Miguel is either making a huge mistake, or he's a genius.
When the whole.NET buzzword bingo started, I spent some time digging around for some information on it, and what I came up with was very impressive. I compared what Microsoft are proposing, with the developments going on in the open source community, and the thing that struck me was the synergy and scale of.NET. If it was coming from any other company apart from Microsoft, then I think we'd all be throwing a party.
But we all know that MS plays dirty. Other posters have given examples already. Which makes me question whether Miguel is being utterly naive in thinking that Microsoft won't screw the Mono project.
The technical side of.NET is appealing, and maybe Mono is what the community needs to get a development environment (by which I mean API, runtime etc) to rival MS. If we get compatibility with.NET as a byproduct of this, then I'd consider it a bonus. If GNOME is ported to Mono, along with GTK, what else could be? Maybe Mozilla, Jabber, Apache and who knows what? If MS intentionally break compatability with Mono, then we'd have two similar architectures with a whole bundle of applications. It may actually help push Linux on the desktop - especially if the modifications MS make are subtle enough to break Mono, but not most applications. Perhaps third party developers would find fixing the problem worthwhile if it means they get a few million more users.
Which leads me to think that maybe there is a hint of genius in Miguel's actions. A paraphrase of a quote describing genius stated that 'A clever person is someone who comes up with an idea that makes you think "I could have thought of that". A genius is someone who comes up with an idea that makes you think "I would never have thought of that!"'
I live and work in the UK, and the company I work for contracts all our major development out to a company in India. As a result, we have a continual stream of Indian developers coming over and working with us, sometimes for a few months, sometimes longer. My experience with working with these people is that they are extremely smart. I've seen them implement web applications that go beyond anything I've seen elsewhere.
Perhaps it's a sign of the current climate in the US, but I don't hear people in the UK complaining about jobs being lost to foreign companies. While I may have concerns about the pay and conditions of my Indian colleagues (I would guess that they are payed less that UK-native developers), I certainly don't begrudge them competing and succeeding in the global IT industry.
I'm going to pass the opportunity to moderate this discussion because I think it's important that people do more than just post messages on Slashdot. This is a BIG issue people! This could have a major negative effect on the web. Don't just sit at your desk and curse the W3C: Do something about it - write to them and politely explain why it's such a bad idea. Remember that swearing, insulting and using g33k language won't help.
This is what I sent them (in case anyone cares):
The Internet was built on open standards - that is one of the main reasons why it has been successful and proprietry networks have all but disappeared.
The patent proposals being put forward are an anathema to the whole idea behind the web. We have already seen the damage done by software patents
and de facto standards: GIF and MP3 are examples of this. Small developers are unable to innovate because of excessive license fees.
I have always had respect for the W3C but this move concerns me greatly. The W3C has pushed for "standards compliance" in web browsers. How will small developers be able to comply with these standards if license fees become a stumbling block? How would Tim Berners-Lee been able to develop the web if something fundamental such as TCP/IP had been patented?
The proposals are fine if you want to see web standards turned into a corporate playground, but for those of us who understood the web to be a method of exchanging rich content in a free environment, it is a sad day.
I would urge the W3C to abandon this course of action and stand up for the smaller developers in the world - people who, like Tim Berners-Lee, could be responsible for the "next big thing".
Sincerly.
Julian Regel
Re:I'm a disappointed GNOME user...
on
KDE 2.2 Tagged
·
· Score: 1
Damnit Miguel?!?! What happened to the enthusiasm and momentum?! Put your marketting hat on!
Just to be pedantic about the semantics of the above comment, it's not marketing that we need, it's development. There are some exciting things happening in the GNOME project, but compared to KDE, the pace of development and the resulting noticable improvements, are not there.
Personally, I'm happy to see one project take a lead as it means that Linux is maturing on the desktop. It's evolution...;-)
Despite what a lot of people are saying about GNOME being separate from Mono, the fact that Miguel is often referred to as the 'leader of the GNOME project', and the intended use of GNOME components in Mono, the project appears to be headed in a new direction. We, as a community are enriched by both KDE and GNOME.
As for KDE, kudos to the developers and a big THANK YOU!!!!!
I'm impressed - to the point of seriously considering the purchase of some software from the Kompany (when I next upgrade my distro - I don't think their products would install on the mess I'm currently running).
I think the Kompany present an interesting business model (make the infrastructure free (the projects), pay for the software that uses the infrastructure (the products)). I'm sure that some free software zealots will throw their arms up and foam at the mouth:-) but there is no one correct license and way to sell products.
The comparison with Ximian is unfortunate in that it will probably cause a few trolls or flames, but it's an apt comparison - both companies are built around Linux software. It'll be interesting to see which of the two companies are around in the next 18 months (I hope it's both).
