If Slashdot stopped posting its subcuture Anime film content (and yes, they're owned by the RIAA too), I can imagine it would win back a fair number of the more technical Slashdot users who left when they could no longer understand what the posts were about and what they meant to them, even as "nerds". This is just based on my experience with people who laugh mockingly when you mention Slashdot in their general presence.
The kind of idiot who doesn't know how to use the iptables scripting interface? If you have to tailor your firewall for every kind of program, there's probably something wrong with the programs you choose to run.
If you can't trust the authors of your programs to some extent, then data that's dear to you is bound to slip out of your network sooner or later.
It seems it's about time for IBM to demonstrate their loyalty to Free Software and Open Source by open sourcing Rational Rose -- the free software world is severely lacking in UML diagramming tools. So, what do you say IBM?
I hope they join up with the Gtk# team if they want to create Java Gtk+ bindings. Gtk# has a very complete platform for parsing Gtk+'s GLib structure to generate OO bindings which could be easily modified to output Java code.
But then again, Sun probably don't want to acknowledge the existence of C#. It'd be sad if politics got in the way and caused a duplication of effort -- there really isn't any reason why Sun should have to start the project from scratch, it's a very large undertaking.
I'd conjecture that Mono's commercial nature doesn't limit community participation any more than DotGNU's particular political holdups. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Mono is more open. It has many signs of a very healthy open source/free software project which DotGNU lacks, like localised groups of developers (mono-es) and active involvement with multimedia and GUI projects, dozens of active contributors and in this case a healthy followership in the Windows world. I've yet to hear of patches to Mono being rejected because of Ximian.
djbdns is a great codebase, but it's starting to suffer from a few issues. Find a vulnerability and you're not even allowed to release a fixed version! The license is in some ways _more restrictive_ than (dare I say it) Microsoft's Shared Source.
There hasn't been a djbdns release since 12-Feb-2001 and the project is bound to go stale sooner or later if djb does not renew his interest. How many companies or networking professionals out there are going to use DNS software which has a single human point of failure? I won't even go into the "hit by a bus" argument.
Granted, djbdns comes with some cute gimmicks like the "security guarantee". But for all of BIND's problems, the fact that it's open source makes it the better option in this case. Better the devil you know..
I know why this problem is endemic. It's certainly down to more than the "10,000 suckers" you suggest.
I always use the example of my father, who is your archetypical pre-UNIX geek. He did all the PDP-11 stuff, worked with the VAXes and hacked machine code in ways that I don't yet understand -- an intensely intelligent man. Yet, every few months when I go to visit him, we get to talking about the internet and the first thing he does is talk about what he's bought online. For him, paying spammers is part and parcel of buying online -- he's paid spammers for search engine placings for his personal site, silly trinkets like water pumps and gardening tools and books.
To people who aren't part of the current 'geek' cognoscenti, spam is just another form of valid advertising, like the leaflets they get in the post and the billboards they walk past on their way to work. This isn't a specific group of people -- you can't "find them and cut them off" -- you need to target the problem at its source.
Rubbish. I've decided to give up modding of this thread to make this reply. A (-1, Overrated) wouldn't do this post justice. What you're saying is pure misinformation.
You think that some unspoken law gives you the right to ignore the contract you made with the DVD distributor when you purchased it? Fair trade applies to firms, not to individuals. If you've agreed to buy that DVD, you've almost certainly done so on their terms, which state that you're only allowed to watch it in your region. It's a contract, and you have to follow it down to the word.
If you're having difficulty understanding this, think of software licensing. The GPL says you have to release the sources of your program if you link to a GPL'd binary -- there's no law that states it, but it's part of a legally binding contract. Similarly, Microsoft licenses that say you're not allowed to release benchmarks of their products, no matter how ludicrous, are legally binding.
Like it or not, disabling RPC has *everything* to do with breaking the law, until you manage to change the law or the contract you entered.
This is just another approach that Microsoft is taking to lobby against government adoption of Linux. Think about it: if the government isn't allowed to hack on Linux's GPL'd source code, then all of the advantages of free software are instantly nullified.
Many will argue that common sense dictates that the government should only write BSD'd code, but this will inevitably lead to the end of projects like the NSA's selinux. This is one case where even those who don't agree with the GPL ought to stand up and fight for it.
Qmail is indeed, fuck head, open source. It is not however free for you to fuck with
What the hell?
