He wants you to give him the power.

I say no. I say it too restrictive. Public Domain is the true open source software. However, I also say you too can choose as you wish. Don't force your choices upon me with your restrictive licenses is all that I ask. If you make good software let it be truely free as public domain or another non-restrictive based license. You choose.

You still haven't understood that it's not just a matter of end user choice --- it's also a matter of developer choice. You say I'm free to choose, but then insist that I (as a developer) put my code in the public domain because the GPL is too restrictive.

Re:The submarine patents aren't submarined

[Anonymous Coward]

When Microsoft submitted C# to the ECMA standards body they specified which parts are patented. They further did NOT give any guarantee that they would not sue anyone who implemented C# at a later date. There was an article about this some months ago in which Miguel de Icaza himself was asked what the status was on Mono vs. the patents and he DOES NOT KNOW. Microsoft was asked for a clarification and none was given.

citation: http://www.osnews.com/story/21586

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[itsybitsy]

GPL stops way too much good behavior in a misguided attempt to open the software it really closes down people.

Sure I'll not hesitate in using any good GPL'd software just like I'd not hesitate in using any Shareware or Commercial software, it's just that I'd not DEVELOP FURTHER any software with those licenses.

While some GPL software is good much isn't, but that is par for the course with software. Even with the best software one day it's good, the next, it's junk.

Whenever I'm confronted with using open source software I always prefer to use the more free version. I'm always trying to work around the GPL since it's so darn infective. It usually means incorporating it so as to keep it contained within a separate program rather than being FREE to incorporate the good bits as I CHOOSE. I can't incorporate them since then my license will be INFECTED. Not free at all.

I think it's one of the lies about the GPL that it's free. It's also one of the nastier things that is so annoying. I can't lift a file or a function out and simply use it due to the GPL infecting terms coming into play. That means a lot of rewriting of already existing code from scratch when there isn't something more compatible license wise. It really restricts what developers in the real world can do.

Oh well. As you wish. Keep your software locked up tight with the GPL all you want. You're missing out on some amazing developers work on your projects though.

He also says no to...

[actionbastard]

Haircuts, shaving, dieting, and exercise.

Re:He also says no to...

[wild_berry]

In all fairness, exercise isn't abhorrent to rms when it's folk dancing.

Why Evil?

[dandart]

Stop whining, if it's all our code, it doesn't matter. For all everyone knows, our implementation is better because it's way more portable. It's NOT impure, it's NOT bad, it's just a recoding of commercial software. If we get in trouble for this, then's the time to worry! If not, then bloody hell, use it if you have to! But it's quite slow though. Why not use Vala?

Playing right into Microsoft's Hands?

[c0d3g33k]

Microsoft wants people to remain exclusively Windows. Mono and similar implementations allow people to run their .NET code on alternate platforms (eg. Linux, Mac, BSD) if the code is sufficiently portable (not that hard to do). By refraining from exploring portable solutions on other platforms due to vague, non-specified fears about some nebulous future threat, developers are doing what Microsoft wants most: giving people a reason to stay devoted to Windows. It's the safe bet. As others have pointed out above, the threat of patent infringement didn't prevent re-implementation of other commercial technologies. Linux as we know it today wouldn't exist if people had succumbed to the same kind of fear. I always thought one of the more ethical aspects of free-as-in-freedom software was to provide an alternative to less-free proprietary software. As such, Mono should be welcomed as a way for people to escape the control of Microsoft. I'm not sure I like this new fear-driven approach to deciding what's worthy of being acceptable as FLOSS.

Re:i wonder what RMS uses

[dandart]

He doesn't live anywhere permanently you know. On campus and things. And on his "box" he must want to use GNU/HURD and sends an email to a program that runs wget instead of a browser.

What's In A Name

[deanston]

MS or M$ - Who cares? If people use M$ you can see their bias right away, which may be a good thing to help you evaluate their position. Should a website thriving on user comments start implementing strict spelling rules? MS also stands for a disease, which I find kind of ironic. So does mono.

.NET is an Open Standard

[Jet_Blazer]

I really don't understand all the fuzz behind this. .NET (CLI, C#, MSIL) has been submitted to ECMA/ISO and its an Open Standard. Assuming a completely hypothetical and unrealistic scenario (where MS is desperate to attack mono despite officially supporting it via moonlight and others (read: Novell agreement)), It is legally impossible for MS to sue mono in the long run because its based on a OPEN STANDARD. It's like saying Adobe can lash out a patent against all .pdf documents which is impossible since Adobe passed on the PDF as an open specification. Eventhough Adobe invented it, they have no legal control over it anymore. FOSS crowd should wake up to the realities of the world. Whether you like it or not, managed languages are definitely the future and MS came up with the best specification for it in the industry (yeah, .NET is lightyears ahead of Java, don't kid yourself). The key word here is "specification". Not the implementation. Mono does not use *any* code from the official MS C# compiler for example. Its a totally different compiler based on an open specification just like how the "official" C# compiler from MS. I am frankly tired of C++ (after professionally coding in it for years). Not to say that C++ limited me. I'd say 90% of my applications were very successful but I can literally write the same application in C# at least 50% faster without any worries on security, memory management, etc and just as efficient. Only true C/C++ gurus can truly optimize a C/C++ application and theres not many of them. I don't claim to be on of them either. The CLR is just as fast as a "regular" C++ application anyday, if not even faster. Besides, the FOSS community or actually any organization has no alternative for some of the cool technologies in .NET like WPF for instance. I think Mono is the answer Linux has been waiting for all these years. A multiplatform and more importantly a "consistent" framework. Like it or not, you need to get those Windows Dev crowd to Linux. Once Mono really takes off, I reckon most .NET app devs will pay attention to Mono and attempt to make it compatible (if not for Linux, at least for Mac which is again good for Linux anyway). Might as well as switch to Mono/C# sooner than later than rejecting it with...well...for no apparent reason except that it originated from MS of course.

Re:.NET is an Open Standard

[VGPowerlord]

It's like saying Adobe can lash out a patent against all .pdf documents which is impossible since Adobe passed on the PDF as an open specification. Eventhough Adobe invented it, they have no legal control over it anymore.

Have you ever looked into why the Microsoft Office 2007 RTM had its PDF writer as an add-on rather than integrated into Word like it was in the Office 2007 betas?

"Microsoft's general counsel told the WSJ that Adobe has threatened legal action unless Microsoft agrees to charge for the PDF support patch, a step it refuses to take."

While Adobe can't lash out against PDF documents, it can against software that creates PDF documents!

Incidentally, the actual MS Office add-on is still free, but the above quote was from 2006.

You should be as out of touch as stallman

[CarpetShark]

I've seen stallman's mailbox (seen, not read up close). If you had a much correspondence as he does, I'm betting you'd be a lot more in touch than now.

People forgot what GNU/Linux is

[Ilgaz]

It seems the excellent look, ease of use/install and several binary stuff (not evil) like Nvidia drivers, Adobe Flash made people forget what GNU/Linux is and the philosophy behind it.

Novell is a company who was going all GM way before MS deal. The guy behind Mono is at a very high position at Novell and also happens to be behind Silverlight clone, Moonlight. Half of his blog includes Microsoft, Redmond. His fame comes from Gnome when it was created because of non technical, political reason of Trolltech Qt not being really GPL (which is all fixed now), he applied for a job at MS before open source and got rejected, there isn't a single reason to code Tom Tom in that language, there are dozens of ways to code it, it doesn't even get mentioned in windows scene...

Should I be reminding these as a OS X user? RMS, being founder of GNU has all the right to bitch about Debian GNU/Linux including a patent death trap. That trojan developer really knows what means to be included in Debian distro, it is some sort of unofficial proof that Mono is a credible open source framework, not a trojan half ass clone.

Debian guys must be fools to allow their credibility and respect earned for years to be abused like that. At least Novell got saved from Chapter 11 and Icaza has a job, what does Debian earn except the loss of respect?

RMS == bonkers!?

[Sklivvz]

What an idiotic statement by RMS!

>>It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.

Why should it be a danger? If there are any software patent issues, they are certainly not on C# which is an open standard, but on the .NET library (BCL). If RMS is worried about that, GNU should strive to provide an open and different alternative to the .NET library. But the BCL has got nothing to do with C# since it is used by all .net languages (VB.NET, J#, IronPython, IronRuby...)

"The Microsoft .NET Framework is the predominant implementation of .NET technologies. Other implementations for parts of the framework exist. Since the runtime engine is described by an ECMA/ISO specification, other implementations of it are unencumbered by patent issues. It is more difficult to develop alternatives to the base class library (BCL), which is not described by an open standard and may be subject to copyright restrictions." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#Alternative_implementations

>>any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue.

Again, nonsense

>>This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.

Talk about being coherent. If C# is bad, then why is GNU implementing it? You can't say one thing and the opposite two sentences later...

>>The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#.

Ok, so now the problem is Tomboy? And again, what's the problem with C#? It's... an... open... standard...
Oh, and by the way, Microsoft has a "shared source" implementation as well (free for non commercial use), called Rotor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Common_Language_Infrastructure

I am a big, big fan of Open Source. I actually maintain an open source project, and it so happens that is written in C#. RMS is actually harming many F/OSS projects with these stupid comments. What a letdown.

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[cheesybagel]

There are plenty of patent issues, and you cannot write desktop apps without using APIs outside the .NET ECMA specs.

C# is important to the discussion because Tomboy, the application Debian decided it must have, is written in C#.

GNU does not have to provide any alternative to .NET. Java is free software and Sun has released all necessary patents. .NET is a copycat of Java. It is better than Java at some things, worse at others, but both are evolving. Java is not encumbered, so why the hell should free software use patent encumbered .NET?

Stallman does not see free software implementations of .NET as a problem since they provide interoperability with non-free software written for other platforms. He just claims free software should not be constrained by such limitations, and I for one agree with him.

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[Sklivvz]

>C# is important to the discussion because Tomboy, the application Debian decided it must have, is written in C#.

Uhm, and why is that relevant? Once it's compiled it could have been written in any language. Also, C# can be machine translated to unmanaged C++, so I really don't see what the problem is.

>There are plenty of patent issues, and you cannot write desktop apps without using APIs outside the .NET ECMA specs.

Of course you can, see for example the GTK# that implements an totally different layer to Windows.Forms. By the way, Tomboy is not a winforms application anyways.

Can you name a single patent issue relative to C#? Nope, it's an open standard (whereas Java isn't IIRC). It's like Ecmascript, same licensing model.

You know what the real truth is? Is that since it is a standard coming from Microsoft it HAS to be evil, right?

Bonkers.

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[Wolfbone]

What an idiotic statement by RMS! Why should it be a danger? If there are any software patent issues, they are certainly not on C# which is an open standard

But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went
further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C#
and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis
for this purpose.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html

RMS == bonkers!?

No - just well-informed and cautious. Some people seem to trust that patent holders won't in future want to leverage patents covering tech. that could, invitingly, become deeply embedded in competing products. Others are more cynical / have read the patent strategy manuals and think that that sort of trust is naïvely optimistic. :)

RMS is actually harming many F/OSS projects with these stupid comments. What a letdown.

Quite the reverse.

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[cheesybagel]

Uhm, and why is that relevant? Once it's compiled it could have been written in any language. Also, C# can be machine translated to unmanaged C++, so I really don't see what the problem is.

Any application which doesn't evolve is dead. Besides, no need for .NET or machine translation, since someone already did a human translation to plain C++: Gnote. Better to use just that instead.

Of course you can, see for example the GTK# that implements an totally different layer to Windows.Forms. By the way, Tomboy is not a winforms application anyways.

Is GTK# an ECMA standard? No. So you are wrong. And when you are writing an application for .NET using an API that the vast majority of the people using the platform does not support, what does that mean for interoperability? Which was the point for creating .NET to begin with.

ECMA as a standards body does not demand that patents involving the current standards are provided on a royalty free basis. Why the heck do you think Red Hat avoids Mono like the plague? They know better than to tie corporate policy to a tainted technology by a convicted monopolist.

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[Sklivvz]

Uhm, and why is that relevant? Once it's compiled it could have been written in any language. Also, C# can be machine translated to unmanaged C++, so I really don't see what the problem is.

Any application which doesn't evolve is dead. Besides, no need for .NET or machine translation, since someone already did a human translation to plain C++: Gnote. Better to use just that instead.

Do you know the technology well at all? Any C# source code can be compiled and then decompiled into any other .NET language. If C# became a problem (which is impossible, but I am entertaining your hypothesis), one could port Tomboy or any other .NET app to any other .NET language with literally two clicks.

Of course you can, see for example the GTK# that implements an totally different layer to Windows.Forms. By the way, Tomboy is not a winforms application anyways.

Is GTK# an ECMA standard? No. So you are wrong. And when you are writing an application for .NET using an API that the vast majority of the people using the platform does not support, what does that mean for interoperability? Which was the point for creating .NET to begin with.

ECMA as a standards body does not demand that patents involving the current standards are provided on a royalty free basis. Why the heck do you think Red Hat avoids Mono like the plague? They know better than to tie corporate policy to a tainted technology by a convicted monopolist.

C# is patent free. The only possible patent issues are in the class library that is included. Usage of this class library is optional. GTK# is not an ECMA standard, but who cares? It's free, open source (by mono). There is no Microsoft implementation of it -- it's based on the Gnome GTK libraries.
Red Hat avoids mono like the plague (do they?) only because it's by a competitor: SuSE. Oh, and Richard Stallman has a problem with Miguel De Icaza (creator of Gnome and mono) because he refused to refer to Linux as GNU/Linux. So he kick him out of the FSF. Great guy.
https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/2362214990

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[peppepz]

>C# is important to the discussion because Tomboy, the application Debian decided it must have, is written in C#.

Uhm, and why is that relevant? Once it's compiled it could have been written in any language. Also, C# can be machine translated to unmanaged C++, so I really don't see what the problem is.

With the way things *currently* work, the problem is:
Microsoft sues => Linux distros must stop using the .NET framework => Tomboy stops working.
Of course C# != .NET, but many applications currently make use of .NET APIs.

>There are plenty of patent issues, and you cannot write desktop apps without using APIs outside the .NET ECMA specs.

Of course you can, see for example the GTK# that implements an totally different layer to Windows.Forms.

It’s true, but that kind of defeats the goal of portability across platforms.

By the way, Tomboy is not a winforms application anyways.

It uses .NET classes.

Nope, it's an open standard (whereas Java isn't IIRC).

Java is as open as it gets. It’s developed through the JSR (which is so “open” that it’s held in stall by the Apache foundation), it has a full GPL reference implementation, its relevant standards are fully published in all details and are globally available free of charge.

You know what the real truth is? Is that since it is a standard coming from Microsoft it HAS to be evil, right?

Microsoft and the free software community have conflicting interests.
We can ignore what Microsoft did to some of its partners, the methods they used to reach their position, and the harm they cause to consumers because of their monopoly.
But we can not ignore that Microsoft has actively tried to harm the free software community many times, and that we have evidence that it meant to do so by “de-commoditizing protocols and applications”.
So every standard coming from Microsoft *must* be handled with care, it’s an issue that cannot be ignored tout court.
A free country would be unwise to depend on an unfriendly country for its oil supply, even if citizens don’t care about where their gasoline came from when they are at the gas station. That said, in the free software world, Stallman may issue warnings, but in the end the developers have the freedom to decide. Nobody (but Microsoft) can limit your freedom to use Mono.

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[ClosedSource]

"With the way things *currently* work, the problem is:
Microsoft sues => Linux distros must stop using the .NET framework => Tomboy stops working.
Of course C# != .NET, but many applications currently make use of .NET APIs."

If you really believe that there are patents specifically covering .Net or C# and nothing else, why don't you tell us what they are?

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[peppepz]

It’s nothing “I believe”, it’s a well known fact that even Microsoft clearly acknowledges.
I have already posted a link in a previous comment, but I can paste it again for your convenience.
It also points to a response from Microsoft, in particular by one of the inventors of the patent, who states:

“our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis”

(emphasis mine). It is interesting to note that this particular patent application was filed after the standardization by ECMA.

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[jjohn_h]

>>>
Java is not encumbered, so why the hell should free software use patent encumbered .NET?
>>>

Could you help with the following:

is it possible to write Mono apps and have then run on the Java run-time?

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[Sklivvz]

Of course C# != .NET, but many applications currently make use of .NET APIs.

I agree with you. RMS doesn't -- he specifically targets C#, not the .net APIs.

Microsoft sues => Linux distros must stop using the .NET framework => Tomboy stops working.
Of course C# != .NET, but many applications currently make use of .NET APIs.

Actually, if that were to happen -- and it won't:
Microsoft sues => Linux distros must stop using the .NET framework => Tomboy gets ported to unmanaged C++ via an automated tool => Tomboy keeps on working.

Java is as open as it gets. It's developed through the JSR (which is so "open" that it's held in stall by the Apache foundation), it has a full GPL reference implementation, its relevant standards are fully published in all details and are globally available free of charge.

C# is as open as it gets. It's developed through the ECMA (which is so "open" that it maintains the standards for Javascript), it has a full GPL reference implementation, its relevant standards are fully published in all details and are globally available free of charge.

Microsoft and the free software community have conflicting interests.