In essence,.NET is a platform comprised of a Common Language Runtime (CLR) (think of this as being like a JIT-compiler/runtime). On top of this sits the.NET foundation classes. This is essentially the API that is used to write applications. It includes libraries for XML, SOAP, ADO (for connecting to databases) etc. On top of this layer is ASP.NET which is a "next-generation" web scripting layer which can output "webforms" in DHTML. A companion layer, Windows Forms, provides a similar function to ASP.NET but is designed for traditional Windows applications, not the web.
.NET can be written in any ported language - Microsoft are pushing C# and VB.NET. This are compiled into an intermediate language (IL) and run on the CLR. The CLR provides some nice features such as automatic garbage collection, memory management etc which should make.NET apps more resilient than traditional Windows apps.
Web services are applications designed to work using the.NET infrastructure. The only.NET web service currently well known is Hailstorm - a single login mechanism for web sites. It allows a site to use Microsoft's Hailstorm to provide user authentication, provide the ability to "securely" buy online (because Hailstorm has the users credit card details) etc.
Think of how component software has removed the need to rewrite common bits of an application, and apply that to web servers and you'll start to get an idea of how Microsoft are heading with web services.
.NET isn't vapourware, it's just not finished. There's a big difference. There are plenty of developers working with the.NET sdk.
What the OSS/FS community need is a way of building an infrastructure similar to.NET that avoids handing all the keys to Microsoft. One of the problems that a lot of people are having is understanding what.NET actually is - there are too many buzzwords and marketing visions.
In essence,.NET is a platform comprised of a Common Language Runtime (CLR) (think of this as being like a JIT-compiler/runtime). On top of this sits the.NET foundation classes. This is essentially the API that is used to write applications. It includes libraries for XML, SOAP, ADO (for connecting to databases) etc. On top of this layer is ASP.NET which is a "next-generation" web scripting layer which can output "webforms" in DHTML. A companion layer, Windows Forms, provides a similar function to ASP.NET but is designed for traditional Windows applications, not the web.
.NET can be written in any ported language - Microsoft are pushing C# and VB.NET. This are compiled into an intermediate language (IL) and run on the CLR. The CLR provides some nice features such as automatic garbage collection, memory management etc which should make.NET apps more resilient than traditional Windows apps.
Web services are applications designed to work using the.NET infrastructure. The only.NET web service currently well known is Hailstorm - a single login mechanism for web sites. It allows a site to use Microsoft's Hailstorm to provide user authentication, provide the ability to "securely" buy online (because Hailstorm has the users credit card details) etc.
Think of how component software has removed the need to rewrite common bits of an application, and apply that to web servers and you'll start to get an idea of how Microsoft are heading with web services.
So what can the OSS/FS community do as a response?
Although there isn't anything as tightly integrated as.NET, many of the core components have individual counterparts. The value of C# and VB.NET is questionable - the OSS community tend to prefer C, C++, Python, Perl, Java, Scheme... The need for a Common Runtime isn't really necessary if you are dealing with an open platform where the source is available. Although this doesn't provide all the features of the CLR, remember that Unix is inherently more stable than Windows.
ASP.NET will get some stiff competition in the form of PHP. It's not a perfect match, but functionality-wise it should provide the same output. When used with XUL from Mozilla, it should be possible to produce better output for custom web applications than is possible using.NET.
There is no direct equivilent for Windows Forms, but there are plenty of Open Source GUI toolkits (QT and GTK+ being probably the most popular).
The main problem is the Foundation Classes, but again, there are Open Source alternatives: We have SOAP and XML libraries, OSS authentication schemes are available, DB access libraries etc. However, this is probably the area that needs the most work. C# and VB.NET both have full access to the Foundation Classes. The OSS community doesn't have the same standard set of interfaces that all languages can leverage. A base specification of libraries could be written and the features of these libraries made available to all the languages. This will make developing an alternative easier.
Once we recognise what.NET is, and what it is capable of, we can build an _open_ alternative. Microsoft will inevitably use their application base to shape.NET. Expect SQL server and IIS to play a big part of this at the backend, and Internet Explorer on the front end. For this, there are OSS alternatives (MySQL/Postgresql/Apache and Mozilla respectively).
Get the infrastructure in place, and then the web services will follow. O'Reilly's are doing a good point highlighting the LAMP platform - this is something else that could be used as a foundation.
Building an OSS/FS alternative to.NET *is* doing feasible, but it requires someone with a vision, and the ability to sell it.
I'd not heard of Jim Ellis until I read this post, but his creation has become a part of my daily life. For that I want to express my appreciation for Usenet - a truly amazing idea that has proven to be a continual source of information.
RIP Jim
Re:The whole DNS schema is currently broken.
on
IETF vs. ICANN
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the comment. Interesting stuff. If I had moderator points, I'd mark you up.
