Sorry, but Google have lost their CompSci mind on this one, most likely to placate MBAs who have taken the place over.
I specifically have issues with the following statement from the Google OS Blog:
"However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web."
Yeah. And most OS's in use today were also designed when there were not graphics cards as well. The exception to this is Microsoft, who tightly coupled the OS to a GUI.
Now any decent CompSci grad knows tight coupling is an extremely bad thing, so the decision to pursue an OS tightly coupled to the web
(which we all know means Google's version of the web), will be a disaster.
In the flamebait but true category, this is further evidence why scripting languages are not suitable for most application development... because they are much more brittle than a traditionally compiled application.
True you can site examples of traditionally compiled applications breaking due to missing dependencies, in which (like with this Perl example) the underlying deployment platform is a fault, but this type of problem is much more common with scripting languages (Perl, PHP, Python, etc), and vastly harder to debug and defend against.
Thanks for the fact check DannyO152. However, as you stated, my general point stands, both cases used dishonest legal practices. Furthermore, courtroom deception is a signature MS legal strategy.
SCO gets bitch-slapped by two Judges for legal shenanigans.(As MS has been in virtually every leagal case it has been in, especially the Anti-Trust Case).
Just a couple of weeks earlier, MS and Novell join up to make a business deal that is so bad, even those involved with the deal can't explain it from a legal or business standpoint (which would be about the time that the SCO lawyers knew they were about to be taken to the wood shed ).
Now those not in the know are thinking "so what the hell does SCO have to do with MS or Novell ?" or even worse "Those Slashdotters are just biased MS haters".
And the answer to these thoughts my young padawan learner (or MBA) are the following facts:
Microsoft is an investor in Baystar Capital Managment who has invested at least 50 mil in SCO before the lawsuit (google for it if you don't believe me). Even worse, Lawrence R. Goldfarb, one of the investors in Baystart said MS promised to indemnify Baystar's investment from losses to to the suit.
SCO's lawer is David Boies, the same lawyer who defended MS in its Anti-Trust suit against the US (and who was also repeatedly repremanded for legal malfeasance).
Which now leads us to the ultimate reason for why I believe these incidents are indeed related and not an accident... a motive !!
Both the SCO lawsuit and the MS-Novell agreement are designed to cast (at least to most tech-unsavy MBA types) a huge legal cloud over Linux specifically, and FOSS in general, of which Microsoft would be the only benefactor.
My mother finally had to break down and get high speed internet and a computer. Since I am my family's tech support, we of course chose a Mac with OS X. She has been able to pick it up without a hitch, and I am not bothered with the quarterly "My computer won't boot" emergency phone calls I get from the rest of my MS windows based family.
Now if I can only get the rest of them to switch:)
First let me be helpful, take some courses to get a professional certification for whatever you wish to do.
Let's look at this from the employer's perspective. Why should I hire you without any proof of you being useful to me ? If you are lucky, you could get an interview, then ace some sort of proficiency test, but in most cases you won't get past the first cut without some objective proof that you may be capable of performing the tasks required of you.
Now the rant:
Why does the IT industry seem to prefer individuals NOT formally trained to those who are ? Would you go to a doctor that did not graduate from med school ? Would you hire a lawyer who did not pass the bar ? How many bridges have been built by self taught civil engineers ? So why should anyone without some sort of formal training or certification expect to work in IT ?
I am surprised Mr. Bell did not mention the latest wave in Software Development, "Meta" Silver Bullets, ie nebulous heuristics which are neatly packaged and given an MBA friendly label.
Currently the mother-of-all Meta Silver bullets is "Agile Development", which has only proven successful for the guys who write books about it and sell seminars on the subject.
What do you mean when you say that Mono is "free" ?
Do you mean that it is available at no cost ? If this is the case, then so is Java's runtime AND development environment.
If not then I assume you mean it is "open-source", which is confusing since:
The Mono FAQ page claims to implement the Microsoft.NET development platform which it has no legal right to
Mono consists of three separate licenses, one for the C# compliler, one for the runtimes, and another for the class libraries
Secondly, why do I need a Windows version of Mono when as stated in the projects FAQ, Question 1: What Exactly is Mono ?:
The Mono Project is an open development initiative sponsored by Novell that is working to develop an open source, UNIX version of the Microsoft.NET development platform.
I second the motion. I have personally dealt with end users and potential customers who believe that (.Net == Mono) and managers who have chosen.Net for a development solution over Java based on the misconception that Mono is a crossplatform (ie. Unix/Linux) runtime environment for.Net.
