One last thing: I know it's minor, but why the insistence on importing explicitly?
Because programmers using wild card imports should be taken out the back and shot in the head. I don't want to spend 10 minutes searching for class Foo that is in one of the 20 packages you happened to import with an 'import x.y.z.*'.
However, I agree it doesn't make that much sense in book source code examples.
First, how are you supposed to do development in an environment where it takes almost a minute to restart the application and find out if your latest change is working properly?
You switch to JBoss, that's how:)
(yes I noticed you said it's not an option for you, and you have my sympathies)
If we are allowed to make some generalizations and assume that the original author was your stereotypical overweight geek then we may say it is not a small niche though.
We all agree that the patent office is a joke. You're correct that an undisclosed patents can exist on virtually everything.
But when I'm running a business, I don't expect to be able to *remove* all risk. However, I do my best to *minimize* all my risks.
The fact that a company the size and power of Microsoft would claim they have IP on something I based my own product on would not be me minimizing risk.
There's a way to get rid of this risk, that is what the ECMA policy is about. If IP exists on the spec technology, a license is expected to be put forth which states the conditions under which I am allowed to use the patented technology. As is evident, ECMA has not received a license from MS even though they do claim to have that IP.
There's a level of risk right there. It is a risk I don't have with the competing technologies.
This is really not the case with Mono. You are way oversimplifying it.
1) Microsoft has acknowledged they do have IP over the technology in ECMA specification. This is why they're saying they are working on the license. If you read the ECMA policies on the other post, you notice that if no IP exists, a license is not required.
2) Given #1 and the fact that Microsoft was the company behind developing the technology, it is not unreasonable to assume they do have IP on it. This is not a random case where a patent no one knows about pops out of the blue. Microsoft developed the technology, they have acknowledge they have IP rights over it.
So your assertion that this would apply to all OS/FS software alike is not correct. The likelyhood of this happening to Mono is much higher than for most OS/FS projects out there.
The infringement of the patent will not only put Ximian at risk, it will put anyone who wants to distribute Mono with their software product at risk. The risk here is very real, whether you choose to believe it or not. I would certainly not put my company at risk like this voluntarily.
They have published there design in a free and open standards group.
You do realize that this does not protect you from patent infringement, right? There's no requirement to keep a patent "secret". ECMA acknowledges this and therefore the clause that requires the license term to be put forth. Microsoft says they do have IP on the stuff in the ECMA spec (whether pending or existing I don't know) and that they're "working on the license".
But it's not there yet. Which means Ximian is building software on an unknown license. What if the license never comes about. What if MS just decides to sue those who are infringing on their IP.
Having the spec published by ECMA means nothing in that case. There's a patent, Mono infringes on it, over to the courts we go. Patent ideas are not secret. The ideas are protected by patent. It doesn't matter if they tell the whole world how it works, if they got a patent on it, it is theirs.
And they say they do. And they say they will enforce it. And they have so far refused to give ECMA the license required for anyone implementing the specs to be waived.
Miguel has _never_ said that Mono participants are stealing MS 'intellectual property'
"So we can reuse all the research and development done by Microsoft on
these ideas" -- Miguel de Icaza.
Exactly what 'intellectual property' do you think Mono is stealing?? How about some real examples??
According to Microsoft, theirs. As for real examples, if their lawyers decide its 'real' then you have those very examples.
Ximian has used freely available information to implement Mono and that has nothing to do with MS's 'intellectual property'
Not quite as free as you think. See this piece for example. Both Ballmer in his interview has said MS will protect their IP on.NET and a MS employee admits that the fact they have not disclosed the license ECMA requires for any such IP is 'problematic'.
So I may be smokin crap, but perhaps you have answers to these questions that even a MS employee is unable to get?
Re:So what about Microsoft's IP?
on
KDE Adopting Mono
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually the mono team is incredibly careful to adhere to all legal responsibilites.
Actually, quite incredibly, they are not.
1 POLICY
General Declaration:
The General Assembly of ECMA shall not approve recommendations of Standards
which are
covered by patents when such patents will not be licensed by their owners on
a reasonable
and non-discriminatory basis.