The whole DNS schema is currently broken.
on
IETF vs. ICANN
·
· Score: 2
I think the issue of whether ICANN control the whole root DNS, or whether there are alternatives is really missing the point.
DNS is designed to make human friendly names out of computer friendly IP addresses. This is all it should do. The name should be informative, not a tool for advertising.
So, slashdot.org and freshmeat.net (to pick two random examples) are not particularly informative, except to promote the concept of a "brand". IMHO, the current DNS system needs to be deprecated and a new hierarchical system developed in it's place. Slashdot would then be something like comp.culture.slashdot and Freshmeat would be something like comp.software.archives.freshmeat. Sound like Usenet? Good, it's supposed to.
Such a system would get around the problems with domain name ownership, domain squatting etc, and only present one problem: How to search for sites. I think Netscape had a technology out a few years ago designed to "replace" URLs as the first point of contact for users (was it called RealNames?). IIRC, this was proprietery so wouldn't be an Internet success, but some form of heavily distributed metadatabase, separated from the DNS system could provide a wrapper for the new DNS name, while the experienced user could navigate the hierarchy to get to their site. As an analogy, consider the difference between a search engine like Google, and a directory like DMOZ.
It's not a particularly well thought out idea, but it could be implemented "in place" (ie. sites could map their names to the new hierarchy while continuing to use their current DNS).
Each generation of consoles have seen a different dominant company. Atari -> Nintendo -> Sega -> Sony -> ? (possibly Microsoft). But this doesn't mean that the other platforms have been a failure. At the end of the 16bit days, the Megadrive/Genesis and SNES sold about the same. The Playstation may have been the dominant platform in the 32/64bit days, but the N64 has not been a failure, and the Saturn managed some excellent games.
As we enter the 128bit era, there are three major players. Unfortunately the Dreamcast has died in it's prime, and Indrema probably won't happen. The Nuon is interesting, but won't be a major gaming platform. The main contenders are Nintendo Gamecube, Microsoft X-Box and Sony Playstation2. Sony are learning that success in one generation doesn't automatically equal success in the next. Microsoft are the big unknown - massive third party support, little in-house experience. Nintendo are established, have probably the strongest library of titles on any platform, and know what they're doing. If they've learnt from the mistakes with the N64 (too difficult to program, limited memory etc), then Gamecube could be a success.
My prediction? Microsoft will gain the mainstream with X-Box. PS2 and GC will get about equal. The real winner? Possibly Sega - a company with the second strongest software library after Nintendo. Once they've made some money as a software developer, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new console from them for the >128bit generation.
The article is written from the perspective of an American: 'What happens if US citizens get the FBI pouncing on them because Bulgaria has made a request?'.
As a European (Brit), I'm more concerned about the US interference in this matter. As the article states, the DOJ is pushing for this and they're not even a member of the Council of Europe. And it's more likely that the US will make demands on other nations, than vice versa - A similar thing happened with Norway(?) over the DeCSS issue. The people who will benefit from this are likely to be US corporations and organisations such as the RIAA and MPAA - why else would the DOJ be pushing it?
Essentially, the US Government is influenced by big business and they in turn are influencing foreign governments. At the moment, I can post the DeCSS code on my website, and put up information about reverse engineering etc. It's legal in the UK. I don't want the American government using their influence to change my countries laws for their benefit.
Perhaps this is the first step in geting something like OpenFirmware running on a PC. My only experience with this sort of thing is with the PROM on SPARC hardware - very powerful and flexible. Having the ability to perform all sorts of queries and tuning before the OS even boots is a great asset.
Even if it got around the legacy 1024 cyliner limit etc that the BIOS imposes, then it's worth having IMHO.
Genuine question (not intended as flamebait or trolling): What is the reasoning for developing Gstreamer when there is something that already does the same thing available?
KDE are using the toolkit independent aRts daemon to provide a similar function. Although aRts was originally intended as an audio framework, it has since been expanded to work with video. Gstreamer does the same thing. I don't know if Gstreamer fixes some technical problems with aRts, but what is the advantage of reinventing the wheel again (apart from the fact that Unix people seem to like that)?
Maybe it's my limited experience with ACLs, but while I can see why ACLs are an attractive feature, I've rarely found a situation where they can be used without making administration complex. Unix file permissions may be simple, but they are also dead easy to manage.
In Solaris, the OS uses standard Unix permissions, with the possibility of optionally using ACLs (I don't know about other Unices). This gives admins the options of using ACLs for a few limited cases - anything more, and it's probably better to setup a special Unix group of something.
Perhaps my problem is that my exposure to ACLs has been primarily with NT and that can be *very* difficult to manage.