To be blunt, I have some severe misgivings about the vision and usefulness of Mono.
Java explicitly supports multiple host operating systems, so this would make it the obvious choice for crossplatform development..Net is supported by Microsoft on their platforms and app servers, so this would be my best bet for applications targeted soely for Windows.
Why then should I use Mono instead of these environments ?
What distinct advantages does Mono have over either of these established and supported platforms ?
Mark, don't get me wrong here. I have no objection to mono being a development environment which is independent of.Net, but, at least as I see it, it is the Mono team who have made this claim, as given by the quote I mentioned earlier.
It is this inference by the Mono team which is causing false expectations by end users who have the expectation that Mono ==.Net due to the quote given above.
And yes, my definition would require future versions of Mono will have a complete feature parity with.Net, since that is what the customers I deal with believe (Since they would like to develop in.Net on Windows, then run these same apps on Linux, and see Mono as the way to achieve this). Do you belive that this expectation is unreasonable ?
As for Java, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Your comment would only apply if Microsoft made a version.NET for other platforms (which they do not), or were somehow supporting the Mono team, which they are not per Mr Icaza. Furthermore, Microsoft's.Net exclusively targets the Windows platform What is the.NET framework?
So let me distill my questions/challenge the light of our previous exchanges, because I believe them to be very important to the development and end user community as a whole:
Does the Mono mission statement imply.Net-Mono interoperability and compatibility ?
If not, then what significant advantages does Mono offer versus then the current offerings for Linux and Windows ?
If this is true, what guarantees can the Mono team make to ensure this compatibility with.NET will continue ?
I believe you misunderstood my post, and the statement I quoted from Mono. I asked if you can interchangebly use.Net assemblies in a Mono environment, and Mono assemblies in.Net environments.
If I read yours correctly, you are talking about running Mono assemblies in Mono enviroments, which is not what is implied by the Mono project vision.
I challenge Mr. Icaza, et al. to prove that they can fulfil the following vision given at the top of the project's web site (http://mono-project.org/):
Mono is a comprehensive open source development platform based on the.NET framework that allows developers to build Linux and cross-platform applications with unprecedented productivity.
I am willing to overlook the marketing speak claim about productivity, but I would like to know:
What apps built with mono can I currently run in the standard Microsoft.NET runtime enviroment unaltered, or visa-versa ?
What steps have you taken to insure that above statment will continue to be true as future versions of.NET are released from Microsoft ?
IMHO, Mono cannot be taken seriously as a commercial development environment unless these two questions can be answered.
I furthermore believe the mono team owes the development community answers to these questions since countless development man-hours will be wasted on mono based projects if this vision proves to be untrue.
This has been predicted before
on
TiVo Will Die
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but Google have lost their CompSci mind on this one, most likely to placate MBAs who have taken the place over.
I specifically have issues with the following statement from the Google OS Blog:
"However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web."
Yeah. And most OS's in use today were also designed when there were not graphics cards as well. The exception to this is Microsoft, who tightly coupled the OS to a GUI.
Now any decent CompSci grad knows tight coupling is an extremely bad thing, so the decision to pursue an OS tightly coupled to the web (which we all know means Google's version of the web), will be a disaster.
In the flamebait but true category, this is further evidence why scripting languages are not suitable for most application development ... because they are much more brittle than a traditionally compiled application.
True you can site examples of traditionally compiled applications breaking due to missing dependencies, in which (like with this Perl example) the underlying deployment platform is a fault, but this type of problem is much more common with scripting languages (Perl, PHP, Python, etc), and vastly harder to debug and defend against.
"Silly ChiComms never learn, Napalm(TM) sticks to kids!"
How ironic !
A criminal organization lecturing us about obeying the law.
Simpy put the Author of the article has it all wrong. SOAP is a type of Web Service but not all web services use SOAP.
Nothing, but you must need Ritalin(TM) since you did not take the time to read my post to DannyO above, where I made a mea-culpa about this mistake.
But I hope you agree my general point was correct, the centerpiece of MS's legal strategy is to use trickery, etc.
Oops ...
Thanks for the fact check DannyO152. However, as you stated, my general point stands, both cases used dishonest legal practices. Furthermore, courtroom deception is a signature MS legal strategy.
Now those not in the know are thinking "so what the hell does SCO have to do with MS or Novell ?" or even worse
"Those Slashdotters are just biased MS haters".
And the answer to these thoughts my young padawan learner (or MBA) are the following facts:
Which now leads us to the ultimate reason for why I believe these incidents are indeed related and not an accident
a motive !!
