Slashdot Mirror
The Mono Mystery That Wasn't
jammag writes "It was shocking news, or so it seemed: Miguel de Icaza, the Mono creator, was switching his opinion about his life's work — he now seemed to agree with the free software partisans who oppose his Mono work and his Microsoft connections. The story flamed across the Internet and even got picked up on Slashdot. But Bruce Byfield reports that 'De Icaza has not changed his opinions.' De Icaza calls the rumors 'a storm in a teacup.' Tracing the misinformation trail, Byfield concludes that 'the FOSS community excels at communication. However, in this instance, that ability was used irresponsibly.'"
Inflammatory headline supersedes mundane content? Say it ain't so!
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Good news everyone. Icaza is still a whore.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Wow, take time to spell check the comment, and completely forgot the header, excuse me while I seek atonement from my old English teachers... This is going to hurt.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
You said what you said Miguel, now suck it.
Dear
We weren't excited by some faux controversy that some no-name newspaper had deleted his article. Speaking for myself and the friends I talked with, we were just mocking De Icaza for being five years behind the entire rest of the world in realizing that dragging a patent-encumbered CLR into Linux just to get some sticky notes on his desktop.
That's a little bit of hyperbole, but the point remains: this guy has been smoking the good stuff.
he said "sperm in a tea cup." That's how he prefers to drink the microsoft jizz.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
So this is the bastard that got me sick?
Didnt you hear? Stallman converted to scientology and Linus is accepting patches from NAMBLA!! Oh and the EFF finally released its spec for its homegrown DRM scheme.
Sorry, that should read:
Yes, yes, preview first, etc etc.
The original article was a piece of wishful thinking that turned into much more than intended. That said, I don't think Mono has legs. It's too far behind the curve of .Net development, with .Net 4.0 hitting the streets soon, developers can never hope to easily port their latest and greatest over to Mono.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
I can see the editor thinking "we already know this is fake news, but let's publish: we are missing a good Mono flamewar since forever!"
Wow, grow up, guys. So he has Microsoft connections? So what? If open source affiliation is a valid reason to hate somebody, you might start rethinking your life priorities. The Mono project gives Linux developers more choice, especially if they have been working with .NET tech for a long time. Would you forfeit years of .NET training and experience because you want to use a Linux platform?
That, or I am missing a bigger picture, in such case maybe someone can elaborate in the implications of said "teacup storm"?
I read both articles, but I'm still confused.
What's the difference between Mono and .NET? How does the liberated open source software community connect to these standards? Where does De Icaza fit in the puzzle?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Miguel de Icaza still doesn't understand why 99% of us think that pushing .NET is a bad idea.
In other words, that check from MS finally cleared. :)
.NET on my computers.
In actuality, I think that De Icaza actually believes in what he is doing and not a paid shill. However, I is still don't want anything to do with
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
That's a shame. I'd thought that after all this time he was finally wising up and accepting what everyone else on the planet was saying. I guess either he hasn't put his fanatical devotion to his employer aside (does anyone really believe that he didn't get the job he applied for at Microsoft?) or that his boss told him to back down. Either way, too bad. He's a talented guy and I wish he would work on something useful and less poisonous.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
We have announced that our upcoming Mono release (2.8) will default to 4.0:
http://www.mono-project.com/Roadmap
For the first time in Mono's history our C# compiler and its supporting engine and core libraries were done before Microsoft released the product, we were usually one to two years behind. This time we are some five months ahead of time:
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Dec-09.html
There are still a handful of loose ends here and there, but luckily, nothing major.
Didn't this guy start Gnome (or maybe KDE)? that is actually "life's work" worthy, not something nobody cares about like mono.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Hmm.. should /.ers post comments on articles about themselves? I thought it was like Wikipedia or sumthin'.
List of all open source iconoclasts --
Miguel de Icaza
Theo de Raadt
notice any similarities between the names?
