Slashdot Mirror
.Net On Android Is Safe, Says Microsoft
An anonymous reader writes "With Oracle suing Google over 'unofficial' support for Java in Android, Microsoft has come out and said it has no intention of taking action against the Mono implementation of C# on the Linux-based mobile OS. That's good news for Novell, which is in the final stages of preparing MonoDroid for release. Miguel de Icaza is not concerned about legal challenges by Microsoft over .Net implementations, and even recommends that Google switch from using Java. However, Microsoft's Community Promise has been criticized by the Free Software Foundation for not going far enough to protect open source implementations from patent litigation, which is at the heart of the Oracle-Google case."
Always gotta have the anti .NET zealot idiocy in each of these stories.
Some of the Oracle patents relate to Virtual Machines in general and not just the JVM. So how can Mono be safe from Oracle?
Almost every single company that has had dealings with Microsoft has been stabbed in the back by them...
IBM : OS/2
Stacker : Doublespace
Spyglass : Mosaic
Sun : Java
Everyone : plays4sure (DRM servers shut down leaving purchases useless)
Go : Mobile technology (at least I think the company was called Go)
Caldera : DR-DOS
Novell : Wordperfect
How many times does this have to happen before people see a pattern and avoid partnering with Microsoft? The bigger players can survive the knife between the shoulderblades... the smaller players *if they eventually get a payoff* still usually end up dead anyway.
I, for one, would avoid using the terms ".NET" and "safe" in the same paragraph. I realize they are talking about safe from patent trollage, but it implies that someone would actually want to, you know, actually USE .net or Mono by choice.
As opposed to Java? Damn right I'd use Mono.
I use both by choice all the time. The .NET platform is leaps and bounds ahead of the Java platform in nearly every way.
Oh, that's right, Java is licensed under the GPL, so it's inherently better. I forgot, ideology trumps technical merit. Now, in typical slashdot fashion, mod parent Insightful and me Troll. Thanks, and have a good day.
Similes are like metaphors
even microsoft doesn't like .net and is moving away from it. why would anyone use something that is about to be deprecated?
Considering a major release of the .NET framework happened in April, I'm going to go ahead and call you misinformed or a huge troll.
What are they moving to, exactly..? I get the feeling you're misreading how Microsoft is moving way from dynamic .NET languages (IronPython, IronRuby) which are a rather separate part of the framework.
They don't like .NET yet they keep pumping versions after versions of the .NET Framework, C# and Silverlight. Citation needed? I'm not understanding you well.
Why, is it too MonoTonous?
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
If they are just "porting" then I'd have expected that .net would sit atop Dalvik ... which would make the entire project just as "tainted" under the Oracle theory.
Or is this going to be "raw" bypassing anything that Google neglected to ensure rights to use?
They aren't deprecating anything but they have ceased development on a few dynamic .NET languages like IronRuby.
Oh, that's right, Java is licensed under the GPL, so it's inherently better.
To be fair, a decent contingent on slashdot was always saying that Java wasn't open source enough, and in light of the recent Oracle-Google lawsuit, it turns out they were right.
In the context of this particular story, I'm not sure how .NET doesn't look better than Java -- you've got one's parent company saying they won't sue you (even if that's not a great guarantee) and one that's actually suing you right now.
Except that poetmatt is just throwing out FUD. He is intentionally misrepresenting the fact that Microsoft has stopped officially supporting development of things like IronRuby as deprecating the entire platform. The fact that it is even modded as insightful despite being obviously false is quite telling for Slashdot.
You submit bug reports and they fix them. Java has bugs too, C++'s stdlib has bugs too.
From the FAQ:
How much will MonoDroid Cost?
We have not yet announced the pricing for MonoDroid, but you should anticipate that the price will be in the same range as MonoTouch ($400 USD for individual users, and $1,000 for enterprise users).
How is MonoDroid licensed?
MonoDroid is a commercial/proprietary offering that is built on top of the open source Mono project and is licensed on a per-developer basis.
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
Yes. poetmatt is lying.
Gnuthing...
PS - My gnuts itch.
Similes are like metaphors
We've been hearing that for years, and with Windows 7, it appears (from what I've read) if you want do any sort of work, you still need to use C++. Mind you, I don't program for Windows. Do they have any plans in building the next api in managed code for the next windows release, or is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do". Also, is there much of a performance hit using managed code in windows?