It isn't going to happen - not for a long time anyway. Both KDE and GNOME are still developing their infrastructures and investing massive resources into their own respective projects. The thought that one project would abandon their work and merge with the other is extremely unlikely, especially considering the past animosity and considerable egos that some nameless core developers have (I won't say which project - I'm no troll).
I wouldn't expect to see anything significant until KDE 4.0 / GNOME 3.0. Then we should see two mature component models, a large number of applications that make use of it's respective desktops features and things will have probably settled down a bit. At that point, it might be possible to see some sort of bridge developed between the environments at the object level.
One day we might have a desktop that integrates Mozilla XPCOM, KDE Kparts, GNOME Bonobo, OpenOffice UNO (yeah, I know about the port to Bonobo) and possibly even COM/ActiveX via WINE. Who knows, maybe some people will get.NET working with the Linux desktop.
There has to be a better way to manage application installation than each project writing their own installer.
I believe that installation of packages is the job of the operating system. So, under Linux, it'll probably be am RPM, DEB or tar.gz file. Under Solaris and Unixware it'll be the standard package format. I'm not sure about other Unices.
What's needed is a standard interface for installing applications, checking for updates, and where appropriate, downloading new versions. At the lowest level is the package format. On top of that should be an abstraction layer that interfaces with the operating system command. For example, a call to "InstallApp()" would use the "pkgadd" command in Solaris, but "rpm -i" in Red Hat. Other functions could include RemoveApp(), CheckDependency(), LocateUpdate() etc.
Finally, on top of that would be the application installer, which would hopefully be part of the OS (such as SCOadmin, Linuxconf, Admintool, SAM, SMIT etc), or a perhaps a custom installer such as Red Carpet, or the KDE Installer. In this case, the custom installers would essentially be a subset of the main OS-level installer.
Now, someone here will probably respond with the typical "if you want it, write it yourself", but consider the co-ordination necessary for such a project, partly due to technical differences between the various packages, but mainly due to the egos of some developers that insist on reinventing the wheel the "proper" way.
But something needs to be done, because they way things are headed, there will be a plethora of incompatible installers, designed to promote a particular application or project. This will only confuse users and make life more difficult for people migrating to Linux (or Unix).
SCO is now part of Caldera who is a KDE supporter. dot.kde.org had an article this week saying that IBM have ported KDE to AIX. I guess that only leaves Tru64 (never used it so don't know what it uses - CDE?) and IRIX (with it's own 4DWM/Motif combo).
Ho Hum - they'll all merge in the end. Which is a good thing (tm)
I think it's fair to say that for many of us who read Slashdot, and care about our "digital rights", public enemy number one is the MPAA (yup, even more than Microsoft). They're the ones who are pressuring companies to put copy prevention software everywhere. How about trying to get the DOJ involved? Sure, a lot of people who read this don't like government intervention, but they're voted in by the people, for the people, and they did a pretty good job of distracting Microsoft and allowing Linux / Open Source to become a feasible alternative.
I don't know much about US law (IANAL and IANAA (An American), but are they not a cabel, or something?)
Yes, people do look up to Linus - but IMHO he's a better "role model" than some movie or sports personality. He's managed to co-ordinate an industry-changing project. Linus isn't perfect, he admits that himself, and some people do get a bit excited sometimes, but that's hardly his fault. I'm not aware of him having any problems accepting valid criticism.
Also, Linux isn't a democracy - it's a meritocracy. The people who are listened to and respected are those who have earned it - they've made a contribution to the project.
If Linux development was a democracy (as we typically understand the word), we'd have a situation where there are a lot of vocal people, with very little work being done. I'm not a kernel developer, and my knowledge pales into insignificance compared with some of those who work on the kernel. However, I am a keen Linux advocate and Unix user. How would people like me making suggestions such as "I think the kernel should be rewritten to be a microkernel, in an object oriented lanuage like Java"? I can spout buzzwords as well as the next person, but it doesn't mean my voice should carry equal weight to someone like Linus or Alan who really understand what they're talking about.
I say maintain the meritocracy. Big companies such as Red Hat, and organisations like Debian and LUGs help steer the development of Linux by coding, not discussing things in a committee. Better that way, no?
Sadly, this is true. What's worse is that the government / security services can spy on you, and they are not legally bound to *ever* tell you they did it. Furthermore, the whole issue of encryption is made worse by the fact that in court, you would have to prove that you were unable to decrypt some information in your posession (forgotten passwords?).
Some observers think that the RIP Bill contravenes the newly adopted European convention on human rights (which would override the RIP). Let's hope so...
Not wishing to be insulting to Americans, or start a flame war, I'm genuinely interested in knowing what Americans (in general) think of the UN. I've got the perception that they mistrust it and see it as a foreign, interfering body trying to dictate their national interests. Much like some "Euroskeptics" feel in the UK, and most of the world feels about the US. Is this right? How does that contrast with people from other countries?