This is the sort of news that should be picked up by Slashdot: Mono's C# 4.0 compiler released before VS2010. But no, sadly Slashdot is irrevocably biased against Microsoft-created technologies.
I once thought I had Mono for an entire year. It turned out I was just really bored.
How about WPF, then? When are you going to develop it? I know: never. The scope of it is way too large for your team.
Same about complete WCF, WWF (and other WTFs).
So in reality, a Mono application will probably work on Windows, but almost none of Windows C# applications will work on Mono.
What's the difference between Mono and .NET? How does the liberated open source software community connect to these standards? Where does De Icaza fit in the puzzle?
For this and more, tune in next week for another exciting chapter of "As The Monopoly Turns"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza#GNOME.2C_Ximian.2C_and_Mono
In 1999, de Icaza, along with Nat Friedman, co-founded Helix Code, a GNOME-oriented free software company that employed a large number of other GNOME hackers. In 2001, Helix Code, later renamed Ximian, announced the Mono Project, to be led by de Icaza, with the goal to implement Microsoft's new .NET development platform on Linux and Unix-like platforms. In August 2003, Ximian was acquired by Novell, Inc. There, de Icaza is currently the Vice President of Developer Platform.
If you work for Novell, does that mean that Mono is a Novell product and thus covered by the Microsoft-Novell Patent cross license?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You changed the version number for Mono before Microsoft officially did? Wow. ;-)
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Why not call it Mono 4.0 then?
Yes, so if you download your binaries from Novel, then you fall under that agreement.
What's the difference between Mono and .NET? How does the liberated open source software community connect to these standards? Where does De Icaza fit in the puzzle?
Your geek card please... Thanks
Mono is a free implementation of the .NET infrastructure.
De Icaza is just the one that started Mono and integrated it into Gnome.
You're obviously also pretty embarrassed to be against GNOME and Mono, seeing as how you are posting anonymously ;-)
Considering the same can be said for 99% of the people who badmouth Mono, I can rest easy at night knowing that we on the Mono team must be doing the right thing.
For that last 1%, well, no one can please everyone all the time.
Yes... but since Miguel left GNOME was completely rewritten and is now one of the best desktops around, probably only second to Mac OS X in terms of friendliness and usability.
You're right though that GNOME 1.x was one of the worst desktop environments ever written.
Damn, wish I could mod you up because you hit the nail on the head.
I don't believe it's integrated into gnome perse, but the GTK# toolchain relies on GTK/Gnome (of which gnome is based), also a lot of the mono gui libs are centered around Gnome/GTK ... A lot of desktop distros include Mono and a few mono based tools. I think there's been some push to merge the two a bit more. I will admit, I'm a fan of C#, so wouldn't mind seeing more integration, or at least the ability to write better integrated Mono based tools into gnome.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
I know a lot of people on /. hate Miguel or want to sling mud at him but the majority of replies here really come across as your classic un-informed, ill-educated voter. You know, the type that screams a slogan without knowing a damn thing about the issue.
What has Miguel done for Free and Open Source? He started the GNOME project, as well as founding companies to employ the GNOME devs. He created Gnumeric. Hell.. FSF gave him an award for the "Advancement of Free Software" .
What have YOU done for Free Software? To say that he's a sell out, or sold his soul to Microsoft does him, and the free software community, a great dis-credit. The fact is, he is putting faith in a technology which is walking a very careful line. There are many who disagree with his line of reasoning but I doubt, given his history, he has any intention of "selling out" or harming free and open software.
...I'm amazed at how obtuse (and in some cases, downright insulting) the majority of the comments on this story are. I think it's highly likely that if .NET didn't come from Microsoft, nobody would be getting quite so emotional about the whole thing.
For the record, I'm categorically not Microsoft's greatest fan, but you cannot deny that .NET/C# is a damn good platform. Having a portable version of said good platform is therefore a Good Thing. It doesn't matter if Microsoft decide to fuck Mono over; it's still a good platform and therefore still a Good Thing. If you disagree and you don't like it, then fine; don't use it and stop whining.