You can find out more about Open Source here. Note in particular the parts about modification and redistribution. I don't know what you think open source means but you sound confused.
When you can code as well as DJB and have proven it by implementing a full featured internet application (ftp,smtp,http take your pick)
Does a two year stint at the ISC maintaining the BIND 8 resolver and tree propagation code count? Moreover, I'd like to think that there are those who are perhaps younger and smarter than me who might be able to "fuck with" and actually do something new with the given software. That's what open source is all about.
I only reply to this trash because someone who is following this thread might be mislead by your stupid pro-qmail arguments.
he grants the right to distribute qmail source code
Open Source has little to do with the right to distribute source code, and everything to do with the freedoms associated with the use of that code. Microsoft's Shared Source scheme, depraved as it is, allows the redistribution of modified source code by academic bodies. Bernstein does not grant this right to _anybody_.
P.S. I'd avoid postfix, I found a trojoned copy from an ftp site the other day...
If you looked hard enough, you could probably find trojaned copies of pretty much every piece of shareware, freeware, Free Software, and every service pack out there.
Put that in your crackpipe and smoke it, qmail troll.
Sure, the license may be wonderful. It may defend our rights in new and wonderful ways. It may cure cancer or feed the hungry -- but that doesn't make it Open Source.
The fact is, the licensing of qmail makes it a legal liability to distribute, and is avoided by groups like Debian and RedHat. I have no hate for qmail but let's get our terminology right.
Anyone notice how the author spends the bulk of the article talking about a mail setup using the prorpietary qmail MTA (which has a look-but-don't-touch license that's in many ways more restrictive than Microsoft's Shared Source) and then goes ahead and praises it as being Open Source in the last paragraph?
It's funny the LinuxJournal editors didn't pick up on this (the article has already been published in print). I mean, there's nothing wrong with using proprietary software where it's the best option, but calling it Open Source is a bit unfair to both the original author of the software (Dan Bernstein), and the developers of actual Open Source MTAs like postfix, exim and sendmail.
A 10 mbit 802.11a can cost as much as a gigabit NIC, which isn't too favourable if you're not going to do much roaming. The fact that you have to buy several Wi-Fi cards to get a wireless network together makes the proposition daunting for homes and small businesses. It doesn't have to be fast (or even secure, that's what ipsec is for), but for the technology to become truly ubiquitous, it needs to be priced at commodity levels, say around £10 to £15.
Personally I'm hedging my bets on systems that offload most of the processing to the host CPU like the stuff Microsoft is working on. It allows not only for cheaper hardware, but also gives more flexibility and upgradability (care to upgrade your Wifi setup to 100mbit with a software update?) The only thing that could potentially go wrong with this technology is if Microsoft tries to abuse its position and fails to release open specs for the hardware or releases proprietary (or no) drivers for non-Windows operating systems. However, given their commitment to FreeBSD it's quite possible that they'll go ahead and release some BSD-licensed reference drivers for FreeBSD which can be ported to other architectures.
Re:Giving away StarOffice != giving away Windows
on
Sun To Sell Linux PCs
·
· Score: 2
Let's all move Scott McCollum into our collective killfiles and move on, shall we?
Are you so closed minded that you're willing to rule out anything that one man will ever write based on his track record, and on one article in particular?
People change, their writing styles change and their attitudes change. I know many hard-liner Linux enthusiasts who used to wax lyrical about the latest Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer releases just a few years ago. Does that make them lesser people? Are they worthy for my 'killfile'? Must I try to ignore everything they say?
The truth is, sometimes an author needs to target different audiences. The best thing he can hope to do is to stir up debate and to initiate discussion on a controvercial topic. If you can't get over this and keep up your childish idea of a journalist 'killfile', I fear you will rapidly find yourself isolated from the world around you. First off, try to learn how to handle different styles of argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
I'm a Linux user, and I wouldn't consider myself a cheapskate. However, while I spend a considerable fraction of my annual income on new computers, hardware and geek toys, the total amount I spend on stand-alone software is £0.00.
This isn't because I'm 'cheap'. Nor is it the case that I pirate software instead of buying it. The fact is, I don't need to buy software. Some packages, like virus scanners and Windows performance enhancers are obsolete on Linux anyway, while other programs like Microsoft Word have sufficiently powerful and free couterparts (I use TeX myself, but others say great things about OpenOffice).
