Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Attachmate Does the Right Thing For Mono

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the being-good-is-good dept.

mikejuk writes "Attachmate, who recently decided to dump the Mono development team, has done the right thing in allowing Miguel de Icaza's new company, Xamarin, a perpetual license to all the intellectual property of Mono, MonoTouch, Mono for Android and Mono for Visual Studio. This allows them to continue to develop and sell the products. Of course this income might just give them the time needed to support the software, which is a good thing, as Attachmate has also handed over the support for all existing customers to Xamarin."

100 comments

  1. [Open]SUSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know what has happened to [Open]SUSE? Have those employees been spaced?

    1. Re:[Open]SUSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Mono and by extension .net is a piece of shit and the only people who care are shills and the people that have been convinced by the shills to believe the hype. Even MS is abandoning .shit for javascript/html5 in their next OS. Hahahahahahaha

    2. Re:[Open]SUSE by mswhippingboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mono and by extension .net is a piece of shit and the only people who care are shills and the people that have been convinced by the shills to believe the hype. Even MS is abandoning .shit for javascript/html5 in their next OS. Hahahahahahaha

      Well done. I too would post as AC if all I had to say was an idiotic, embarrassingly stupid comment like that.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    3. Re:[Open]SUSE by pavon · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, SuSE is one of the main reasons that Attachemate bought Novel. They have moved the SuSE headquarters back to Nuremberg Germany where it began, and the relationship with the OpenSUSE project is not expected to change.

    4. Re:[Open]SUSE by Creepy · · Score: 2

      as trolling as that was, it does seem to have a bit of truth - Microsoft has kicked Silverlight to the curb by targeting it pretty much only for mobile and news from inside Microsoft seems to indicate they are ditching .NET for html 5. Knowing Microsoft, however, and seeing their open attack on the security of WebGL, I expect them to port over their Silverlight Direct 3D code and use that instead of using WebGL because a browser without proprietary features would be very un-Microsofty.

      The thing that isn't often mentioned, however, is that Microsoft demonstrated Silverlight being compiled into html/javascript at their developer conference (or so I have heard) - that would be nice, and very un-Microsoft of them - write in Silverlight/.NET and run on html 5 browsers. Still, I bet proprietary tech gets in there as I mentioned above, and if so, Miguel's work will still be relevant.

    5. Re:[Open]SUSE by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Mono and by extension .net is a piece of shit and the only people who care are shills and the people that have been convinced by the shills to believe the hype. Even MS is abandoning .shit for javascript/html5 in their next OS. Hahahahahahaha

      You're very wrong.

      .Net is not bad at all, although not a solution for every problem. As an alternative to Java, it's better in every way except cross-platform compatibility. It obviously doesn't fill every hole that C++ fills.

      You completely misunderstand the role of Javascript/html5 in future MS products. It's an option for simple apps; it would be ridiculous to think MS will push it to replace .Net. Nobody with any serious judgement believes that will happen, or even be a push.

      However, I wouldn't do any development in Mono. It's nice architecture, but there are too many potential legal and social problems with it.

    6. Re:[Open]SUSE by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      .Net is not bad at all, although not a solution for every problem. As an alternative to Java, it's better in every way except cross-platform compatibility.

      .Net is inferior in the one aspect that matters, then, as total cross-platform compatibility is the raison d'être of Java.

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    7. Re:[Open]SUSE by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

      How do we know you didn't? You are the MS whipping boy after all?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:[Open]SUSE by Draek · · Score: 1

      That's like saying Java is superior to C because the latter being "portable assembly" was its whole purpose. Yes, it was so at the beginning, but the language and the frameworks built on top of them grew to encompass much more than that.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    9. Re:[Open]SUSE by beuges · · Score: 0

      and news from inside Microsoft seems to indicate they are ditching .NET for html 5

      Do you have any idea how vast the .net class libraries are? It would literally be impossible to replicate all of that functionality on a platform like html without turning it into .net again. MS may be phasing out Silverlight in favour of html5 now that html5 has matured to the point that it is reasonable to do so, and for the web platform, where it makes sense to do so.