1.1
In case the proposed Standard is covered by issued patents of ECMA members
only:
Members of the General Assembly are asked to state the Company licensing
policy with
respect to these patents.
1.2
In case the proposed Standard is covered by issued patents by non ECMA
members:
A written statement from the patentee is required, according to which he is
prepared to grant
licences on a reasonable, non-discriminatory basis.
The General Assembly and/or the Management shall decide in this case which
steps must be
undertaken in order to obtain such a statement.
Now Microsoft has clearly stated that they own IP to parts of.NET and to the parts standardized by the ECMA specification. However, when asked for the license terms for this IP (as required by ECMA), there has been no answer. As stated by one of MS employees, "they're working on it".
This puts Ximian and Mono or anyone implementing these ECMA specifications under a real legal threat.
However, Microsoft still has not given the license terms to the IP that is required to *implement* that spec. It has been asked for them for close to six months now, and they say they are "working on it".
That puts Mono under a real legal threat. The ECMA does not put in clear terms what the licensing restrictions they allow are.
I would stay away trying to implement anything related to CLR or.NET at the moment. Just to protect yourself legally.
.NET could very well be Microsoft's undoing, if the Linux community gets implementations in place soon enough
The problem with Mono is that it is currently in muddy legal waters. Microsoft has not revealed their licensing terms for the IP required to implement the specifications they put through ECMA. That means the Mono project is implementing a specification without knowing what the license terms will be. Steve Ballmer has recently said in an interview that they will protect their.NET implementation and any theft of their IP -- which according to Miguel is what the Mono participants are doing -- taking advantage of the millions MS poured into research and copying it.
Microsoft could any day drop ton loads of legal shit on Ximian or anyone else using Mono and make them go away. Any day. Mono is not legally safe, not even close.
So.NET will not be MS undoing, Microsoft is aware, and is willing, to use its IP rights to destroy anyone who even thinks they can get a share of MS's revenue stream. It would be foolish to think otherwise.
Why does the grid computing need to meet Web services? Where do we need web services again? I don't see a whole lot of people using them at all. All the hype seems to have died down, there's no migration to web services visible anywhere.
The problem with Mono is that it is currently in muddy legal waters. Microsoft has not revealed their licensing terms for the IP required to implement the specifications they put through ECMA. That means the Mono project is implementing a specification without knowing what the license terms will be. Steve Ballmer has recently said in an interview that they will protect their.NET implementation and any theft of their IP -- which according to Mono website is all what the Mono participants are doing, taking advantage of the millions MS poured into research and copying it. This is according to Icaza himself. Microsoft could any day drop ton loads of legal shit on Ximian and make Mono go away. Any day. Mono is not legally safe, not even close.
Mozilla however, is a genuine development effort that is not attempting to just rip off on other people's work. They have done some real development, they have done some real innovation of their own, and most importantly they are legally protected. There's no way (well there's always a way but the risk is much much smaller) for Microsof t to send their army of lawyers after Mozilla developers and claim they are infringing on MS IP. Mozilla guys are actually doing the work on their own. It is in a whole lot healthier position from the legal point of view.
Therefore I would rather see any OSS framework develop out of Mozilla than Mono. Just to make sure I can safely keep on using it.
Suppose if slashdot lost a couple of days worth of stories. Is the world going to end, NO, people will be, well whatever that feeling is when you loose data, but life will go on.
And of course doing any kind of TPC tests on a system like this is total waste of time, which is why you don't see tpc.org doing it.
On the other hand, considering C# was influenced greatly by Java, it is evident that many of the so called "enhancements" that were introduced in C# really are not enhancements at all, but only additional syntactic sugar that have not been completely thought through, add unnecessary side effects, and hinder maintenance of C# software with unneeded complexity.
Once again, those links were benchmarks in various areas where java is competing with.NET in general (as per my original post) so i posted a link on traffic load handling and scalability with comparisons to J2EE, an IO benchmark, and a computational benchmark (for calculating digits of pi) WITH THE HOTSPOT JIT vs THE C# JIT...did you even read these "micro benchmarks"?
