gag
|
| Author | Content | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| azerthoth Aug 30, 2007 2:57 PM EST |
Narcissism and paranoia, somewhere therein shall there be a blogger. | ||||||||||
| jezuch Aug 30, 2007 3:10 PM EST |
Hey! My blog is called "kronika paranoika"! :> | ||||||||||
| hchaudh1 Aug 31, 2007 5:28 AM EST |
A clever tagline and apathy, somewhere therein shall be a commentator to a blog post, or the people hit directly by the narcissist and paranoid blog. De Icaza and his cohorts are pretty much the worst thing to ever happen to Linux. "Ghar ka bhedi Lanka dhaye"...look it up. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 6:31 AM EST |
>De Icaza and his cohorts are pretty much the worst thing to ever happen to Linux. Sounds like you don't do your homework. Miguel has contributed mightily to Linux and free software. If you bother to look it up, you will discover that he was the original creator of gnumeric and a maintainer for Midnight Commander. Check out the Linux CREDITS file and you will still find his name. As a founder of GNOME, he had the blessing of RMS himself. As to mono, you are allowed not to like that. Lots of people don't. At the same time, lots of those same people scratch their heads and make stupid noises when confronted with the fact that the world is not rushing to Linux desktops. Miguel has been working for years on a project to make some things that he thinks are cool -- and are used by lots of programmers -- available on Linux. These things might even encourage more cool stuff to migrate over to Linux. They might not, but it still beats scratching your head and making stupid noises. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 6:44 AM EST |
> De Icaza and his cohorts are pretty much the worst thing to ever happen to Linux. The advantage of free software is that it's open for anyone to make improvements. The disadvantage is that it's open for anyone to make "improvements". :( There will always be people who disagree about what is and is not an improvement. While I agree that Mono and its ilk are abominations best avoided (and are the primary reason I've completely given up on Gnome), there's room both parties in FOSS. |
||||||||||
| hchaudh1 Aug 31, 2007 7:03 AM EST |
@dino Thanks for the enlightening discourse. I just realized that I have been wrong all along. Even about MS. Coz, had it not been for MS, we might not have had even gotten started with cheap PC's for everyone, and this whole information age thingy might not even had gotten started. All Hail MicroSoft. So, I apologize for my ignorance. But seriously, while I sit here scratching my head and making stupid noises, I can't help but think that no matter what anyone does, it all comes down to intent. I believe yes De Icaza did make contributions, but the intent was not benign. How come he's the one defending OOXML...and please don't tell me that OOXML is ok. Coz its not. Now while you can disagree and make excuses all you want, how do you apologize for: [HYPERLINK@www.linuxjournal.com] or for that matter take any of the postings from [HYPERLINK@boycottnovell.com] ... with another witty comeback I suppose. See, I can do "superiority complex" too. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 7:22 AM EST |
> how do you apologize for: Apologize for what? Nick Petreley? Nick can get "out there" at times, and rant on about nothing, but Nick's a good guy. His varlinux.org remains one of the better Linux-oriented sites out on the net. As to boycottnovell.com, it's not my place to make any apologies. >See, I can do "superiority complex" too. Well, I suppose it's as close to being genuinely superior as some can come. |
||||||||||
| tuxchick Aug 31, 2007 7:25 AM EST |
The idea of any FOSS supporting windoze is distasteful, and it's hard to get past that. In my awesomely humble opinion windows is a plague that needs to be eradicated, not supported- do I really need to list the billions of dollars of damage caused by this sorry excuse of an operating system, and by the rapacious behaviors of its overlords? Mr. de Icaza says a fair number of dumb things, and there's no doubt in my mind that he luvs Microsoft and its crapware all to heck. But if his work gives people more choices and chips away at Redmond's lockin, I can hold my nose and smile and nod at it. A little bit. |
||||||||||
| hchaudh1 Aug 31, 2007 7:42 AM EST |
@dino Apologize, as in the action of an apologist, not the apologize as in what you are expected to do if you make a mistake. So, no, I wasn't talking about Nick Petreley, didn't even know who he was. [rimshot]Well, I suppose it's as close to being genuinely superior as some can come.[/rimshot] Good one, but still, you didn't answer how you can defend De Icaza's actions, if at the very least, listed in just the two links that I added. |