Slashdot Mirror
Miguel is either making a huge mistake, or he's a genius.
.NET buzzword bingo started, I spent some time digging around for some information on it, and what I came up with was very impressive. I compared what Microsoft are proposing, with the developments going on in the open source community, and the thing that struck me was the synergy and scale of .NET. If it was coming from any other company apart from Microsoft, then I think we'd all be throwing a party.
.NET is appealing, and maybe Mono is what the community needs to get a development environment (by which I mean API, runtime etc) to rival MS. If we get compatibility with .NET as a byproduct of this, then I'd consider it a bonus. If GNOME is ported to Mono, along with GTK, what else could be? Maybe Mozilla, Jabber, Apache and who knows what? If MS intentionally break compatability with Mono, then we'd have two similar architectures with a whole bundle of applications. It may actually help push Linux on the desktop - especially if the modifications MS make are subtle enough to break Mono, but not most applications. Perhaps third party developers would find fixing the problem worthwhile if it means they get a few million more users.
When the whole
But we all know that MS plays dirty. Other posters have given examples already. Which makes me question whether Miguel is being utterly naive in thinking that Microsoft won't screw the Mono project.
The technical side of
Which leads me to think that maybe there is a hint of genius in Miguel's actions. A paraphrase of a quote describing genius stated that 'A clever person is someone who comes up with an idea that makes you think "I could have thought of that". A genius is someone who comes up with an idea that makes you think "I would never have thought of that!"'
Time will tell I guess.
I live and work in the UK, and the company I work for contracts all our major development out to a company in India. As a result, we have a continual stream of Indian developers coming over and working with us, sometimes for a few months, sometimes longer. My experience with working with these people is that they are extremely smart. I've seen them implement web applications that go beyond anything I've seen elsewhere.
Perhaps it's a sign of the current climate in the US, but I don't hear people in the UK complaining about jobs being lost to foreign companies. While I may have concerns about the pay and conditions of my Indian colleagues (I would guess that they are payed less that UK-native developers), I certainly don't begrudge them competing and succeeding in the global IT industry.
Someone moderate the parent post up! This was really insightful. It gives the rest of the world some ammunition.
This is what I sent them (in case anyone cares):
The Internet was built on open standards - that is one of the main reasons why it has been successful and proprietry networks have all but disappeared.
The patent proposals being put forward are an anathema to the whole idea behind the web. We have already seen the damage done by software patents and de facto standards: GIF and MP3 are examples of this. Small developers are unable to innovate because of excessive license fees.
I have always had respect for the W3C but this move concerns me greatly. The W3C has pushed for "standards compliance" in web browsers. How will small developers be able to comply with these standards if license fees become a stumbling block? How would Tim Berners-Lee been able to develop the web if something fundamental such as TCP/IP had been patented?
The proposals are fine if you want to see web standards turned into a corporate playground, but for those of us who understood the web to be a method of exchanging rich content in a free environment, it is a sad day.
I would urge the W3C to abandon this course of action and stand up for the smaller developers in the world - people who, like Tim Berners-Lee, could be responsible for the "next big thing".
Sincerly.
Julian Regel
Just to be pedantic about the semantics of the above comment, it's not marketing that we need, it's development. There are some exciting things happening in the GNOME project, but compared to KDE, the pace of development and the resulting noticable improvements, are not there.
Personally, I'm happy to see one project take a lead as it means that Linux is maturing on the desktop. It's evolution... ;-)
Despite what a lot of people are saying about GNOME being separate from Mono, the fact that Miguel is often referred to as the 'leader of the GNOME project', and the intended use of GNOME components in Mono, the project appears to be headed in a new direction. We, as a community are enriched by both KDE and GNOME.
As for KDE, kudos to the developers and a big THANK YOU!!!!!
I'm impressed - to the point of seriously considering the purchase of some software from the Kompany (when I next upgrade my distro - I don't think their products would install on the mess I'm currently running).
:-) but there is no one correct license and way to sell products.
I think the Kompany present an interesting business model (make the infrastructure free (the projects), pay for the software that uses the infrastructure (the products)). I'm sure that some free software zealots will throw their arms up and foam at the mouth
The comparison with Ximian is unfortunate in that it will probably cause a few trolls or flames, but it's an apt comparison - both companies are built around Linux software. It'll be interesting to see which of the two companies are around in the next 18 months (I hope it's both).
