This has been the objection against the Mono project since its very inception, and we were always told that it just wasn't an issue. Can the Mono project still say this with a straight face?
It was always a risk to implement anything on Mono, not only are you lagging behind all the latest features of.net, but you will always have this lawsuit/patent question looming over your project. Now we have MS saying there's over 200 patent violations, how do we know none of those are in Mono?
At the end of the day, it seems the only safe way to use Mono is to run it using Novell's version. For that limited platform choice, if you must use.net, you are better off running it in the platform it was intended to; Windows.
MS doesn't like your project, why don't they work with you guys to say "the Mono team will help us bring Silverlight to the Linux platform". Instead, they ignore your project, and no sane corporation is going to base serious development efforts on mono when it will always be seen as the illegitimate ugly step child in the.net family.
Really, can you admit that the only reason MS even tolerates your product, is just in case somebody brings up how they have no solutions in Linux they can just casually just say "well, there's that mono thing"? I'm sure your project is mentioned in some PowerPoint in Redmond that is brought up when convenient, but it's baffling how much they just ignore your project most of the time. It's not even a consideration.
It has already been shown that ifilm contains material which they don't own the copyright. Viacom, can't police that material, why should anybody expect google to do what the originator of the lawsuit is crying about?
And google does have a way to report questionable material, you hit the "flag as innapropiate" and choose "Other terms of use violation". In addition the same button has a link for copyright owners to object to the material. That really seems fair enough to me.
The only technical solution would be to filter words, which is a stupid alternative. As I may want to upload parodies of "Steve Colbert" instead of actual video from his show.
(literally: Miguel, step down from that cloud - Miguel, get real)
I just don't understand your project.
Most.NET developers are not aware of your project, and most would not want to bother with it. People that use Visual Studio care about using the latest tools and APIs from Microsoft, and when they know you don't even have.NET v2 they don't want to bother.
"On the migration piece, the open sourcing of Java will not have an effect on Mono. Because the crowd that we are targeting is the.NET crowd which is typically not using Java. The open sourcing of Java will not alter the balance of applications that will be ported from other platforms to Linux. If they existed, people were already using the proprietary Java from IBM or Sun or even one of the GNU based efforts."
I'm so glad Java is now being open sourced, you won't have this as an excuse anymore. Why would anybody want to develop in your environment, which has serious patent concerns? It lags behind and has no serious number of tools for anybody to use?
Your statement about MS recommending Mono is bizarre. Why would Microsoft recommend Mono? The only reason for them to even mention your project, is in the chance a customer maybe asks about running in other platforms. I could definitely see MS just mentioning Mono to get a customer, but they surely will have no incentive for anybody to use your technology.
Finally, why is this project called mono? It reminds me of the phrase: "El hombre crea y el mono imita", which seems apt for your project (Man creates and monkeys imitate)
The PS2 launched lacked a lot of games, specially it didn't have a lot of *good* games (anybody remember "The Bouncer"?) At the start, one of the main complaints was that people were just using the PS2 as a DVD player, and I hear the same for the PS3.
Sure the competitive landscape is different, but there are certainly a lot of parellels.
It's as simple as that. They're not asking for copyrighted material, they even ask you not to post it. When a company asks for something to be removed, they remove it.
The irony is, many companies don't care since they know this is free promotion for their shows. Other companies are smarter and post content themselves!
Viacom is shameless in this sense, and the lawsuit is ridiculous.
> I feel like it's 10 years ago with the ASM guys spouting off about how C++ sucks because you can write ASM that runs faster.
I do mostly Java programming, so that comment is ironic.
I was actually questioning the parent poster's assumptions. He was saying the extra memory and CPU are needed to support C# apps, which there are very little to none to support the main Vista OS applications (GUI or not). In other words, the reason for the added horse power has nothing to do with.NET and everything to do with new features and the amount of graphical candy the graphical system offers.
What in the world is "MS-patented code" or "patented code" in the first place?
A lot of software patents focus on the design, algorithm or architecture of a software "solution", not necessary on the fine grain details of the implementation (the code). So if Amazon patents buying via one click, it means just that, you patented that feature (as stupid as it sounds) no matter what code implements it or not.
If MS patented a C# language feature, again, it doesn't matter how you implemented they patented something that is higher level (or even dumber, like a keyword).