So you would have us believe that creating and promoting a technically-advanced open-source platform that was conceived by some sharp people at a large software company (influenced by other successful platforms) is degrading? Is the free software built on this platform really endangered by some software patents? If so, what free software, and which patents, specifically? Has a lawsuit against a specific free software project based on these patents been concluded? Thank you for your thoughtful and informative contribution to the discussion.
I think that would probably be a good move... Though, Mono has followed a much more sane version-scheme than MS's marketing driven versions. IMHO .Net 3 should have been 2.3 and 3.5 probably should have been 2.5, since they were based on .Net 2's base libraries. .Net 4 should be 3... but it's too late for that. I would support making the next Mono release 4.0 to have better version parity with MS's framework.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
.NET is Microsoft's implementation of it's CLR (Common Language Runtime). In general anything CLR tends to be referred to as .NET.
Mono is an open source implementation. It runs on Windows, MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD and I believe I've even seen it for HPUX. There are probably other platforms. In my experience, if your platform has a libgdi+ library available for it, mono will run most .NET apps written in Visual Studios 2003 and earlier. I'm not sure about later MS dev environments. I also don't know if libgdi+ is needed separately in all environments or just FreeBSD.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
I know, right? It's not like anyone is forcing free software developers to use Mono.
I thought free meant freedom to do whatever you want with the source code. Free...they keep using that word, but I do not think it means what they think it means.
:(){
Is that supposed to imply that if it appeared on Slashdot it has some kind of legitimacy? You must be new here.
Five months ahead?
How can you maintain and guarantee compatibility? Divination, or do you actually work hand in hand with Microsoft .NET developers?
And, has Microsoft added ASP.NET and its other IP to the EMCA 334 & 335 specifications, so that you can legally add them to MONO?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Are you really saying that you would have sex with your boss if ordered to?
Selling your work is entirely different from slavery.
You thought wrong.
First parties posting is one of the strengths of the dot.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
was that Mono would have a lot of competition if it wasn't for the implicit patent threats coming from Microsoft. IOW, he was complaining that JVM technology had come a long way due to open policies from Sun and that .Net runtime engines had not enjoyed the same benefits. I think he is probably right there.
What I didn't hear him saying was that Mono was a bad project, risked patent infringement claims, etc. There seemed to be some concession on the patent issue but it seemed overblown.
At the same time this summary, suggesting that the communication was handled "irresponsibly" seems no closer to the mark. I can see why people got the impression they did and I think it was a reasonable one.
Things could use everyone stepping back and taking a few deep breaths :-)
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'm sure that as long as companies follow in Novell's footsteps they'll be fine.
The slash however is a slippery slope.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
No, they had the core libraries for .Net 4.0 in before Microsoft released .Net 4.0. Generally they are a year to two years behind.
Maybe with some practice your reading comprehension will improve. :)
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
What's more, Mono is undeniably Free Software, and it follows the grand tradition of GNU software in that it re-implements someone else's proprietary software (while mixing in its own completely Free Software extensions).
I am by no means a fan of Mono, but I fail to see how it is any different than gcc or the many GNU utilities that are basically work-alikes of any number of proprietary software products. Cloning commercial software products is hardly a new theme in Free Software. What is it, precisely, that makes Mono a special case.
The difference, apparently, is that Microsoft is especially evil.
The problem with that, of course, is that Microsoft is not really that particularly evil. Especially compared to AT&T or IBM in their respective heydays. Sure, patents have changed the game somewhat since the early days of UNIX, but Free Software's defense against patents has always been the same. Pretend that they don't exist until threatened, and then write the functionality out of the effected software. Mono is not appreciably more vulnerable to attacks from Microsoft than the Linux kernel, or any other major piece of Free Software.