      When Silverlight was launched, the only viable alternative was Flash, and that is what Silverlight was aiming to compete against. Unlike Google, MS realises that it's not feasible to put every single app on the web and run it in your browser, so they aren't interested in doing that. I would imagine that since html5 can now support most of the functionality that Silverlight offered, it doesn't make much sense to support two ways of achieving the same thing. However, to say that the whole of .net is being phased out in favour of html5 is laughable at best.

    10. Re:[Open]SUSE by exomondo · · Score: 1

      news from inside Microsoft seems to indicate they are ditching .NET for html 5.

      Where is this 'news from inside Microsoft'? Do you have any idea the vast amount of functionality that would be lost if you ditched .Net for HTML5? Ditching Silverlight for HTML5 seems logical but certainly not the whole of .Net.

      Knowing Microsoft, however, and seeing their open attack on the security of WebGL, I expect them to port over their Silverlight Direct 3D code and use that instead of using WebGL because a browser without proprietary features would be very un-Microsofty.

      I for one do see the danger in WebGL, i think it's a brilliant enabling technology (particularly friendly to me because i do most of my 3D coding in OpenGL) but that direct access from a webpage to the GPU (which is pretty much the most volatile piece of hardware in computers today) doesn't seem very safe, video drivers are unstable at the best of times.

    11. Re:[Open]SUSE by exomondo · · Score: 1

      .Net is inferior in the one aspect that matters, then, as total cross-platform compatibility is the raison d'être of Java.

      Total cross-platform capability? You can only run Java where you've compiled it to native platform-specific code or where there is a platform-specific JVM, just the same as with .Net code.

  2. Yes, it WAS the right thing. by mswhippingboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whether or not you think Mono has value, granting a perpetual license to it to someone who will do something with it was the right thing to do. Allowing a particular technology to be continued rather than just sitting on it because they have no use for it should be applauded. I only wish IBM had done this with OS/2 many years ago. Who knows what would have become of it.

    --
    Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    1. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OS/2 lives on as eComStation.

      http://ecomstation.com/product_info.phtml?site_lang=en&gclid=CJby9ISqi6oCFcFo4AodkV0lxw

      Serenity Systems maintains eComStation now. They licensed it from OS/2.

    2. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Agreed. So many of the posts above this are just troll posts about Mono being shitty, and while I don't hold it in the highest of esteem, I think it's very good that they decided to allow a group of people that was actually doing something with the IP to do it, rather than just sit on it, make them reinvent the wheel, and possibly sue them afterwards.

    3. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I fear OS/2 was a failure for the desktop as soon as they did the Adds for OS/2 Warp. A bunch of people staring at a computer screen saying how cool it is then showing some funky color like they are on an acid trip. Most people at the time didn't know what an OS was they figured that once you turn on your PC you go to DOS prompt... then there were GUI enhancements like Windows 3.1. Earlier versions of OS/2 were the same way... seeming just a shell on top of DOS. So OS/2 Warp just an another expensive DOS Shell, that ran DOS Slower and all those newly available windows apps wouldn't all run at 100%.

      When Microsoft released Windows 95 at nearly the same time, they did what apple does now. Show the product, show them how to use it, make it seem so much easier then before and what the other guys do. So when people got windows 95 they knew what it was and what it was going to do.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, IBM still owns (and maintains) OS/2. Serenity is only an authorized re-seller, marketing it under the name eComStation. The only real enhancements made by Serenity have been in the form of additional device drivers and add-ons, mainly for the purpose of extending it's life.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    5. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree about the adds.

      It was like, WTF, this sucks so bad they can't show you what's so amazing?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that a bunch of ignorant idiots are gonna rant about how Mono is EVUL and how fucking scared shitless of it we should be, though.