||||||||||
| Abe Aug 31, 2007 7:50 AM EST |
I am all for it and I vote a definite "YES". I hope it is not an ISO voting booth. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 8:07 AM EST |
> ...but still, you didn't answer how you can defend De Icaza's actions... Why should Dino, or any of us here, have to defend Miguel? That's Miguel's job. As to his motives? Again, you'd have to ask him. I've always preferred giving folks the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise. And (as already noted) I have absolutely no use for Mono. What I do have is a desire for freedom, not just for myself but for others. Others will sometimes use that freedom in ways I would not; but I'd still not want to take that freedom away from them. I am absolutely certain Miguel will learn the costs of dealing with the devil all too soon. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 8:20 AM EST |
>I've always preferred giving folks the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise. Miguel has contributed enough and earned the trust and respect of enough people in his time to warrant the benefit of the doubt. I know a lot of folks have fallen out because of kind words about Microsoft technology and his work on the Mono project, but... Methinks that may say more about the name callers than it does about Miguel, especially those who haven't contributed so much as a thimbleful compared to what he's done. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 8:21 AM EST |
>how you can defend De Icaza's actions, Defend what? Not that it's my place, but what, precisely, do you think needs defending? |
||||||||||
| Abe Aug 31, 2007 9:17 AM EST |
Are we being silly here! Let me elaborate, I think he is referring to the way De Icaza is collaborating or playing into the hands of MS Not that it is your place to defend his actions, but De Icaza needs to at least explain his actions in pursuing mono and defending OOXML. Doesn't he see what MS is doing to get OOXML approved as an ISO standard? It is deplorable and despicable. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 9:39 AM EST |
>Let me elaborate, I think he is referring to the way De Icaza is collaborating or playing into the hands of MS Should I defend Jeremy Allison while I'm at it? After all, SAMBA is also a Microsoft protocol implementation. Come to think of, why not WINE? Or, for that matter, all of those nasty old Redmond backers in disguise who do stuff with AJAX, which relies on a javascript method that first appeared in Internet Explorer. If you want to play a stupid game of good guy/ bad guy, rent a bunch of old westerns or cops'n robbers shoot 'em ups. Sounds like a big bore to me. Abe - >De Icaza needs to at least explain his actions in pursuing mono Sound like need to at least do a little reading. De Icaza has explained himself on mono over and over and over again. What kind of Linux advocate wouldn't know that. Wait -- I've got it!! You're being paid by Microsoft to torpedo a valiant effort to remove a Microsoft lock-in of application developers. Pretty clever. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 9:47 AM EST |
> ...but De Icaza needs to at least explain his actions in pursuing mono... Miguel obviously thinks that Mono is a good thing. Obviously, neither you nor I agree. But that's no reason to demonize the man. There's no need to assume some devious plot on his part when a simple disagreement about what's best for Linux is sufficient to explain his actions. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 10:00 AM EST |
>when a simple disagreement about what's best for Linux is sufficient to explain his actions. But wait!! That would imply it's possible for reasonable people to disagree. As you know, freedom-lovers don't believe in that concept. That would require a fifth freedom. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 10:02 AM EST |
> That would imply it's possible for reasonable people to disagree. Yeah, I know it's a radical concept, but I believe it may be time to adopt it as one of the principles of FOSS. :) Of course, that just means that we can argue about whether Miguel's beliefs are "reasonable" or not till the cows come home. :( |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 10:05 AM EST |
>Of course, that just means that we can argue about whether Miguel's beliefs are "reasonable" or not till the cows come home. :( Yeah, but those kinds of arguments are ok. At that point, we are talking about the beliefs themselves, not the person behind them. It's the difference between being wrong and being evil. |
||||||||||
| hchaudh1 Aug 31, 2007 10:22 AM EST |