Look, I can just as easily point you to benchmarks that show Java VMs outperforming a NET runtime, or even compiled C apps. The bottom line that I'm trying to get through your thick skull is that these micro benchmarks are meaningless.
Now you on the other hand claimed MS has made some advancements in how bytecodes are optimized at runtime. When I have asked you to explain what these new technical innovations are, you have posted nothing but irrelevant garble.
I almost fell on the floor laughing when I read you wrote that but didn't even acknowledge their results.
Laugh all you want, it is quite clear that you lack the technical understanding to answer my question what new advancements Microsoft has made in the virtual machine technology.
designed for client, web service applications
First of all, no, the CLR bytecodes were not designed specifically for client applications. Second of all, web services operate on the server, which would therefore contradict this claim as well. Again, the only thing you are demonstrating here is your lack of understanding.
I've programmed for straight JVM as well as Java, JSP, servlets, JavaBeans, JSP tags, ASP (& ADO), C#
Look, what languages or components you have programmed is completely irrelevant in the discussion of how the runtime compilers work. I want to know what MS runtime compiler does so different from anyone else that warrants your claim that their compiler is somehow more "advanced" than anyone else in the industry. And you're obviously completely unable to answer this question.
The rest of your rant made so very little sense to me that I will not bother trying to dissect it. I do suggest that you try to learn to articulate a bit clearer.
i actually had a friend show me the.NET technical paper awhile ago, and will post in if I can find it
Let's hope your friend is a bit more knowledgeable than you are.
You do not then have, say, a white paper which explains a new approach or strategies to optimize byte codes at runtime that Microsoft is taking advantage of in their JIT implementation. All you have to show for are bunch of micro benchmarks, which tells us nothing about how the jit compiler themselves work.
Do you realize how stupid that makes you look? The links you post are pretty telling themselves -- you obviously have very little understanding of the whole issue (the fact that you throw in a benchmark comparing web applications implemented in NET and J2EE and claim that is an indication of the advancement Microsoft has made in their JIT compiler itself is laughable -- here's a hint: the database access itself is so time consuming that it hides any differences in JIT speed of the application code).
I therefore conclude that you are, indeed, full of shit, and Microsoft is using the same approach to optimizing bytecodes as is SUN and IBM and pretty much every one else out there. I also suggest that you stop believing everything Microsoft marketing is telling you.
It seems Sourceforge is filled with Open Source Java apps.
Sure
So in fact your claim that "Java is unsuitable for Open Source application development" has no grounds. There's an extensive collection of Open Source applications written in Java.
But wait, you say real Open Source application development can only occur on an open platform using open tools -- that itself rules out the majority of operating systems in use today, and in fact large part of existing Open Source applications.
But wait wait, even that Open Source Linux with all its Open Source tools runs on proprietary hardware -- we never know when those pesky Intel engineers decide to fuck up the op-codes in their processors.
So, according to you, Open Source application development does not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
quack of war? wtf?!
Because programmers using wild card imports should be taken out the back and shot in the head. I don't want to spend 10 minutes searching for class Foo that is in one of the 20 packages you happened to import with an 'import x.y.z.*'.
However, I agree it doesn't make that much sense in book source code examples.
You switch to JBoss, that's how :)
(yes I noticed you said it's not an option for you, and you have my sympathies)
OTOH, Weblogic isn't the only J2EE server around, they have maybe 40% of the market. Plus, JBoss reports about 100,000 downloads per month on average.
If we are allowed to make some generalizations and assume that the original author was your stereotypical overweight geek then we may say it is not a small niche though.
But when I'm running a business, I don't expect to be able to *remove* all risk. However, I do my best to *minimize* all my risks.
The fact that a company the size and power of Microsoft would claim they have IP on something I based my own product on would not be me minimizing risk.
There's a way to get rid of this risk, that is what the ECMA policy is about. If IP exists on the spec technology, a license is expected to be put forth which states the conditions under which I am allowed to use the patented technology. As is evident, ECMA has not received a license from MS even though they do claim to have that IP.