In essence, .NET is a platform comprised of a Common Language Runtime (CLR) (think of this as being like a JIT-compiler/runtime). On top of this sits the .NET foundation classes. This is essentially the API that is used to write applications. It includes libraries for XML, SOAP, ADO (for connecting to databases) etc. On top of this layer is ASP.NET which is a "next-generation" web scripting layer which can output "webforms" in DHTML. A companion layer, Windows Forms, provides a similar function to ASP.NET but is designed for traditional Windows applications, not the web.
.NET apps more resilient than traditional Windows apps.
.NET infrastructure. The only .NET web service currently well known is Hailstorm - a single login mechanism for web sites. It allows a site to use Microsoft's Hailstorm to provide user authentication, provide the ability to "securely" buy online (because Hailstorm has the users credit card details) etc.
.NET can be written in any ported language - Microsoft are pushing C# and VB.NET. This are compiled into an intermediate language (IL) and run on the CLR. The CLR provides some nice features such as automatic garbage collection, memory management etc which should make
Web services are applications designed to work using the
Think of how component software has removed the need to rewrite common bits of an application, and apply that to web servers and you'll start to get an idea of how Microsoft are heading with web services.
.NET isn't vapourware, it's just not finished. There's a big difference. There are plenty of developers working with the .NET sdk.
.NET that avoids handing all the keys to Microsoft. One of the problems that a lot of people are having is understanding what .NET actually is - there are too many buzzwords and marketing visions.
.NET is a platform comprised of a Common Language Runtime (CLR) (think of this as being like a JIT-compiler/runtime). On top of this sits the .NET foundation classes. This is essentially the API that is used to write applications. It includes libraries for XML, SOAP, ADO (for connecting to databases) etc. On top of this layer is ASP.NET which is a "next-generation" web scripting layer which can output "webforms" in DHTML. A companion layer, Windows Forms, provides a similar function to ASP.NET but is designed for traditional Windows applications, not the web.
.NET apps more resilient than traditional Windows apps.
.NET infrastructure. The only .NET web service currently well known is Hailstorm - a single login mechanism for web sites. It allows a site to use Microsoft's Hailstorm to provide user authentication, provide the ability to "securely" buy online (because Hailstorm has the users credit card details) etc.
.NET, many of the core components have individual counterparts. The value of C# and VB.NET is questionable - the OSS community tend to prefer C, C++, Python, Perl, Java, Scheme... The need for a Common Runtime isn't really necessary if you are dealing with an open platform where the source is available. Although this doesn't provide all the features of the CLR, remember that Unix is inherently more stable than Windows.
.NET.
.NET is, and what it is capable of, we can build an _open_ alternative. Microsoft will inevitably use their application base to shape .NET. Expect SQL server and IIS to play a big part of this at the backend, and Internet Explorer on the front end. For this, there are OSS alternatives (MySQL/Postgresql/Apache and Mozilla respectively).
.NET *is* doing feasible, but it requires someone with a vision, and the ability to sell it.
What the OSS/FS community need is a way of building an infrastructure similar to
In essence,
.NET can be written in any ported language - Microsoft are pushing C# and VB.NET. This are compiled into an intermediate language (IL) and run on the CLR. The CLR provides some nice features such as automatic garbage collection, memory management etc which should make
Web services are applications designed to work using the
Think of how component software has removed the need to rewrite common bits of an application, and apply that to web servers and you'll start to get an idea of how Microsoft are heading with web services.
So what can the OSS/FS community do as a response?
Although there isn't anything as tightly integrated as
ASP.NET will get some stiff competition in the form of PHP. It's not a perfect match, but functionality-wise it should provide the same output. When used with XUL from Mozilla, it should be possible to produce better output for custom web applications than is possible using
There is no direct equivilent for Windows Forms, but there are plenty of Open Source GUI toolkits (QT and GTK+ being probably the most popular).
The main problem is the Foundation Classes, but again, there are Open Source alternatives: We have SOAP and XML libraries, OSS authentication schemes are available, DB access libraries etc. However, this is probably the area that needs the most work. C# and VB.NET both have full access to the Foundation Classes. The OSS community doesn't have the same standard set of interfaces that all languages can leverage. A base specification of libraries could be written and the features of these libraries made available to all the languages. This will make developing an alternative easier.
Once we recognise what
Get the infrastructure in place, and then the web services will follow. O'Reilly's are doing a good point highlighting the LAMP platform - this is something else that could be used as a foundation.
Building an OSS/FS alternative to
I'd not heard of Jim Ellis until I read this post, but his creation has become a part of my daily life. For that I want to express my appreciation for Usenet - a truly amazing idea that has proven to be a continual source of information.
RIP Jim
Thanks for the comment. Interesting stuff. If I had moderator points, I'd mark you up.
I think the issue of whether ICANN control the whole root DNS, or whether there are alternatives is really missing the point.
DNS is designed to make human friendly names out of computer friendly IP addresses. This is all it should do. The name should be informative, not a tool for advertising.
