Slashdot Mirror
Attachmate Fires Mono Developers
darthcamaro writes "Love it or hate it, Novell's open source Mono project has inspired a lot of debate over the last 7 years. Mono brings .NET to Linux, with some interesting patent connections. The project is now at a crossroads, with news today that Attachmate had laid off the US based development team for Mono."
ECMA standards don't protect you from patent lawsuits. Especially not when the standard is saddled with RAND patents (which virtually guarantee that open source usage is out the window.)
Ok, I'm not going to wholesale bite but you really need to bring some Citation to this FUD.
You see, a simple google search results in this: http://mono-project.com/Compatibility
Which show's that as far as base libraries and feature support, Mono is almost all there with full .Net 4.0.
Seeing as that's the latest version of .Net and not even the latest version that a lot of businesses are targeting, would suggest that Mono isn't lagging at all.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Last I checked MONO was aiming to deliver .NET to Linux. .NET (platform) patents scare people, not patents regarding the language specification. I guess you can patent anything in USA and sue on ever more in Texas, but I do not think that the language specification contains anything patentable.
Have you read the patent statement? It says:
So, until you have Microsoft releasing GPL (w/ classpath or whatever assemblies you use on .NET exception) or LGPL code that compiles under Linux you really shouldn't be using it.
As someone that build's cross platform .NET apps using Mono, you should definitely STFU, and you obviously are talking out your ass. .NET compatibility in mono these days is steller. The only things we really lack are features of Visual Studio, not so much mono itself. MonoDevelop however is pretty dang good. In .NET we've been getting some amazing database ORM's that point & click to build your DAL automatically for you. In mono its a little bit more old-fashioned having to invoke command line for auto-generation. WPF obviously is not available, as to be expected when developing cross platform, so you use GTK. Go back to fox news dude.
1) Do your research:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/principles/osspatentpledge.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/IPLicensing/customercovenant/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.aspx
2) Stop plagarizing Richard Stallman's quotes without attribution:
http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
He is not. C# has versions, and so does .NET. As well, C# has an Ecma standard, and so does .NET (CLI) - they are two separate documents.
He is correct in that the most recent standardized (by Ecma and ISO) versions of both C# and CLI are 2.0.
Java is open source, GPL even, and has a patent covenant from Oracle not to sue for it's use.
How much better could it fit in the GNU ecosystem?
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Well, you could read the legally binding community promise... Or the projects MS has released under OSS licences (MVC, DLR, etc). I'm guessing you've stripped out the FAT32 support, and Samba from your linux builds too then?
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Microsoft has not only embraces Mono but showcases it.
Since I know Microsoft well, that is all the reason I need to avoid Mono now and forever.
So on one hand we have people stating that we should avoid Mono because Microsoft does not like the competition and will eventually crush it with their patents, while on the other hand we should avoid Mono because Microsoft likes it and showcases it as evidence of the .NET CLR cross platform status.
It seems Microsoft can't do anything right!
I hope you are not under the misapprehension that Miguel de Icaza has a shred of credibility left with anyone, least of all me.
It is quite damning of Miguel that he has lost the support of the paranoid set. So what has he actually done? He has created a programming platform that works, has withstood the test of time, and that has not been crushed under the legal might if Microsoft. He proved the naysayers wrong.
So why doesn't Microsoft sue? Because it would be a public relations nightmare - just as it was for SCO.
Perhaps you aren't aware that MS funded SCO's lawsuit. SCO was just a proxy for MS. Nothing to stop MS from "selling" the patents in question to some patent troll and engaging in another proxy lawsuit.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The FSFs stance, but since the FSF are just anti MS, Stallman following loonies (right?), here's Groklaw's stance. I'm sure you can find more with your friend.
But don't let the facts presented by people who understand the applicable law and the related issues stop your fanboyism.