Not really, Microsoft and the free software community worked together succesfully a number of times. F/OSS zealots have a thing with Microsoft, but whatever you can say about Microsoft, you can say about IBM or Sun -- who I am sure they hold countless Java patents.

Besides this, if C# (or the BCL) were really dangerous, then why is the FSF doing the exact same thing as mono?

The real truth is that RMS wants Portable.NET to succeed over mono because of personal spite, and that's why he doesn't want it included in Debian. That place is reserved for his puppy implementation.

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[ClosedSource]

I've read the actual patent your link refers to http://tinyurl.com/5ns2 and .Net is just the example used in the patent. This patent would cover anything that did something similar to .Net. Like most patents, it has a long list of claims. For example:

"31. A method, comprising: calling one or more first functions to facilitate browser/server communication; calling one or more second functions to facilitate construction of client applications; calling one or more third functions to facilitate connectivity to data sources and XML functionality; and calling one or more fourth functions to access system and runtime resources."

That covers a lot of ground that you don't need to develop something like Mono to be in conflict with.

In summary, this is not a .Net-specific patent.

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[peppepz]

Actually, if that were to happen -- and it won't:

Says who? MS has done precisely that in the past. Why are you choosing to ignore this fact? Microsoft executives have announced explicit intentions on this matter.

Microsoft sues => Linux distros must stop using the .NET framework => Tomboy gets ported to unmanaged C++ via an automated tool => Tomboy keeps on working.

Wouldn’t such tool have to automatically change all uses of a patented API in a binary program? How will it work?

C# is as open as it gets. It's developed through the ECMA (which is so "open" that it maintains the standards for Javascript), it has a full GPL reference implementation, its relevant standards are fully published in all details and are globally available free of charge.

Your point was: Java is not open. I said it is. I never said C# isn’t.
Anyway, since you mentioned it, where can I download the GPL reference implementation of C#?
And how can I follow the ECMA meetings that are shaping the future of C#? I suppose it’s not that a Microsoft internal team develops it behind closed doors and simply submits the finished product to ECMA for standardization.
Because this would mean that for every new C# revision, all non-Microsoft implementations will lag behind before implementing the new features.
Which is precisely what has been happening with Mono in the past five years.

Microsoft and the free software community have conflicting interests.

Not really, Microsoft and the free software community worked together succesfully a number of times. F/OSS zealots have a thing with Microsoft,

Sorry but in this thread, it is only you who have a thing with someone. You just started calling zealots those who do not agree with you, and expose their argumentation with valid arguments instead of insulting.
Although I am indeed a zealot, sometimes I base my opinion on facts, and I’d like to share some interesting ones with you.
- What Microsoft executives think about free software and patents:

Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches
-- S. Ballmer, Microsoft CEO

We spend a lot of money - the rest of the commercial industry spends a lot of money - on R&D. We spend a lot of money also licenses patents, when people come and say 'Hey this commercial piece of software violates our patent, our intellectual property,' we'll either get a court judgment or pay a big check. I think it is important that the open source products also have an obligation to participate in the same way.
-- S. Ballmer, Microsoft CEO

- Samples of past interactions between MS and free software:
Microsoft vs. tomtom
Halloween documents
Patenting other peoples’ideas

but whatever you can say about Microsoft, you can say about IBM or Sun -- who I am sure they hold countless Java patents.

Thats perfectly true! In fact, before this, RMS has vocally spoken against Java *for the exact same reasons* he is now warning against Mono.
After Java was licensed under the GPL v2, he stopped deprecating Java. That’s because even if Sun held patents about Java, the fact that they released it under the GPL means that they’ve granted perpetual free use of the relative technologies for everyone (don’t take my word - read the GPL).

Besides this, if C# (or the BCL) were really dangerous, then why is th

Re:RMS == bonkers!?

[Wolfbone]

Considering that the current legal environment is making it more and more difficult to use tech patents as a weapon against competing products

It isn't. I'm not sure what you think has changed (Bilski etc.?) but the software patent pollution level is still at saturation point and there are good reasons why patent disputes very rarely result in obvious and visible effects (e.g. litigation) anyway.

If the technology exists with no visible drawbacks, why not use it?

Sure. But this one does have visible drawbacks.

Ironically, given the enormous landscape of opportunities they've had (and still have), I'm very disappointed at the way (some) major FOSS projects have chosen mimicry and cloning over innovation in recent years and I'm sorely tempted to hope that the patent situation gets worse!

this IS strange

[CarpetShark]

I agree with just about everything MS has ever written (not said, as he's famously hard to get along with in person), except for this. I really don't get why it's better to have one root user, rather than many. Especially when, even with a single account and a shared password, anyone with the password can change it easily.

Re:this IS strange

[Tanktalus]

s/MS/RMS/ (significant difference in meaning here! ;-) )

I agree with you: I can't see how any of this makes an iota of difference to "fascist" sysadmins. Really, if you have a fascist sysadmin, you have a problem with management, which is larger than just a single machine. Either management allows your sysadmin to be fascist, or they require it of him/her. Either one is bad. Changing su doesn't make a difference here.

If there's a coup, it doesn't matter whether su allows wheel or not. If I want to coup a system with the wheel access, I'll simultaneously remove everyone (but me?) from the wheel group AND change the password. I'm not sure RMS is a genius, or just the loudest whacko supporting F/OSS. This bone-head thought makes me lean toward whacko.

If there's multiple "root" accounts (i.e., more than one user with uid=0), that doesn't change anything. A quick grep through /etc/passwd for the uid of 0, and change all their passwords (or delete them). If you want to avoid this, you need an off-machine user authentication module (e.g., LDAP), but, again, if I have root, I can just go in and disable all the other authentication modules (modify /etc/pam.conf or whatever that platform/distro uses, or maybe /etc/nsswitch.conf), while disabling all the other root accounts (change password, delete, whatever).

Seriously, once you have root shell access, no matter the source, you can own the system. Period. Until someone boots a LiveCD and resets it.

Re:this IS strange

[CarpetShark]

s/MS/RMS/ (significant difference in meaning here! ;-) )

Hhahhah, OOPs. There's one I wish I could take back :D

Re:this IS strange

[shiftless]

Everything seems to be misreading the quote. What he is saying is, if in the event that some rogue admins stage a coup and seize control of the system at the expense of the users, then he wants to ensure that a normal user can still regain control of the system. To that end his 'su' utility does not prevent anyone from using it based on their group membership (or lack thereof.) If a user has file permissions to execute the program--i.e. a normal user--then they also have permission to su to root, provided they know the password. Stallman's thinking is that the password most likely wont remain a complete secret, and that it may be leaked by someone sympathetic to the users, thus enabling them to regain control.

What I fail to understand is why a user couldn't simply log in as root directly from the login prompt, bypassing su completely. Or the admins could get around it completely by creating a new group and ensuring only users in that group have file permissions to access su. Maybe that's why the man page for su no longer has any reference to this quote.

Re:this IS strange

[TheRaven64]

The man page for su no longer has reference to this quote because GNU su has supported PAM for several years, and one of the PAM modules reimplements this behaviour. If you want it, you can add it. As for logging in as root, there are a few problems with this. Remote root login is often disabled, meaning you need physical access to the machine. It's also possible to prevent root login with a password on most UNIX systems. For example, you might decide that root login requires some physical crypto token or a one-time password.

that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[circletimessquare]

but you actually want me to take advice on technology from this fossil?

its hard to be an authority on a subject matter you do not fully and freely partake of, don't you think?

"Just because the guy doesn't take the well-worn path he's out of touch?"

considering that the concept of taking "the well worn path" and the concept of being "out of touch" are pretty much antonyms, then yes

as for being an "intellectual conformist": conforming the validity of opinions to those who actually attempt to engage in the subject matter... that's not intellectual conformity, that's topical conformity

i mean i have a great opinion for you on the proper engine to use in race cars. but i don't actually race cars. pffffffft

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[honkycat]

Using a web browser is not a prerequisite for being an authority on programming, let alone an authority on IP policy implications. What specific information is he missing out on by not using a web browser that gives you a reason to question his knowledge? Your little analogy about engines is laughably pathetic, unless you really mean to question the software experience of the guy who wrote emacs...

In my experience, the real experts frequently don't have time or interest in mucking around with the latest flavor of the month technology because they're too busy thinking about real issues.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[arose]

Donald Knuth doesn't use email, what could he possibly know about computers?

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[tenco]

but you actually want me to take advice on technology from this fossil?

its hard to be an authority on a subject matter you do not fully and freely partake of, don't you think?

http://www.stallman.org/

What's your point again?

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[Ilgaz]

Does he even know who Knuth is? Or that entire generation is?

I am sure Steve Jobs and even retired Bill Gates doesn't have time to browse the junk he browses (and calls web) for hours.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[rliden]

Knuth doesn't use personal email. His secretary prints out email addressed to taocp@[university address] so he can reply in writing. He doesn't communicate via email because he doesn't want to be so in touch with the world, not because he thinks email is a bad thing. Hell he barely communicates via post. His point in restricting communication is a personal one because he seems to value his time for research and his interests.

Knuth versus Email [stanford.edu]

Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don't have time for such study.

I'm not sure why Stallman doesn't like to use the internet, but it seems like he is more interested in the moral use of software and doesn't use it because I think he personally sees server side code as muddled with regards to the GPL (just my conjecture there). Knuth just likes his privacy. The two are totally different even if they are both for personal reasons. Pretty much all of our reasons for doing things are personal.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[FlyingBishop]

http://lwn.net/Articles/262570/

It sounds like he doesn't use a web browser in exactly the same way that Knuth does not use an email client. He finds the usual http interface of a web browser cumbersome, and prefers his more old-fashioned tools, much in the way Knuth prefers his old-fashioned paper.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[DMUTPeregrine]

He wrote & uses EMACS. Isn't that enough of a web browser?

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[Kijori]

i mean i have a great opinion for you on the proper engine to use in race cars. but i don't actually race cars.

Amusingly, that attitude is exactly the one you'll find in the professional racing world. The guy that makes design decisions for Ferrari isn't an F1 driver - he doesn't have anything like the skill to drive like that. He's still an expert in engines, the fact that he doesn't use the end product doesn't stop him knowing about it.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[Eskarel]

Yes, but trying to be an expert on computing without using, or believe in, the web is a bit like trying to be an automotive expert who doesn't use or believe in roads. Yes you can have a car which never goes on roads, and the automotive insight of someone who doesn't use roads can be applicable, but if you don't use your car the way everyone else does, then you're very likely to be out of touch with how everyone else views cars. Same with RMS and computing.

Why are we even arguing all of this, RMS is a raving nutter, and he's just getting nuttier. He is, at the very least paranoid, seeing absolutely everything as the beginning of the end and the thin edge of the wedge. The fact that he's the most vocal advocate of open source is a tragedy for the whole movement. The GNU suite of software is very good, but put RMS in the back room and lock the door, let him code and keep him away from people like the rest of the dungeon nerds.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[honkycat]

I don't think your analogy is appropriate. As I said in another post in this thread, RMS is not saying anything about the technical merits of .NET or C# or Mono or the GNU equivalent. There's no need to be more than peripherally aware of the software to recognize the IP issues. Do you really not understand the risk of trying to build a software system that is dependent on the goodwill of a company like Microsoft?

RMS is nutty in some ways and I disagree with some of the things he says. But this release is spot-on, and not at all nutty. Whatever you believe about the merits of his idea of free software, you should think carefully about what he's saying here. It's decidedly not his usual spiel. He's focusing on a specific danger, which I think is very real. The possibility of an outsider using the legal system to pull the rug out from under the Debian project is definitely there.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[mgbastard]

Yes, but trying to be an expert on computing without using, or believe in, the web is a bit like trying to be an automotive expert who doesn't use or believe in roads. Yes you can have a car which never goes on roads, and the automotive insight of someone who doesn't use roads can be applicable, but if you don't use your car the way everyone else does, then you're very likely to be out of touch with how everyone else views cars. Same with RMS and computing.

Simply put, there is a LOT more to computing than the web. It's really not the most important thing going in computing, intellectually. It does have impact, but the issues RMS champions are the same with or without the web, and predate the web. They are much more foundational than your browsing experience of The Smoking Gun, Fark & TMZ.

I remember panning the GUI web browser as a toy too. Hell, I panned this website as a piss poor replacement for FirstClass & the like. I didn't use a web browser hardly at all until I took a software development job at a "new media" firm. Kinda had to get familiar with it =P

Why are we even arguing all of this, RMS is a raving nutter, and he's just getting nuttier. He is, at the very least paranoid, seeing absolutely everything as the beginning of the end and the thin edge of the wedge. The fact that he's the most vocal advocate of open source is a tragedy for the whole movement. The GNU suite of software is very good, but put RMS in the back room and lock the door, let him code and keep him away from people like the rest of the dungeon nerds.

He just expects you to actually think when communicating or listening. I know, it's naive and idealistic of him. But it is very optimistic!

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[howlingmadhowie]

rms spends most of his time reading and replying to emails. as far as i can tell, his main problem with webpages is that he spends most of his time jet-setting around the world and consequently quite often does not have access to the internet or only has a very slow connection. communicating using email solves this problem for him.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[howlingmadhowie]

rms has nothing against using the internet. he just cannot depend upon having a connection at any one moment in time. that's why he communicates preferably over email, so he can download mails and upload replies in batches.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[LWATCDR]

Sounds exactly like what the McCain campaign said.
"unless you really mean to question the software experience of the guy who wrote emacs..."
So he is unquestionable because he wrote an editor...

"In my experience, the real experts frequently don't have time or interest in mucking around with the latest flavor of the month technology because they're too busy thinking about real issues."
Yea that new fangled web thing just isn't worth using...
Please if you where telling me that is why he doesn't use Twitter or Facebook and that might hold water.
RMS is just odd. Frankly I have found many of his statements to be out of touch. That is my opinion. Yes the GPL is great, GCC is pretty nice but really does need work, and emacs is emacs love it or hate it is one of those classical pieces of software. But he sure isn't my leader.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[honkycat]

The fact that he is an expert programmer is unquestionable, in much the same way that it is unquestionable that McCain is an experienced senator. In both cases, you need to decide whether that unquestionable fact supports the conclusion that is being implied.

In this case, the OP was suggesting something along the lines that the fact that RMS doesn't use a web browser somehow suggests that he knows nothing about software. That is ridiculous. Whether you like Emacs or not, it's an amazing piece of software.

And my point is not that we should accept him as our leader, agree with everything he says, or even agree with him in this particular case. My point is simply that he is a software expert and an expert on intellectual property. As such, discounting his opinion because of an irrelevant fact such as "he doesn't use a web browser" is foolish.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[LWATCDR]

I will give you he is a good programmer. software expert? Maybe but things change and I am not sure that he is the best of the best. As to an expert on IP no I really do not believe that he is an expert in intellectual property law. He doesn't have a degree in law. So I think calling him an expert in intellectual property law is totally unfounded.
But the rest of your statements are clearly making excuses. I don't think that you can say that his not using the web has anything to do with him being an expert or as was stated "mucking around with the latest flavor of the month technology" That is so an excuse and a very poor one at that.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[honkycat]

I'm not making excuses, I'm trying to explain myself. Apparently it's not working.

As I said to the other OP, please give me a specific example reason why not being an active user of web browsers would undermine one's credibility to speak out about software IP issues. Is there some reason that IP as it pertains to the HTTP protocol is different from IP as it pertains to printer drivers that I'm just not seeing?

Finally, RMS has probably spent more time thinking about, discussing, debating, formulating ideas, and taking concrete action on software IP issues than 99.99% of the population. If that is insufficient to make him an expert, no J.D. is going to make the difference. Does this mean he knows the right answer? No. But, as I have said at least twice, it would be foolish to ignore his advice simply because he doesn't share your software needs. Contrary to the /. common wisdom, he doesn't often spout off -- he generally thinks very hard about what he is saying. It would be wise to at least understand why he says what he does before deciding whether to ignore it. He's not a unique figure in this regard.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[LWATCDR]

Just thinking , talking, and debating about a subject don't make you an expert. If so every creationist crack pot is a an expert in biology. In this day and age you usually require education in a subject to be an expert. The FSF has lawyers on staff that at the experts on the law.
Frankly I am not a fan of Mono because it duplicates Java in many ways and c# and dot net are trying to be the new Visual Basic. Mono lets them pretend that it is "multi platform". But that is just my opinion.
However yes calling the web the tech flavor of the month is making excuses.
RMS really seems to be loosing a grip on reality bit by bit. Frankly having a bunch of zelots that think he is the bringer of all truth and light probably isn't helping.
Honestly he doesn't think he needs to use the Web? That right there shows a disconnect for someone that is very technical. Now if he said he rarely used it or only used it for a reference now and then that would be understandable but not using it for personal reasons?
His lack of personal grooming is another example of a real disconnect.
As to should we still listen to him. Yes you should listen to just about everyone. However I feel totally free to disagree with him and often do. Frankly I am honestly starting to wonder if he needs to seek some professional help.
I am not saying that to be cruel or dismiss him but frankly I am worried that he is developing mental health issues. I know people that have them and it is a terrible thing to see happen.
Frankly reinforcing someones illusions is the worst thing that one can do in those cases and frankly RMS gets a lot of that from his fan base. I wonder if there is a term for Celebrity insanity. It seems that it is common for people that have fan base to start to believe that they are above everyone and everything.

