When I heard about Mono my knee-jerk was to worry that it was walking into some MS trap. But it was only because I was ignorant, much as the author of this article seems to be.
The people who are working on Mono are not idiots. They have given a lot of thought to this issue and have good answers to just about all of the questions that I have thought of.
http://go-mono.net/faq.html
In particular: Here is a repsonse to the patent issue that answers most of the important questions in a very satisfactory way.
http://go-mono.net/faq.html#patents
The CLI and C# are good technology. Even if MS breaks compatibility and changes things, a runtime that was engineered to support multiple languages is of intrinsic value and that cannot be "taken back" by MS.
So while it pays to be cautious, it also pays to think critically.
For a long time my general MS antipathy kept me from checking out c# and.Net, but then I discovered Mono and realized that MS had created something great that everyone can benefit from.
The existence of Mono really allows free software coders(in Gnu/Linux) to use mainstream(or emerging mainstream) development platform for the first time. Whether the "software as a service" model works out for MS, the.Net framework has a very bright future as a development platform in both the commercial and free-software worlds.
>...but they're just serving MS purpose of polarizing the choices available...
You say that MS wants to polarize the choices in OSes, but they only want a monopole. The only reason MS would attend an event relating to Free software or Open Source is so that they can undermine the event or spread FUD.
I disagree with Tony Stanco on this. Being open-minded about the competition is not a suicide pact. You don't have to give your enemy extra chances to destroy you. Their 11-figure warchest gives them plenty of chances already.
Encrypt all of your email. That will make it harder for the government to selectively prosecute/threaten you when you do something that they do not like such as posting a political opinion in a public forum.
In a number of important ways I think you are right.
RMS does think that proprietary software is a bad thing for society to produce. He has said that many times in speeches which you can download from the GNU site in ogg format by the way.:)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#Sp ee ches
I never heard him say that he wanted to clone other OSes to undermine them, but I am sure he has had a few thoughts of which I am unaware.:)
And RMS did choose UNIX in part because it was popular. He wanted to get a bootstrapping effect I believe. But if you accept that then I would say that free software boot strapping is not needed now. Millions of people use GNU/Linux systems and other free systems as well. A project like this back in the early-mid 1990s would have had a lot more sense if someone wanted to create a free OS for people to use. At that time there were few if any viable free desktop OSes.
But in the end there is a lot of validity to you opinion. One strength of the free software movement is diversity. So let them do their thing and maybe it will change the world again. Who knows?
I must respectfully disagree. If you listen to RMS talk about the origin of GNU, he was not trying to destroy anything. He wanted to create something, namely a free operating system. Now that there are numerous free OSes I do not see how this is similar substance or spirit to GNU. It may be valuable in other ways but I do not think it does much for the free software comunity.
You are right. The authors of this project have the right to work on it. But I and other people also have the right to state our opinions about the project in public forums. Public debate can help people consider other points of view.
In my case I do not think this is a useful project because a free MS compatible OS creates demand for at lot of other proprietary software such as MS Office. Therefore I do not think it is the most productive project for the Open Source/Free software community. But the developers may or may not care much about that and that is their right.
I would prefer to see talented kernel hackers work on Linux, Hurd, or one of the BSDs as opposed to a Windows clone,but the nature of free software is that the coder gets to decide.
Gun with Occasional Music
As She Climbed Across the Table
Girl in Landscape
He has a different take on sci-fi but it works. To give a point of reference some of my favorite sci-fi books include: Asimov (Foundation Trilogy, The Gods Themselves), Joe Haldeman (The Forever War)
Fair enough. Perhaps I jumped to a conclusion in my post and landed a little off-topic.
I thought that you were being critical of the GPL because someone could not write public domain code that uses a GPL'ed library. And I was pointing out the fact that RMS intended the GPL to work that way.
But you are absolutely right. People who write code that links to a GPL or LGPL library should be interested and informed about how they can and cannot license their code.
The GPL is not designed to encourage public domain software because software in the public domain does not require the developers to give back to the community.
GNU libreadline is GPL no LGPL so its authors explicitly do not want you write public domain software using it. If you do not agree with that particular flavor of free software look for a BSD of LGPL library.
Companies should pursue free or open source software models if they make sense for their business or if the owners feel morally bound to do so.
If the only way these folks can make money is by making their customers promise not to help other customers then I'd say they have a pretty weak business model. Redhat and other open source vendors do not rely on such tactics. They provide something nontrivial enough so that you can't publish a simple webpage that makes them irrelevent.
I know another organization who used this idea: Scientology. Actually they ar doing pretty well maybe this is the business model of the future.;)
There is no slippery slope. This is a targeted finding related to actions that Microsoft has taken against Sun. Anyone who wants their program "xyz" included in Windows would have to go through years of expensive legal hassel. You ask where this sort of legal action stops. Well it stops if MS ceases anti-competitive practices.
Do not forget that their J++ was tantamount to sabotage of Java.
Slashdot Mirror
When I heard about Mono my knee-jerk was to worry that it was walking into some MS trap. But it was only because I was ignorant, much as the author of this article seems to be.