The vibe I am getting here is like De Icaza is a personal hero of some folks here. Let one thing be very clear, he was always a paid for programmer (like most Open Source fellows). So, its lame when posters try to make him sound like some kind of Open Source champion who toiled to get the message out. He had a company, and he had a plan, and he took his company in whichever direction he thought was best. I would place him in the same category as Marc Fleury, yes he did a lot, but not all of it was benign. I will just be rehashing stuff from Roy Schestowitz's site, but I hope it will be useful to those who are so hard pressed finding fault with De Icaza. Dino, your first entry on this page sound a tads bit too defensive to me. [HYPERLINK@www.linuxjournal.com] [HYPERLINK@boycottnovell.com] Mono getting the boost at the expense of Microsoft-independent programming? [HYPERLINK@boycottnovell.com] How about this little piece where he defends OOXML: [HYPERLINK@tirania.org] [HYPERLINK@boycottnovell.com] [HYPERLINK@boycottnovell.com] You know what, I am sure you could do this: [HYPERLINK@www.google.com] |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 10:27 AM EST |
>Dino, your first entry on this page sound a tads bit too defensive to me. That would seem to be your problem, not mine. Given the burr under your butt WRT Icaza, it sounds to me like you need to put on some relaxing music and down a few beers. |
||||||||||
| Abe Aug 31, 2007 10:29 AM EST |
Shame on you Dino, did you have to expose me to the whole world? You know you could have said that is private instead. :) :) Seriously now, to me, De Icaza is no creative, innovative person he wants us to think he is. He is just a good programmer.
Yes he did. and that is why many still don't like what he is doing. He is just using/copying MS technology into FOSS. No one needs or wants any freaking MS IP or technology in FOSS. FOSS is open and wants to interoperate with others, that is why many try to develop code to work in MS environment. SAMBA uses CEFIS and that is not MS technology or innovation, SAMBA team are just adopting to interoperate with MS platform because we have to at this point. Wine is the same way, just trying to coexist with MS environment since it is the dominant platform. AJAX, Oh man, this is a method and concept that uses old open tools and code. MS used ActiveX to do it, not JavaScript. Google is the one who showed the way to using AJAX not MS. For your information, MS just recently released their version of AJAX implementation. It is called Atlas and it is half a**ed still. In general, there is nothing new under the sun. FOSS implements many of the methods and technologies that are already in existence in an open fashion and creates new innovations along the way. This whole IT ecosystem has been an evolution that is developing very fast where implementations are very similar and typical. You see, De Icaza thinks he is being innovative by bringing in MS IP into FOSS, I don't believe this is smart or beneficial to FOSS. It is really more trouble that it is worth.
I think you know I didn't say you have to defend De Icaza or anyone else for that matter, right? |
||||||||||
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 10:31 AM EST |
> The vibe I am getting here is like De Icaza is a personal hero of some folks here. I think you need a new vibe receiver. Neither Dino nor I have even insinuated that, and as far as I can see we're the only ones taking issue with the vilifying of Miguel De Icaza. I think he's being foolish, but I have no reason to think he's evil. I can't speak for Dino. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 10:48 AM EST |
>Seriously now, to me, De Icaza is no creative, innovative person he wants us to think he is. He is just a good programmer. I don't know how innovative he thinks he is, but I agree that he is a good programmer. I think he's a little more than that, however, as is every programmer who goes on to found a successful project. I'd say he's more akin to an entrepreneur than "just" a good programmer. >Yes he did. and that is why many still don't like what he is doing. I find that completely honorable. Of course, I would characterize his actions as implementing a standard with FOSS, but that's ok. Reasonable people can differ on the desireability of that, but...let me ask you: Have you ever worked in a mixed *x/.Net shop or (shivers!!) in a *x shop that had to interact with .Net systems and deal with .Net programmers? I have. >I didn't say you have to defend De Icaza Uh oh!!! Did I do a bad job of forum comment loop control? Let's see... The Abe comments start after the "Abe -" ... Does the pointer automatically go back up to the top when it hits the lower horizontal border? Inquiring minds want to know! ;0) |
||||||||||
| hchaudh1 Aug 31, 2007 10:50 AM EST |