At the end of the day, the only other killer app for my computer is Web browsing and e-mail, with which Mozilla and Evolution cope gracefully.
If other Linux users have a similar computing environment to mine, then I would go so far as to say that porting proprietary software to Linux, whether full-featured or cut-down, is redundant. This may not be what the new generation of younger (and often naive) Linux 'advocates' want to hear, but the truth is that Linux is doing just fine without proprietary consumer software. If you are trying to convince the software firms that there could be a flourishing market for their tools on Linux, you are probably not telling them the entire truth.
Linking is done at runtime. That means that when a.NET program is distributed, it is not linked but only states which functions should be called in what is practically cleartext. I'm sure you're familiar enough with the CLR to be aware of this. The GPL says that you can link for your own personal use as long as you don't redistribute the _linked_ form. If I were wrong, then writing non-free documentation about GPL'd APIs as O'Reilley has done would also be illegal, which is really a bit silly.
The GPL FAQ also states that pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. Even if someone happens to argue the absurd case that linking for your own personal use without redistribution is now somehow against the GPL (which is what I think you were trying to say), facilities like.NET remoting can be used to prove that.NET programs do not link and that an entire Qt# session can be run through a TCP/IP network.
Qt# is an excellent workaround for Trolltech's licensing scheme. There is really no way they could demand a licensing fee from a proprietary Qt# user. Distributing proprietary Qt# applications without a Trolltech license is compliant to both the word and the spirit (well, kinda) of the GPL.
Qt# will not hinder proprietary apps, but you'll still have to license Qt from Trolltech
IANAL, but I'm pretty familiar with the LGPL and GPL and its technical stipulations. As.NET and thus Mono do linking at runtime, Trolltech licensing for Qt# should be unnecessary even for proprietary Qt# applications. Though this situation hasn't been widely recognised yet, I think it'll provide an argubly positive influx of proprietary Qt# applications, particularly on embedded systems like the Linux-based Sharp Zaurus.
Phonic is a cross-platform Vorbis player written for the GNOME desktop in C#. It was developed with and runs completely within the Mono.NET runtime environment. There was a Slashdot article mentioning it a few months back.
Has anyone noticed that there's no installerless.zip release of 1.2alpha for Windows on the releases page? I will use the.exe for now but being able to unzip testing versions in a self-contained directory (as was the case with previous releases) is rather handy.
The release notes even say "In this release the feature does not work in installer-builds you need to get a.zip distribution", yet there is none. Perhaps it's just an oversight.
I know who are using free software, FreeBSD, and GNU/Linux have any, even remote, desire for.net, or a free "chase the ever moving Microsoft target
I'm a firm believer that anyone who took the bytecode compile-once-run-anywhere concept, took a look at Java and then pumped millions of dollars into improving on it would have come up with something akin to.NET. I only run Free Software (Debian GNU/Linux, main) so the fact that it comes from Microsoft is just a detail to me. Take away the added bonus of compatibility with Microsoft's.NET implementation and you still have a next-generation bytecode platform. It makes a very fair attempt at supporting multiple languages (wheras any attempt to do so with the Java bytecode is a cludge). At the end of the day, C# and.NET far exceed everything I could ever wish for from a Free Software VM platform. Remember that Linux and open source in general have taken many ideas from non-free software from the behemoths of their days, by imitating the best ideas from commercial software (think GNU/UNIX).
C#'s popularity "in business" and "enthusiast circles alike"
This may have come accross as 'marketdroidish' but the point I'm trying to make is that there are over 100 Mono developers with CVS access, and many more who contribute code through the mailing lists. Mono has been an enabling factor for many MSCE types to start dabbling with Mono and thus Linux. The internal structure of the Mono project is an excellent example of how enthusiasts and companies with commercial interests can work together to hack some really cool code.
At the end of the day, Mono hackers hack Mono because they love the technology..NET really grows on you -- please don't try to tear it apart without at least giving Mono a go. You may be pleasantly surprised.
The Mono project has made great strides towards producing a free (GPL and BSD licensed) implementation of the.NET framework that's poised to replace the proprietary Sun/IBM Java installations, which represent one of the final major pieces of non-free software routinely distributed with GNU/Linux.