The people who are working on Mono are not idiots. They have given a lot of thought to this issue and have good answers to just about all of the questions that I have thought of.
http://go-mono.net/faq.html
In particular:
Here is a repsonse to the patent issue that answers most of the important questions in a very satisfactory way.
http://go-mono.net/faq.html#patents
The CLI and C# are good technology. Even if MS breaks compatibility and changes things, a runtime that was engineered to support multiple languages is of intrinsic value and that cannot be "taken back" by MS.
So while it pays to be cautious, it also pays to think critically.
For a long time my general MS antipathy kept me from checking out c# and .Net, but then I discovered Mono and realized that MS had created something great that everyone can benefit from.
.Net framework has a very bright future as a development platform in both the commercial and free-software worlds.
The existence of Mono really allows free software coders(in Gnu/Linux) to use mainstream(or emerging mainstream) development platform for the first time. Whether the "software as a service" model works out for MS, the
Ahh it is so great to know that intelligent debate is not a lost art on Slashdot.
It's not just a game...it's an entirely new game system.
I am sorry that you had nothing to add except an attack on me personally.
>...but they're just serving MS purpose of polarizing the choices available...
You say that MS wants to polarize the choices in OSes, but they only want a monopole. The only reason MS would attend an event relating to Free software or Open Source is so that they can undermine the event or spread FUD.
I disagree with Tony Stanco on this. Being open-minded about the competition is not a suicide pact. You don't have to give your enemy extra chances to destroy you. Their 11-figure warchest gives them plenty of chances already.
Encrypt all of your email. That will make it harder for the government to selectively prosecute/threaten you when you do something that they do not like such as posting a political opinion in a public forum.
In a number of important ways I think you are right.
:)
p ee ches
:)
RMS does think that proprietary software is a bad thing for society to produce. He has said that many times in speeches which you can download from the GNU site in ogg format by the way.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#S
I never heard him say that he wanted to clone other OSes to undermine them, but I am sure he has had a few thoughts of which I am unaware.
And RMS did choose UNIX in part because it was popular. He wanted to get a bootstrapping effect I believe. But if you accept that then I would say that free software boot strapping is not needed now. Millions of people use GNU/Linux systems and other free systems as well. A project like this back in the early-mid 1990s would have had a lot more sense if someone wanted to create a free OS for people to use. At that time there were few if any viable free desktop OSes.
But in the end there is a lot of validity to you opinion. One strength of the free software movement is diversity. So let them do their thing and maybe it will change the world again. Who knows?
I must respectfully disagree. If you listen to RMS talk about the origin of GNU, he was not trying to destroy anything. He wanted to create something, namely a free operating system. Now that there are numerous free OSes I do not see how this is similar substance or spirit to GNU. It may be valuable in other ways but I do not think it does much for the free software comunity.
You are right. The authors of this project have the right to work on it. But I and other people also have the right to state our opinions about the project in public forums. Public debate can help people consider other points of view.
,but the nature of free software is that the coder gets to decide.
In my case I do not think this is a useful project because a free MS compatible OS creates demand for at lot of other proprietary software such as MS Office. Therefore I do not think it is the most productive project for the Open Source/Free software community. But the developers may or may not care much about that and that is their right.
I would prefer to see talented kernel hackers work on Linux, Hurd, or one of the BSDs as opposed to a Windows clone
Check out the following by Lethem:
Gun with Occasional Music
As She Climbed Across the Table
Girl in Landscape
He has a different take on sci-fi but it works.
To give a point of reference some of my favorite sci-fi books include: Asimov (Foundation Trilogy, The Gods Themselves), Joe Haldeman (The Forever War)
Fair enough. Perhaps I jumped to a conclusion in my post and landed a little off-topic.
I thought that you were being critical of the GPL because someone could not write public domain code that uses a GPL'ed library. And I was pointing out the fact that RMS intended the GPL to work that way.
But you are absolutely right.
People who write code that links to a GPL or LGPL library should be interested and informed about how they can and cannot license their code.
The GPL is not designed to encourage public domain software because software in the public domain does not require the developers to give back to the community.
GNU libreadline is GPL no LGPL so its authors explicitly do not want you write public domain software using it. If you do not agree with that particular flavor of free software look for a BSD of LGPL library.
Companies should pursue free or open source software models if they make sense for their business or if the owners feel morally bound to do so.
;)
If the only way these folks can make money is by making their customers promise not to help other customers then I'd say they have a pretty weak business model. Redhat and other open source vendors do not rely on such tactics. They provide something nontrivial enough so that you can't publish a simple webpage that makes them irrelevent.
I know another organization who used this idea: Scientology. Actually they ar doing pretty well maybe this is the business model of the future.
Jesse
There is no slippery slope. This is a targeted finding related to actions that Microsoft has taken against Sun. Anyone who wants their program "xyz" included in Windows would have to go through years of expensive legal hassel. You ask where this sort of legal action stops. Well it stops if MS ceases anti-competitive practices.
Do not forget that their J++ was tantamount to sabotage of Java.