Dino, you stated that you didn't need to defend De Icaza, I just pointed out how you have been doing it. I am not interested in dishing out personal insults. But you asked, "but what, precisely, do you think needs defending?". And I pointed it out. Care to comment if you want to. @jdxion, I never insinuated anything about you. Its just dinotrac's comments that I have issue with. I don't like all the personal insults with nothing to back it up. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 10:54 AM EST |
Abe - I just figured it out! Programming error on my part. I got you confused with hchaudh1 on that one comment, but, it was really you clarifying him. OK...yet another I'm w..w..w... Sorry. Just can't do it. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 10:57 AM EST |
>And I pointed it out No, you provided a list of links. That's lazy man's way to avoid having to think and communicate. Links in support of a point, fine. Links instead of a point, I don't think so. The bottom line seems to be that you don't like what he's doing. That's fine. There's no need to make him the Devil. I suspect that he's done far more to benefit free software than you will do in your lifetime. I could be wrong, but I'm probably not. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 10:58 AM EST |
> yet another I'm w..w..w... Ack, that's two w..w..w..'s in one day. You feeling OK Dino? |
||||||||||
| tuxchick Aug 31, 2007 11:00 AM EST |
What jdixon said. Allison and the Samba team are not trying to graft Windows crud wholesale into Linux, but replace it. Samba not only enables cross-platform printing/file sharing/backups (which Microsoft still actively hinders, despite all their current lying blather about interoperability and openness), it's a drop-in (and superior) replacement for an NT-4 type domain controller, and Samba 4 aims to be an Active Directory replacement. Which all fit into my master plan of Windows Eradication. (Samba is also a dandy Linux fileserver; you can have your nasty ole NFS.) Mono takes freaky ole dotNet and makes it cross-platform. As the FAQ says "The Mono Project is an open development initiative sponsored by Novell to develop an open source, UNIX version of the Microsoft .NET development platform. Its objective is to enable UNIX developers to build and deploy cross-platform .NET Applications....Mono can run binaries produced by Visual Studio, there is no need to recompile." Me, my reaction is 'screw dotNut, who needs it.' But who knows- Mono could open some doors and get more devs interested in open source. At the least it's an alternative to the lardy horrid Visual Studio and the evil Microsoft Foundation Classes, which are all about locking in developers. I don't have any use for Mono, but it doesn't seem particularly evil, either. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 11:08 AM EST |
>Me, my reaction is 'screw dotNut, who needs it.' That's the cool thing about FOSS. My reaction to GNOME was, 'screw that, who needs it?'. I was happily using KDE at the time and I'm happily using KDE now. Lots of people argued that the GNOMIES (which, ahem, included De Icaza) were wasting time and resources that could be better spent making KDE more awesome. But, FOSS being FOSS, people will scratch their itches and do what they want. Icaza is scratching his own itch and doing mono. Perhaps you remember he had envisioned mono as the primary development platform for GNOME? Face it, lots of people scratched their heads over building a desktop with C instead of a more modern language and GTK instead of a more well-developed toolkit. |
||||||||||
| hchaudh1 Aug 31, 2007 11:31 AM EST |
@dino I was trying to be civilized. Why don't you just defend one of the links out of the list. All you do is insult in every single post. I gave out that list, coz lots of people have to answer lots of people like you everyday. And Roy's site does a wonderful job of summarizing all the arguements. So, call me lazy all you want. But just try to explain away just one of De Icaza's behaviours out of that list that you like to defend so much. As far as your freedom of choice pitch goes, all that is fine. That is the ideal of FOSS. But when something subversive comes along, it has to be pointed out. So, don't club Mono along with Samba or such technologies. There is a difference between collaboration and a trojan horse. How come De Icaza is still defending OOXML when it is not Open in any way. The process to open up a file and edit it is so horridly convoluted that its not even worth trying. And why does an XML file have binary dependencies. People like him undo the good work of many everyday. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 11:43 AM EST |