Well... to be fair, there is a difference between Oracle suing the GOOGLE company and Microsoft promising not to sue YOU (user/developer) for using the Mono implementation... mainly because Novell/Microsoft relation.
I wonder how far would Microsoft allow Google to go in implementing a C# compiler/interpreter in the same way they are doing it with java...
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
IE was purchased by Microsoft. They didn't do some dirty trick, they found a company making a product they liked and purchased them. Not just the rights to their product, the brought on the developers and all that.
DR-DOS wasn't a product that MS ripped off... It was a product that ripped off MS. MS-DOS launched in 1981. DR-DOS launched in 1989 and was version numbed to be the same as MS-DOS. They weren't breaking any laws or anything, but DR-DOS was designed to be their own DOS, compatible with MS-DOS.
Wordperfect lost on its own merits. It was the be-all, end-all of office programs. However the developers failed to keep it up, failed to improve it, and Office eclipsed it. You ever try using it recently (it is still around, still in development)? It is a pile of crap. It lost because there was a superior competing product. You know, how capitalism is supposed to work and all that.
I'm not claiming MS has never done anything underhanded. However people whine and bitch far too much. That a given product failed doesn't mean MS did anything wrong, it may just mean that the product sucked.
Below are the en.swpat.org analyses. Two of the biggest things in Java's favour are that they have distributed OpenJDK under GPLv2, with the implied patent grant that gives, and Oracle is a member of OIN and there are thus a bunch of GCC and Classpath packages they've promised not to use their patents against.
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
It is ISO/IEC 23270 (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=36768). That means it is not something under MS's control and just subject to their promises. Now that's not all of .NET, that is different, but comparing C# to Java and ignoring the face that C# is an open standard, like C++ and Java is not is a bit disingenuous.
Oh come on Florian!
Microsoft's strategic interests are Windows and Office. Those two cash cows act as coverups for every other project they lose money on.
Everything they do is focused on getting people onto those two items as a platform... from that follows Exchange, Sharepoint, IIS and their other server infrastructure offerings.
I wish you would stop out spouting that nonsense about TurboHercules. IBM never attacked the open source project Hercules. Let's get that clear from the outset. They *do* have licensing requirements for Z/OS based on resources available to the system such as CPUs. They will not license their software to a virtualised platform.
This is no different than Apple's position with MacOS X on their hardware and the licensing position they take.
It doesn't matter how much they assure that they won't go after free implementations. Without it written in legalese, irrevocable, it's a worthless statement.
What happens in, say, 5 years if/when Microsoft is feeling the pressure of competition? Let's say they're going bankrupt. Sound unlikely? Well, replace 5 years with 20 years. They'll find they have this lovely patent pool full of wonderful words which are potentially worth billions of dollars. Like every single example I can think of in the history of computing since 1980, of course they'll sue using their patents to draw out their death.
The same applies to any of the big names: Google (you're next), Oracle (already doing it), IBM (somehow never died), Sun (via Oracle), for starters. The nuclear weapon analogy holds nicely here too. The software patent mess is Mutually Assured Destruction. But amassing them and then saying "We won't use them"... what happens when your state collapses? Where do they go?
To be fair Android isn't using Java licensed under the GPL.
The only contention I have with this argument would be that Microsoft might want to steer .NET programmers to Windows Mobile instead of Android. That said, Windows Mobile sucks really bad and Android is already one of the most popular phone operating systems, that Microsoft would either be glad for the added business (and Windows licenses that would be sold, since VS only runs on Windows) or they might consider dumping Windows Mobile altogether and push Android/.NET (a long shot, but quite possible).
Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
As long as your gnuts don't hurd
capable .NET is.
Forget that it's riding on the most insecure OS on the planet. IF Microsoft, which KNOWS ALL the "undocumented" features of .NET, and it's hand picked partner Aventure, cannot build an app which is both stable and fast, then who can?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
This is what Microsoft tried to do to Sun to get rid of their Java: Embrace -- Extend -- Extinguish /. is too short to really inform).
This is the sworn expert testimony in court in case Comes vs Microsoft of a mr. Ronald Alepin on 5 january 2007, about Microsoft's strategy in 1995: Groklaw transcript of Comes vs Microsoft document (page down a bit for the transcript).