Re:that mail interface sounds pretty cool

[Eskarel]

And there's a lot more to the web than "new media" and garbage forums. Stuff you'll never see getting static web pages mailed to you opportunities that will just skip you by.

I know it's fashionable for people on Slashdot to yearn for the old days when all the web did was markup information, and to hate javascript, flash, and anything else which isn't plain old html, but there's a lot of potential for real value in that sort of thing. Value which allows you to provide, with a little work, platform agnostic applications. Java, .NET, AJAX, and any number of other technologies are a very real prt of that.

Now I know that RMS doesn't really want platform agnostic applications, he wants free software applications, but web based applications is a very real part of where things are going and it's a place where Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, at least not yet. If you're serious about free software, ignoring those technologies is a very big mistake. There's a lot more to computing than the web, but the web is one of the areas where free software(Java in particular) can make really huge strides.

Yes, he does.

[langelgjm]

Yes, he does:

For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer.

He quite literally says no to web browsing. Which is what I said he said. I didn't say he went around advocating that no one else use web browsers.

Re:Yes, he does.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I didn't say he went around advocating that no one else use web browsers.

Oh, you are one of those people like Bush - "I never claimed Sadam had WMDs" (I just mentioned WMDs in the sentence following every mention of Saddam).

Re:Yes, he does.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

He calls WTF on you, so you call him George Bush?

Yeah, that's right. The OP claimed RMS has WMDs. That's exactly what I said!

Re:Yes, he does.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So, your claim is that you just randomly, without any intent to lend support for the "RMS is lame, ignore what he says" meme decided to reply to a "GNU/Linux" post by saying that he
"ALSO says no to web browsing?" I got that right? Absolutely no intent to misrepresent for the purposes of arguing the man, not the message?

Well, maybe that is what you meant. But the moderators don't seem think so any more than I do.

And, no he absolutely does not "quite literally says no" - the link you posted did not have him saying "no" at all, just explaining that he uses another method on a system other than his computer.

Re:Yes, he does.

[langelgjm]

"ALSO says no to web browsing?" I got that right? Absolutely no intent to misrepresent for the purposes of arguing the man, not the message?

Yes. The reason I worded it like that is because of the title of this article.

Well, maybe that is what you meant. But the moderators don't seem think so any more than I do.

Well, right now I'm looking at a +5 Interesting, so at least some of them agree with me.

And, no he absolutely does not "quite literally says no" - the link you posted did not have him saying "no" at all, just explaining that he uses another method on a system other than his computer.

Hm, let me get this straight... A few posts above, you compare me to George Bush for pointing out the fact that I didn't actually attack/insult RMS, and now you're the one whose splitting hairs with language? The post I linked has Stallman saying "...I do not browse the web..."; if someone said to you "I don't smoke pot", it would be fair to say that that person "says no to pot."

Look up the word literal, and you will find my usage perfectly acceptable. But you're probably one of those people who goes around whining that "the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy." I've wasted way too much time responding to you, though, so don't expect any more replies. If you want to try and substantiate your conspiracy theory, you're free to read through my other posts in this thread, and my comment history on /. Good luck.

Re:Yes, he does.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Hm, let me get this straight... A few posts above, you compare me to George Bush for pointing out the fact that I didn't actually attack/insult RMS.

Hey, you are the one who insisted on using the word "literally." Don't use it if you don't mean it.

Re:another reason:it doesn't play to Linux's stren

[gbjbaanb]

The joy of C# is windows. If you are a Windows developer, using Visual Studio, then you pretty much have the ideal coding environment. Its like VB with curly-braces, its easy to use (as the IDE help you out a lot), its quick to compile (apparently that's a big plus), and it has a huge library full of useful functions. I think the last one is the killer app - you don't need to do anything yourself, MS provides a library function for you.

On Linux, I'm not sure its quite as good as it is on Windows. It beats me why they couldn't implement the big library using C exported functions instead and expose that to all languages. I know why MS did it that way - lock in to C#/VB/Windows/.NET (a bit like 'pure java'), but I'd have hoped Linux development would be more open.

Re:From what I understand

[cheesybagel]

No. If you actually took the trouble of reading what RMS wrote, he said specifically that *any* .NET platform implementation will have the same problem as Mono. He says free software developers should not develop apps that use the .NET platform, but that it is ok to have .NET platforms to run other existing .NET apps.

the amish use a horse and buggy

[circletimessquare]

so would the amish be a good group of people to consult on mono?

i'm sorry, if the guy doesn't partake of contemporary technological reality, he's just a bizarre fossil, and his opinion loses validity

i'm sure the man is a genius, but if he consciously curtails his involvement in how the rest world interacts with the web and adapts some alien SMTP modus operandi, i'm not going to take his opinion on web-related technologies seriously. you really think there's no basis for me doing that?

now give me my troll mod for not kowtowing to the apparent sainthood of RMS in your eyes

Re:the amish use a horse and buggy

[tomhudson]

i'm not going to take his opinion on web-related technologies seriously.

Tomboy has nothing to do with web-related technologies. Now that we've cleared THAT up, will you take him seriously?

He's not a saint, but sometimes he gets it right. Mono is one of those times - a lot of us have been saying it's a mistake - even those of us who use the web via multiple browsers!

Re:the amish use a horse and buggy

[FlyingBishop]

The Amish analogy is not apt. He is not a luddite, he simply has a different view of what direction technology should evolve. He's a lot more like a mechanic that refuses to work on foreign cars. Eccentric? Sure. An asshole? Definitely. But don't for a second suggest he doesn't know his stuff.

Mono is still irrelevant

[Ilgaz]

Thank God since nobody except some little fan gang of that guy cares about Mono enough to rely on it.

Of course, if the real evil plan of getting it included like a trojan on a respected, definition of open source Linux distro like Debian works, things may change...

Funny is, people not caring enough to figure Mono is nowhere near to be replacement/alternative to real Microsoft .NET. There isn't a single important application which exists both on Windows and Linux thanks to Mono. Oh some music player maybe? Well, for me, download.com top 10 matters. I always see Limewire, Vuze in top 10 lists since they are written in true multiplatform language which has feature and major version parity between all major operating systems one way or another.

Mono is more like gcj I would say but gcj can actually run pretty modern Java code with all the GUI tricks if needed and it runs even faster. Can you picture MS allowing their multi billion dollar clone framework to perform better on a free operating system? I wished MS really changed their attitude and for example, release IE for Linux which would exist thanks to Mono and save millions of people from virtual machines. If this sounds funny to you, tens of nerds trying to catch a moving multi billion dollar target from a convicted monopolist looks funnier to me.

Re:Mono is still irrelevant

[Mr2001]

Can you picture MS allowing their multi billion dollar clone framework to perform better on a free operating system?

I love this attitude, the one that assumes an independent team of programmers would somehow need Microsoft's permission to implement the available C# and CLI standards.

Seriously, what could they do? If the next version of Mono ran .NET applications faster than .NET, what would happen if Microsoft decided not to "allow" that? Would the code disappear? Would the Mono team be the subject of some groundless lawsuit that would be laughed right out of court?

Bilski case is near

[BountyX]

The Bilski case is right around the corner and will give us better picture of how software patents will be implemented in the future. Who knows, might even make this Stallman issue moot? I find it strange that stallman even cares about patents. Software patents are pretty much a joke nowadays.

Re:Bilski case is near

[cheesybagel]

Tell that to TomTom. That "joke" cost them dearly.

Goodness forbid, somebody expressing an opinion...

[jotaeleemeese]

Specially if it is calling names!

And particularly if it is against a nasty company that breaks the law with impunity with almost clock work regularity.

Oh yeah, but the people writing a little $ are immoral, unethical or whatever...

Yes... 40 years ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Unix and C were developed by an eviler company than Microsoft... About 40 years ago. Any patents filed on the core of C or Unix have long since expired.

When the GNU project started there were virtually no software patents, and what existed were effectively non-enforceable. It wasn't until 1981 that anyone really believed a software patent could be enforced, and not until the creation of the federal circuit (which handed the patent attorneys complete control of the courts for patents) in 1982 did you have any chance of enforcing one.

The GNU project started at a unique moment in history when technology was cheap enough to make it possible but before the patenting of software could make it impossible.

Were it not for work sparked by the GNU project unix systems would likely have died out over a decade ago, and certainly would have missed all the user friendly enhancements built by the linux distributions in the intervening time. There would also be a lot less open development generating an undeniable wall of prior art, catching up using 20 year old technology would probably not be possible.

Because of the patent situation it seems pretty unlikely that the GNU project could be started today.

Re:another reason:it doesn't play to Linux's stren

[shutdown -p now]

And another gripe with C# and .java is that they don't seem to me to ever be the best tool for a job. They're horribly inefficient to develop in (python's much better), mediocre OO languages (ruby's better), bad at doing low level stuff (C's better), etc. I'd say that Python + C extensions is a better solution for almost any problem C# can be used for except for interacting with Windows internals.

From your listing of languages, it sounds like you're a fan of dynamically typed programming languages in general. If so, then there might not be any point in discussing this, since you are inherently biased against any statically typed language such as Java or C#... but I'll try.

C# the language does not "interact nicely with Windows objects". It doesn't even know anything about them. It's just a language, pretty much like Java, but with a few additions that make it somewhat more convenient to code in.

It also has a bunch of stuff in it that makes it easier to interop with OS APIs, and C libraries in general - not just on Windows, but anywhere. For example, it supports raw pointers and pointer arithmetic, packed structs, and unions. It also lets you access functions from C libraries far easier than, say, Python - because C# type system overlaps with C, you can just import functions directly from shared libraries with a single declaration.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mediocre OO language", and how Ruby is better there. It seems that most stories about how superior Ruby is are centered about blocks & lambdas - but these are present in C# as well, and let you do similar things (even if the syntax is not quite as neat).

So, can you be more specific about your dislike of C# as a language?

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[stevey]

Oh well. As you wish. Keep your software locked up tight with the GPL all you want. You're missing out on some amazing developers work on your projects though.

Contrarily the reverse is also true.

I only contribute code to GPL'd software, and I'm not alone in that.

The unfortunate overloading of the term free has lead to more harm than good. To my mind the viral nature of the GPL is precisely what is good about it - but obviously other people dislike it.

Still each to their own. If you want public domain only, GPL-only, BSD-only, or closed-only you're free to make the choice yourself.

From my side I mostly find people complaining about GPL mean things like "I'm not free to use this code somebody else wrote in my commercial application". That might not be your angle, but there's always the option of mailing the author(s) and asking for permission to use chunks of code.

In the past I've let people use bits of my code, and my projects, in their applications because I don't see the harm..

The Nazis are coming! The Nazis are coming!

[Schnoodledorfer]

"Purity". You make it sound like the Aryan Brotherhood or something.

Well, this discussion wouldn't be complete without some mention of Nazis or Neo-Nazis, I guess.

Re:another reason:it doesn't play to Linux's stren

[shutdown -p now]

Comparing to Python is comparing apples and oranges - Python is dynamically typed, C# is statically typed. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. For a hint of why static typing can be better - try to find any Python or Ruby IDE that can correctly do basic refactorings such as "rename method".

Comparing C# and Java is more reasonable. Here is a Wikipedia article that tries to do that point by point.

Re:Is Mono really open?

[oliderid]

You know this for a fact, that it doesn't have any MS code hidden in it? How would anyone outside of MS really know that, anyway?

Well simple, if you fear the worst, browse the mono source, remember mono is "open source". I use mono on a daily basis, the C# language and the framework are simply great. Anyway RMS seems to live in a different age. Now the real issue isn't desktop programming anymore. What truly matters are things like HTML 5 vs Flash. ACID test, SVG support, Canvas, open 3D standard, The real battle is on the web. This is where we need guys like him, not pesting about second class issue like this one.

Just say no to RMS

[asm2750]

Interoperability is a great thing to have, and might even spur more everyday people to adopt Linux in the future.

Did Microsoft relented all posible patents?

[jotaeleemeese]

Oh, sorry, you are posting as an AC.

Surprising how many MS defenders decide to post as ACs....

Re:that's an opinion based on experience

[CarpetShark]

He does not personally partake of them because he doesn't have the time. He still participates in discussions about the technology, and was a visionary on the subject of standards (which greatly affect the web, in case you haven't noticed) probably since you were in diapers.

Both.

[jotaeleemeese]

There is no use to have a system that is open to be torpedoed by a company that actually has threatened to use its patent portfolio.

Why should one ignore the threats?

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Isn't the whole point of the GPL to "meddle in the affairs of others"? "

Yes. It meddles in the affairs of others the way law enforcement meddles in the affairs of criminals when they break into your home ;-)

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[itsybitsy]

So you only contribute to GPL'd code. That's fine. It just means that you are a card carrying member of the commune of the cult of GPL. It means that you are NOT dedicated to FREE software but you are dedicated to RESTRICTED SOFTWARE not unlike Commercial Licenses. Don't kid yourself or others about it.

If you don't see the harm to people using your code as they see fit then why not use a more open license in the first place?

Re:And we knew BSD for it was our savior

[PPH]

I define useful as something that doesn't contain superstition. ...

The gods of code created it and it was BSD. Our salvation is at hand....

So, you're saying that BSD is based upon superstition? And so it follows that its not useful?

oh that's interesting

[circletimessquare]

you tell me the real experts don't have time or interest in mucking around with the latest flavor of the month technology

under a story about RMS issuing an opinion on the latest flavor of the month technology

pfffffft

look: i'm sure the man is a genius, but you have to understand, google was once a flavor of the month. html was once a flavor of the month. hell, tcp/ip was once a flavor of the month. thousands of flavors of the months come and go. but some stick around and become the "real issues" you refer to. and you can't be "too busy thinking about the real issues" when you don't even have a grasp on what the real issues are anymore, partly out of your own conscious effort to shield yourself from the entire framework of interaction that defines the reality of any users or developers in the field you are issuing edicts and opinions on

Re:oh that's interesting

[honkycat]

RMS's comments aren't about the merits of the technology -- he actually more or less supported the existence of the mono project and the similar GNU effort. You don't need to know the technical details to recognize that if there are patents protecting the core of that technology that building up a system that relies on that core is a risky business. The discussion he's having transcends the implementation details, or even the purpose of the software. If RMS were advising not to use Mono because of some technical language problem, then he'd need to be up to date on language technology. For him to say it has risky patent encumbrances is well within his area of expertise.

You're right, some new technologies survive and become the old workhorses, and I don't mean to belittle the value of keeping up to date. Not everyone needs to do this, however, and it's unwise to discount the advice of someone simply because they prioritize their time and tools differently. In particular, RMS seems to focus his energy on issues that have nothing to do with the sorts of apps people choose to run. As such, I don't think his unfamiliarity with web applications is relevant criticism. His "real issues" are the freedom to use your software, and whether that's a printer drive, a text editor, or a social web application, the patent and copyright issues are not that different (ignoring issues of the content, just focusing on the software itself).

Re:oh that's interesting

[Shmore]

Well said honky.

Re:another reason:it doesn't play to Linux's stren

[Jaime2]

Microsoft wrote its libraries in .Net for many reasons. One of the bigger reasons people use .Net is for its security and memory management model. C libraries wouldn't honor either of these. Also, consider a C function that returns a string (well, conceptually since it can't literally return a string). Either the caller has to pass a reference to a buffer that the function then fills, or the function has to allocate a properly sized buffer and return a reference to it. In the first case, that would force C# to use C's memory allocation rules (yes, C has rules, like you have to actually know the address and it can't be moved). In the second case, it would force the function and the app to agree on a memory management scheme. The chosen scheme would be guaranteed to be more difficult to use than the C# native scheme.

Also, C# isn't VB with curly braces. VB.Net is C# without curly braces. There is an important distinction. I have been around as many VB6 programmers transitioned to VB.Net. It is always a difficult process because almost none of the techniques necessary to write good VB.Net code are known to VB6 programmers because the features are new to VB.Net.

Finally, quick to compile is only important for those developing in Visual Studio. VS gives a lot of help and does a lot of reflection on the current code to give very specific help. VB.Net essentially incrementally recompiles the application every time you hit enter and in C# it is important to recompile often to keep intellisense up to date.

Don't listen to the elders at your peril.

[jotaeleemeese]

What you are advocating is to ignore the long term game for the sake of immediacy.

Hackers that have a tunnel visions strictly concentrated on hacking should be considered incapable technicians.

Hackers should understand the context in which their applications work and how they will affect and be affected by the society in which they will be run.

When I studied Engineering (Computing Engineering), we attended the same lectures as Civil or Industrial Engineers regarding ethics and how your work happens in a context.

What you are advocating is to ignore the social context in which applications are deployed and carry on coding with blinders firmly worn. Such attitude is short sighted, fortunately people like Stallman point to the perils ahead, wise hackers should pause, take notice, and then reach their own conclusions.

Yes, people do.

[jotaeleemeese]

Otherwise you would not be incensed about he talking.

Re:Yes, people do.

[TheKingAdrock]

It's hard to imagine how you determined that I was "incensed" when I was making an observation.

Have they threatened Linux with patents?

[jotaeleemeese]

Funny to answer a question with another...

Re:Have they threatened Linux with patents?