There's a level of risk right there. It is a risk I don't have with the competing technologies.
1) Microsoft has acknowledged they do have IP over the technology in ECMA specification. This is why they're saying they are working on the license. If you read the ECMA policies on the other post, you notice that if no IP exists, a license is not required.
2) Given #1 and the fact that Microsoft was the company behind developing the technology, it is not unreasonable to assume they do have IP on it. This is not a random case where a patent no one knows about pops out of the blue. Microsoft developed the technology, they have acknowledge they have IP rights over it.
So your assertion that this would apply to all OS/FS software alike is not correct. The likelyhood of this happening to Mono is much higher than for most OS/FS projects out there.
The infringement of the patent will not only put Ximian at risk, it will put anyone who wants to distribute Mono with their software product at risk. The risk here is very real, whether you choose to believe it or not. I would certainly not put my company at risk like this voluntarily.
You do realize that this does not protect you from patent infringement, right? There's no requirement to keep a patent "secret". ECMA acknowledges this and therefore the clause that requires the license term to be put forth. Microsoft says they do have IP on the stuff in the ECMA spec (whether pending or existing I don't know) and that they're "working on the license".
But it's not there yet. Which means Ximian is building software on an unknown license. What if the license never comes about. What if MS just decides to sue those who are infringing on their IP.
Having the spec published by ECMA means nothing in that case. There's a patent, Mono infringes on it, over to the courts we go. Patent ideas are not secret. The ideas are protected by patent. It doesn't matter if they tell the whole world how it works, if they got a patent on it, it is theirs.
And they say they do. And they say they will enforce it. And they have so far refused to give ECMA the license required for anyone implementing the specs to be waived.
So there's a very clear legal threat over Mono.
"So we can reuse all the research and development done by Microsoft on these ideas" -- Miguel de Icaza.
Exactly what 'intellectual property' do you think Mono is stealing?? How about some real examples??
According to Microsoft, theirs. As for real examples, if their lawyers decide its 'real' then you have those very examples.
Ximian has used freely available information to implement Mono and that has nothing to do with MS's 'intellectual property'
Not quite as free as you think. See this piece for example. Both Ballmer in his interview has said MS will protect their IP on .NET and a MS employee admits that the fact they have not disclosed the license ECMA requires for any such IP is 'problematic'.
So I may be smokin crap, but perhaps you have answers to these questions that even a MS employee is unable to get?
Actually, quite incredibly, they are not.
Now Microsoft has clearly stated that they own IP to parts ofThis puts Ximian and Mono or anyone implementing these ECMA specifications under a real legal threat.
That puts Mono under a real legal threat. The ECMA does not put in clear terms what the licensing restrictions they allow are.
I would stay away trying to implement anything related to CLR or .NET at the moment. Just to protect yourself legally.
The problem with Mono is that it is currently in muddy legal waters. Microsoft has not revealed their licensing terms for the IP required to implement the specifications they put through ECMA. That means the Mono project is implementing a specification without knowing what the license terms will be. Steve Ballmer has recently said in an interview that they will protect their .NET implementation and any theft of their IP -- which according to Miguel is what the Mono participants are doing -- taking advantage of the millions MS poured into research and copying it.
Microsoft could any day drop ton loads of legal shit on Ximian or anyone else using Mono and make them go away. Any day. Mono is not legally safe, not even close.
So .NET will not be MS undoing, Microsoft is aware, and is willing, to use its IP rights to destroy anyone who even thinks they can get a share of MS's revenue stream. It would be foolish to think otherwise.
at the moment its modded up at +3 Insightful, when it should be at -1, Offtopic
Why does the grid computing need to meet Web services? Where do we need web services again? I don't see a whole lot of people using them at all. All the hype seems to have died down, there's no migration to web services visible anywhere.
Mozilla actually does it right. IE does not. So it doesn't really matter how many years ago IE did it. It doesn't work. Useless.