So really, why all of the hate?
Well said, you deserve at least a +5 insightful!
If the open source community always gave in to FUD and declined to implement anything that *might* have a patent covering it, nothing would ever be accomplished.
Mono is great for the same reason Samba, Wine, and Evolution's exchange connector are. They assist in taking things cross platform (yes, even if you still have to port and avoid certain libraries). The fact that some people find it to be an efficient platform for development is just the icing on the cake. You never have to worry about code written for Mono... being compatible with Mono.
...WOOSH!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
I stand corrected. I think the problem is publicity. Thanks for the info.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
from the link:
"Unlike the Java world that is blossoming with dozens of vibrant Java virtual machine implementations, the .NET world has suffered by this meme spread by Ballmer that they would come after people that do not license patents from them."
"The veil of threats that existed over the runtime in 2001 was lifted with the Community Promise announcement but it took eight years, and those were eight years of lost opportunity and FUD directed at all things Microsoft. "
Maybe we define fud differently, I wouldnt use it regarding statements that are facts, and even confirmed to be so in the same block of text.
IIRC Wikipedia also says you can only write about things you don't actually have any real knowledge of, because learning about something necessarily means you acquire some biases about it. Slashdot can be pretty dumb at times, but I don't think we're quite that bad. Yet.
Poor, confused rabbit. You download from websites, not books!
If I were him, I'd be pretty embarrassed to admit that I was behind the creation of both GNOME and Mono.
I mean, GNOME is the shittiest open source desktop environment around. It's built on the worst toolkit (Gtk+), it has way too many dependencies and is a pain in the ass to build. It's slow, it's bloated, and most of its applications suck. Compared to KDE, XFCE, and even goddamn CDE, GNOME looks like complete crap.
Just read through the other comments in this thread to learn about the problems with Mono.
Well, you would do best by showing him how it's done. Looking forward to see your next contrib to FOSS.
What does 'perse' mean?
It's very clear. The part in bold I find most damning. This indicates that he knew all along that you couldn't create an open source implementation of even the CLR without permission from Microsoft. There is a lot in here, but people like Bruce Byfield obviously havent read it properly. He's tried top backtrack and cover up a bit by saying that it's all nothing, but it most certainly is something.
It's because of the Java trap, and it is a problem that became obvious before Mono or .net. Basically, Microsoft owns the platform, so it doesn't matter how open source your programs are, Microsoft still exerts some control over them.
I read somewhere that RMS is not opposed to Mono specifically, and in fact favors it, but he views it in the same way he views Wine: a nice tool for portability. And from what I've heard, Mono is a nice tool, but it is not without dangers, especially since the owner is known to be hostile to open source.
Qxe4
> Nobody does this to the Wine developers.
Perhaps I can explain the difference. If Mono were merely intended to enable foreign content to run, as in Moonlight or even running foreign apps as in java, people wouldn't have much of a problem with it. This is where Wine is and thus nobody has a problem with it. It allows us to run apps we wouldn't otherwise have access to but nobody suggested the presence of Wine means we should adopt Win32 as our primary ABI. Mono on the otheer hand was promoted as a preferred development environment for the Free Software environment. Until a critical mass shouted "NO!" it was on the fast track to becoming a non-removable dependency for GNOME and there was serious discussion of rewriting the entire thing in C#.
If you still fail to see the difference I'm afraid I can't help you.
Democrat delenda est
... by getting into the Devil's deal and distributing Linux coupons. Since Microsoft distributed GPL3ed Linux, the GPL ensures that they cannot sue other Linux distributors and contributors for patent violation.
This was why it was necessary to get Microsoft into a deal where they paid to help Novell sell Linux.
Miguel probably pulled a Gorbachev on Microsoft.
OK, lets agree to MS that Linux is a piece of uncontrolled anarchic software. What about OS X which they could convert multi million line monster to Cocoa in matter of year? Yes, MS Office.