(please read the whole thing for yourself. this quote here on
It's long ago, but maybe it can still be illuminating to read if you care about Microsoft's plans with their .NET platform and interoperability e.g. with Mono (I personally don't use .NET so I don't care, but your comment "..until Sun sued them for license issues.." nagged me as only partially true :-).
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Not sure where you're getting the "don't know how to program" crap. Java is the one with training wheels. C# has operator overloading, pointers (if you want 'em), closures, anonymous methods, covariance, contravariance, and a slew of other advanced features that require skill to properly implement. Not to mention LINQ + expression trees, which in itself is a reason to switch twice over.
.NET, but that's mostly a defense mechanism. At some point someone probably told you you were 1337 for using Java. The truth is that Java was made for people who would like to use C++ but can't understand pointers. C# has its share of idiots too, but it's got features for those of us who know how to code as well.
When it comes to strongly-typed JIT compiled languages, C# wins hands down. Java fans tend to look down on
I am a bit confused - what "any sort of work" are you doing that requires C++?
I can understand that certain things are easier in C++ due to the ability to more easily manipulate memory sections directly, but situations which absolutely require this are few and far between.
As well, .NET can invoke all parts of the Windows API via P/Invoke, as well as consume and surface COM interface implementations.
Nice to see you refuted so thoroughly at the link you so kindly provided - thanks!
I wouldn't exactly say it'll be that appealing a target given this:
We have not yet announced the pricing for MonoDroid, but you should anticipate that the price will be in the same range as MonoTouch ($400 USD for individual users, and $1,000 for enterprise users).
So not only are you targeting something that is likely to make your phone run slower you are also targeting an audience where someone has to pay as much as their phone outright (and they may have it free on contract...) again just to run a .Net App... based on that I put it to you that the pool will be minuscule - especially compared to using the proper SDK/NDK and distribution via the Market etc.
...except that MonoDroid is a completely proprietary platform, and I don't know about you, but this free software developer likes to keep his software running on free systems.
Except that Microsoft is *not* moving away from dynamic .NET languages. They just released a platform unifying and solidifying dynamic language support within the .NET Framework itself.
This support is head and shoulders above anything else. Imagine that the platform and not the languages actually has services for doing dynamic member lookup with advanced caching and global optimizations. Making a platform which generalizes how different dynamic languages such as EcmaScript, Ruby, Python and C# look up members is no small feat.
It means that the language implementations themselves shrink quite a lot.
What we have on one hand is *one* disgruntled ex-Microsoft employee being cited on Microsofts plans for the future. On the other hand we have concrete and recent actions by Microsoft which suggests that they are very much investing in making .NET a dynamic multi-language platform.
I have no doubt that working with implementing an "outside" language inside an organization like MS is an uphill battle. But I have real problems seeing this as a sign that MS is backing away from dynamic languages.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
and with Windows 7, it appears (from what I've read) if you want do any sort of work, you still need to use C++.
You read wrong. You can program against any API* using C#. Mind you, C# can also be used in "unmanaged" (they call it "unsafe") mode - where you have access to pointers, pointer arithmetic, direct memory allocation etc.
All regular APIs are either COM or have already been wrapped or even re-implemented in .NET. .NET can easily interop with COM APIs.
I believe that the only place where you would want to drop top C/C++ would be for device drivers.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
It doesn't matter. If you promise people you won't sue over something, you can't later change your mind and sue them. It's called promissory estoppel. If they tried, any competent judge would throw the case out before trial.
Except that Mono is *also* under the GPL. No, it's not about ideology, it's simply some slashdotters have a vendetta against Microsoft that they'll follow even against common sense.
I bet you would've said the same thing about the people who refused to use Java for the exact same reason. Yeah, the good folks who had the Java patents before were fine with Android, but look what happens when new people are in control. It doesn't have to take a company buyout - what happens years down the road when there are new people in charge at Microsoft? All of sudden those glaringly obvious holes in patent protection aren't looking so benign. I like how Oracle says that Google "knowingly infringed on Oracle intellectual property" when Oracle didn't own it until long after Android was released.
Microsoft: Go ahead and use all of these parts of .NET. We promise we won't sue.