Mozilla however, is a genuine development effort that is not attempting to just rip off on other people's work. They have done some real development, they have done some real innovation of their own, and most importantly they are legally protected. There's no way (well there's always a way but the risk is much much smaller) for Microsof t to send their army of lawyers after Mozilla developers and claim they are infringing on MS IP. Mozilla guys are actually doing the work on their own. It is in a whole lot healthier position from the legal point of view.
Therefore I would rather see any OSS framework develop out of Mozilla than Mono. Just to make sure I can safely keep on using it.
And of course doing any kind of TPC tests on a system like this is total waste of time, which is why you don't see tpc.org doing it.
Yeah, like trying to use it as a database...
On the other hand, considering C# was influenced greatly by Java, it is evident that many of the so called "enhancements" that were introduced in C# really are not enhancements at all, but only additional syntactic sugar that have not been completely thought through, add unnecessary side effects, and hinder maintenance of C# software with unneeded complexity.
Look, I can just as easily point you to benchmarks that show Java VMs outperforming a NET runtime, or even compiled C apps. The bottom line that I'm trying to get through your thick skull is that these micro benchmarks are meaningless.
Now you on the other hand claimed MS has made some advancements in how bytecodes are optimized at runtime. When I have asked you to explain what these new technical innovations are, you have posted nothing but irrelevant garble.
I almost fell on the floor laughing when I read you wrote that but didn't even acknowledge their results.
Laugh all you want, it is quite clear that you lack the technical understanding to answer my question what new advancements Microsoft has made in the virtual machine technology.
designed for client, web service applications
First of all, no, the CLR bytecodes were not designed specifically for client applications. Second of all, web services operate on the server, which would therefore contradict this claim as well. Again, the only thing you are demonstrating here is your lack of understanding.
I've programmed for straight JVM as well as Java, JSP, servlets, JavaBeans, JSP tags, ASP (& ADO), C#
Look, what languages or components you have programmed is completely irrelevant in the discussion of how the runtime compilers work. I want to know what MS runtime compiler does so different from anyone else that warrants your claim that their compiler is somehow more "advanced" than anyone else in the industry. And you're obviously completely unable to answer this question.
The rest of your rant made so very little sense to me that I will not bother trying to dissect it. I do suggest that you try to learn to articulate a bit clearer.
i actually had a friend show me the .NET technical paper awhile ago, and will post in if I can find it
Let's hope your friend is a bit more knowledgeable than you are.
By the way, my hats never do that.
Uhmm, so? If I transform my old VB app to new VB.NET with my spanking new VS.NET it's not a .NET app?
I don't see how byte codes are relevant here. That's like saying Java bytecodes have some relevance to what constitutes a J2EE application.
HTH
You do not then have, say, a white paper which explains a new approach or strategies to optimize byte codes at runtime that Microsoft is taking advantage of in their JIT implementation. All you have to show for are bunch of micro benchmarks, which tells us nothing about how the jit compiler themselves work.
Do you realize how stupid that makes you look? The links you post are pretty telling themselves -- you obviously have very little understanding of the whole issue (the fact that you throw in a benchmark comparing web applications implemented in NET and J2EE and claim that is an indication of the advancement Microsoft has made in their JIT compiler itself is laughable -- here's a hint: the database access itself is so time consuming that it hides any differences in JIT speed of the application code).
I therefore conclude that you are, indeed, full of shit, and Microsoft is using the same approach to optimizing bytecodes as is SUN and IBM and pretty much every one else out there. I also suggest that you stop believing everything Microsoft marketing is telling you.
Have a nice day.
Sure
So in fact your claim that "Java is unsuitable for Open Source application development" has no grounds. There's an extensive collection of Open Source applications written in Java.
But wait, you say real Open Source application development can only occur on an open platform using open tools -- that itself rules out the majority of operating systems in use today, and in fact large part of existing Open Source applications.
But wait wait, even that Open Source Linux with all its Open Source tools runs on proprietary hardware -- we never know when those pesky Intel engineers decide to fuck up the op-codes in their processors. So, according to you, Open Source application development does not exist.
Excuse me for saying but you're full of shit.