So, slashdot.org and freshmeat.net (to pick two random examples) are not particularly informative, except to promote the concept of a "brand". IMHO, the current DNS system needs to be deprecated and a new hierarchical system developed in it's place. Slashdot would then be something like comp.culture.slashdot and Freshmeat would be something like comp.software.archives.freshmeat. Sound like Usenet? Good, it's supposed to.
Such a system would get around the problems with domain name ownership, domain squatting etc, and only present one problem: How to search for sites. I think Netscape had a technology out a few years ago designed to "replace" URLs as the first point of contact for users (was it called RealNames?). IIRC, this was proprietery so wouldn't be an Internet success, but some form of heavily distributed metadatabase, separated from the DNS system could provide a wrapper for the new DNS name, while the experienced user could navigate the hierarchy to get to their site. As an analogy, consider the difference between a search engine like Google, and a directory like DMOZ.
It's not a particularly well thought out idea, but it could be implemented "in place" (ie. sites could map their names to the new hierarchy while continuing to use their current DNS).
Each generation of consoles have seen a different dominant company. Atari -> Nintendo -> Sega -> Sony -> ? (possibly Microsoft). But this doesn't mean that the other platforms have been a failure. At the end of the 16bit days, the Megadrive/Genesis and SNES sold about the same. The Playstation may have been the dominant platform in the 32/64bit days, but the N64 has not been a failure, and the Saturn managed some excellent games.
As we enter the 128bit era, there are three major players. Unfortunately the Dreamcast has died in it's prime, and Indrema probably won't happen. The Nuon is interesting, but won't be a major gaming platform. The main contenders are Nintendo Gamecube, Microsoft X-Box and Sony Playstation2. Sony are learning that success in one generation doesn't automatically equal success in the next. Microsoft are the big unknown - massive third party support, little in-house experience. Nintendo are established, have probably the strongest library of titles on any platform, and know what they're doing. If they've learnt from the mistakes with the N64 (too difficult to program, limited memory etc), then Gamecube could be a success.
My prediction? Microsoft will gain the mainstream with X-Box. PS2 and GC will get about equal. The real winner? Possibly Sega - a company with the second strongest software library after Nintendo. Once they've made some money as a software developer, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new console from them for the >128bit generation.
The article is written from the perspective of an American: 'What happens if US citizens get the FBI pouncing on them because Bulgaria has made a request?'.
As a European (Brit), I'm more concerned about the US interference in this matter. As the article states, the DOJ is pushing for this and they're not even a member of the Council of Europe. And it's more likely that the US will make demands on other nations, than vice versa - A similar thing happened with Norway(?) over the DeCSS issue. The people who will benefit from this are likely to be US corporations and organisations such as the RIAA and MPAA - why else would the DOJ be pushing it?
Essentially, the US Government is influenced by big business and they in turn are influencing foreign governments. At the moment, I can post the DeCSS code on my website, and put up information about reverse engineering etc. It's legal in the UK. I don't want the American government using their influence to change my countries laws for their benefit.
Perhaps this is the first step in geting something like OpenFirmware running on a PC. My only experience with this sort of thing is with the PROM on SPARC hardware - very powerful and flexible. Having the ability to perform all sorts of queries and tuning before the OS even boots is a great asset.
Even if it got around the legacy 1024 cyliner limit etc that the BIOS imposes, then it's worth having IMHO.
Genuine question (not intended as flamebait or trolling): What is the reasoning for developing Gstreamer when there is something that already does the same thing available?
KDE are using the toolkit independent aRts daemon to provide a similar function. Although aRts was originally intended as an audio framework, it has since been expanded to work with video. Gstreamer does the same thing. I don't know if Gstreamer fixes some technical problems with aRts, but what is the advantage of reinventing the wheel again (apart from the fact that Unix people seem to like that)?
Maybe it's my limited experience with ACLs, but while I can see why ACLs are an attractive feature, I've rarely found a situation where they can be used without making administration complex. Unix file permissions may be simple, but they are also dead easy to manage.
In Solaris, the OS uses standard Unix permissions, with the possibility of optionally using ACLs (I don't know about other Unices). This gives admins the options of using ACLs for a few limited cases - anything more, and it's probably better to setup a special Unix group of something.
Perhaps my problem is that my exposure to ACLs has been primarily with NT and that can be *very* difficult to manage.
It isn't going to happen - not for a long time anyway. Both KDE and GNOME are still developing their infrastructures and investing massive resources into their own respective projects. The thought that one project would abandon their work and merge with the other is extremely unlikely, especially considering the past animosity and considerable egos that some nameless core developers have (I won't say which project - I'm no troll).
.NET working with the Linux desktop.