As Gtk# continues to mature, it looks like the Mono project will soon be able to provide a powerful cross-platform Java-like envoronment complete with a modern object-oriented language, C#, that has proved so popular in business and enthusiast circles alike, without any of the vendor tie-in associated with Java.
"Advances in optical-fibre making at the Australian Photonics research centre could bring communications at the speed of light into Australian homes and businesses in the next few years."
50 years after Einstein, and people still don't realise that the electrons in a piece of copper wire travel at the speed of light? In fact, as light in fibre optic cabling bounces off the insides of the plastic tubing, it takes a less direct route and thus technically has a _higher_ latency than copper wire.
Slashdot Mirror
That should be MPAA, though I'm sure they're owned by the RIAA _too_. This applies to all but the most obscure Anime distributors.
If Slashdot stopped posting its subcuture Anime film content (and yes, they're owned by the RIAA too), I can imagine it would win back a fair number of the more technical Slashdot users who left when they could no longer understand what the posts were about and what they meant to them, even as "nerds". This is just based on my experience with people who laugh mockingly when you mention Slashdot in their general presence.
The kind of idiot who doesn't know how to use the iptables scripting interface? If you have to tailor your firewall for every kind of program, there's probably something wrong with the programs you choose to run.
If you can't trust the authors of your programs to some extent, then data that's dear to you is bound to slip out of your network sooner or later.
It seems it's about time for IBM to demonstrate their loyalty to Free Software and Open Source by open sourcing Rational Rose -- the free software world is severely lacking in UML diagramming tools. So, what do you say IBM?
I hope they join up with the Gtk# team if they want to create Java Gtk+ bindings. Gtk# has a very complete platform for parsing Gtk+'s GLib structure to generate OO bindings which could be easily modified to output Java code.
But then again, Sun probably don't want to acknowledge the existence of C#. It'd be sad if politics got in the way and caused a duplication of effort -- there really isn't any reason why Sun should have to start the project from scratch, it's a very large undertaking.
I'd conjecture that Mono's commercial nature doesn't limit community participation any more than DotGNU's particular political holdups. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Mono is more open. It has many signs of a very healthy open source/free software project which DotGNU lacks, like localised groups of developers (mono-es) and active involvement with multimedia and GUI projects, dozens of active contributors and in this case a healthy followership in the Windows world. I've yet to hear of patches to Mono being rejected because of Ximian.
djbdns is a great codebase, but it's starting to suffer from a few issues. Find a vulnerability and you're not even allowed to release a fixed version! The license is in some ways _more restrictive_ than (dare I say it) Microsoft's Shared Source.
There hasn't been a djbdns release since 12-Feb-2001 and the project is bound to go stale sooner or later if djb does not renew his interest. How many companies or networking professionals out there are going to use DNS software which has a single human point of failure? I won't even go into the "hit by a bus" argument.
Granted, djbdns comes with some cute gimmicks like the "security guarantee". But for all of BIND's problems, the fact that it's open source makes it the better option in this case. Better the devil you know..
I know why this problem is endemic. It's certainly down to more than the "10,000 suckers" you suggest.
I always use the example of my father, who is your archetypical pre-UNIX geek. He did all the PDP-11 stuff, worked with the VAXes and hacked machine code in ways that I don't yet understand -- an intensely intelligent man. Yet, every few months when I go to visit him, we get to talking about the internet and the first thing he does is talk about what he's bought online. For him, paying spammers is part and parcel of buying online -- he's paid spammers for search engine placings for his personal site, silly trinkets like water pumps and gardening tools and books.
To people who aren't part of the current 'geek' cognoscenti, spam is just another form of valid advertising, like the leaflets they get in the post and the billboards they walk past on their way to work. This isn't a specific group of people -- you can't "find them and cut them off" -- you need to target the problem at its source.
Rubbish. I've decided to give up modding of this thread to make this reply. A (-1, Overrated) wouldn't do this post justice. What you're saying is pure misinformation.
You think that some unspoken law gives you the right to ignore the contract you made with the DVD distributor when you purchased it? Fair trade applies to firms, not to individuals. If you've agreed to buy that DVD, you've almost certainly done so on their terms, which state that you're only allowed to watch it in your region. It's a contract, and you have to follow it down to the word.
If you're having difficulty understanding this, think of software licensing. The GPL says you have to release the sources of your program if you link to a GPL'd binary -- there's no law that states it, but it's part of a legally binding contract. Similarly, Microsoft licenses that say you're not allowed to release benchmarks of their products, no matter how ludicrous, are legally binding.