They also make huge money from MS Office sales on OS X, there is something like Apple Inc. which they can call anytime. The API is stable, nobody comes up and invents another sound system. So... Where the hell is .NET 3.5 SP1 for OS X?
Yes, I am expecting them to ship that framework for OS X if it is really a standard, not a trick to save their own Windows OS. No, I don't want some guy's clone, I want the real thing. Code will load on XCode (the same Xcode they use), compile without a single modification and run. That is what Java, Trolltech (Nokia) Qt and their own (!) GTK 2 is. Community isn't an issue either, nobody on OS X land (real, general users) gives a heck to DRM or free sofware philosophy. No RMS here either.
So, MS , where is .NET_3.5SP1.DMG we can download and install?
I think he and his gang along with that pathetic dying company should leave Gnome, Linux alone. No more trickery to insert Mono to Debian, flagship open source Linux which is (was) like a manifesto of open source philosophy until it got that stupid notes app.
Would they agree on that?
LOL, yea, that'll be the day ;-)
The ego's of the anti-this/that/other-thing people is so hilarious. They love to talk big, but don't have the skills to produce anything.
He was assigned by FSF to code an alternative for KDE which relied on Trolltech Qt and Trolltech was refusing to make it pure GPL for some business reasons.
So, the very same guy assigned to that project for that very single reason came up with Mono, a clone of Microsoft .NET framework. That is the part where people go nuts.
Interestingly and very luckily, Nokia did their best decision to buy Trolltech and as they are a gigantic company, they could convert it to LGPL which Trolltech would go out of business if they dared. So, the very reason of existence of Gnome is gone and Icaza&team does everything to make more people switch to KDE. I would be really pissed if I was a patent licensee of MS on Debian Linux just because I got curious about a note taking application for instance.
Things became so pathetic that people started to check dependencies of Gnome apps before they try them, just in case they depend on Mono trojan.
They should switch all of it to a permissive license like MIT in the next release, which is very unlikely to happen, giving Java (Apache Harmony) and maybe even Google Go an edge.
(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)
Most new features have been announced on PDC'2008. Since then, there has been a public beta of VS2010 / .NET 4 in May 2009, a second one in October 2009, and RC in February 2010.
It's still impressive that they have implemented it all in slightly over a year, but there is no mystery here.
There haven't been any updates to Ecma-335/335 so far. This doesn't preclude Mono from having an ASP.NET implementation, though - in fact, it's probably the single non-Ecma library that Mono has the best (most compatible etc) implementation of, and had for a while.
Yes but it's still .Net so being ahead on the core libs or not hopefully any sensible programmer will stay away from it.
The Java trap doesn't really apply to Mono. The real problem with Java was that developers tended to use non-free Java tools even when developing for and on GNU/Linux. That's not the case at all with Mono. In fact, there are any number of Free Software projects written in Mono that will not run on Microsoft's .NET because they use GTK# or other Mono-specific extensions.
Besides, it is not as if the GNU project doesn't have it's own C# tools. Take a look at DotGNU, for instance. If Mono is so bad, then where does the FSF get off supporting DotGNU as an official GNU project? Heck, if you search on gnu.org you will even find several comments by RMS himself about the glowing promise of Mono. Take This one, for example.
When push comes to shove RMS' real issue with Mono is that he'd rather have you write your Free Software in C (or guile). The rest is pure FUD. If Microsoft decided to target gcc, Emacs, or whatever, tomorrow with a full frontal patent assualt they could probably come up with something that would be useful. You don't see RMS telling people not to use these software products because they might be infringing on Microsoft's patents.
So why, precisely, is Mono a special case?
Microsoft owns the platform
The entire Mono project is available under a free software license. In what sense does Microsoft "own" it?
I am by no means a fan of Mono, but I fail to see how it is any different than gcc
Ah well that makes sense. Here it is in a nutshell:
Gcc is, as far as anyone is aware, free of all patented technology, in particular patents owned by companies hostile to free software.