[Jamie Lokier]

Yes. Linux kernel is in the process of having VFAT support restricted, precisely due to a patent lawsuit from Microsoft and expectation of more. Due to legal fears, developers cannot even talk about the patches openly. Next question?

Re:another reason:it doesn't play to Linux's stren

[Jaime2]

Since someone already jumped on the argument that C# is as good a high level language as any, I'll jump on the low level argument. C# is actually a good language for most application, even if they have a smattering of low level sections. I wouldn't write a device driver in C#, but I would write an image processing application in C#. One of the nifty features of C# is to admit that it isn't perfect for everything and it allows in-line C. So, instead of throwing away a high-level language for the 90% of an application that can benefit from it, simply write the application in C# and implement the 10% that would be better written in C, in C embedded directly in C#.

then he should bask in his glory

[circletimessquare]

and stop issuing opinions on subject matter he doesn't have the time to partake of. seems rather straightforward, no?

i'm sorry. i admire the man, but that doesn't lend me to unthinking cultlike worship of him, as it apparently does with you

this is typical cult of personality bullshit you find in any academic institution. i'm sorry that slashdot ends in .org and not .edu, for the sake of my impertinent insults on your religious hagiography of computer science

Re:then he should bask in his glory

[CarpetShark]

then he should bask in his glory and stop issuing opinions on subject matter he doesn't have the time to partake of. seems rather straightforward, no?

No, it's not straightforward at all. That's like saying adults shouldn't have an opinion on advertising alcohol to binge-drinking kids, because they no longer drink much. There are plenty of ways to be on the periphery of the web, and still able to make valuable contributions to the technology behind it. And none of what he's said precludes him from loading up a browser if/when he feels he needs to understand some new issue with browsing.

Yeah, it sucks to have principles.

[jotaeleemeese]

It makes your life more difficult. I will not even point you in the direction of people that decide to live by them.

But it sucks even more to be "pragmatic" and accept publicly to have non principle at all, save a naive attachment to view all through a rose tainted.window, or should I say rose tainted Windows?

Please re-read the thread.

[jotaeleemeese]

He didn't say what you seem to believe he said.

Re:Please re-read the thread.

[Sklivvz]

I have read the article, and it's exactly what he said.

A good programmer uses the right tool for the job.

[jotaeleemeese]

In this case part of the job specification is to protect any Linux projects from possible patent threats.

You would not whine about it if you were being paid for your work and your employer was asking you the same, but somehow because it is Linux some folks believe that they don't have a duty of care in regards to protecting this important project.

Re:Why are people so angry at the "M$" ?

[Tweenk]

M$ can also mean millions of dollars, so it's not single-meaning either.

Who owns which power?

[Billly Gates]

If you do not like the mean bad old boss or I.T. department mendling on the systems you use at work then buy your own computer.

Sorry RMS but work is not freedom. Its just a paycheck as you no longer own your time in exchange for money to live.

If you are in charge of a system where other people at work need access to it and you are *paid* to keep it up then what are you supposed to do? Restrictions at work make sense as they are not being paid to play with their computers but to work.

I think you can tell RMS is out of touch with reality. Administrators need complete control in order to lower TCO and keep productivity. I want the file server to just work in the office where is my power to enforce this?

Re:Who owns which power?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If you do not like the mean bad old boss or I.T. department mendling on the systems you use at work then buy your own computer.

You lack the historical context. At the time the quote was written, and for many years afterwards, the MIT systems that RMS was most associated with ran completely "open" anyone could log in (initially from just the MIT campus and but ultimately from anywhere on the internet). Anyone and everyone had full admin privileges because the community was small enough that they did not need to rely on programmatic restrictions, all the users knew each other and they were of a high enough calibre not to randomly fuck things up.

Eventually that all changed as more and more people got on the internet and MIT had to lock down those systems because of abuse. But at the time that RMS wrote that quote, such abuse was nearly inconceivable. It was a sort of garden of eden and that quote reflects the innocence of that time and place.

Re:Who owns which power?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not like the mean bad old boss or I.T. department mendling on the systems you use at work then buy your own computer.

You lack the historical context. At the time the quote was written, and for many years afterwards, the MIT systems that RMS was most associated with ran completely "open" anyone could log in (initially from just the MIT campus and but ultimately from anywhere on the internet). ... It was a sort of garden of eden and that quote reflects the innocence of that time and place.

Mm.. you got me thinking about my early days on the internet (circa 1983). Guest accounts were abundant (the MIT one was called testuser), and machines were quite open. A vax at the local state university didn't even have a password for root. You're right about it being a garden of Eden. I have fond memories of that era of the Internet.

captcha: angelic

mono is useful, its a tool

[circletimessquare]

and part of that reason IS web technologies that use it, how it can be intertwined on many platforms

so yes, RMS is issuing an opinion that is not directly related to web technology, but that's the whole problem

nowadays, pretty much if is not web related, or if its an opinion on a non-web related aspect of development, it IS of lesser import

and all i am saying is that by shielding himself from how most of interact with communication technology, RMS is winding up issuing edicts out of touch with the most important thrusts

i am asserting the dominance of communication technology above all else. i think reality bears me out on that assertion. and i am finding fault with RMS for not taking that into account when delivering his opinion on mono

Re:mono is useful, its a tool

[tomhudson]

"nowadays, pretty much if is not web related, or if its an opinion on a non-web related aspect of development, it IS of lesser import"

That is total bullshit. The Internet is a lot more than just "the web", http over port 80, and "web pages." Your post refers to the web and communications as if they were one and the same - they're not.

Data and voice telecommunications packet networks are just one example. If web pages were to disappear for a day, we'd gripe and moan, but cut off our phones and other data?

The point is that RMS is saying not to integrate Tomboy into the base of a distro, and he gives good reasons for it. Mono is a known attempt at a trojan horse attack on linux. de Icaza is it's shill.C# was microsofts' response to being forced to NOT fork java into a Microsoft-only-compatible java by Sun in a lawsuit. dot.net was a failed attempt to get away from the browser as a delivery platform.

There's a lot of history here, and anyone who believes "We're from Microsoft and we're here to help you" is naive.

Desktop yes ... server no

[Billly Gates]

Java has the problem of doing things its own way in its own environment. For example no cleartype fonts for X make netbeans painful and horrible looking running it on Linux. No integrated KDE or gnome support because of swing and other issues make it hard to write easy code. Also overiding objects with the super statement is difficult ... at least for me with doing g and paint.

Anyway database access, debuggers, and threading make it scale well on a server. It runs well from a 1 to a 32 cpu system.

Also google apis are written mostly in Java if you want to do things like add google map support for your website and other things. Hibernate and spring are java based too which is nice. I believe there is a .net port of hibernate coming into maturity but I do not know if its finished yet.

For these reasons Java is still ahead of .NET for web server development. .NET actually does not suck and you can make great win32 applications with it. Linq and other things being ported may make it better for server development. Like the other poster mentioned platform independence is nice as MS has been known to change licensing fees to loansharking levels for SQL Server and IIS if you add clustering and unlimited seats. With Java if Oracle does that garbage I can simply switch from solaris to Linux and use postgresql or sysbase. No platform entrapment.

Re:Desktop yes ... server no

[Vahokif]

So why not use Mono and Apache if you want?

A corollary to Godwin's Law

[westlake]

Rape doesn't simply mean forced sexual intercourse. As a verb... well...

But that remains its prime meaning.

To use the word in any other context pretty much ends the conversation.

I'd say they have abused their dominance in the tech world to the extreme more than once.

The same could be said of every other company that is strongly positioned in tech - or in any other sector of the economy.

Corporate hardball - not Base Ball - to use the old spelling - has always been the American national game.

Who cares?

[shaitand]

Mono doesn't even run netflix so who cares?

Re:that's an impressive email box

[Ilgaz]

Ever bothered to ask or check the views of the inventor of Web's opinions about inline images inside web pages? It may surprise you just like hearing a cinema genius like Hitchcock on ''talking'' movies.

In fact, I am sad to say that your super stylish web browser, the pages you browse, the Ajax trickery you love are sometimes coded in 80x50 terminals with emacs or vi because the developers of them doesn't give a shit to point and click interface.

While on it, Slashdot looks best on elinks these days...

"cleanroom" provides no defense against patents

[Anonymous Coward]

The "cleanroom" technique to which you are referrring is a precaution against inadvertant copyright violation and NDA violations. It has nothing to do with patents.

Patents can be enforced even if the "offending" party has never heard of either the patent or the product protected by the patents.

That's why people who understand software generally think software should not be patentable, or at least patents should not be enforceable without evidence that the "infringer" "stole" the idea covered by the patent from the patent holder.

Theft is probably more apt than rape.

[weston]

Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of. I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot

Funny, I don't even buy their software frequently. And I've *still* been a victim of a bunch of their practices over almost two decades, from having to work around ridiculous problems with DOS to having to having to work around ridiculous problems in their web browser. Given their level of success and the unprecedented resources they have to bring to bear on a given problem -- particularly in the case of IE6 where they basically gave the idea of advancing the web as a platform (and every web developer who built on it) a giant silent middle finger for five years *after* they conspired to "cut off the air supply" of a viable competitor -- pushing these issues onto the backs of everyday devs is a pretty crappy thing to do. Maybe it's only kindof miserable, rather than "rape." But given the number of man hours lost to these flaws, "theft" is nearly an apt metaphor.

So, perhaps rape is over the top. Perhaps it's merely theft or abuse, perhaps both are metaphors or even hyperbole. In any case, I'm glad it's worked out for YOU as a customer, and hey, feel free to keep buying from them if that's your choice. But it's been pretty far from a picnic for a lot of people building on top of their platform (to say nothing of competitors coming up against their market manipulation).

I'd say chances are that it isn't so much that you *haven't* been negatively impacted by Microsoft software and their business practices, it's that you haven't really considered how their development and business practices have impacted the industry and by extension your options and costs as a customer.

Should be included in Ubuntu by default?

[Ilgaz]

Listen Mono developer. Ubuntu is ''owned'' by a very successful billionaire and last time I checked, even makes money. It has a huge community which are there because they love the product, not like they are paid to be there.

Don't confuse Ubuntu with that bailed out by Microsoft failed server company named Novell and your once famous now sold out false prophet.

If I had the smallest clue how you guys tricked Debian into this...

The community isn't stupid, they figure the entire thing from basic users to legendary, pragma shifting developers. Please use your MS coupons whatever for Visual Studio 2008 and real .NET and leave Linux alone.

Not necessarily a patent trap

[paladin217]

By MS helping to implement parts of Mono, they have, at a minimum, given up their rights to sue over those portions with which it helped. IANAL, but I have worked in the world of IP for a few years and from what I understand, MS has surrendered its rights to sue over those portions of Mono because of promissory estoppel. That is, since Mono was being implemented with help from MS, thereby giving the project its blessing to continue, MS has essentially given the developers of Mono a promise that it is OK for them to continue on.

What remains to be seen is whether or not MS would be allowed to sue for those portions of Mono that were implemented without help from MS. As usual, software development makes established IP law far more interesting to apply...

Re:Not necessarily a patent trap

[Wolfbone]

Interesting - I hadn't heard of promissory estoppel. I'd guess Microsoft's legal team could argue that any such help was only for Novell though? They may even have written something to that effect in the MS/Novell agreement.

The fantasist

[westlake]

Are you sure you're not suffering from stockholm syndrome?

Microsoft offers a bundle of products and services which have become the de facto global standard for office work.

That solves many problems for your employer.

He can open an office anywhere south of the Arctic Circle - an office of any size - with perfect confidence that an MS Office solution will scale to his needs and that local recruitment and training will present no particular difficulty.

It is rather typical of the geek to focus on something like the "openness" of a file format - and miss the significance of The Ribbon.

The Ribbon speaks directly to the productivity of the office worker - and nothing lies closer to the heart and wallet of the office manager.

Re:The fantasist

[schon]

Microsoft offers a bundle of products and services which have become the de facto global standard for office work.
That solves many problems for your employer.

No, it doesn't. It might, if the file formats weren't changed on each version solely to fuck all of their customers.

He can open an office anywhere south of the Arctic Circle - an office of any size - with perfect confidence that an MS Office solution will scale to his needs and that local recruitment and training will present no particular difficulty.

Only if the version he's using is the same as the version used in all of the other locations. Otherwise, he gets on the upgrade treadmill, and *everybody* gets fucked.

It is rather typical of the geek to focus on something like the "openness" of a file format - and miss the significance of The Ribbon.

Au contraire, it's rather typical of the MS shill/apologist to invent scenarios that don't actually happen in an attempt to claim that MS is a good solution.

Forced Office Upgrade?

[CrashNBrn]

Thats pure BS. Microsoft hardly forces anyone to upgrade Office. The following work just dandy in Office 2000 ::
FileFormatConverters.exe
compatibilitypacksp2-kb953331-fullfile-en-us.exe

Office 2000 can read AND write Office2007 document, along with WordPerfect and the redundant "Works".
As well as security fixes still - Word and Excel for Office2000 this past patch tuesday. Though I believe end-of-life support is ending soon. It still works just fine. So one MIGHT have to upgrade for the next office iteration.

Re:Forced Office Upgrade?

[CrashNBrn]

Oh No, I have to upgrade my office suite every 8-10 years. Boo Fuckin' Hoo.

Hey Miguel

[bmo]

I'm calling you out. Right now.

We know you're on Slashdot, so don't be a coward.

Tell us how you know that Mono doesn't infringe on Microsoft's patents. Tell us how Moonlight doesn't infringe on Microsoft patents. Clear this stuff up.

Unless you and Novell answer this, without weasel words Mono and Moonlight and everything else you contribute to GNU/Linux based on Microsoft tech will be suspect.

Thanks.

--
BMO

Re:Hey Miguel

[chromatic]

While you're at it, call out Sam Ramji too. He's very good at offering weasel words with regard to Microsoft's free software patent intentions.

Re:Hey Miguel

[tyler_larson]

Tell us how you know that Mono doesn't infringe on Microsoft's patents. Tell us how Moonlight doesn't infringe on Microsoft patents. Clear this stuff up.

/sigh

I'm not sure you understand how patents work.

Mono is an implementation of the standards on which .NET is built. It shares absolutely nothing else in common with .NET. The Mono team can be absolutely certain that their product does not infringe on Microsoft's copyright on the code, but no one can ever be certain about whether or not their product infringes on anyone's patents. That's what makes patents so scary.

Likewise, Richard Stallman can never be certain that GCC doesn't infringe on Microsoft's patents regarding Microsoft's C compiler, or that Emacs doesn't infringe on any patents in Microsoft Word.

What's worse is that actually researching to see if there is any patent infringement opens you up to more danger, because if you looked, then you'd be subject to triple damages in any court case for knowingly infringing on a patent. This is why the Linux kernel team intentionally avoids researching Microsoft's patent claims regarding Linux.

Mono is neither more nor less susceptible to patent claims from Microsoft than any other project; be it Python, Ruby, Java, AbiWord, or Gnome-Terminal.

asking for a raping..

[nurb432]

Or hoping for a lucrative buyout and subsequent retirement on the beach..

Re:that's an impressive email box

[koreaman]

link? (To the Tim Berners-Lee comments)

The real damage of Mono

[Phatmanotoo]

Any competent and well-informed programmer knows that the openness of C#/.NET is a total sham. Sure the core is open, but there's so many Windows-only extensions that it's virtually impossible to make cross-platform apps. Plus the fact that the Mono implementation is always waay behind Microsoft's.

But MS has been very clever. They know that it's only technical people who can see this; the rest will just get the subliminal message that ".NET is now also cross-platform, just as Java".

This is the real damage of Mono. Its existence provides the right excuse for PHB and clueless tech decision-makers to sway the decision towards .NET instead of Java, because, "hey, Microsoft is also cross-platform now".

You tell me

[coryking]

I've kept that quote for ages and I have yet to figure out what the hell he is talking about. It does fit with his MO though. I mean, its either him or ESR who insists on the whole hacker/cracker thing. I think he uses cracker only to water down and soften the idea there could be computer "criminals" (I use the scare quotes assuming he would use them).

Somebody else said it, and I'll repeat it. Nothing personal, but the guy gets more attention then he deserves. He validates a whole swath of people who think our computing golden age was in the 80's when the "unwashed masses" weren't using computers and we didn't have to concern ourselves with usability,security or good design. Toss in the classic cypherpunk attitude and you got quite a character. It is so naive it is almost cute.

Too bad all the GNU software has shitty docs

[coryking]

insist on obtaining adequately documentation for the hardware.

This made me laugh because I guess "good documentation" must only apply to hardware. The GNU utilities have horrid documentation. Well, unless you "info" stuff because, after all, "Man pages are obsolete". .. Obsolete my ass.

A lot of people use Mono

[coryking]

They just dont hang out in your echo chamber. Check out places like codeplex. Tons of stuff pull in Mono libraries.

Re:A lot of people use Mono

[Svartalf]

Really... The only real concern here, then, would be more that there's serious patent risks involved with Mono's use- UNRESOLVED risks.

Willful patent infringement (which would be what we seem to be seeing with Mono without an official Patent license for us there...) incurs treble damages for starters- and it's applicable to damned near anyone the rights holder sees fit to drag into court. And, they don't have to be suing everyone like they would for Trademarks- it only affects their ability to get damages or enforce for select parties they chose to ignore in the intrim.