I wouldn't expect to see anything significant until KDE 4.0 / GNOME 3.0. Then we should see two mature component models, a large number of applications that make use of it's respective desktops features and things will have probably settled down a bit. At that point, it might be possible to see some sort of bridge developed between the environments at the object level.
One day we might have a desktop that integrates Mozilla XPCOM, KDE Kparts, GNOME Bonobo, OpenOffice UNO (yeah, I know about the port to Bonobo) and possibly even COM/ActiveX via WINE. Who knows, maybe some people will get
There has to be a better way to manage application installation than each project writing their own installer.
I believe that installation of packages is the job of the operating system. So, under Linux, it'll probably be am RPM, DEB or tar.gz file. Under Solaris and Unixware it'll be the standard package format. I'm not sure about other Unices.
What's needed is a standard interface for installing applications, checking for updates, and where appropriate, downloading new versions. At the lowest level is the package format. On top of that should be an abstraction layer that interfaces with the operating system command. For example, a call to "InstallApp()" would use the "pkgadd" command in Solaris, but "rpm -i" in Red Hat. Other functions could include RemoveApp(), CheckDependency(), LocateUpdate() etc.
Finally, on top of that would be the application installer, which would hopefully be part of the OS (such as SCOadmin, Linuxconf, Admintool, SAM, SMIT etc), or a perhaps a custom installer such as Red Carpet, or the KDE Installer. In this case, the custom installers would essentially be a subset of the main OS-level installer.
Now, someone here will probably respond with the typical "if you want it, write it yourself", but consider the co-ordination necessary for such a project, partly due to technical differences between the various packages, but mainly due to the egos of some developers that insist on reinventing the wheel the "proper" way.
But something needs to be done, because they way things are headed, there will be a plethora of incompatible installers, designed to promote a particular application or project. This will only confuse users and make life more difficult for people migrating to Linux (or Unix).
The actress is Sarah Michele Gellar, the film is Cruel Intentions.
SCO is now part of Caldera who is a KDE supporter. dot.kde.org had an article this week saying that IBM have ported KDE to AIX. I guess that only leaves Tru64 (never used it so don't know what it uses - CDE?) and IRIX (with it's own 4DWM/Motif combo).
Ho Hum - they'll all merge in the end. Which is a good thing (tm)
I think it's fair to say that for many of us who read Slashdot, and care about our "digital rights", public enemy number one is the MPAA (yup, even more than Microsoft). They're the ones who are pressuring companies to put copy prevention software everywhere. How about trying to get the DOJ involved? Sure, a lot of people who read this don't like government intervention, but they're voted in by the people, for the people, and they did a pretty good job of distracting Microsoft and allowing Linux / Open Source to become a feasible alternative.
I don't know much about US law (IANAL and IANAA (An American), but are they not a cabel, or something?)
Throwing away the opportunity to moderate...
Yes, people do look up to Linus - but IMHO he's a better "role model" than some movie or sports personality. He's managed to co-ordinate an industry-changing project. Linus isn't perfect, he admits that himself, and some people do get a bit excited sometimes, but that's hardly his fault. I'm not aware of him having any problems accepting valid criticism.
Also, Linux isn't a democracy - it's a meritocracy. The people who are listened to and respected are those who have earned it - they've made a contribution to the project.
If Linux development was a democracy (as we typically understand the word), we'd have a situation where there are a lot of vocal people, with very little work being done. I'm not a kernel developer, and my knowledge pales into insignificance compared with some of those who work on the kernel. However, I am a keen Linux advocate and Unix user. How would people like me making suggestions such as "I think the kernel should be rewritten to be a microkernel, in an object oriented lanuage like Java"? I can spout buzzwords as well as the next person, but it doesn't mean my voice should carry equal weight to someone like Linus or Alan who really understand what they're talking about.
I say maintain the meritocracy. Big companies such as Red Hat, and organisations like Debian and LUGs help steer the development of Linux by coding, not discussing things in a committee. Better that way, no?
Sadly, this is true. What's worse is that the government / security services can spy on you, and they are not legally bound to *ever* tell you they did it. Furthermore, the whole issue of encryption is made worse by the fact that in court, you would have to prove that you were unable to decrypt some information in your posession (forgotten passwords?).
Some observers think that the RIP Bill contravenes the newly adopted European convention on human rights (which would override the RIP). Let's hope so...
Not wishing to be insulting to Americans, or start a flame war, I'm genuinely interested in knowing what Americans (in general) think of the UN. I've got the perception that they mistrust it and see it as a foreign, interfering body trying to dictate their national interests. Much like some "Euroskeptics" feel in the UK, and most of the world feels about the US. Is this right? How does that contrast with people from other countries?
I'm English (living in the UK), but this description of Canada sounds really appealing - makes me want to move... :-)