    7. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by mswhippingboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      When Microsoft released Windows 95 at nearly the same time, they did what apple does now. Show the product, show them how to use it, make it seem so much easier then before and what the other guys do. So when people got windows 95 they knew what it was and what it was going to do.

      No, OS/2 was superior to Win95 in nearly every way at the time. The reason for OS/2 demise had little to nothing to do with technology, but a combination of the "somewhat questionable" tactics MS used to force PC vendors to pre-install Win95 on every box shipped, and the ineptness of IBM's marketing.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    8. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by thammoud · · Score: 2

      No, OS/2 was superior to Win95 in nearly every way at the time.

      Not true. As much as I liked OS/2, it had that nasty single message queue problem that Win95 did not. IBM tried many kludges but they rarely worked.

    9. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 95 also had a nicer migration experience from Windows 3.1. OS/2 Warp had a seperate Windows 3.1 mode, but switching back and forth was painful.

    10. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. So many of the posts above this are just troll posts about Mono being shitty, and while I don't hold it in the highest of esteem, I think it's very good that they decided to allow a group of people that was actually doing something with the IP to do it, rather than just sit on it, make them reinvent the wheel, and possibly sue them afterwards.

      You and me both.

      While I think it's absolutely freaking insane to build any major system on a technology that in the final analysis is beholden to Microsoft - we've already skated close enough with the Oracle/Java thing - the one significant Mono app I'm familiar with is rather good. And, while it drags in a lot of baggage, so does Java.

    11. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by gatzke · · Score: 1

      I thought I read OS2 was still going, being resold and supported by a third party licensed by IBM.

      I think it was these folks:
      http://www.ecomstation.com/

    12. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      Oh yes. The single message queue issue. On this point I concede your argument. This was the result of IBM's (shortsighted IMHO) determination to not break compatibility with legacy (especially 16-bit) applications. This issue could have been easily resolved, at the expense of breaking compatibility, but IBM refused to deal with it (another of IBM's blunders).

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    13. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      Windows 95 also had a nicer migration experience from Windows 3.1. OS/2 Warp had a seperate Windows 3.1 mode, but switching back and forth was painful.

      Wha? OS/2 Warp 4 could install directly on top of Windows 3.1 and Windows 3.1 applications ran seamlessly as if they were native OS/2 apps. What "switching back and forth" are you talking about? This didn't work for all Windows 3.1 applications (e.g. those with VxD drivers), but for most it was a no-brainer.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    14. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, OS/2 was a turd.

    15. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by kripkenstein · · Score: 1

      Whether or not you think Mono has value, granting a perpetual license to it to someone who will do something with it was the right thing to do.

      Just to clarify, this isn't a free perpetual license, it's a partnership. Attachmate is getting something in return, I presume a percentage of revenue.

      Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the headline makes it sound like Attachmate is doing this to be fair or nice. This is just business. But it does make perfect sense for everyone involved.

    16. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      I think it's very good that they decided to allow a group of people that was actually doing something with the IP to do it, rather than just sit on it, make them reinvent the wheel, and possibly sue them afterwards.

      I agree entirely. However, there's a question that no-one seems to be asking: if Mono was as open, and as free of IP encumberances as Miguel has always maintained it is, then what IP did they need?

      And if Attachmate held IP that prevented Xamarin from developing the project further, what does that imply for projects using Mono?

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    17. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      However, there's a question that no-one seems to be asking: if Mono was as open, and as free of IP encumberances as Miguel has always maintained it is, then what IP did they need?

      Copyrights?

      Not all incarnations of Mono are/were open source -- particularly, the mobile and embedded targets were, and remain, commercial.

    18. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by Intropy · · Score: 1

      I liked the commercial with the nuns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmQ3f1PRnw0

    19. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      IBM's ineptitude indeed... I remember being perplexed, back in the day, seeing IBM machines bundled with Windows. "They have their own system, supposedly it is very good, so why won't they use it instead?"