In the vein of something like "Where are they now?". I know we all liked to flame the heck out of him, but in a weird way, I kind of miss him. Reading this article about him reminds me of late nights coding with co-workers, eating pizza and reading an inane story about the post-columbine world that would get me upset to the point of waking me up so I could keep coding.
In that case, with all due respect, you should not have signed an agreement called a patent cooperation agreement that gives Microsoft the opportunity to say the things Mr. Ballmer has been saying. I believe that is obvious now. And you should have considered the GPL, its importance to the community, and considered what paying royalties means in that context. And we hope you will fix this.
And MS... Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents....
We at Microsoft respect Novell's point of view on the patent issue, even while we respectfully take a different view. Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement. At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. We are gratified that such a solution is now in place.
What matters is what Novell agreed with Microsoft, and that says it all.
Novell can say all it wants, but you can't fool everybody all the time. This makes this company look either totally naive and stupid, or blatant liars.
Yes, there is a small supply, but for sure there's more demand for them than for the Zune (and more consumer awareness of it too, ask a random person what a Zune is and see what look you are going to get).
If no one wants them, they wouldn't be selling on ebay at all.
The product sold out, irregardless of what the current price on ebay is. And people did line up to buy it, there's certainly more demand for PS3s right now than for the Zune.
That the price has dropped on ebay is great news, it's stupid to buy this console at such ridiculous prices (including the 1200 you listed there, it's just stupid)
You're probably talking about the Swing look and feel, it's a minor nitpick, but it looks just like whatever your desktop is running as (XP=XP toolbar).
Slashdot Mirror
He was talking about applets people.
This has been the objection against the Mono project since its very inception, and we were always told that it just wasn't an issue. Can the Mono project still say this with a straight face?
.net, but you will always have this lawsuit/patent question looming over your project. Now we have MS saying there's over 200 patent violations, how do we know none of those are in Mono?
.net, you are better off running it in the platform it was intended to; Windows.
It was always a risk to implement anything on Mono, not only are you lagging behind all the latest features of
At the end of the day, it seems the only safe way to use Mono is to run it using Novell's version. For that limited platform choice, if you must use
Just discovered this one last week @ JavaOne;
http://www.greenfoot.org/
Seems to have similar goals, it is very simplified and the focus is to teach programming via creating simple games.
MS doesn't like your project, why don't they work with you guys to say "the Mono team will help us bring Silverlight to the Linux platform". Instead, they ignore your project, and no sane corporation is going to base serious development efforts on mono when it will always be seen as the illegitimate ugly step child in the .net family.
Really, can you admit that the only reason MS even tolerates your product, is just in case somebody brings up how they have no solutions in Linux they can just casually just say "well, there's that mono thing"? I'm sure your project is mentioned in some PowerPoint in Redmond that is brought up when convenient, but it's baffling how much they just ignore your project most of the time. It's not even a consideration.
Huh ... there are a lot of very large Java based software projects, this is nothing new.
... others to do it.
It has already been shown that ifilm contains material which they don't own the copyright. Viacom, can't police that material, why should anybody expect google to do what the originator of the lawsuit is crying about?
And google does have a way to report questionable material, you hit the "flag as innapropiate" and choose "Other terms of use violation". In addition the same button has a link for copyright owners to object to the material. That really seems fair enough to me.
The only technical solution would be to filter words, which is a stupid alternative. As I may want to upload parodies of "Steve Colbert" instead of actual video from his show.
Did you miss the deal MS made with Novell to agree not to sue them due to patent concerns?
.net and their libraries that they don't welcome or officially endorse?
...
How about the fact that MS has intellectual property in
Java is getting GPLed, hopefully you would understand the difference
(literally: Miguel, step down from that cloud - Miguel, get real)
.NET developers are not aware of your project, and most would not want to bother with it. People that use Visual Studio care about using the latest tools and APIs from Microsoft, and when they know you don't even have .NET v2 they don't want to bother.
.NET crowd which is typically not using Java. The open sourcing of Java will not alter the balance of applications that will be ported from other platforms to Linux. If they existed, people were already using the proprietary Java from IBM or Sun or even one of the GNU based efforts."
I just don't understand your project.
Most
"On the migration piece, the open sourcing of Java will not have an effect on Mono. Because the crowd that we are targeting is the
I'm so glad Java is now being open sourced, you won't have this as an excuse anymore. Why would anybody want to develop in your environment, which has serious patent concerns? It lags behind and has no serious number of tools for anybody to use?