Like it or not, disabling RPC has *everything* to do with breaking the law, until you manage to change the law or the contract you entered.
This is just another approach that Microsoft is taking to lobby against government adoption of Linux. Think about it: if the government isn't allowed to hack on Linux's GPL'd source code, then all of the advantages of free software are instantly nullified.
Many will argue that common sense dictates that the government should only write BSD'd code, but this will inevitably lead to the end of projects like the NSA's selinux. This is one case where even those who don't agree with the GPL ought to stand up and fight for it.
Qmail is indeed, fuck head, open source. It is not however free for you to fuck with
What the hell?
You can find out more about Open Source here. Note in particular the parts about modification and redistribution. I don't know what you think open source means but you sound confused.
When you can code as well as DJB and have proven it by implementing a full featured internet application (ftp,smtp,http take your pick)
Does a two year stint at the ISC maintaining the BIND 8 resolver and tree propagation code count? Moreover, I'd like to think that there are those who are perhaps younger and smarter than me who might be able to "fuck with" and actually do something new with the given software. That's what open source is all about.
I only reply to this trash because someone who is following this thread might be mislead by your stupid pro-qmail arguments.
he grants the right to distribute qmail source code
Open Source has little to do with the right to distribute source code, and everything to do with the freedoms associated with the use of that code. Microsoft's Shared Source scheme, depraved as it is, allows the redistribution of modified source code by academic bodies. Bernstein does not grant this right to _anybody_.
P.S. I'd avoid postfix, I found a trojoned copy from an ftp site the other day...
If you looked hard enough, you could probably find trojaned copies of pretty much every piece of shareware, freeware, Free Software, and every service pack out there.
Put that in your crackpipe and smoke it, qmail troll.
Sure, the license may be wonderful. It may defend our rights in new and wonderful ways. It may cure cancer or feed the hungry -- but that doesn't make it Open Source.
The fact is, the licensing of qmail makes it a legal liability to distribute, and is avoided by groups like Debian and RedHat. I have no hate for qmail but let's get our terminology right.
Anyone notice how the author spends the bulk of the article talking about a mail setup using the prorpietary qmail MTA (which has a look-but-don't-touch license that's in many ways more restrictive than Microsoft's Shared Source) and then goes ahead and praises it as being Open Source in the last paragraph?
It's funny the LinuxJournal editors didn't pick up on this (the article has already been published in print). I mean, there's nothing wrong with using proprietary software where it's the best option, but calling it Open Source is a bit unfair to both the original author of the software (Dan Bernstein), and the developers of actual Open Source MTAs like postfix, exim and sendmail.
A 10 mbit 802.11a can cost as much as a gigabit NIC, which isn't too favourable if you're not going to do much roaming. The fact that you have to buy several Wi-Fi cards to get a wireless network together makes the proposition daunting for homes and small businesses. It doesn't have to be fast (or even secure, that's what ipsec is for), but for the technology to become truly ubiquitous, it needs to be priced at commodity levels, say around £10 to £15.
Personally I'm hedging my bets on systems that offload most of the processing to the host CPU like the stuff Microsoft is working on. It allows not only for cheaper hardware, but also gives more flexibility and upgradability (care to upgrade your Wifi setup to 100mbit with a software update?) The only thing that could potentially go wrong with this technology is if Microsoft tries to abuse its position and fails to release open specs for the hardware or releases proprietary (or no) drivers for non-Windows operating systems. However, given their commitment to FreeBSD it's quite possible that they'll go ahead and release some BSD-licensed reference drivers for FreeBSD which can be ported to other architectures.
Let's all move Scott McCollum into our collective killfiles and move on, shall we?
Are you so closed minded that you're willing to rule out anything that one man will ever write based on his track record, and on one article in particular?
People change, their writing styles change and their attitudes change. I know many hard-liner Linux enthusiasts who used to wax lyrical about the latest Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer releases just a few years ago. Does that make them lesser people? Are they worthy for my 'killfile'? Must I try to ignore everything they say?