Moreover, if MS so chose, they could deny use of the stuff in Mono that did infringe upon their patents. You'd have to yank every bit of the infringing stuff except in rare cases (mainly where they've allowed the infringement to go on a long while without their mitigating their losses there...).

Until you get in re Bilski heard by the SCOTUS, it's truly intrinsically dangerous to use Mono for ANYTHING without that license. Keep solidly in mind MS has sued people over their patents in recent times, infringements on things that when they were done it wasn't known there was patent coverage. Once MS comes a-callin' over FAT32 (and they have...) it's time to either invalidate that patent (in progress...again...) or remove the functionality. They can and will enforce their rights on this stuff and using it is folly of the worst kind.

But, hey, suit yourself. I just choose to not get myself stuck with that tarbaby.

Re:A lot of people use Mono

[Ilgaz]

You sound like it is spreading like cancer... Anyway

CodePlex - Open Source Project Hosting
Microsoft's open source project hosting web site.

Do you know you guys are just at boundaries of spamming and misinformation? Microsoft's open source hosting? Who the HELL are they? Obviously someone stupid enough to use Microsoft for open source hosting will use Microsoft technologies.

Our numbers regarding relevancy is a bit different. For example, does Mono have such a successful title like Limewire? No? Vuze/Azureus? Man I know very high level Windows developers who makes living from coding in all kinds of environments and they won't even touch Mono. If they need to code for .NIX, there are already established frameworks who spends more time enhancing themselves rather than trying to copy a moving target. They don't need to do such viral Debian package database infection.

Funny is the KDE project which was always looking suspicious turned out to be the ethics champion compared to the camp which started Gnome because ''Qt isn't GPL''. Oh yes, some of us remember these days. Why did Gnome start again? It seems I can't hear from Echo chamber... It started because Trolltech, NOT A CONVICTED MONOPOLIST was acting strange on GPL issue. So, FSF, the ones you see as ''elitists'' wanted a really GPL desktop environment. Your false prophet was one of the lead coders of it and you Mono trojan developers try every way to infect it with your clone of monopolist framework. What I don't understand is, Icaza makes millions at Novell, what do you get in return?

Echo chamber eh? Good one...

Re:A lot of people use Mono

[Ilgaz]

I figured the person who wrote that fanatical essay in defense of Mono is also a Debian high level maintainer and likely responsible for inclusion of that tiny utility which also comes with Mono.

That is what Debian has become lately? Does a single person decide what Debian, a benchmark of FSF Linux should include officially?

Not just that, one of the biggest successes of open source desktop, Ubuntu has World War 3 scale flame wars in its community because of Mono. It is particularly interesting since Ubuntu owes much of its success to its highly active community who are being silenced by Mono fanatics abusing their administrative powers.

Let me be the one to say: Congratulations Microsoft, for the first ever Linux virus.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[Svartalf]

Heh... I'd consider that you're not either informed nor enlightened when you have to resort to ad-hominem attacks like "card carrying member of the commune of the cult of GPL" in your commentary to prove your point.

You might have had some small point there, and it might have been a bit enlightened and maybe even informed- but you covered it all up with the other stuff.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[itsybitsy]

"Card carrying members of the commune of the cult of GPL" isn't intended to be an ad hominem attack, it is meant to communicate that there are those that are ardent members of that "group" that exhibit anti-social behaviors by stifling freedom of speech with silly juvenile labels such as "troll".

It's not for you to judge and instruct the manner of how I should communication dude. I'm not attacking anyone, I'm simply expressing a valid point of view regarding the Cult of the GPL and it's fearless Self Appointed Leader, Richard Stallman.

If one can't dissent without being labeled a "troll" then the Cult of The GPL is truly an apt label and thus not an ad hominem attack since it's 100% accurate!

You don't like what is said so you "troll" it down. That is exactly the behavior of The Crutch Of Scientology a well known highly aggressive cult - not so different from "Card carrying members of the commune of the cult of GPL" evidently.

The dotGNU strategy

[extrasolar]

For those of you saying that RMS is being hypocritical with the Portable.Net project, you should read this first:

Don't get caught in .NET

With all the RMS-bashing that slashdot has turned into lately, you'd wonder what the point is in providing arguments for your position.

Re:Why are people so angry at the "M$" ?

[mangu]

MSFT would be used instead.

So, you object to putting a dollar sign in a company's name, but think it's OK to use the stock market symbol in a discussion that has nothing to do with the market?

M$ is only "universally recognized" or "preferred" among haters.

Well, you seem to recognize it, does this mean you hate micro$oft?

There's nothing wrong in making little jokes, even if they are lame. People say Ford is an acronym for "Fix Or Repair Daily", or Oldsmobile means "Overpriced Leisurely Driven Sedan Made Of Buick Industrial Leftover Equipment", but this does not mean they hate those companies.

You may find a joke unfunny, that's a natural reaction, different people see jokes in different ways. But complaining about a petty joke about a corporation is childish, unless youwork for that company's marketing department.

With thanks to the Coen brothers

[ClosedSource]

Old CS Professors are still pissed that "any slob in a smelly T-shirt" is able to use a computer thanks to PCs.

Re:With thanks to the Coen brothers

[retchdog]

Thanks to PCs, any slob in a smelly T-shirt can use linux.

No wait, reverse that; even the well-groomed can use linux.

DinoRMS

[cremat]

RMS had his moment in time/history. Unfortunately for him, he's become a dinousaur, and we all know what happened to dinosaurs...

Nevertheless, we must be thankful for his work, and the work of other programmers as well, on the GNU software which is a very very important part of any Linux distro. However, if people would have blindly followed all his recommendations, ou favorite OS would not have support for binary/proprietary dirvers such as nvidia's and we would be nuts trying to use the GNU/Hurd microkernel. Who would use anything else but Windows in today's modern computers?

Fortunately, there's more to GNU/Linux than the GNU software plus the Linux kernel.

All fanatisms suck big time.

Debian bringing this upon itself?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the Debian folks, although they are doing a impressive job in maintaining the project, are very close to a situation where one could wonder if they don't keep double standards. But to make matters more grim I can't help wonder if they didn't bring this whole situation upon themselves.

When it comes to licenses and the slightest indication of software possibly being "non free" then Debian holds very high standards. And don't get me wrong: rightfully so. But where things started getting heavily off course (IMO naturally) is when they include broken software to make up for the loss of the original. There are many examples but the one I personally experienced was with Java. Instead of simply making the point "No, we don't include Java because its not open source" (an opinion which I still find highly questionable) they chose to include broken software and presented it in a way as Java (it "looked" and "felt" the same after all). Unfortunately, that horribly POS (personal opinion) wasn't even capable of getting people through the first chapters of the official Java tutorial. A situation which I think has put many people on the wrong track with regards to Java, even to a point where they concluded that Java on Linux was broke.

And now I'm wondering if that same approach hasn't moved many Debian (or deratives) users away from Java due to the extreme hassle around it only to adopt another (seemingly) better supported platform; C# in the form of Mono. Maybe this is a little too black/white portraited but I still think it might apply to some of them. So in that aspect I can't help wonder if Debian brought this entirely upon itself.

As for Stallman and his worries; I have to agree to some extend. History has shown us multiple times that you can't trust MS with things like these. I'm even shocked to see that Debian would exclude the official Java implementation because they deemed it "not open source" (only because the source was freely available, but not under a license which people liked) but will happily include an environment which cannot be deemed entirely free (yet?). But on the other hand, if you take a closer look at MS's trademarks you will see that there isn't any friction (yet) when comparing those to what can be seen on the Mono website.

Because please bear well in mind the header of that MS page: "The absence of a name or logo in this list does not constitute a waiver of any and all intellectual property rights that Microsoft Corporation or its subsidiaries have established in any of their product, feature, or service names or logos.". But one could always wonder; should MS do start throwing some weight around; what is stopping Mono from changing their: "We provide C# on other platforms" to "We provide a MS powered java-like platform on other platforms.".

All in all I think Debian is making a grave mistake, but I doubt it can result in a scenario as forewarned by Stallman.

Jo Shields' article...

[QuietLagoon]

... is specious at best, damaging to Open Source at worst.

Re:Jo Shields' article...

[jjohnson]

Well, I guess I'll just take your word for it, then...

It's got what plants crave

[daemonburrito]

You need to parse Microsoft's statements better. They have not. I'm not feeling like searching the web for you, but I believe the sentence goes "royalty-free or otherwise RAND". And also it only mentions C# and the CLR. And what will these "potential licenses" look like? They've left themselves plenty of room.

Even in the best case scenario where Microsoft is unable to torpedo the big distros, this state of affairs (patent FUD) retards Linux adoption in corporate systems. Do you really think that 348 million dollars exchanged hands for no reason?

Anyway, this argument sucks. Every two weeks, you guys read the same responses from us and then promptly forget them. Every Mono story, we're dragged back to first principles.

I can't take it seriously anymore; you have to be faking it. I know you read a comment in the last Mono story (or in the thousands of comments in mailing lists, forums, blogs, or even my comment further up this very thread!) that described both Miguel's statements at MIX 08 and Novell's official statements about the patent covenant, which makes this semantic exercise utterly pointless.

Either you're true believer or you got a free laptop. In either case, I'm not interested debating small details anymore. Google is your friend.

Btw, I know what it's like to fall in love with a framework. But take a step back from VS and take a look at what's out there. Or just look at the history of development since Smalltalk. I promise it will be rewarding.

Re:It's got what plants crave

[Mr2001]

And what will these "potential licenses" look like? They've left themselves plenty of room.

One might say they've left their detractors plenty of room to come up with scary hypotheticals.

Even in the best case scenario where Microsoft is unable to torpedo the big distros, this state of affairs (patent FUD) retards Linux adoption in corporate systems.

Yes, FUD sucks. Unfortunately, the only FUD here is being spread by the anti-MS crusaders, and it doesn't seem like they're going to stop any time soon.

Btw, I know what it's like to fall in love with a framework. But take a step back from VS and take a look at what's out there. Or just look at the history of development since Smalltalk. I promise it will be rewarding.

You assume that if I like Visual Studio and C#, it must mean I'm unaware of the alternatives? How patronizing.

Re:Why are people so angry at the "M$" ?

[machine321]

What about people who who have Multiple $clerosis, a disease where your money gets small scars?

Are you new here?

[Augusto]

Just wondering ...

Re:Why are people so angry at the "M$" ?

[NoOneInParticular]

I usually read "M$" as M-string. Yes this is BASIC. The company that gave us BASIC = M$.

Oh, you're making me channel Sam Kinison

[ClosedSource]

So you were an admin for Windows systems and didn't feel like a developer - Perhaps because software development WASN'T YOUR JOB!

Hey there. New user today? Just curious...

[Concern]

I noticed you just made a new account to troll and spread FUD on this article, and I was wondering, who do you work for, and how much do you get paid to make these posts?

Do you get paid by the hour, or is it per post or per word? Do you get benefits? How's the work environment?

I only ask because I've been thinking of making a move into the "PR" and "viral marketing" space myself. Put the liberal arts education to work, you know.

Re:Hey there. New user today? Just curious...

[xoluxo]

Let me suggest "Witch Hunters" as the name for your PR firm.

Perhaps you could offer a "Loyalty Review Board" service to smoke out enemies that might have infiltrated the ranks.

Re:Hey there. New user today? Just curious...

[Concern]

Hah! I would say good one, but your joke is not that good.

Well, I hope you're getting health insurance at least. Everyone's all about "contractors" these days. But too much typing can be hard on your wrists. Take regular breaks, that's my advice.

FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem...

[Concern]

The man basically made a lot of the internet and the modern computing experience possible. His foundation is responsible for some of the most vital, widely used, and essential software in use today.

And yet whenever he opens his mouth, cue the ad hominem attacks. They come hard and fast. Ignore what he said. Just question his character - change the subject, pick apart some wacky thing from his life. That should settle the matter.

Do you only converse with people who are absolutely normal, totally conventional, and who never make any mistakes in anything they have ever said? Because that's the only way you can bring this stuff up and be intellectually consistent.

And what's worse, this is not the ESPN forums. We're supposed to be nerds here. The man can't be weird and still be right?

Re:M$ not MS

[Concern]

LOL. Heaven forfend we offend the sensibilities of a notorious, convicted monopolist, so successful in his illegal anticompetitive activities that he became the world's richest man for a number of years?

Whatever were we thinking. We'll go back to being good, obedient consumers now. Not.

How about this. M$ stops subverting standards bodies, engaging in barratry, and submarining "software patents" to squash competition, and we stop using the initials.

Why not let people form their own opinion by not misleading them?

Espousing false and misleading neutrality between a sensible viewpoint and a ridiculous one serves only to confuse.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[itsybitsy]

[META CONVERSATION BEGINS]

Not a troll nor a flamebaiter but a DISSENTER! A DISSIDENT!

The person who labeled the parent comment a "troll" (earlier) or a "flamebait" is the one who is flamebaiting.

It's a very strange CULTure that you folks have that stifles dissent by labeling it "troll" or "flamebait" or which "moderates it down". Very strange indeed.

Slashdot staff please eliminate these categories and the ability to moderate downward. Thanks for supporting dissent in free speech rather than "agreement reality imposed order" as the current system implements.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[dbIII]

Cute. But I'm not a famous person with an agenda. I'm not a person with HIS OWN OPERATING SYSTEM

True, but HURD is really the work of other people, RMS has little to do with it now. If you are however talking about linux you have been conned and do not have a clue what you are talking about.
As for the last bit, you are really describing what RMS does for a job now - politics advocating his licence.
The core problem here anyway is software patents and the possible vunerability of mono to a submarine patent case. The worst potential problem facing developers that use mono is that they could lose the ability of their code to run on multiple platforms in the USA. That is fairly serious but not a complete showstopper for most now that you can get Microsoft platforms that can use decent amounts of memory.

TiddlyWiki

[NoMoreBS]

Haven't personally used Gnote or Tomboy, but it sounds like TiddlyWiki gives similar functionality, with the only requirement being a suitable browswer, e.g. Firefox.

Screw off

[Sir_Lewk]

For fucks sake man, how idiotic can you be? Never once did I state an anti-microsoft bias was undeserved or undesirable. I hate Microsoft as much as anyone though that is complelely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

It's rabid idiotic zealots like you who randomly attack people for percieveably supporting Microsoft that give the rest of us Microsoft-haters a bad name.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[dbIII]

Actually if you read that last section again he never told you to put your software in the public domain

He's angry about people fencing off the public domain, hence the GPL. There's abuses like the public domain PBS job queuing system developed by NASA for high performance computing which was put in the public domain but is now theoretically only available from a software company that wrote some extensions to it. The reality is that if you attempt to obtain it from the website that says you can have it you instead end up with a sales guy bothering you for three months until you tell him to let you download the code as promised or go away - in which case they go away and you don't get the code. The reaction to this was a system that works the same way released under the GPL - the public domain was not "free" because it got fenced off with no licence condition prohibiting that. There's also stuff like the public domain TCP/IP implementation in some Microsoft products with Microsoft copyright notices all over it (eg. etc/hosts) that you could in theory get in trouble for copying.
The purpose of the GPL IMHO is to keep things in the public domain forever.

My 2 Cents

[danigr]

For me what will happen is that Microsoft will claim in the future that Linux is very good because it uses part of Microsoft technologies. It will sound to the noob as it was Microsoft that made Linux great. I even go further:

Why Linux is so great mr. Balmer?

-Linux employs one of our core technologies, .NET, a robust and feature rich API that developers developers developers love so much. Thanks to our efforts Linux is now gaining momentum. Next year we plan to release Microsoft Linux XP...

Then the world implodes. *mooB*

He doesn't really count for much

[dbIII]

As for part one - yuk! You people in cold climates should wash more often and it won't happen.

This is also the guy that uses a Loongson ARM Netbook because the OLPC wasn't "open" enough because the BIOS and wifi chips weren't GPL'd

I can understand that - he's "eating his own dogfood" like an Apple rep having an Apple laptop (or the infamous rant here long ago about a RedHat sales guy that missed the point of his job and didn't want RedHat on his laptop).
As for the second paragraph - you misunderstand that he is the heckler shouting from the back row while what is actually happening with linux is things like the closed Nvidia drivers that he would never allow to happen. RMS is trying to make himself a figurehead but he really is not even if those who believe his press releases are saying as much. What you are seeing here is really just MIT staffroom politics that somehow escaped out into the wider world - this bullshit of claiming ownership of the work of others for one thing and the insistence of everybody trusting GPLv3 before it was even finalised for another. I pretty well dismiss the "cult of RMS" as newbies that don't know any better and are looking for a hero instead of just good ideas. The need to grow up and treat him as a peer instead of a hero.
I disagree with a few things in your article due to experience with some of the things you mention - the shambolic monolith that is Exchange is something you are really stuck with until you want to migrate to a completely different environment. You are better off keeping a legacy server than attempting to play catch up or migrating to a completely different web and email based solution of which there are probably thousands better than various parts of Exchange - but it's a matter of two or three solutions and not one enormous heap. Exchange is definitely the worst email server in production on any platform (although full backups are actually possible now so it has improved) so the email portion is easily replaced on the same or lesser hardware, but it's a matter of finding out what other portions the users require since it does a lot of other stuff.
The printer problem is vanishing as more and more cheap postscript printers that will run with anything are becoming available - there are just enough Macs and just enough home networks out there to kill the winprinter. I disagree with the attitude to the CLI - that is the one thing that has made large linux deployments possible since you can run the same command or script on as many machines as you want. Eventually there is a point where it is more productive to type instead of pointing at pictures - the difficult bit is sorting out which tasks are better done in which way. The main offender newbies hit is X windows configuration but there are now a few decent graphical ways to sort that out and you ALWAYS need a text based way to configure video so you can do something about it when the video settings are wrong. The text console is the linux "safe mode". Consider something like "powerdesk" or the multi-page nvidia or ati GUIs for video settings on MS Windows and you'll see how incredibly hard it is to have a GUI for something that only has a fraction of the options that X windows has - it really has to stay as a text configuration for the complex stuff especially as more extensions or single vendor only options are added. Personally I just copy the working nvidia dual head file to a new machine each time instead of the hunting through a maze of twisty config options that you would have to do with a pure GUI system.
The amount of linux compatible gear on the consumer end seems to have run backwards at the moment (paticularly with the rapidly changing state of WiFi hardware) and I really don't know how things will go.