Mono is most definitely encumbered by patents owned by a company that is very hostile towards free software, and has been recently becoming more vocal about alleging patent violations in Linux and threatening legal action.
Mono is not appreciably more vulnerable to attacks from Microsoft than the Linux kernel, or any other major piece of Free Software.
Yes it most definitely is! Because the vulnerability is not hypothetical, it is not a made-up FUD tactic. It's plain as day and undeniable that these patents cover things in Mono, and it is not a simple matter of recoding if MS ever becomes aggressive. There are aspects of the framework that simply cannot be implemented to spec without running into these patents.
Microsoft has no interest in anything cross-platform excepting those that are owned by MS. They have promised not to enforce patents against Mono, but this is not a legally binding promise. The only reason they have to let Mono exist is to waste the time of Linux developers, and to encourage adoption of a framework that is ostensibly cross-platform but can be instantly made Windows-only any time they want.
Oh and I think you're wrong. MS is just as evil as IBM and AT&T. Main difference is that today MS only controls the software while IBM controlled both.
This is absolutely a time bomb and MS is just waiting for the right moment to set it off.
The enemies of Democracy are
because we know what the potential consequences would be.
Those consequences would be... what, exactly? A few OSS projects being shut down? Some distros forced to remove a few packages? OH GOD NO! THE HORROR!
It's what your lips do when you smell "cheez".
Gcc is, as far as anyone is aware, free of all patented technology
And Mono is, as far as anyone is aware, free of all patented technology.
Or have you found a patent that covers .NET? I haven't. No one else I've asked has. Have you?
The whole point of WORA (Write Once Run Anywhere) is to ship closed source applications, in byte code form. .NET ... it doesn't needs it, neither for it's goals nor for it's "ethics".
What's the need of such a plattform in an environment where source code is available? just recompile it.
Is aknown fact that C can be made "portable" as a lot of open source libraries and applications runs in Windows and Linux, just a recompile away.
May be that is the reason Linux didn't evolve a plattform like Java or
And and old (well written) C program will always outperform any VM.
If the danger to Mono is so obvious, then please point out the patent numbers that Microsoft owns that would apply to Mono (and that don't, at the same time, apply to Free Software tools like OpenJDK, or gcc). Additionally, you should only use patents that don't apply to the ECMA specification.
What? You don't have access to such a list? Imagine that! My guess is that this is because (to my knowledge) no one has come up with such a list of patents. It is possible that you have access to such a list--in which case your accusations could *potentially* stop being FUD. Until then, however, you have no evidence that Mono is particularly vulnerable to attack from Microsoft.
Microsoft has already stated that it believes that Linux (for example) violates hundreds of its patents. In fact, it has even signed patent deals that supposedly cover Linux. Patent attacks on Linux are definitely not FUD. Should I stop using Linux as well?
If Mono is a trap, then it is quite likely to be the stupidest trap in the history of the world. At the very best Microsoft could force the Mono developers to be less compatible with .NET. Since Mono is not particularly compatible with .NET in the first place this is hardly a huge threat.
And Mono is, as far as anyone is aware, free of all patented technology.
Or have you found a patent that covers .NET? I haven't. No one else I've asked has. Have you?
Are you fucking kidding me? Are you only just hearing about Mono today? Is everyone you know equally clueless, or did you just never think to try maybe checking the Mono website itself which informs you that it implements patented technology. It's always been known that Mono is not free of patented technology, Miguel has never claimed it was free of patents, he always admitted that it was not.
Oh and yeah before you get to it, we've also known about the Community Promise for a long time and discussed its problems too. Specifically, note that this "irrevocable" promise only applies to things that implement a specific version of the standard, and even then only to the extent that they comply with the standard (as decided by Microsoft), and that any future standard may or may not be covered by the promise.