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    20. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Do you read before you quote and post?

      I stated nothing about OS/2 Technical Quality (I actually never used that OS thus I said nothing about quality, just the perception of the overall market), It was only about IBM failure in marketing.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    21. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      Apologies. I did note after I posted that I should have left the "No" off the start of the post. My intent was not to refute your statement, but rather to augment it with comments about the technical arguments. I completely agree with your position as to the marketing aspect.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    22. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. So many of the posts above this are just troll posts about Mono being shitty, and while I don't hold it in the highest of esteem.....

      Sorry if this question provokes a run of emotion in the crowd but do folk just treat Mono as shitty because it's not completely open source?

      I've just spent a couple of months getting a handle on Mono (always been a *nix programmer really) because a client for a current project runs a combination of Ubuntu LTS and XP machines. It's been incredibly easy getting their new application developed and running; in fact quicker than learning the system in the first place and the migration from an old app written in VB has gone very smooth. I've never liked Java and even enjoyed cross-platforming apps in C++ in preference to using it. Surely developers use the right tool for the right job rather than avoiding an entire system because it's related to Windows in a *nix world?

      Some honest opinions of Mono might be helpful as I seem to be blissfully unaware of the problems related to it

    23. Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. by peterbye · · Score: 1

      > Some honest opinions of Mono might be helpful as I seem to be blissfully unaware of the problems related to it

      What's wrong with it is it pollutes the Linux ecosystem with Microsoft IP.
      Some think that's risky, and some of us don't care about that but just don't want to use anything that has any connection with MS.

  3. Re:Bullshit by halivar · · Score: 2

    Thankfully, the ecosystem of computer languages and platforms is not subject to the mouth-frothing whims of hard-core ideologues. Those of us who program for a living are not interested in your rants.

  4. You know what would have been cool? by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If Palm did this with BeOS back about 5-6 years ago. BeOS didn't really compete with them. It did, however, compete with their biggest contemporary competitor and one of their future competitors that they should have seen would soon be a major rival. Had Palm given Haiku developers the same deal with BeOS, it would have been as disruptive for Microsoft and Apple as if a little enemy state were to hit the US with a high altitude EMP on a weekday.

    1. Re:You know what would have been cool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They didn't do this because there was hope that BeOS could make money in the embedded / mobile market even though they lost the desktop market.

    2. Re:You know what would have been cool? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      "...it would have been as disruptive for Microsoft and Apple as if a little enemy state were to hit the US with a high altitude EMP on a weekday."

      Interesting....analogy...I guess.

    3. Re:You know what would have been cool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If one is shortsighted, one doesn't see how short one sees.

    4. Re:You know what would have been cool? by Locutus · · Score: 1

      if they "hoped" for it they sure didn't talk about it. From what I heard and saw, they used BeOS to pick at its bones and tried to get Garnet in shape as a good OS but it never happened. And then they kept changing the cradle and connector so that hardware vendors couldn't keep up with the changes and soon lots of software developers finally gave up as they kept screwing with the API's and what the Palm platform was supposed to be.

      If you were around back then, you too would understand why it's a joke when they talk about Apple inventing the mobile device application market.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  5. Re:IBM & OS/2 by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    like eComStation ?

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  6. IBM had done this with OS/2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Allowing a particular technology to be continued rather than just sitting on it because they have no use for it should be applauded. I only wish IBM had done this with OS/2 many years ago. Who knows what would have become of it.

    "Pursue a product development strategy that prevents IBM from claiming Windows compatibility. Prevent Windows applications from running correctly on OS/2.... Reposition OS/2 as impractical and incompatible in the minds of customers". link

  7. Xamarin? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not just call it Ximian rev. 2.0?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Xamarin? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Why not just call it Ximian rev. 2.0?

      Same reason Blackwater is now called Xe.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Xamarin? by straponego · · Score: 1

      And Comcast is called Xfinity. Change your name to Xsomething and people will forget whatever you did before, apparently.