Re:He doesn't really count for much

[Blakey Rat]

As for part one - yuk! You people in cold climates should wash more often and it won't happen.

Just FYI, I live in Washington State, and I don't have toe cheese, neither does anybody I know. The point that there's something *on* his foot to pull off in the first place is the opening act of the nasty; the part where he eats it is actually the encore performance.

I can understand that - he's "eating his own dogfood"

Eating dogfood would be substantially less disgusting. ;) (Yes, I know the phrase.)

Exchange is definitely the worst email server in production on any platform

I hope you're making use of hyperbole and don't genuinely believe that. Exchange is certainly not the best, but it's nowhere even close to the worst. Hell, it's arguably better than its direct competitor-- Lotus Domino-- and that's all that really matters. (It certainly uses less bandwidth than Domino.)

The real genius of Exchange isn't the server; the server's an implementation detail and nobody really cares, except hard-core geeks. The real genius is the client software, which is quite simply excellent. To the end-user, the UI of an application *is* the application. (Thus: Outlook *is* Exchange, Lotus Notes *is* Domino.) I think if more open source developers realized that simple rule, open source could be vastly more popular.

(although full backups are actually possible now so it has improved) so the email portion is easily replaced on the same or lesser hardware, but it's a matter of finding out what other portions the users require since it does a lot of other stuff.

That "lot of other stuff" is the reason it's deployed.

I disagree with the attitude to the CLI - that is the one thing that has made large linux deployments possible since you can run the same command or script on as many machines as you want.

You could do this on an older Mac using AppleScript, for example, and never leaving the GUI. Unless you find some weird way of defining AppleScript as a "CLI" (which would be a huge stretch), you can do this particular without ever leaving the GUI.

Also note that Windows designed the Registry specifically to address your problem... again without requiring a CLI. You can deploy a registry entry to thousands of machines, and they'll do your bidding.

It might make large Linux deployments more pleasant, but that's only because Linux has no other technology designed for that purpose. It's definitely "possible" to do, other OSes have already done it.

The main offender newbies hit is X windows configuration but there are now a few decent graphical ways to sort that out and you ALWAYS need a text based way to configure video so you can do something about it when the video settings are wrong.

Yah, but all you need is a "Safe Mode" (to copy a term from Windows) that boots the GUI into a resolution that's guaranteed to work on every piece of video hardware. You don't need to be able to set every single parameter from a CLI, and your OS should protect you from picking un-display-able settings in the first place. And, needless-to-say, it shouldn't crash so often as to make this a consideration.

Consider something like "powerdesk" or the multi-page nvidia or ati GUIs for video settings on MS Windows and you'll see how incredibly hard it is to have a GUI for something that only has a fraction of the options that X windows has

Yeah, but those are shitty GUIs. And even those shitty GUIs are better than a config file-- for example, they're vastly more discoverable. I can guarantee you that if those companies hired a GUI designer and made them non-shitty, it wouldn't demonstrate your point.

I frequently see this: "the CLI is good because [program with shitty GUI] sucks." No real surprise there, saying that a shitty GUI sucks.

Personally I just copy the working nvidia dual head file to a new machine each time instead of the hunting through a maze of twisty config options that you would hav

Re:He doesn't really count for much

[dbIII]

Good long response, but you've missed a few points the guy I was replying to wouldn't so I suggest reading back in the thread a bit, however thank you for being more polite than usual.
My views stand, paticularly about the email portion of Exchange which still has some problems in the current version but the net is cursed with many old MS Exchange mail servers dropping and redirecting mail to the wrong places on occasion - of course that is only part of MS Exchange but it is the part that misbehaves and is needlessly slow and complex.
I'll put your registry comment down to a lack of experience with other systems (and indeed a lack of experience with the MS Windows registry) and assume you are not trolling. You've also entirely missed my point about GUI configuration for a video system and that portable configuration files and/or the command line are ideal for large deployments instead of having to hire a dozen extra people to point at pictures with the mouse.
Hmm - nvidia and/or ati should GUI designers should they? You really didn't think before the reply did you? I used that example because it actually is a fairly good GUI but has a vast number of options it has to cover.
I'll leave you to let you get back to your site that tells us all how terrible slashdot is.

Re:He doesn't really count for much

[Blakey Rat]

I'll put your registry comment down to a lack of experience with other systems (and indeed a lack of experience with the MS Windows registry) and assume you are not trolling.

Then what's the registry equivalent for, say, Ubuntu Linux?

You've also entirely missed my point about GUI configuration for a video system and that portable configuration files and/or the command line are ideal for large deployments instead of having to hire a dozen extra people to point at pictures with the mouse.

Or you can pick a system which doesn't *require* dinking around with the command line or pointing to pictures with a mouse to correctly detect the capabilities of the monitors available.

Hmm - nvidia and/or ati should GUI designers should they?

Wha-huh? You're missing at least one word there, I think-- I can't make heads or tails out of that.

You really didn't think before the reply did you?

I didn't? I have no idea what point your gibberish sentence is trying to make, so I can't really defend against it.

I used that example because it actually is a fairly good GUI but has a vast number of options it has to cover.

And I say that if it is, indeed, worse than editing a configuration file, it has a fairly bad GUI almost by definition. Regardless of the number of options.

I'll leave you to let you get back to your site that tells us all how terrible slashdot is.

If you don't realize how awful Slashdot's usability has gotten in the last year, I think you're not in a position to judge the usability of products.

Re:He doesn't really count for much

[dbIII]

Sorry about the typo - the rest I can't help you with until you get over your predjudices and at least look at non MS Windows systems or consider systems with tasks slightly more complex than a single sceen "glass typewriter".
I also suggest asking a competant MS Windows admin or developer what they think about the registry :)

Re:He doesn't really count for much

[Blakey Rat]

So just to clarify:
1) You can't tell me what the Ubuntu Linux equivalent to the Registry is
2) You can't tell me/justify why you'd need to automate something like setting up monitors, when the OS should simply do that without requiring human interaction at all
3) You're unwilling to correct your typo, so I can figure out what the holy hell you were trying to tell me in that one line (but you feel compelled to tell me it's a typo!)
4) Thusly, the next line (which sounds like it's making some devastating point against me, but I have no clue what that point actually is) is completely nullified
5) You have no response to my assertion that a GUI that's worse as its job than a CLI is a bad GUI by definition

And all because you seem to think I haven't "at least taken a look at non MS Windows systems"?

(Which, BTW, is complete bullshit. I owned nothing but Macs for over a decade, I actually switched from OS X to Vista when OS X made a huge backslide in usability. The reason I don't use Ubuntu is because it doesn't support sleep mode on any of the laptops I've ever owned, but I try every release regardless because I'm an idiot and keep expecting it to start working.)

In summary, thanks for being a condescending prick, but I'm just going to assume I've won this little exchange and move on.

Re:He doesn't really count for much

[dbIII]

You can't tell me what the Ubuntu Linux equivalent to the Registry is

There really isn't one because it is not a good idea for multiuser systems. Ask an MS Windows administrator for the variety of other reasons why it is not a good idea (eg. obfiscated settings which make it nearly impossible to determine whether a key is legitimate or the effect of malware). The registry is a relic of the single user non-networked home computer which still exists and never achieved it's goal of replacing all other configuration files in the first place.
Your point 2 is sadly irrelevant because when there are a very large number of options the computer cannot read your mind - there is no system that does what you describe without a human telling it what they want.
The missing word was in response to your suggestion that nvidia, ati et al should "hire" GUI designers (the missing word was "hire"), which is something they obviously already do. From the context I'm certain you were able to work out what I meant but of course it was just an excuse to try to wind me up for poor writing.
I'll leave you to craft your website about how there are all the over-technical idiots on this site that want to use computers for more than just a typewriter and some who even do nothing for a living other than fiddle with the things. You've trolled me several times before which obviously influenced my replies and it's annoying that you are jumping in on this thread without even reading the article I was replying to. Please just leave us greasy Moorlocks alone to grumble at each other and go back to playing in your garden.

Re:He doesn't really count for much

[Blakey Rat]

I hope you're not in charge of IT somewhere, if so your users must hate you. SMTP doesn't do calendars, that right there is enough to disqualify it as a replacement for Exchange.

As for Domino, while you can use it to distribute (crummy) apps, Notes is awful at email and calendaring because of IBMs insistance that those are "just another app". On the other hand, at least it's not misleading, as the crumminess of the email/calendaring app is on-par with the crumminess of other Domino apps i've experienced.

Considering Domino's expense (about twice what Exchange costs per seat), and the crumminess of Notes' core function (email/calendaring), the ability to write additional crummy apps doesn't sell me. You're better off using RealBasic or Filemaker to make your apps.

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[man_of_mr_e]

RMS did not invent the internet, nor did his software have much to do with the internet. It's true that Linux heavily uses GNU software, but if GNU software weren't around, they could just as easily be using BSD versions of most of those commands.

RMS wrote Emacs, and without Emacs programmers might be a lot less efficient, but Emacs is really the only thing he "created", everything else was just copies of other stuff.

Re:From what I understand

[malevolentjelly]

No. If you actually took the trouble of reading what RMS wrote, he said specifically that *any* .NET platform implementation will have the same problem as Mono. He says free software developers should not develop apps that use the .NET platform, but that it is ok to have .NET platforms to run other existing .NET apps.

Wow, you morons are just as bad as Oprah viewers. I suppose you're not going to vaccinate your children, either?

It's a fantastic system to develop on and a huge time saver. Quite simply, companies that don't drink the moron koolaid will get more work done and enjoy better interoperability. The open source world lacks the vision to create cohesive platforms like this, so there's nothing wrong with implementing a well designed and solid one from the professional software world.

Besides, all free implementations of .NET are legally protected from prosecution for Microsoft's patents. If they go back on this, they could get countersued for opening them up in the first place.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html

http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing

Go with Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a big fan of RMS. He's a bit of a nutter. But in this instance (ok, not exactly the first), he is absolutely correct. Inside every large horse that you see camped outside your walled city, lies an army waiting to kill you while you sleep. In this case, the horse has a large emblem written on the side that says "MONO", and inside is a patent minefield which wants to punch big holes in your city walls and bring ruin upon you. Microsoft teamed up with Miguel de Icaza to destroy Linux. de Icaza is no mere pawn. He is in league with microsoft. There is without a doubt, a paid connection between the two. Anything relating to mono should be an 'add on after', and not part of the native distribution. I have never expected microsoft to do the right thing, and they have never failed to disappoint. "MONO NOT WELCOME HERE" should be the official Debian line. Likewise with Novell. They did the dishonorable act, and now must be treated as the vermin they are. I don't want my system tainted with anything microsoft (I've seen, administered, installed and cursed their systems). I know exactly how bad microsoft software is. The only thing lower than the low low quality of their software is the moral compass of the company. Stay away from mono, and remove it from my Debian (and Ubuntu). Don't ever include it again, don't even consider that.

uncontrolled standards?

[reiisi]

Take a deep breath and think twice.

Read up on oxml or ooxml or whatever "standard" microsoft is proposing to replace odf with.

Re:uncontrolled standards?

[Mr2001]

Take a deep breath and think twice.

Done.

Read up on oxml or ooxml or whatever "standard" microsoft is proposing to replace odf with.

OK, so what's the connection between OOXML and the C# or CLI standards?

Some people are concerned that OOXML is impossible for competitors to implement, because it depends on baroque, poorly-documented behavior that Office already implements. That is not the case with C# or the CLI. Mono already has a good implementation of most (all?) of the behavior described in these standards, and the standards are much more complete anyway. Have you actually read them or used Mono, or are you just extrapolating from what you know about OOXML?

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[Concern]

Oh you lovable scamp. Indeed he did not invent the internet - which is why I did not say he did. :)

The software he personally wrote is also unimportant - which is why I didn't mention it.

But... this doesn't have much to do with the internet?

You have to introduce me to your dealer. :D

You can't go 5 seconds on the net without hitting free software. How many webservers run linux? How many routers, firewalls, and load balancers, for that matter?

Your first google search... bzzt. Google uses free software heavily.

The top 10 websites by traffic? Guess how many use GPL software in the stack. Just guess. Come on. Show of hands, who uses MySQL? Heck, for the new fangled folks, who uses Ruby on Rails?

This goes beyond the internet, man. The goddamned NSA uses Linux. Yes. RMS' work has contributed to the safety and security of the United States, FWIW. :)

You should take another look at what the FSF has in their directory. Just, give the page a while to load, OK? It's big.

http://directory.fsf.org/all/

Emacs? Screw Emacs! What would the world be like with GCC? Without glibc? What about if Perl just disappeared? What if wikipedia and all the sites based on mediawiki disappeared? And over half of sourceforge? And on and on and on...

And the funny thing is, the individual projects and products are almost beside the point.

What would the world be like if we didn't have the collaboration that happens in free software projects? We can't even count how many technical achievements were only possible this way, when everyone feels safe contributing, knowing that their work will not be taken and exploited by others who will not give back to the community.

Why is it that virtually none of the proprietary unices still survive? Why is it that BSD's marketshare is miniscule compared to Linux?

I'll give you a hint, it's not because of whose command line argument styles were better and it's not Linus' winning personality. :)

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[man_of_mr_e]

Oh you lovable scamp. Indeed he did not invent the internet - which is why I did not say he did.

And I didn't say you said he did. See, that works both ways.

I was making a point, not claiming you made one.

You can't go 5 seconds on the net without hitting free software.

True, but irrelevant. BSD is also free, and they don't like the GPL much.

Emacs? Screw Emacs! What would the world be like with GCC? Without glibc? What about if Perl just disappeared?

What does RMS have to do with Perl?

Before GCC existed (or rather, before it became popular) there were other free compilers. There was a BSD C compiler also. Granted, GCC won out, but if it wasn't around, something else would have replaced it.

What would the world be like if we didn't have the collaboration that happens in free software projects?

Free software existed long before the GPL was created, and there's a ton of it that is not GPL'd.

But all this is beside the point. You made it out that RMS was basically responsible for the internet existing or functioning. The fact of the matter is that the internet doesn't run on Linux, it runs largely on BSD based products (Cisco, *BSD's, etc..) Most Web sites run on Linux, but that's not the internet itself.

Yes, RMS is responsible for a lot, but I don't for one second believe that it was impossible for that to happen without him.

look up!

[reiisi]

here.

While I disagree about the idea that M$ (No, I am not twitter.) would not be stupid enough to bring suit over mono, that post really explains it all.

It's very rare for me to agree with Stallman...

[petrus4]

but I do in this instance.

Linux IMHO should not be incorporating Microsoft's standards in any form. Doing so could lead to litigation, and eventually the death of the system.

Ballmer would probably love to see Linux implementations of a few bits of Microsoft's stuff, purely so that he would have the grounds to sue someone later. Integrating such material is therefore very dangerous.

Re:It's very rare for me to agree with Stallman...

[shish]

Linux IMHO should not be incorporating Microsoft's standards in any form. Doing so could lead to litigation, and eventually the death of the system.

Should we also shun the UNIX specification, and ANSI C? (Both from convicted monopolist and lawyer-happy AT&T)

Re:It's very rare for me to agree with Stallman...

[howlingmadhowie]

and both are extremely old and any patents there may be on them have long since expired. so basically, stop being a troll.

Re:It's very rare for me to agree with Stallman...

[shish]

and both are extremely old and any patents there may be on them have long since expired. so basically, stop being a troll.

UNIX was still within patent range when HURD started, and C was still in patent range when GCC started; I'd refute the troll statement too if I had any idea where that came from o_O

Isn't that the whole point?

[reiisi]

Patents, in their current form and use, are clotting up pretty much every industry these days.

They were originally meant to be limited monopolies, but because the Constitutions says limited time (but nothing about monopoly, per se), lawyers and legislators and judges have been having a field day making pretty much every industry a king-of-the-hill competition.

There was a time when we were supposed to want to protect the market, the economy, and society in general from king-of-the-hill games.

Re:Isn't that the whole point?

[Slothy]

No disagreement here.

That doesn't change the fact that you can't determine if something might get a patent claim against in the future. The idea that GNU apps are 100% clear and Mono is totally at risk is just absurd.

