Isnt there a significant difference between what a monopoly does and what a non-monopoly does ?
Isnt that the very core of this - not only actions in themselves, but also who acts ?
You know I could download and fork MONO all by my self - and it wouldnt matter would it ? I could do the same to Mozilla etc... and it wouldnt matter. I could implement some Amiga only javaclasses, and you wouldnt see SUN suing me over that would you ?
But when MS does things like that - IT MATTERS !!!
Being the big boy in the schoolyard means you have to tread a much more cautious path because you have the most power, that is - if you have any sense of morals. Has MS not repeatedly showed us their moral qualities ?
When MS creates special windows-only librarires for a language that is supposed to run cross-platform that IS a sinister act, because they are so fawking big. Shouldnt be that hard to understand really.
I still dont have an answer to my original question though:
Is MONO, or will it eventually be, safeguarded against MS dirty tricks ? If so - is there a place for me to go read about that ?
>>Unless they start obscuring their class libraries or completely redesign ilasm (which they wont as theyve built longhorn on it), then MS seems more than willing to allow people to use + abuse.NET
I am sorry I am simply too incompetent to grok this - I dont know anything about.NET. I am prejudiced enough to think that the phrase MS seems.... is not very reassuring.
Why would MS donate a wonderful new spec to the world ?? I mean I can think of a number of reasons to do that â" but I cant see why MS would do it, what is their incentive?
I remember downloading Mozilla (Seamonkey?) back when it was more a proof of concept than anything else. We were in a cellar working with ughh... ASP and hooraying this new thing, while at the same time worrying if it would ever be able to take on IE on merits.
Now a days 'auto-update' is a prime concern ? And Firefox is not even 1.0 yet ?
> This would only be true under strange scheduling circumstances. On top of that, IE updates don't require an uninstall.
Neither does the Firefox update - I just installed 0.9.3 on top of 0.9.2
There HAS been some occasions where an uninstall was required - but hey, Firefox is 0.9.3 while IE is 6.0
I am however seriously miffed that NONE of the two will cook me breakfast yet, I expect Firefox to get that in the 1.0 release, while I've totally abandoned all faith in IE in all regards
> One sure thing is that the existence of Mono does not add to vendor lock in
Nope - and you probably do not cough more from cough medicine, but will the cough medicine cure your coughing ?
In the same vein, is it or will MONO be a sufficient guarantee against vendor lock-in ? That's really the core of my question, to which I simply cannot find an answer.
BTW. If you write non-portable (in regards to OS) with PHP you write poorly or you have very very specific needs. In regards to Webserver portability, well Apache is also extremely portable and has a slew of useful features that other servers (in particular IIE) do not have. Being 'locked-in' to Apache is no way near vendor-lock-in if you ask me.
They extended Java to the point where you could write Java that would only run with MS JVM - I don't see why they couldn't do that with their own.NET as well, so alas your point does not settle my concerns.
What an odd coincidence - we seem to be using our computers at the same time, imagine that amongst slashdot readers:)
I am a total vendorlockin-phobe, I do "small-time" webapplications - and people come to me with their.ASP thingies, and they're always terribly written (always VBScript btw.) - I do my best to sway my customers into using PHP solutions, because that way I know the code I do for them will work on a variety of OSes and Webservers.
I really shudder at the mere thought of.NET, because no matter how elegant C# may be, and no matter how elegant the layers beneath the language may be - it's right now a surefire path to vendor-lockin.
As long as MONO is still infant (or is it adolescent by now ?).NET is out of the question for me, and I'd rather drive a cab (I kid you not - I am getting the license right now) than do MS/Oracle/RandomBigCorp/etc... only solutions. It simply is no fun to know that I in part work to help a big vendor maintain it's grip on computing.
There is a lot of speculations around about whether MONO is playing a realistic game. Will M$ just strangle MONO if you get too close etc... and I have very little knowledge to help me judge on that.