FOSS developers: What about that other part of .NET, which you might note is a key part in Mono right now?
Microsoft: ...
Microsoft: Go ahead and use all of these parts of .NET for Android. We promise we won't sue.
I can't say for 100% sure without examining their exact problem, but I would bet that your devs aren't very good and are trying to blame the tool rather than the craftsman. At least, I've never had problems solving similar problems with .NET. (Or Java or anything else, for that matter.)
I prefer C++ still. With two tiny template classes:
...;
readonly<int> numCars;
readwrite<int> numBoats;
From inside the class itself, both can be read and written directly: if(numCars == 0) numCars = 2;
From outside of the class, both can be read as functions: if(class.numCars())
But only numBoats can be assigned externally.
Computing is moving away from the desktop and onto mobile devices. Microsoft was built on vice-like control of the desktop computers, and as a result, the field has been stagnant for decades.
Do you really think they won't take any opportunity they can to gain the same level of control over portables?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Lets ask Admiral Ackbar!
http://captionsearch.com/pix/thumb/wsz0tgm4st-t.jpg
It always confuses me that these companies go with java when they could have gone with C/gtk
yeah yeah yeah... garbage collection. but if its really garbage collection shouldn't it just collect the whole damn language?
I can hand-edit a java file and when I reopen the IDE, it'll pick up the changes. Try that in a Microsoft environment, and you'd better have a project backup.
Um, Visual Studio actually handles that just fine. So I think you're the one spouting off rubbish.
/ "It was a short reference to the fact that it demonstrates the uselessness of those pledges. So it was on-topic. But responding in detail to more comments or questions on TurboHercules would have been off-topic, thus my link to LWN."
More FUD, as has been discussed before IBM did not renege on their pledge, no amount of spin from you will change that. TurboHercules wanted IBM to opensource and/or provide licenses so that IBM's mainframe OS could run on TurboHercules platform to the benefit of TurboHercules. IBM did not wish to pursue this business venture with TurboHercules as it would be detrimental in several ways to IBM.
IBM also pointed that it has invested "many billions of dollars developing its z-architecture" and holds "many intellectual property rights" (I hate that phrase, "intellectual property rights") and has litigated to defend their rights. It then identified a non-exhaustive list of patents related to this matter as requested by TurboHercules. They could have told them to piss-off, but they provided the requested information, and told them they (IBM) had concerns about TurboHercules going forward with their plan. IBM put them on notice regarding their IP concerns in a very businesslike way. Please explain how they should have proceed, if they did not intend give TurboHercules what TurboHercules wanted?
It is pretty straight forward just read the letters and look at what IBM pledged and please stop FUDDING and spinning already. IBM pledged not to sue as related to 500 specific patents, so please show that ALL of the patients related to TurboHercules are within the 500 patents please, before you continue with this TurboHercules nonsense.
Quote by redbeard55: "Another point to remember, all MS would have to do to get around their promise is to sell a .NET patent or two to another company. They would of course get protection from being sued but everyone else . . . soooo sorrrrrry."
"Show me even one other patent pledge or promise, including Red Hat's patent policy, where that wouldn't be just the same thing. This isn't Microsoft-specific at all."
True some risk exist with other companies but, remember a little discussion about the past actions of MS . . . I don't believe that RH ever claimed that Linux was a cancer or threatened to sue Linux users over 200+ patents. Did you just conveniently forget that?
Also, name one other software company that can dominate the industry in desktop area like MS can and promote the use of specific software. There is none and MS has openly declared Linux a "cancer" you don't play nice with cancer do you? MS's past history show the lengths they are willing to go to kill or cripple competitors, even to the extent of breaking the law. MS still is an 800 pound gorilla in this area, so you had better be very, very, careful with your interaction with them and most of the time it is better to stay as far away as possible from the beast, if you are more that a flea. Really dealing with MS is way different than dealing with ANY other company including ORACLE/SUN.
"The "workaround" you just described would presumably even work for the GPLv3."
Uhmm did you forget paragraph 11 of the GPLv3? It may be possible but it would be a much trickier proposition, and would make for an interesting court case. The question would appear to be could the buyer revoke the original grant of non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license. If the new buyer wished to monetize the patent, he either didn't perform due diligence or the seller committed fraud. I don't think the end user would be in as near as much danger compared to my scenario.