If neither one has anyone claiming that it violates patents, then I fail to see the difference. MS's rep for patent cases is nothing compared to tiny companies that do nothing but sue, so if you ask me who I'm more afraid of, it's not MS. They actually might lose customers if they sue someone.

Stallman doesn't know what he is talking about

[jipn4]

(1) Although Microsoft has applied on a patent for the (non-ECMA/ISO) .NET APIs, Tomboy and other Mono applications don't use those.

(2) Any free software is threatened by patents and the patents can come from any company; with C#, people at least have looked at this issue in detail and come up empty.

Legally speaking, it's probably safer to use Mono than any other platform other than C at this point.

The statement from Stallman is particularly bizarre because the entire GNU project started out under a huge cloud of legal uncertainty: AT&T had extensive intellectual property claims to UNIX, including patents, and Stallman just ignored all of those.

Furthermore, if Stallman wants us not to use Mono, he needs to come up with a better alternative; so far, there is none. The closest we have to a successor to C/C++ is D, but it has limitations and isn't widely accepted.

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[Concern]

I was making a point, not claiming you made one.

You were making a deceptive point - by responding to what I said with an exaggeration of what I said.

OK, apparently you did so knowingly - points for you. :)

True, but irrelevant. BSD is also free, and they don't like the GPL much.

BSD is not free. It is merely open. That is why it is so utterly marginalized, and why i.e. Linux server adoption is approximately an order of magnitude larger than BSD server adoption. BSD was there first, too, and there's a very good reason almost everyone switched to GPL projects.

RMS created the legal and social model that made software freedom possible. GPL projects are so important and ubiquitous that you cannot use the internet for 5 seconds without them, and you find it irrelevant?

You are high.

What does RMS have to do with Perl?

He created the GPL, which is the legal and social model perl is based on.

Granted, GCC won out

Why did it win out?

Coincidence? RMS's personal charm?

Oh, come on. You're totally sure "free as in speech" had nothing to do with it? ;)

Free software existed long before the GPL was created, and there's a ton of it that is not GPL'd.

No. Wrong.

Open source software existed before the GPL. I would argue no software was really free (as in speech) before the GPL was codified and used.

You made it out that RMS was basically responsible for the internet existing or functioning.

Ahhh... OK, so you are claiming I made this point? This is getting confusing. :)

The fact of the matter is that the internet doesn't run on Linux

A rather meaningless statement. I notice you haven't said a thing that refutes my points. (You cannot use the internet for 5 seconds without encountering software that uses his license.) Great! My work is done. :)

Yes, RMS is responsible for a lot, but I don't for one second believe that it was impossible for that to happen without him.

Oh, you are so stingy with your praise. :D

calculated risks

[reiisi]

Small patent trolls will come out of the woodwork anyway. You don't really want to base much of an argument relative to putting mono in a default install on small patent trolls.

And we should note that the guys in charge of Microsoft own (controlling interest in) a few patent trolls, but that really is beside the point.

We know from past experience that Microsoft will not openly attack a competitor if it thinks that will cost them mindshare. Unless they think they gain offsetting mindshare.

We also know that the will attack the enemy by underhanded means. No, their patent trolls probably will not attack Linux based on mono, but some lapdog patent troll which cannot be directly traced to them will use something in mono to attack members of the Linux community.

We've seen it happen.

We have seen some of their lapdogs exposed, others we have only seen indirect evidence of the connections.

We have not seen any evidence that they intend to quit doing it.

But the risk is the underlining point, not the main point.

The point here is what you push on the end user versus what you merely enable.

Do you make/let the end user go find Tomboy for him-/herself or do you give it to him for his/her efforts at downloading and installing your distribution. The former approach is neutral. The latter approach legitimizes mono and encourages people to use it.

If you think mono is wonderful stuff, then I suppose it's worth the known risk, to you. VB was wonderful stuff to managers who had never been able to figure out how to use a command line or read raw text.

But the use of VB is what established Microsoft as a legitimate "business" software company.

Using mono now is repeating the mistake of using MS-DOS, MSVB, MSIE, MS Foundation Classes, MSVS, MSOffice, MSWindows, etc. They were not usually better in the long run, although you do have to be willing to be the tortoise instead of the hare if you use the options. Patent traps are not the only traps in Microsoft's stuff.

Anyway, yes, don't prevent individual users, individual companies from using mono if they choose to. Not including mono in the default distribution in no way prevents people who want it from loading it.

But, now, don't push it on the individual users, hidden underneath an application like Tomboy, that could well become yet another hidden psychological dependency that Microsoft salesman will tell their customers (with a nudge and a wink) that you have to buy Microsoft to get (and so you might as well get the real thing from Microsoft, and, no, all that stuff about malware isn't really true, of course, computers are supposed to start running slow after a while, that's why you should buy MSWindows 21 or whatever, etc., etc., and a glad-hand slap on the back).

Re:calculated risks

[Slothy]

Holy crap, you really think like that?

Here's the thing: let's go with your mindset, and think that MS is just waiting to file patent claims against Mono, because they hate Linux. They're just waiting...

MS HAS A TON OF PATENTS. If they want to try to screw up Linux, they can sue over probably 50 other things. So banning Mono doesn't accomplish your goal. So quit pretending that it does.

What about Samba? Why is that fine? Let's ban that, too. What about PDF? That's an Adobe-owned format, let's get rid of that, too.

Open Office supports VB, the devil's language as you mentioned above. Now how is that any different from Mono? Should we go ahead and take that out, too?

You should be more honest and write: "I don't really understand what C# is, and I hate Microsoft. I don't want anyone using apps written in C# unless they wrote it themselves. If this were the 1970s, I would be saying the same thing about C and how everyone should continue writing apps in Fortran and Cobol, like God intended!"

How exactly is using an implementation of a published spec "repeating the mistake of using MS Windows"? That's just 100% incorrect, and if anyone in this debate was interested in talking about the truth rather than their blind ideals, I wouldn't be the only person calling you out on it. Don't lie to try to win a debate.

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[langelgjm]

Please see my post here about why my simple statement of fact is not an ad hominem attack, or a suggestion that Stallman is incompetent, or really anything other than an interesting tidbit of information.

For me, it's been interesting to see how many people have responded to my original post by accusing me of attacking Stallman. (One response even likened me to George Bush).

Re:fool me once, as the saying goes.

[Mr2001]

OOXML is evidence that Microsoft cannot be prevented from abusing standards the get involved with, especially standards they sponsor.

I'm still waiting to hear what form you think this "abuse" could possibly take. We know what happened with OOXML, and we know it didn't happen with C#.

It seems to me you're just spreading FUD: Microsoft is bad, so whenever Microsoft is involved, anything that's bad just has to be possible even if it would contradict all logic.

Software patents have changed...

[js_sebastian]

Mono is a free (GPL) reimplementation of commercial software. Isn't that how GNU got started in the first place? Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software? Wasn't he potentially violating patents? Why was it okay then when it's Unix, but not okay now when the technology came from Microsoft? Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)? (...)

SCO was suing on copyright grounds AFAIK, not on patent grounds. I would say a fundemental difference may well be the software patent landscape that we are currently living under, where it is to be expected that all sorts of trivial and non trivial "innovations" in the C sharp language are covered by software patents, that can be used to shut down anyone re-implementing the language. If microsoft comes up with a patent that some aspect of the linux kernel infringes on, the kernel can be patched to work around it. If they have a patent that a C sharp implementation cannot work around while still remaining compliant to the language standard, what do you do?

Re:From what I understand

[cheesybagel]

Interoperability? When you cannot write a desktop application in .NET without using APIs outside the ECMA spec? Should just as well use Java. No wonder web applications have picked up, while traditional desktop apps are fading.

C# is less productive than languages like PHP or Python, which are used at places such as Google and Yahoo, so it is hardly a panacea for business apps.

The open source world never saw the point of implementing a runtime with a bytecode language before, because if you have the source code, you can compile your code to run in any platform. So you can compile GIMP to run in ARM, PowerPC, X86 or whatever using GCC. Same deal with Apache.

The "professional" software world has been using Java for a long time. C# is well known for its non-portability. Unless you mean portability in the Microsoft sense, i.e. across Windows versions.

Re:Is Mono really open?

[ammorais]

Microsoft had claims on the past that Linux violated several patents(before mono), and it didn't matter for many customers if they were right. Many were afraid of being sewed. What kind of strategy do you think Microsoft will had if they really wanted to support those claims. Maybe something like letting Gnu/Linux use a technology that they have obscure patents is a good start, no? Microsoft not doing anything yet doesn't make me any more confident.

Re:that's an impressive email box

[TheRaven64]

Ever bothered to ask or check the views of the inventor of Web's opinions about inline images inside web pages?

He likes them, but thinks the alt attribute of the <img> tag should have been the CDATA so that web browsers that can't display images don't need to be able to parse the tag. This sounds like a pretty sensible opinion, and one that agrees with the core idea of graceful failure. Not sure why this is relevant though. It's worth reading the article where he discusses this, because it contains a few other good points about general design concepts. I don't have a link to hand, but I'm sure Google can help find one easily.

Re:You missed the part about patents

[MickDownUnder]

Do you understand Microsoft actually helped Mono be created?

Do you know that the .NET CLI has been submitted and passed as a ECMA standard ?

Mono is very clearly a fully ligitimate, independent implementation of the open .NET 1.0 CLI standard. Microsoft can't change this standard its already out there. They can submit a new standard as they did for .NET 2.0.

There's simply no logic to anything you're saying. It's pure stupidity/FUD.

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[Anonymous Coward]

"The man basically made a lot of the internet and the modern computing experience possible."

So what? Metallica made a lot of heavy metal possible, and they haven't released a front-to-back solid album since 1988.

Eventually you lose relevance - and the longer you stick around after having done so, the more of a parody you make out of yourself.

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[Concern]

Please see my post here [slashdot.org] about why my simple statement of fact is not an ad hominem attack

OK, I have seen it, and I think it's BS. You made an ad hominem attack (by implication, rather than explicitly, but there is no other purpose for your "statement of fact"), and apparently now you have become embarrassed and are attempting to weasel out of it.

Hopefully you learned something.

Paranoia compatible

[coryking]

I love that! "Paranoia compatible". I'm gonna steal that :-)

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[man_of_mr_e]

BSD is not free. It is merely open.

Gee. You might want to inform the FSF then. They say very clearly that *BSD's are Free Software.

You seem to think that only GPL software is Free software. This is not true. Not even the FSF believes or says that. Read their list of Free Software licenses.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses

Until you are cognizent of this item, we can't even have a discussion, because your entire belief system is a lie.

Re:From what I understand

[malevolentjelly]

No wonder web applications have picked up, while traditional desktop apps are fading.

When did they first start declaring traditional applications dead? Was it sometime in the 90's? That's going really well, I can see. Web technologies are a clusterfuck. Either we reduce the amount of energy used on our computing infrastructure and pull out of trendy and inefficient technologies like ruby on rails, or we get to enjoy a desktop running through a browser like some sort of hall of mirrors of API's. It doesn't matter how efficient linux or windows handles memory or threading, because everything will be constrained through Firefox's awkward and slow handling of your system resources.

It's faster for enterprises to hammer out quick .NET apps every now and then than screw with some sort of silly LAMP stack... I would say the linux community is picking up Mono with a passion. There's no question why, there isn't a development solution comparable to Mono/GTK# in the linux ecosytem... to the extent that RMS has to frantically beg developers not to use it so he can deal with his wacky innovation-phobia.

The fact that you compared .NET/C# to PHP simply suggests to me that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, anyway. You tell me the future won't have JIT-compiled bytecode while pushing the most insanely heavy and inefficient desktop code interpreting system imaginable, the web browser.

The "professional" software world has been using Java for a long time. C# is well known for its non-portability. Unless you mean portability in the Microsoft sense, i.e. across Windows versions.

Even my open source nut friends are starting to forsake Java for .NET. With a bit of care, you can write an app that smoothly works on Linux or Windows, but in general the portability between Windows versions (mobile to 7 and everything in between) and between Linux distributions has been enough of a boon. It outperforms Java to a shameful extent for desktop apps, and C# is just a nice language. It's just a solid offering.

You have like one solid development environment on this entire platform and you guys are trying to burn it at the stake. You're making linux a joke.

Re:From what I understand

[malevolentjelly]

C# is less productive than languages like PHP or Python, which are used at places such as Google and Yahoo, so it is hardly a panacea for business apps.

I can't believe I missed this. You used Google and Yahoo as an example of efficient businesses? Google has one profitable product, Search, which when combined with their bull-headed investor-fu, keeps the company barely running. They're amazing at internal mismanagement and losing money. Anything not involved in their search engine is a monetary failure. See youtube: it manages to bleed $2 million a day in losses out of Google. And yahoo? They're in freefall... shedding employees rapidly. You know, I am talking about small businesses and real companies, not web companies... I am talking about companies that actually have to make money.

RTFA

[DrJimbo]

Opps, sorry, for a moment I forget this was Slashdot.

The fine article quotes Stallman as saying:

This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.

The entire article (it is only five short paragraphs) makes it clear why what Stallman is saying is not antithetical to GNU in general.

The +5 Insightful moderation indicates that many moderators are also anxious to take a swipe at Stallman without even bothering to read the fine article.

No Mono in openoffice.org, please!

[fritsd]

I would like it if in Debian-like linux distro's, mono can be easily uninstalled (which also un-installs all "dependent" packages (programs and libraries)). This means that if I've installed your apps, and if (for whatever reason) I decide to purge mono from my system, that I would have to give up using your apps, too.
So far, so good. My personal gripe is if important packages (Debian version of openoffice.org 3.1.0-5) that everyone uses are dependent on mono.
Do you happen to be one of the developers of openoffice.org?
On the bjorn.haxx.se site describing when packages go into testing, there seems to be somewhere a "Build-Depends:" of the openoffice.org package on mono, which is why openoffice 3.1 is currently not yet in Debian testing.
Before you flame me, I know that this doesn't mean that all openoffice.org programs actually depend on mono, it's probably only for cli-uno-bridge, but I would strongly prefer an openoffice.org NOT dependent on mono, and then if necessary, an openoffice.org-extras-mono package containing those parts dependent on mono.
I haven't yet had time to open a wishlist bug against openoffice.org. Sorry.

Re:No Mono in openoffice.org, please!

[burisch_research]

Nope, not part of the OO team. Doesn't make sense to me that OO should be dependent on mono!

openoffice.org currently build-depends: mono

[fritsd]

This is for Debian, maybe not for Ubuntu: bjorn.haxx.se/debian reports when packages can go into "testing".
openoffice.org 3.1.0-5

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[itsybitsy]

Dah!

Yes he has HIS agenda. Yes he has a different point of view than many. Yes he is entitled, actually that's the wrong word you used, yes he has a RIGHT to voice his opinion.

I'm not irked by his use of free speech, I simply see him as meddeling in others afairs and I don't like that especially considering the damage that Stallman's CULT OF GPL has done to true open source software and the Public Domain.

If you think I was attempting to impose restrictions upon Stallman's free speech rights then you (1) didn't read and comprehend what I wrote, (2) comprehended it in a bizare way or (3) are assuming too much about me without ASKING questions of me which makes an ___ out of you.

Re: Why are you babbling about M this or M that

[uassholes]

I wonder what was the reason for C#? Did we not have enough languages? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that they failed to hijack Java (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_J%2B%2B) and create a lock~in with their proprietary version, so they said "Hey lets make a C++ knockoff and lock them in with that!".

You've got to be thick as a brick to let yourself get locked into anything. If that's what RMS is trying to say, he's got it nailed.

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090421111327711 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20031121013756776

Re:Some delightful karma from Microshits insiders

[uassholes]

"[W]e should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take more advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps." --Microsoft's Thomas Reardon

"Please give me one good reason why we should even consider [enabling Microsoft technology to work on competing systems]. (Hint: any good answer needs to include making more money and helping kill Unix, Sybase or Oracle.)" --James Allchin, Microsoft Senior Vice-President

The Windows API is ... so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead. ... It is this switching cost that has given customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties... Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago.

"The approach we will take is to detect dr [DOS] 6 and refuse to load. The error message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface.'" --Phillip Barrett, Microsoft Windows Development Manager

"This anti-trust thing will blow over. We haven't changed our business practices at all." -- Bill Gates, Microsoft founder and then-CEO (1995)

Much more here: Microsoft A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm

(PDF) http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

Re: Why is it that simple explanations

[uassholes]

of the truth, like the above, do not get modded up?

Re:We need a better alternative to Mono then

[Orion Blastar]

Well if I program for Mono and open source code, there will be a rallying cry that I am violating open source licenses and the Free Software Foundation, etc would lead to a boycott of my products as they are trying to do with Novell Mono.

It is a matter of Public Relations that I program in a language that is acceptable to the Open Source Community and the Free Software Foundation.

Thank you for the Netbeans suggestion, I'll look it up and see how it works. I just found out that Fedora Core 11 supports my Laptop wireless adapter, so I can run Fedora on it and write Linux programs with it.

Re:A good programmer uses the right tool for the j

[Orion Blastar]

OK then which tool should I use for the job of helping me to get off disability and getting an open source software company or non-profit organization founded?

Clearly I cannot use Mono and get the support of the Free Software Foundation to have my open source software application bundled with a Linux distro.