  8. Xamarin’s Mono-based products? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Xamarin’s Mono-based products enable .NET developers to use their existing code, libraries and tools (including Visual Studio*), as well as skills in .NET and the C# programming language" link

    is this the end of .NET?

  9. Oh happy day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that the legal threat to Mono has apparently been lifted, one can now develop cross-platform software in C# for IPhone/IPad, Android, Windows Phone, Windows desktop, and Linux desktop. I say apparently because there are no guarantees of course.

    1. Re:Oh happy day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the legal concerns were never related to Novell (Attachmate) anyways, so this changes nothing in that regard.

  10. Re:Not the paper, but the result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have used mono with no problems actually. I like the Mono effort and do support it.

  11. Re:IBM & OS/2 by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

    eComStation is a "barely" warmed over (as in bugfixes only) release of OS/2 Warp 4 which IBM last shipped in 2001. Had IBM released the source code to someone who might actually continue development (even if not open-sourcing it) there's no telling what kind of OS it could have evolved into by now.

    --
    Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
  12. Re:Bullshit by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    With the exception of the fact that most people who create programming languages and platforms tend fall into highly opinionated ideologue category e.g. Larry Wall, Guido van Rossum, Matz, Linus, DHH, Theo de Raadt, etc

  13. Re:Bullshit by halivar · · Score: 1

    And I'm not interesting in *their* rants, either. I use their software, but I don't have to read their manifestos. Exhibit A: Richard Stallman.

  14. Good Will by DeeEff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not something you see often nowadays, what with patents and copyrights being thrown back and forth in endless litigation and cutthroat corporate espionage.

    That said, these guys are pretty awesome for doing that. In a way it lets us know they actually care about the improvement of the industry, even if they couldn't support Mono themselves. Round of applause ol' gents.

    1. Re:Good Will by Raenex · · Score: 2

      Without being privy to the agreement, I wouldn't assume it was "good will". If anything, it's probably just a business agreement where Attachmate stands to benefit if Xamarin succeeds. If they really wanted to be "good will" about it, they would provide royalty-free licensing to everybody instead of just Xamarin.

    2. Re:Good Will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without being privy to the agreement, I wouldn't assume it was "good will". If anything, it's probably just a business agreement where Attachmate stands to benefit if Xamarin succeeds. If they really wanted to be "good will" about it, they would provide royalty-free licensing to everybody instead of just Xamarin.

      Or Xamarin specifically asked for that not to be the case, because they don't want the competition...

  15. OS/2 was superior to Win95? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't matter how many times they type that bullshit - it ain't ever going to make it true.

  16. Hooray! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

    Now Miguel can play with his pet project all by himself, so others won't have to tolerate him just because of his former association with their projects.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pity the rest of us can't say the same thing about you.

  17. What's the point? by Ryxxui · · Score: 1

    What's the point of writing portable code (that is the benefit of using Mono, right?) if I have to buy two seperate IDEs to actually make use of it?

    1. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you have to buy two separate IDEs? Or buy any IDEs?

    2. Re:What's the point? by Ryxxui · · Score: 1

      The two products they sell are an IDE for writing C#/.NET for iOS and an IDE for writing C#/.NET for Android.

    3. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The IDE for developing iOS apps and Android apps is the same IDE: MonoDevelop.

    4. Re:What's the point? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Even if I don't have to buy multiple IDEs, why do I have to buy multiple compilers that are priced out of the microISV market?

    5. Re:What's the point? by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      because one compiles to Objective-C and the other compiles to Dalvik... you think the work involved in those separate platforms should not be compensated? They could bundle them together and just double the price of the product.

    6. Re:What's the point? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Their pricing scheme is certainly expensive, but presumably this is what they have to charge to recoup development losses and make some reasonable profit. Or, perhaps, it is what the market will pay.