Is there any where I can read the MONO viewpoint on this issue. I would love to see a FAQ type document addressing these concerns.
For instance: I know not enough to understand the implications of the ECMA thingie, but I can't help thinking that Javascript has an ECMA spec (ECMA script I believe) and that MS does not adhere to it fully.
Does the MONO community believe that MS will stick to the.NET ECMA spec, and if so what makes you believe that ?
So in short: Did the MONO community consider 'worst-case-MS-behaviour' and the following worst-case-scenarios ? And if you did, is there some where I can read about that ?
Yeah - I've seen that film, it's really a moving story. It really shows that it's ok to have out-of-fashion clothes as long as you look good. Not many people think about that but it's true !
CTRL+L is cool too, of course you can accidently hit CTRL+K, bringing you to the search field. If that happens, I go down to the computerstore and buy what is commonly known as a 'mouse' (just say 'a mouse' - they won't laugh at you). I plug in the mouse, and after a reboot I forget what page I wanted to go to.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of folks who has served in the US army are war-criminals. Kerry has the guts apparently to admit it.
Bush is hardly guilty of any operational war-crimes. For that you have to actually serve in combat-zones, which he never did.
> If your fork became very popular
.MONO nor .APE (my fork :) ) would lock me into anything propriety.
Which I'd have to do a VERY good and energetic job to achieve, for MS it's automatic (since they are a monopoly).
Besides neither
Isnt there a significant difference between what a monopoly does and what a non-monopoly does ?
Isnt that the very core of this - not only actions in themselves, but also who acts ?
You know I could download and fork MONO all by my self - and it wouldnt matter would it ? I could do the same to Mozilla etc... and it wouldnt matter. I could implement some Amiga only javaclasses, and you wouldnt see SUN suing me over that would you ?
But when MS does things like that - IT MATTERS !!!
Being the big boy in the schoolyard means you have to tread a much more cautious path because you have the most power, that is - if you have any sense of morals. Has MS not repeatedly showed us their moral qualities ?
When MS creates special windows-only librarires for a language that is supposed to run cross-platform that IS a sinister act, because they are so fawking big. Shouldnt be that hard to understand really.
I still dont have an answer to my original question though:
Is MONO, or will it eventually be, safeguarded against MS dirty tricks ? If so - is there a place for me to go read about that ?
>>Unless they start obscuring their class libraries or completely redesign ilasm (which they wont as theyve built longhorn on it), then MS seems more than willing to allow people to use + abuse .NET
I am sorry I am simply too incompetent to grok this - I dont know anything about .NET. I am prejudiced enough to think that the phrase MS seems.... is not very reassuring.
Why would MS donate a wonderful new spec to the world ?? I mean I can think of a number of reasons to do that â" but I cant see why MS would do it, what is their incentive?
I remember downloading Mozilla (Seamonkey?) back when it was more a proof of concept than anything else. We were in a cellar working with ughh... ASP and hooraying this new thing, while at the same time worrying if it would ever be able to take on IE on merits.
Now a days 'auto-update' is a prime concern ? And Firefox is not even 1.0 yet ?
Me neither too... but that's because I never use it (yup - I am on a Win2K box)
> Bullshit. [microsoft.com]
:)
Wunderbar, and explanation to the link
> This would only be true under strange scheduling circumstances. On top of that, IE updates don't require an uninstall.
Neither does the Firefox update - I just installed 0.9.3 on top of 0.9.2
There HAS been some occasions where an uninstall was required - but hey, Firefox is 0.9.3 while IE is 6.0
I am however seriously miffed that NONE of the two will cook me breakfast yet, I expect Firefox to get that in the 1.0 release, while I've totally abandoned all faith in IE in all regards
Juuuuuust like their operating system and their browser
(Posted from a Win2K box HAH !)
(But using Firefox 0.9.3 Double HAH !!)
Man I need sleep....
Hehehe - IIE, I mean of course IIS :)
BTW - I am not implying that PHP is better or anything than MONO - it's simply not the same thing, I am aware of that. Just using PHP as an example.