Both the SCO lawsuit and the MS-Novell agreement are designed to cast (at least to most tech-unsavy MBA types) a huge legal cloud over Linux specifically, and FOSS in general, of which Microsoft would be the only benefactor.
Case Closed
My mother finally had to break down and get high speed internet and a computer. Since I am my family's tech support, we of course chose a Mac with OS X. She has been able to pick it up without a hitch, and I am not bothered with the quarterly "My computer won't boot" emergency phone calls I get from the rest of my MS windows based family.
:)
Now if I can only get the rest of them to switch
Hey jerky, I personally know Venkat. He is a excellent developer, great author, and a first class guy.
Your post is a waste of valuable bits.
Agile Programming is like a late night infomercial without the "these results are not typical" disclaimer.
Good advice:
First let me be helpful, take some courses to get a professional certification for whatever you wish to do.
Let's look at this from the employer's perspective. Why should I hire you without any proof of you being useful to me ? If you are lucky, you could get an interview, then ace some sort of proficiency test, but in most cases you won't get past the first cut without some objective proof that you may be capable of performing the tasks required of you.
Now the rant:
Why does the IT industry seem to prefer individuals NOT formally trained to those who are ? Would you go to a doctor that did not graduate from med school ? Would you hire a lawyer who did not pass the bar ? How many bridges have been built by self taught civil engineers ? So why should anyone without some sort of formal training or certification expect to work in IT ?
I am surprised Mr. Bell did not mention the latest wave in Software Development, "Meta" Silver Bullets, ie nebulous heuristics which are neatly packaged and given an MBA friendly label. Currently the mother-of-all Meta Silver bullets is "Agile Development" , which has only proven successful for the guys who write books about it and sell seminars on the subject.
Do you mean that it is available at no cost ?
If this is the case, then so is Java's runtime AND development environment.
If not then I assume you mean it is "open-source", which is confusing since:
Secondly, why do I need a Windows version of Mono when as stated in the projects FAQ, Question 1: What Exactly is Mono ?:
The Mono Project is an open development initiative sponsored by Novell that is working to develop an open source, UNIX version of the Microsoft
(See the http://www.mono-project.comabout/index.html page for details)
I second the motion. I have personally dealt with end users and potential customers who believe that ( .Net == Mono) and managers who have chosen .Net for a development solution over Java based on the misconception that Mono is a crossplatform (ie. Unix/Linux) runtime environment for .Net.
Here is the Mono challenge:
.Net or Java ?
.Net is supported by Microsoft on their platforms and app servers, so this would be my best bet for applications targeted soely for Windows.
Why should I use it instead of
To be blunt, I have some severe misgivings about the vision and usefulness of Mono.
Java explicitly supports multiple host operating systems, so this would make it the obvious choice for crossplatform development.
Why then should I use Mono instead of these environments ?
What distinct advantages does Mono have over either of these established and supported platforms ?
It is this inference by the Mono team which is causing false expectations by end users who have the expectation that Mono == .Net due to the quote given above.
And yes, my definition would require future versions of Mono will have a complete feature parity with .Net, since that is what the customers I deal with believe (Since they would like to develop in .Net on Windows, then run these same apps on Linux, and see Mono as the way to achieve this). Do you belive that this expectation is unreasonable ?
As for Java, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Your comment would only apply if Microsoft made a version .NET for other platforms (which they do not), or were somehow supporting the Mono team, which they are not per Mr Icaza. Furthermore, Microsoft's .Net exclusively targets the Windows platform What is the .NET framework?
So let me distill my questions/challenge the light of our previous exchanges, because I believe them to be very important to the development and end user community as a whole:
I believe you misunderstood my post, and the statement I quoted from Mono. I asked if you can interchangebly use .Net assemblies in a Mono environment, and Mono assemblies in .Net environments.
If I read yours correctly, you are talking about running Mono assemblies in Mono enviroments, which is not what is implied by the Mono project vision.
Do you agree ?
- What apps built with mono can I currently run in the standard Microsoft
.NET runtime enviroment unaltered, or visa-versa ?
- What steps have you taken to insure that above statment will continue to be true as future versions of
.NET are released from Microsoft ?
IMHO, Mono cannot be taken seriously as a commercial development environment unless these two questions can be answered.I furthermore believe the mono team owes the development community answers to these questions since countless development man-hours will be wasted on mono based projects if this vision proves to be untrue.
Slate Predicts end of Tivo
Jim should have stayed at TechTV.
MicroSoft now gives you 4 flavors of crap to choose from instead of just one.
'Nuff Said !