> People like him undo the good work of many everyday. You see, that's where we part company. As far as I can see, Miguel isn't undoing anyone's good work. He's doing his own work, which he considers to be good, possibly even necessary. I think he's wrong, and that no good can come from using Microsoft tainted materials. But that's merely a difference of opinion, and I don't see any way his actions can be hurting anyone who doesn't agree with him. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 11:45 AM EST |
> How come De Icaza is still defending OOXML... Probably because he's a human being who's job is to help implement the OOXML interoperability for Novell. He wouldn't be the first person to let a paycheck blind him to the truth, nor the last. Again, that makes him foolish, not evil. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 11:47 AM EST |
>How come De Icaza is still defending OOXML My guess would be because he's wrong. You're welcome to different interpretations. >So, don't club Mono along with Samba or such technologies. Ummm...Why not? .Net is an open standard. SMB ain't. The whole purpose of Samba is to let people get along with Windows. As to AJAX, it started out with a Microsoft "innovation". Shouldn't that make it evil, too? If anything, mono is a safer bet than Samba. If you have paid any attention to current events, you would know that the FTC has come down hard on Rambus for encouraging creation of a standard without revealing that the standard couldn't be met without using Rambus patented technology. Rambus has been stopped from collecting royalties on its patents in the US. As you are fond of links, try this one on for size: [HYPERLINK@lxer.com] The upshot is, that an open standard exists for .Net, and Microsoft could try patent bombing implementers like the mono project, but only at great risk to its patent portfolio -- not to mention increasingly tattered image. In that regard, mono becomes cool if you like the .Net technology, not cool if you don't. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 11:55 AM EST |
> If anything, mono is a safer bet than Samba. To the extent we know that Microsoft has patents on Mono, and it is standardized, yes. We have no idea of the patent status of Samba. However, unlike Rambus, Microsoft openly admitted that they had patents on some of the Mono technology. That probably protects them from a lawsuit like the one that took down Rambus. |
||||||||||
| hchaudh1 Aug 31, 2007 12:02 PM EST |
If doing your own work make it all right, I guess every criminal, dictator on the planet is justified. His (and Novell's) actions hurt FOSS because he is working in favor of a standard which is not really open, which has binary dependencies (which leave it wide open for a lawsuit), and convoluted i.e. not easily implementable by competetion. Just look at the size of the two competing specs. Dino, you talk about Rambus and in the same breath also talk about OOXML. How does that make any sense? Rambus was punished because they probably did not have MS's clout. MS on the other hand are buying off votes in favor of OOXML, and even lobbying to have big shots like IBM/SUN removed from the voting process, successfully at that. I don't agree with your rosy view that .Net is an open standard and if MS sues over it, it will result in bad publicity. Since when has that stopped MS. They tried to get some kind of server side lock in using a half assed technology, albeit, easy point and click programming, and they succeeded to some extent. They are trying to extend the same to Linux now. Ok, Novell is safe from MS lawsuits, but what if Ubuntu or some other distro is sued over it. Its called divide and rule. My problem is that companies like Novell and people like De Icaza are helping MS for personal gain. That's how they are undoing the good work of others. Maybe it will be clearer when we are all typing these comments from a "MS approved" distro at some point in the future. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 12:15 PM EST |
> Rambus was punished because they probably did not have MS's clout. Rambus was punished because they tried to flout the standards process to lock in a monopoly. >I don't agree with your rosy view that .Net is an open standard Rosy view? Ummm, hate to burst your bubble, but .Net IS an open standard. >and if MS sues over it, it will result in bad publicity. This problem you have with facts...It's not a good thing. I didn't say that MS's problem would be bad publicity, although I think they would get some. Their real problem is the risk to their patent portfolio if it turns out there is no reasonable way to implement the .Net standard without violating Microsoft patents. jdixon - >Microsoft openly admitted that they had patents on some of the Mono technology No, that's not remotely true. They have patents on portions of their own .Net implementation. That ain't Mono and it ain't the .Net standard. I don't remember anything that prevents somebody from implementing any standard anywhere with patented technology. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 12:52 PM EST |