> One sure thing is that the existence of Mono does not add to vendor lock in
Nope - and you probably do not cough more from cough medicine, but will the cough medicine cure your coughing ?
In the same vein, is it or will MONO be a sufficient guarantee against vendor lock-in ? That's really the core of my question, to which I simply cannot find an answer.
BTW. If you write non-portable (in regards to OS) with PHP you write poorly or you have very very specific needs. In regards to Webserver portability, well Apache is also extremely portable and has a slew of useful features that other servers (in particular IIE) do not have. Being 'locked-in' to Apache is no way near vendor-lock-in if you ask me.
They extended Java to the point where you could write Java that would only run with MS JVM - I don't see why they couldn't do that with their own .NET as well, so alas your point does not settle my concerns.
What an odd coincidence - we seem to be using our computers at the same time, imagine that amongst slashdot readers :)
.ASP thingies, and they're always terribly written (always VBScript btw.) - I do my best to sway my customers into using PHP solutions, because that way I know the code I do for them will work on a variety of OSes and Webservers.
.NET, because no matter how elegant C# may be, and no matter how elegant the layers beneath the language may be - it's right now a surefire path to vendor-lockin.
.NET is out of the question for me, and I'd rather drive a cab (I kid you not - I am getting the license right now) than do MS/Oracle/RandomBigCorp/etc... only solutions. It simply is no fun to know that I in part work to help a big vendor maintain it's grip on computing.
.NET ECMA spec, and if so what makes you believe that ?
I am a total vendorlockin-phobe, I do "small-time" webapplications - and people come to me with their
I really shudder at the mere thought of
As long as MONO is still infant (or is it adolescent by now ?)
There is a lot of speculations around about whether MONO is playing a realistic game. Will M$ just strangle MONO if you get too close etc... and I have very little knowledge to help me judge on that.
Is there any where I can read the MONO viewpoint on this issue. I would love to see a FAQ type document addressing these concerns.
For instance: I know not enough to understand the implications of the ECMA thingie, but I can't help thinking that Javascript has an ECMA spec (ECMA script I believe) and that MS does not adhere to it fully.
Does the MONO community believe that MS will stick to the
So in short:
Did the MONO community consider 'worst-case-MS-behaviour' and the following worst-case-scenarios ? And if you did, is there some where I can read about that ?
Now there's a stupid anon-cow for ya LOL
Mod that up up up !
Looks impressive - but will .NET apps using WinForms run on .Mono without changing the code ?
Yeah - I've seen that film, it's really a moving story. It really shows that it's ok to have out-of-fashion clothes as long as you look good. Not many people think about that but it's true !
u used more than a minute.
I agree about the backspace issue - that's annoying.
CTRL+L is cool too, of course you can accidently hit CTRL+K, bringing you to the search field. If that happens, I go down to the computerstore and buy what is commonly known as a 'mouse' (just say 'a mouse' - they won't laugh at you). I plug in the mouse, and after a reboot I forget what page I wanted to go to.
Go for cheap brands, that'll reduce your lifespan more while hitting your cash reserve less, that's what I do !
Add it. when u get the 503s or disable your cookies. (add it. only works once in a while)
> Let's be real. Not too many people very often suddenly decide to switch enterprise database systems.
No, but maybe you are doing a product with a diverse customer base, and you'd like their choice of DB to not be an obstacle ?
The very second you go stored procedure, you're choosing your DB platform, is that a good idea ?
The logic has to lie somewhere, so why put it in the one place that will constrain your freedom to choose ?
Most of the time the DB isn't even accessible from the outside. Why worry about being rooted then ?
I'd mod that informative if I could :)
It seems you've forgotten to mention the conflicts on the Balkan.
Other than that - best Europe bashing I've seen ever.
BTW. isn't USA's (minute) history rather bloody too ?
No, the english does that kind of stuff abroad :)