    7. Re:What's the point? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      No, Mono serves the same purpose as Wine - it's there as a stopgap while you transition away from Microsoft to real portable languages. dotNET is "portable" code in the same way writing for the Microsoft JVM is portable, except this time they can't be sued for pulling a 3-E's.

  18. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perl, Python, Ruby, Linux, RoR, OpenBSD? This is hacker culture stuff, of course the authors are heavily opinionated. Academic & business inspirations seldom have the same zealous originators.

    It's also rarely the case that a programming language is carried into the mainstream by its founders; thus their opinions often carry little weight, even within the language community.

  19. special hell by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm going to the special hell for this, but I misread the headline as "Attachment does the right thing for mono", and I thought to myself -- attachment is what causes mono. Well, that and kissing. Then I realized I was on slashdot, and nobody would get the joke...

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:special hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought they had taken it out through the back-door, and put a bullet in its head.

    2. Re:special hell by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The Special Hell

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:special hell by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The Special Hell

      Sorry. Slashdot ate my tags.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  20. Attachmate and The Right Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attachmate needs to do the right thing for Bison and fire Jeff Hawn.

  21. Part of Microsoft shake down plans of Android by lowlands · · Score: 0

    De Icaza may have gotten that license and it seems to be all about Mono but if you read their plans then you can see that De Icaza, as one can expect from a good little Microsoft footsoldier, is moving towards closed, proprietary applications for iPhone and Android. With Microsoft already targeting Android phone vendors what do you think what will happen if vendors ship Mono based applications created with De Icaza's Trojan Horses or sell Mono based apps in their app stores? It's all about getting more Microsoft Intellectual Property on Android phones so Microsoft can continue & further expand their shake down or sue for (alleged) patent infringement. It's all about making sure that Microsoft can say to potential hardware partners: Android is *not* free, there is a monetary (legal/IP) cost attached and this is why we are cheaper. Microsoft provides the bullets (via Attachmate this time) and De Icaza as usual bends over for Microsoft and does as he is told. This announcement should be a wake up call to the entire Android Community that Microsoft is trying very hard to make everybody who's doing anything with Android bleed till they drop dead.

    1. Re:Part of Microsoft shake down plans of Android by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 0

      you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

    2. Re:Part of Microsoft shake down plans of Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What have you been smoking? Say NO to crack!

    3. Re:Part of Microsoft shake down plans of Android by lowlands · · Score: 1

      And why would that be? Seems all I hear from those Mono lovers is that those who are opposed to Mono and De Icaza's little ploy have no clue. Yet I am still waiting on what the right clue is. Why is there no patent threat in Mono? Why is it safe to use? Why will I never be sued by Microsoft when I deploy/sell Mono crap? Give me proof and nothing but proof. Thus far all I hear is a thundering silence.

    4. Re:Part of Microsoft shake down plans of Android by lowlands · · Score: 1

      Really De Icaza, posting as an AC? How's the funding going? Did Microsoft find you a new Baystar yet?

    5. Re:Part of Microsoft shake down plans of Android by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's community promise... it is a legally binding statement about where you as a developer stand when using Mono.

      If you have a problem with the win forms parts not being included, then don't use winforms. No one seems to give a shit about using one of 20 different tool kits with C++, but for some reason, not using winforms with C# on the mono platform is some sort of barrier that makes developing with it impossible.

    6. Re:Part of Microsoft shake down plans of Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's one huge conspiracy with Microsoft controlling everything, they used their voodoo future-tellers to know that Android would come along so developed .Net inhouse then created DeIcaza to build Mono as an OSS spin-off to gain the trust of the FOSS community, making community promises to get them to accept the patent-encumbered software. But this is all just a distraction from their real goal, having manufacturers pay license fees to them for patents will keep the fanatics misdirected long enough for them to use their trojan horse software to tap into the minds of Android users and brainwash them into giving all their money to Scientology whilst becoming advocates for the climate change lobby!

      You're almost there lowlands, you've almost got them figured out, keep digging!