In other words, at any time they want, MS can decide your implementation doesn't comply, or release a new version of the framework that you are no longer able to comply with and cannot implement without exposing yourself to patent claims.
It's embrace-extend-extinguish like usual, only this time MS tricked part of the Linux community into doing the embracing.
The enemies of Democracy are
They actually should call it Mono 5.5. That would teach Microsoft.
Are you fucking kidding me? Are you only just hearing about Mono today? Is everyone you know equally clueless, or did you just never think to try maybe checking the Mono website itself which informs you that it implements patented technology.
Uhuh.
Where are the patents? They have to be published somewhere, so... where are they? The only one I can find is this one which is incredibly narrow, as it only covers the construction of web-based applications.
And no, I don't give a crap what the Mono website says, as I have no reason to believe they've done their diligence any more than you have. AFAICT, all this talk about patents on .NET is hot air, blown by a company prone to bluster.
perse ==> per se [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_se]
And it compiles (not bytecode) for the iPhone and iPod Touch.
Dilbert RSS feed
So a half-assed internet search uncovered a patent that covers the architecture for networked applications in .NET. And that's not good enough for you? How did that go again? "As far as anyone knows, Mono has no patent issues... except the one I found in two minutes of googling. But I'm sure that's it."
Yeah whatever.
I'm not doing "diligence" because I'd never set my foot in that bear trap in the first place.
The enemies of Democracy are
And that's not good enough for you? .
Correct. That's not good enough for me. Why does this surprise you? It's one, old patent application that attempts to cover just one area where .NET is applicable, and where Mono isn't even predominantly used. Try digging a little deeper and you discover something interesting: there aren't any other patents. That seems to be the only one. And it hasn't even been granted!
I'm not doing "diligence" because I'd never set my foot in that bear trap in the first place.
No, you aren't bothering to research your claims because it's easier to simply state them without support, just as ever other Mono opponent has done.
But, that's okay. Mono has been around for years, and MS hasn't sued anyone. And in a few years from now, after MS *still* hasn't sued anyone, most people will realize, just as they did with the Linux kernel after MS started its posturing, that it's not worth the trouble listening to paranoid reactionaries like yourself.
Pat? Is that you?
Wow, you fail at reading comprehension. Miguel has never claimed that Mono *doesn't* infringe on patents because he can't be 100% certain that it doesn't, it's not the same as knowing that it *does*.
No one has been able to point us (the Mono team) at a single patent that we may infringe. Not one. You'd think, with all the rabidly anti-Mono trolls such as yourself, that one of you, after 9 years, would have come up with at least 1 solid patent infringement claim, but no.
Same old vague hand waiving claiming we infringe patents that you can't point to but just *know* exist. Sorta like some people claim to *know* that God really exists, or like many children believe with all their heart that Santa Clause really exists.
...WOOSH!
Property is theft.
Well, you would do best by showing him how it's done. Looking forward to see your next contrib to FOSS.
If you've ever used KDE, you've used some of my work.
Good try, son. Maybe next time you'll remember that that argument doesn't work against open source contributors.
Byfield concludes that 'the FOSS community excels at communication. However, in this instance, that ability was used irresponsibly.'"
Tricky wording here. Yes, excelling at communication.. not to be confused with excelling at responsible communication.
Can we just get the IDE to work with the debugger?
"I stomp in clown shoes where daemons fear to tread."
De Icaza is not fat. Why are you calling him a mono poly?
- weighing in at 1.2 GB? WTF? What do they actually HAVE in all that code? A separate OS?
"don't use it and stop whining" - thanks I did.
But seriously: why such a HUGE footprint???
Wikipedia also says you can only write about things you don't actually have any real knowledge of... I don't think we're quite that bad. Yet.
Well, it's not an official policy here at /. More like an unspoken ideal.
The enemies of Democracy are
Wonder who switched his bulb on. Second place really sucks in two player game.