> They have patents on portions of their own .Net implementation. You are correct. I misstated. |
||||||||||
| krisum Aug 31, 2007 12:58 PM EST |
Interestingly DotGNU is a GNU project itself and was initially started out as complimentary to Mono though now it has its own implementation of .NET [HYPERLINK@www.gnu.org] |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 1:05 PM EST |
krisum - Thank you for the link. I especially liked this part:
Guess somebody ought to collar that Stallman guy and explain to him what free software is all about. |
||||||||||
| tracyanne Aug 31, 2007 1:56 PM EST |
And etc from dino. The only problem with Mono is that it's not yet fully fleshed out. It means that a programmer who learned their craft on Windows using Microsoft development tools can make the break relatively easily. |
||||||||||
| Sander_Marechal Aug 31, 2007 2:22 PM EST |
Eh? I run a perfectly good GNOME desktop here without Mono. De Icaza isn't involved with GNOME anymore. He can yell all he wants that GNOME should move it's core to Mono but it won't happen. On a side note: I dislike Mono enough that I am seriously contemplating reimplementing TomBoy or F-Spot in Python. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 2:28 PM EST |
Sander - Why do you dislike Mono so much? If it's so bad, I can't imagine why you would want to reimplement any mono apps. Instead, just choose other, better apps. If it's a religious issue, that's ok, but also makes little sense to me given that RMS himself seems to have not problem with it. |
||||||||||
| Sander_Marechal Aug 31, 2007 2:41 PM EST |
It bloats my system. It's yet another environment sitting on my computer eating space, cycles and RAM. We don't need it. We've got Python for managed code and it works great. How many environments do you need running on your PC? GTK, KDE, Python, Java, etcetera, etcetera. Enough already! Stop reinventing the wheel and start building useful applications with the tools we already have. | ||||||||||
| Abe Aug 31, 2007 3:10 PM EST |
No, my company is 100% Windows, but I am 100% Linux at home Although my job at work doesn't involve programming, I do program for fun at home and for a while using FOSS. I normally develop proto-types and show them at work what could be done to do it using Windows tools (VS 2003/5) But I know what you are talking about. This year I have been taking training course on VS-2005/SQL Server/ You can do pretty neat stuff with VS-2005, but still don't like it for various reason and my dis-like to MS is not one of them. VS-2005 generate too much code and you are pretty much restricted by it. You can't innovate. Things have to be done their way. Using FOSS tools, you can do it any way you please and is so flexible and powerful. Even with automatic code generating, I still get things much faster with FOSS. How you ask? the Web Parts that VS-2005 has, there are similar resources available on the internet for FOSS as examples and functions. With VS you can't change or tailor them, with examples you can do whatever you want and most of the time you get much better results if you know what you want. I don't know much about Mono, but my question is, do we need it on FOSS platform? Does do something better than what we have? Sander said it perfectly right,
About RMS likes it, well I don't agree with him on this one. Like some say, Is he god? no he isn't and can't always be right. |
||||||||||
| azerthoth Aug 31, 2007 3:19 PM EST |
OK, I made the mistake of following the provided links. Linking back to your own stuff, filled with your own OPINION repeatedly does not make a fact. The link to the linuxjournal piece does your argument no good either as he brings up some very valid point's. Your reading them as negative shows that you can do your very best to swing anything you don't personally agree with in a bad light. Let me say again, repeating opinions over and over, no matter how much you wish differently wont ever actually make a fact. It is however easy to see where some of your confusion comes from, its one that is fairly prevalent in the open source community. The differentiation between Linux and the FSF, and there is a difference. One only has to read "Just for Fun : The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary" ( [HYPERLINK@www.amazon.com] ) to really start understanding the issue. As for the rest of your arguments ... I think Dino covered the high points. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 3:41 PM EST |