When I was paid to work it was for Visual BASIC, and that was my employer's choice, I did not whine about it, I did my job to my best abilities. I earned almost 17 years in Visual BASIC programming.

Yeah I understand about protecting Linux from the IP Police and Microsoft, SCO, et al trying to sue Linux companies.

Just that I hate to see all of the years I spent developing a skill to go to waste for Linux development. I cannot use Visual BASIC via Mono to write a Linux open source software application now. So it forces me to learn a new and different language and a new and different IDE in order to develop open source software for Linux.

The best way to make open source "win"...

[bhtooefr]

...is not RMS-style bitching out people who don't follow his One True Way(tm,) and avoiding things that just work purely because they deviate slightly.

I suspect the best way is to actually use a variation on Microsoft's embrace-extend-extinguish methods.

Here's what that means:

1. Throw support behind ReactOS and Mono. Embrace.
2. Get them to be ~100% compatible with Windows. Extend.
3. Once you've achieved compatibility and feature parity, you'll have control of the API. Add new features that Microsoft doesn't have, in a way that would be very difficult for Microsoft to implement in a real NT kernel. Extinguish.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[stevey]

To my mind the GPL is free. People can see the source, and providing they promise to make it available to others too they can use it themselves. Sure that's not free as in public-domain, and it forces people writing closed applications to rewrite existing code. But people writing closed applications aren't contributing to freedom in any meaningful sense.

If you want to argue about how FREE different licenses are then I will leave you to rant alone...

Re: Why are you babbling about M this or M that

[Mr2001]

I wonder what was the reason for C#? Did we not have enough languages?

If you've used both C# and Java, you already know the answer to this question. ;)

If you haven't, consider features like attributes, properties, delegates, iterable sequences, varargs, enums, a unified type system for classes and primitive types, and pointers. Java has added some of those, but it took a while: Java 1.5 was all about catching up to C#.

Maybe it had something to do with the fact that they failed to hijack Java (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_J%2B%2B) and create a lock~in with their proprietary version, so they said "Hey lets make a C++ knockoff and lock them in with that!".

Except no one is actually "locked in". You can develop and run C# applications without using any Microsoft products, and MS can't do anything to stop you. Go spread FUD elsewhere.

Re:that's an opinion based on experience

[CarpetShark]

I'm betting your "real job" is much more basic nine-to-five commercial work, and much less visionary effort (and success) at changing the world. Kind of depends on your definition of "real" work.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[Sir_Lewk]

"I simply see him as meddeling in others afairs and I don't like that especially "

ie, you are an ass.

Re:that's an opinion based on experience

[ClosedSource]

My definition of a "real job" is one for which you are paid and it sustains you to the extent that you don't have have to turn your office into your home or have other people support you.

I think the jury is still out on whether RMS has "changed the world" and who are the winners and losers if "free" software dominates.

There's a lot of rank and file programmers and engineers of RMS's generation who, while not famous or interested in self-aggrandizement, are nevertheless collectively responsible for the technology we have available.

Nobody elected RMS as representative of our generation and it pains me to see such a narrow view of the history of computer technology being promoted by a guy who has no experience in the real engineering world.

10 LET M$ = "Microsoft"

[tepples]

I usually read "M$" as M-string. Yes this is BASIC. The company that gave us BASIC = M$.

Microsoft didn't give us BASIC (Dartmouth College did), but it did help popularize BASIC on microcomputers. So I see the BASIC expression M$ to represent Microsoft as no worse than the Perl/PHP expression $DEITY to represent a god.

Re: Why are you babbling about M this or M that

[uassholes]

It's not my intention to spread FUD, and it's disengenious of you to accuse me of that. I had hoped to make two points:

• There are plenty of useful programming languages. Maybe "attributes, properties, delegates, iterable sequences, varargs, enums, a unified type system for classes and primitive types, and pointers" float your boat. Nothing wrong with that, but do they make if worth programming in a language created (for some reasons) by Microsoft, considering point two:
• More importantly, there is no disputing Microsoft's business model of lock~in, so their reason for the creation of C# is obvious after their humiliation with J++.

"[W]e should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take more advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps." --Microsoft's Thomas Reardon

The quote can be found in the following document (PDF)

Microsoft
A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm

http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

Here's my specs.

[Grendel Drago]

I'm using a relatively recent P4 running Ubuntu Jaunty (Tomboy 0.14.0). When typing, I can see the CPU usage spike, and every so often, the window becomes nonresponsive (though all the text appears when it comes back). When it's being unresponsive, I can see that the Tomboy process is chewing CPU.

The reports about Mono apps freezing for a few seconds seem to point to some common problem in the runtime. Good luck getting a developer to look at it, of course.

Motherfucking MOD PARENT UP

[Tetsujin]

Seriously... Since when was JJ Star Trek about "Integrity"? Or coherency, for that matter... It's about attaching a name people know to the cinematic equivalent of a liquid lollipop...

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[Kalriath]

I like how that page lists two Microsoft licenses (including Mono's) as "Free Software" licenses. It does say GPL incompatible though.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[itsybitsy]

And you guys label me a flaimbaiter, sheesh.

The difference between me and Richard Stallman is that Stallman is the one who has done considerable damage to Public Domain Software with his Commune Cult of GPL. Every time a software program is published under the GPL an angel dies.

Re: Why are you babbling about M this or M that

[Mr2001]

It's not my intention to spread FUD, and it's disengenious of you to accuse me of that.

Maybe it's not your intent, but it is what you're doing. "Microsoft might someday somehow lock you into their products if you use C#" is FUD, plain and simple, just like "Linux might be insecure" or "Linux might contain copyrighted code". You're raising fear, uncertainty, and doubt based on no real evidence. There's nothing disingenuous about pointing that out.

More importantly, there is no disputing Microsoft's business model of lock~in, so their reason for the creation of C# is obvious after their humiliation with J++.

There is no disputing that Microsoft tried to do this a decade ago with J++. There is, however, disputing that Microsoft has done so with C#. I'm disputing it, and you're not backing up your claim, you're just pointing to J++.

If you want to write a cross-platform app in C#, you can do it easily. If you want to write a Windows-only app in C#, you can do that too. It's not much different from, say, C++, where you can choose between cross-platform libraries like Qt and platform-specific libraries like MFC.

Re:The submarine patents aren't submarined

[fredrik70]

the ECMA standard standard (just as ISO standard) says that the company implementing the standard must give every other implementer a licence for all those patents:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[marcello_dl]

Often idealism is equivalent to long term pragmatism.

Helping or not opposing bad people, for whatever definition of bad, means that later bad people could use their increased power over you.

A note taking app requirÃng a multiMB framework at danger of submarine patents included by default is completely INSANE. Looks like i gotta tell my "apt" a couple things.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[itsybitsy]

If you wish to become more enlightened about the dangers of the CULT OF GPL see this article and the related videos: BSD, Apache, MIT, et. al. are truly free and open souce when compared with the Stallmanistic Geekie Hippie Communistic License of the GPL Viral Infective Code

unholy [generic: epithet.noun]

[reiisi]

Do you really [generic: induced-epithet.verb] like that?

If you like to ignore current events, so that you don't acknowledge the storm over ooxml, and the damage the spec took, nor the (documented) fact that c# was Microsoft's response to Sun telling them that they weren't going to be allowed to embrace and extend Java, not to mention the recent suits Microsoft has pursued over FAT, well, there's not much use talking about whether Adobe has been significantly more circumspect in what they've done with pdf and such.

Nor will it help to point out (yet again) that refraining from putting mono in the default distribution is in no way a ban. (I assume you know how to install packages?)

Re:unholy [generic: epithet.noun]

[Slothy]

By "ban" I mean "discourage anyone from using it". Sorry if that wasn't clear.

You dodged my main point - so why doesn't this apply to OO or Samba? Why doesn't it apply to ANYTHING in Debian? MS has said that Linux might be violating their patents - why is that not a serious threat, but Mono is?

didn't happen with C#?

[reiisi]

You're going to tell me that Microsoft developed C# out of the goodness of their hearts, because Java is so limited, and that it has nothing at all to do with Microsoft responding to Sun's insistence that Microsoft refrain from embracing and extending Java?

Re:didn't happen with C#?

[Mr2001]

You're going to tell me that Microsoft developed C# out of the goodness of their hearts, because Java is so limited, and that it has nothing at all to do with Microsoft responding to Sun's insistence that Microsoft refrain from embracing and extending Java?

That's not at all what I said. It's going to be very hard to continue this discussion if you can't parse simple English statements.

What I said is: we know how Microsoft abused the standardization process with OOXML. They submitted a "standard" that's too poorly documented/defined for others to implement it completely, because it defines features in terms of the (undocumented) behavior of MS Office.

That did not happen with C#. The standards for C# and the CLI are complete enough that multiple independent groups have implemented them.

So, once again, I'm still waiting to hear what form you think this "abuse" could possibly take.

As for Microsoft's motivation in creating C#, I have no doubt that it had something to do with spiting Sun. They want to take market share away from Java. But in order for .NET to be a real competitor to Java, Microsoft needs it to be cross-platform. Their interests are aligned with yours here, unless you work for Sun.

Re:didn't happen with C#?

[reiisi]

Talking about can't parse English.

The fact that OOXML is not possible to implement is a side issue here. C# is a useless, extraneous, Microsoft-owned (don't kid yourself about the paper standards body) standard, intended only for addicting more people to Microsoft. That is what it shares with OOXML, and that is what condemns it.

No. I have no interest in C#, period. I've seen enough of what it's supposed to do and how it's supposed to fix (the wrong) problems in Java, and I know how Microsoft has failed consistently (and still fails) to understand the real power and purpose of computing.

Microsoft wants, not even a business tool, but an easy busybox to sell to people who think that busyboxes are what it takes to keep the workers docile. C#, unless they've down things that everyone says they have not, is just another tool for making busyboxes.

Microsoft needs only to have it appear to be cross-platform. That is not even aligned to the GNU goals, relative to it, which are far more generous towards it than I am.

Re:didn't happen with C#?

[Mr2001]

C# is a useless, extraneous, Microsoft-owned (don't kid yourself about the paper standards body) standard, intended only for addicting more people to Microsoft.

You keep making this claim. I keep asking for evidence, or even a solid idea of how C# possibly could lead to the situation you fear. And you keep trying to avoid admitting that you have neither.

Good day, sir.

Running list of thing RMS says is a trap-

[DogAlmity]

- Java
- Javascript
- Cloud Computing
- Talkies
- Certain crayons
- and now, Mono

Well done sir.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things?

[Sir_Lewk]

For one who proclaims to be such a supporter of freedom you sure get irked with people choosing the licenses they wish for their software.

Re:Samba now safe

[aztracker1]

Then why would you be afraid of C#/Mono? This is my entire point. It wouldn't serve MS in any positive way to attack Mono. It does serve MS in a positive way too leave Mono alone.

Re:that's an opinion based on experience

[CarpetShark]

Not sure I'd agree with all of what you said, but this:

"There's a lot of rank and file programmers and engineers of RMS's generation who, while not famous or interested in self-aggrandizement, are nevertheless collectively responsible for the technology we have available."

is a good point. Many people over the last few decades have been pioneers of a very new field, and it would be very nice to see them appreciated more fully by society as society begins to reap the benefits more and more via the internet etc.

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[Concern]

OK - we can say copyleft and non-copyleft? Or GPL and non-GPL? If it pleases you, I will be happy to use whatever terminology the FSF approves. :) To me when I see Mac OS X, it doesn't feel all that "free" to me, especially since it costs like $130 bucks. But it's based on BSD! o_0

Oh right, it's re-licensed now. OK, maybe now we begin to understand why someone wouldn't feel as happy contributing to BSD. They are working for Apple (and everyone else) for free. In exchange they can pay to receive the work that they donated.

Maybe we see why individual contribution to Linux has been so much more popular than at to all of the BSD variants combined. Hence why, just for example, this GPL project, based on Stallman's work, has been so active and so important.

Has it dawned on you yet that we have this conversation on a technology stack that is almost entirely GPL?

You suppose non-copyleft contributors would have created it all, just the same, if the GPL and FSF never existed? This can be proven wrong with a thought exercise and a look at history.

If the GPL was irrelevant, why did anyone go to the trouble of using it or switching to it, when the BSD licenses and the like already existed?

Do you also argue that if America did not exist, there would be little difference as well, since the gap would be filled by Canada and Mexico?

Notice I will not even claim that this means your "entire belief system is a lie" (lol). Also, you can respond to my other points anytime, if you can. Or you can continue to use logically specious attacks (ad hominem, coy implications and exaggerations, and now nitpicking vocabulary and unjustified expansions) - they make it clear how little you can argue the actual matter at hand. :)

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[man_of_mr_e]

To me when I see Mac OS X, it doesn't feel all that "free" to me, especially since it costs like $130 bucks.

How do you feel when you see Red Hat Enterprise Linux which costs as much as $18,000?

https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/

Red Hat does not offer a "free" version of RHEL, though Centos is essentially the same thing. That doesn't change the fact that Red hat is charging massive amounts of money for what is free of cost from others.

Likewise, There are free distributions of apples core OS as well (not the GUI and many of the libraries, but the OS itself is free). It's called Darwin.

In both cases, Apple and Red Hat add value and sell a product without offering a free version. One is GPL, one is BSD.

You were the one that claimed that *BSD's weren't free software. That's not "nit picking". The FSF would violently disagree that the difference is nit picking. I said your entire belief system was a lie because you have this mistaken belief that only GPL software is free software. That is entirely wrong, and the basis for most of your misunderstanding.

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[Concern]

How do you feel when you see Red Hat Enterprise Linux which costs as much as $18,000?

I'm so glad you asked - since I think this will help clear up some confusion!

The answer is: I don't know - since this has never happened. The market's cost for RHEL, the software, is exactly $0.

Oh yes, I know what Redhat charges for the software. It is optional. Anyone can give me a copy of it for free. Someone organized this process into a distro and calls it CentOS, as you yourself pointed out. Hence, the market's cost is $0.

Why don't you ask Apple if you can give MacOSX away for free. Or if they will give you the entire source code for it, so you can share that as well?

They will give you a very different answer than Redhat will. And that is the heart of the matter.

What Redhat charges for is a service and on some occasions I have been quite happy to pay for that. Others, it wasn't necessary. Support, updates, and so forth. Quite different from paying for a software license. This is the new model of free software companies you may have been hearing about, services not software, etc.

You seem confused about how different Darwin is from CentOS. Remember, the question is, can you get the entire sources for MacOSX? Is that Darwin? And the answer is no.

Darwin is what little bit they feel like giving you. They have no obligation to give any, and they can stop at any time. And they do not feel like giving the rest. Perhaps they never will. This is as different from Redhat as night is from day.

I don't call this free software, and I don't care who does. It's also clear which codebase I would rather contribute to, and most people in the community feel the same as I do. That's why all the BSD variants put together have so much less activity in the community than Linux, for instance, and Darwin has almost no activity by comparison.

In both cases, Apple and Red Hat add value and sell a product without offering a free version. One is GPL, one is BSD.

Now I have made clear your confusion, hopefully.

Again, if I follow your logic, "your entire belief system is a lie" as well, since you made a single error - let alone one much more significant than demanding the terminology of "GPL" versus "Free" and "BSD" versus "Open." But I do not say this - merely that I think you are confused and I hope this helps you understand the point.

.Net is an ECMA standard, so what ?

[sebsauvage]

C# and CLI are ECMA standards, so what ? They're safe to use ?

Remember MP3 ? This is an ISO standard.
Try to implement a commercial MP3 encoder, and in no time Thomson/Fraunhofer will knock at the door to reclaim payment of a license fee.
Oh... and Thomson/Fraunhofer have themselves been attacked (by Alcatel) regarding patented technologies used in the MP3 format.

Don't assume because something is a standard is has no strings attached (patents, licenses).

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[man_of_mr_e]

Why don't you ask Apple if you can give MacOSX away for free. Or if they will give you the entire source code for it, so you can share that as well?

You are mistaken, again. Centos is not a copy of the entire RHEL. RHEL includes proprietary programs that are not part of Centos. Further, Red Hat does not offer a free binary version, they only off the source code which you can build yourself if you're so inclined (which is what Centos did).

So, while more of RHEL is open source than OSX is, it's still the same basic premise, they give you the open stuff, which you have to build yourself, and prevent you from using the proprietary stuff.

Re:FSF threatens corporate $$$? Cue the Ad Hominem

[Concern]

No, you're wrong again.

You seem eager to go to the FSF for terminology. Why not go to them and ask whether OSX is equivalent to RHEL, and Darwin is equivalent to CentOS? Or go to RHEL and ask them if their GPL binaries (as well as their source) are free, and you can copy them and give them to anyone?

The answers are so obvious that I wonder if you know you are dissembling.

Anyone can load proprietary applications on Linux. And I can even sell you Redhat Linux and MacOS in a bundle. Whoa. Does make Redhat Linux any less free? Does that blow your mind? :)

Redhat and MacOSX are based on utterly different premises, and if you doubt me, ask either RedHat or Apple? Or just try demanding the source code for everything linked against the BSD portions of OSX. Or try distributing both OSX and Redhat GPL binaries from your website. See what happens. :)

Go ahead, I'll wait.