    7. Re:Part of Microsoft shake down plans of Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even De icaza has admitted in an email that certain parts in Mono should be removed because they are *not* covered by Microsoft's so called community promise. Repeated questions from concerned Netizens when this separation would be finished have not been answered. Apparently it is not even on the roadmap. Techrights has repeatedly requested an update and have not received any information. So if you and those numbnuts who keep defending Mono really think that everything is hunky dory in Mono land than you are seriously misguided. I wish you good luck in court when Microsoft sends in their packs of lawyers and picks your bones dry.

    8. Re:Part of Microsoft shake down plans of Android by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      There are very few parts that are not covered and those parts are not part of the ECMA standard. Seriously... there are replacements for WCF and WinForms and the other small number of namespaces that are not covered.

  22. Sauce for the Goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perpetual license? Is it the GPL? If not, it is evil and should be boycotted at all cost. I am personally making a Mono de-installer. Mono is doubly evil now and Icaza is satan. Yadda yadda GPL. Blah blah Redhat is going to bounce their clone, "Plural" from version 0.33 to 0.99 overnight.

    (Sound familiar? No? Perhaps you should set the wayback machine to KDE 1.0 and listen to the mighty whining of the Slashdot/GNOME zealots who wanted KDE buried because of Qt's license.)

  23. Mono for phones is expensive by tepples · · Score: 2

    you think the work involved in those separate platforms should not be compensated?

    No, I think $650 for the bundle is a bit too steep for a microISV. As of right now, the best way I can see for a small developer to get a cross-platform phone application in front of an audience is to write the back-end in C++, write front-ends in Objective-C for iOS and Java for Android, and ignore Windows Phone 7.

    1. Re:Mono for phones is expensive by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      650 dollars is too much to spend for a good idea? OK... then maybe you should develop your initial application as you state, then when you get successful, move to a tool set that provides a much higher throughput, making you even MORE money!

  24. It's discouraging... by margeman2k3 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else find it really discouraging that someone doing the right thing is considered breaking news?
    *sigh*

    1. Re:It's discouraging... by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      I think it's news when Attachmate do the right thing. I use some of their stuff here at work, and they always strike me as being in it for the bucks (yeah, we all are - but most of us pretend) and employing staff that appear to be me as being, well, a little back from the forefront of the industry.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  25. no issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    w95 was to os/2 what a toothpick is to knife and fork.

    and mono has never been anything but dev-market hype to sell dotnet, which has never been anything but dev-market hype to sell windows, which sucks. :D

  26. mono = yay by TheSpinningBrain · · Score: 1

    Xamarin supporting Attachmate's Mono stuff means a lot to me, as a developer. I work for a company that does a lot of Mono-based consulting. This is going to sound like advertising, but having Mono for Android and MonoTouch makes life as a mobile developer easy. For example, my coworkers have been working on an iPhone application for a client using MonoTouch, using MonoTouch.Dialog. The client wanted a dual launch with an Android app, and since we were using all Mono-based projects in an MVC pattern, all we had to do was rewrite the UI for Android. Most of the screens had a lot code that could be reused with MonoDroid.Dialog. That means that even though the iPhone project started two months before the Android one, it only took one month to catch up to iPhone. That's two months that I spent utilizing my time towards other clients, and two months that we didn't have to bill to this client. When I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

  27. Re:Not the paper, but the result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mono is actually very terrible in use. In paper it sounds nice but you can not get working and flexible software coded with it.

    You mean 'on paper'...and don't project your inadequacies onto others, just because you're admittedly incapable of developing with Mono doesn't mean everyone else is.

  28. 286 compatibility by bobkoure · · Score: 1

    A major problem was that IBM insisted on 286 compatibility, which meant a 'back flip' between real and protected mode.
     

    1. Re:286 compatibility by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      Yes, but IBM patented a solution to the problem (called "thunking" IIRC) that was actually pretty elegant. Because IBM had the patent, Win95 was never able to run protected mode applications.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.