Your statement about MS recommending Mono is bizarre. Why would Microsoft recommend Mono? The only reason for them to even mention your project, is in the chance a customer maybe asks about running in other platforms. I could definitely see MS just mentioning Mono to get a customer, but they surely will have no incentive for anybody to use your technology.
Finally, why is this project called mono? It reminds me of the phrase:
"El hombre crea y el mono imita", which seems apt for your project (Man creates and monkeys imitate)
The PS2 launched lacked a lot of games, specially it didn't have a lot of *good* games (anybody remember "The Bouncer"?)
At the start, one of the main complaints was that people were just using the PS2 as a DVD player, and I hear the same for the PS3.
Sure the competitive landscape is different, but there are certainly a lot of parellels.
> * no games. Can anyone who doesn't have a PS3 name two games currently available for it not available anywhere else?
... yet. Kind of like when the PS2 launched.
Resistance Fall of Man
Motorstorm
There are others of course, but the point is there are not enough games out there
It's as simple as that. They're not asking for copyrighted material, they even ask you not to post it. When a company asks for something to be removed, they remove it.
The irony is, many companies don't care since they know this is free promotion for their shows. Other companies are smarter and post content themselves!
Viacom is shameless in this sense, and the lawsuit is ridiculous.
> I feel like it's 10 years ago with the ASM guys spouting off about how C++ sucks because you can write ASM that runs faster.
.NET and everything to do with new features and the amount of graphical candy the graphical system offers.
I do mostly Java programming, so that comment is ironic.
I was actually questioning the parent poster's assumptions. He was saying the extra memory and CPU are needed to support C# apps, which there are very little to none to support the main Vista OS applications (GUI or not). In other words, the reason for the added horse power has nothing to do with
How much of the Vista UI (or the base OS apps) is written in C#?
What in the world is "MS-patented code" or "patented code" in the first place?
A lot of software patents focus on the design, algorithm or architecture of a software "solution", not necessary on the fine grain details of the implementation (the code).
So if Amazon patents buying via one click, it means just that, you patented that feature (as stupid as it sounds) no matter what code implements it or not.
If MS patented a C# language feature, again, it doesn't matter how you implemented they patented something that is higher level (or even dumber, like a keyword).
In the vein of something like "Where are they now?". I know we all liked to flame the heck out of him, but in a weird way, I kind of miss him. Reading this article about him reminds me of late nights coding with co-workers, eating pizza and reading an inane story about the post-columbine world that would get me upset to the point of waking me up so I could keep coding.
Ah, the good old days.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200611202 03431766
...
In that case, with all due respect, you should not have signed an agreement called a patent cooperation agreement that gives Microsoft the opportunity to say the things Mr. Ballmer has been saying. I believe that is obvious now. And you should have considered the GPL, its importance to the community, and considered what paying royalties means in that context. And we hope you will fix this.
And MS
Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents....
We at Microsoft respect Novell's point of view on the patent issue, even while we respectfully take a different view. Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement. At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. We are gratified that such a solution is now in place.
What matters is what Novell agreed with Microsoft, and that says it all.
Novell can say all it wants, but you can't fool everybody all the time. This makes this company look either totally naive and stupid, or blatant liars.
The article was comparing the PS3 and the Zune's demand, not the XBOX 360.
Which has nothing to do with the Zune of course.
... why are they selling for over 1K?
Yes, there is a small supply, but for sure there's more demand for them than for the Zune (and more consumer awareness of it too, ask a random person what a Zune is and see what look you are going to get).
If no one wants them, they wouldn't be selling on ebay at all.
The product sold out, irregardless of what the current price on ebay is. And people did line up to buy it, there's certainly more demand for PS3s right now than for the Zune.
That the price has dropped on ebay is great news, it's stupid to buy this console at such ridiculous prices (including the 1200 you listed there, it's just stupid)
Must be all the bubble sorting in my brain while typing ...
Somehow you are totally missing any signs of the "sarcasm" gene, unfortunately for you, this is irreversible.
You're probably talking about the Swing look and feel, it's a minor nitpick, but it looks just like whatever your desktop is running as (XP=XP toolbar).
"Java scrollbars" look like whatever the scrollbars look like in the OS you are using them. What in the world are you talking about?