The truth is, sometimes an author needs to target different audiences. The best thing he can hope to do is to stir up debate and to initiate discussion on a controvercial topic. If you can't get over this and keep up your childish idea of a journalist 'killfile', I fear you will rapidly find yourself isolated from the world around you. First off, try to learn how to handle different styles of argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
I'm a Linux user, and I wouldn't consider myself a cheapskate. However, while I spend a considerable fraction of my annual income on new computers, hardware and geek toys, the total amount I spend on stand-alone software is £0.00.
This isn't because I'm 'cheap'. Nor is it the case that I pirate software instead of buying it. The fact is, I don't need to buy software. Some packages, like virus scanners and Windows performance enhancers are obsolete on Linux anyway, while other programs like Microsoft Word have sufficiently powerful and free couterparts (I use TeX myself, but others say great things about OpenOffice).
At the end of the day, the only other killer app for my computer is Web browsing and e-mail, with which Mozilla and Evolution cope gracefully.
If other Linux users have a similar computing environment to mine, then I would go so far as to say that porting proprietary software to Linux, whether full-featured or cut-down, is redundant. This may not be what the new generation of younger (and often naive) Linux 'advocates' want to hear, but the truth is that Linux is doing just fine without proprietary consumer software. If you are trying to convince the software firms that there could be a flourishing market for their tools on Linux, you are probably not telling them the entire truth.
Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough :-)
.NET program is distributed, it is not linked but only states which functions should be called in what is practically cleartext. I'm sure you're familiar enough with the CLR to be aware of this. The GPL says that you can link for your own personal use as long as you don't redistribute the _linked_ form. If I were wrong, then writing non-free documentation about GPL'd APIs as O'Reilley has done would also be illegal, which is really a bit silly.
.NET remoting can be used to prove that .NET programs do not link and that an entire Qt# session can be run through a TCP/IP network.
Linking is done at runtime. That means that when a
The GPL FAQ also states that pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. Even if someone happens to argue the absurd case that linking for your own personal use without redistribution is now somehow against the GPL (which is what I think you were trying to say), facilities like
Qt# is an excellent workaround for Trolltech's licensing scheme. There is really no way they could demand a licensing fee from a proprietary Qt# user. Distributing proprietary Qt# applications without a Trolltech license is compliant to both the word and the spirit (well, kinda) of the GPL.
IANAL, but I'm pretty familiar with the LGPL and GPL and its technical stipulations. As .NET and thus Mono do linking at runtime, Trolltech licensing for Qt# should be unnecessary even for proprietary Qt# applications. Though this situation hasn't been widely recognised yet, I think it'll provide an argubly positive influx of proprietary Qt# applications, particularly on embedded systems like the Linux-based Sharp Zaurus.
Phonic is a cross-platform Vorbis player written for the GNOME desktop in C#. It was developed with and runs completely within the Mono .NET runtime environment. There was a Slashdot article mentioning it a few months back.
Has anyone noticed that there's no installerless .zip release of 1.2alpha for Windows on the releases page? I will use the .exe for now but being able to unzip testing versions in a self-contained directory (as was the case with previous releases) is rather handy.
.zip distribution", yet there is none. Perhaps it's just an oversight.
The release notes even say "In this release the feature does not work in installer-builds you need to get a
What browser are you using? The characters are normal (not mirrored) in MSIE 6 and Mozilla 1.1.
I'm a firm believer that anyone who took the bytecode compile-once-run-anywhere concept, took a look at Java and then pumped millions of dollars into improving on it would have come up with something akin to
C#'s popularity "in business" and "enthusiast circles alike"
This may have come accross as 'marketdroidish' but the point I'm trying to make is that there are over 100 Mono developers with CVS access, and many more who contribute code through the mailing lists. Mono has been an enabling factor for many MSCE types to start dabbling with Mono and thus Linux. The internal structure of the Mono project is an excellent example of how enthusiasts and companies with commercial interests can work together to hack some really cool code.
At the end of the day, Mono hackers hack Mono because they love the technology.
As Gtk# continues to mature, it looks like the Mono project will soon be able to provide a powerful cross-platform Java-like envoronment complete with a modern object-oriented language, C#, that has proved so popular in business and enthusiast circles alike, without any of the vendor tie-in associated with Java.
50 years after Einstein, and people still don't realise that the electrons in a piece of copper wire travel at the speed of light? In fact, as light in fibre optic cabling bounces off the insides of the plastic tubing, it takes a less direct route and thus technically has a _higher_ latency than copper wire.