>I don't know much about Mono, but my question is, do we need it on FOSS platform? Does do something better than what we have? "We" is a funny word because there is no all-encompassing we. Going back to the GNOME example, "we" didn't need GNOME -- at least not in my house -- because "we" had KDE. I don't especially need mono, but who am I to tell Miguel what to do with his time? Besides, there is some real potential for useful stuff, like, ahem, making it easier for guys in *x shops to deal with Windows guys who simply don't have the chops to reach out halfway. We don't need lua, ruby, eiffel, erlang, or python, either, but why make everybody script in perl? It's a lovely world. So long as Miguel is making more things instead of taking things away, why on earth should you care? Unless, of course, you are some kind of maniacal control freak. Otherwise, take a drink and shake your head. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 3:50 PM EST |
> I run a perfectly good GNOME desktop here without Mono. I understand that it's possible, but the last time I checked the movement appeared to be in the other direction. That was some time ago, and I haven't bothered keeping up with the situation, especially since the Gnome folks have no interest in supporting my distribution of choice. I decided there were more important things to worry about in the world than a desktop environment that was obviously not interested in the same things I was. I've seen nothing since to make me regret or rethink the decision. KDE and XFCE meet my needs well enough. > De Icaza isn't involved with GNOME anymore. That's probably a good thing. |
||||||||||
| Sander_Marechal Aug 31, 2007 5:05 PM EST |
Not really. That was all just hot air. Back when De Icaza came with Mono, he thought it would be a good idea if Gnome started using it. But at that time he wasn't involved with GNOME either. He was just fantasizing. Ofcourse the blogs and online media blew it all out of proportions and started claiming GNOME was to be built on Mono. Nonsense. The only "fact" in all this is that most Mono applications are built for GNOME. But that's simply because Mono has had GNOME and GTK bindings very early on, thanks to De Icaza's prior involvement with GNOME. That's all. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 5:31 PM EST |
> Not really. Well, in this case it's nice to hear I was wrong. It still doesn't change my overall opinion of Gnome though, as they still don't think Slackware is worth supporting, and they're still intent on dumbing down the interface (yeah, I know they disagree with that terminology, but a rose by any other name...). |
||||||||||
| azerthoth Aug 31, 2007 5:44 PM EST |
"It's no use making something idiot proof, mother nature will just make a better idiot" -unknown I always loved that quote and it seems to apply so well to jdixons last post. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 6:16 PM EST |
> I always loved that quote and it seems to apply so well to jdixons last post. Fine, but it's not clear to me what your position on high quality idiots is... |
||||||||||
| azerthoth Aug 31, 2007 6:21 PM EST |
> Fine, but it's not clear to me what your position on high quality idiots is... I tend to think highly of myself, thanks |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 6:43 PM EST |
>I tend to think highly of myself, thanks We all do. Self esteem issues are for geniuses and those not stupid enough to ignore them. |
||||||||||
| tuxchick Aug 31, 2007 8:13 PM EST |
There is a fine line between clever and stupid. | ||||||||||
| schestowitz Aug 31, 2007 8:31 PM EST |
Mono is part of a broader thing. Read the following message: [HYPERLINK@www.linuxjournal.com] | ||||||||||
| azerthoth Aug 31, 2007 8:38 PM EST |
@schestowitz your going to have to get specific, what in that message links mono, an open source adaptation of a published standard geared towards inter platform operability, to OOXML? I didnt see anything, and if you start linking all over the place without bothering to atleast dig up a verifiable FACTS, you might as well leave the conversation now. We are a pretty tough crowd at separating facts from opinions posing as facts. @TC will you let me know when I cross the line to clever? I dont want to get above myself you know. |
||||||||||
| schestowitz Aug 31, 2007 9:00 PM EST |
Okay, I ought to have elaborated. There is evidence which suggests that Microsoft wants Linux users to be happy... with the Microsoft way. With semi-baked translators (OOXML) and with Mono, among other things that merely mimic Windows. Watch the deals signed with Novell, Linspire, and Xandros. They are different. Novell customers are 'protected' when it comes to Mono-related patents. Others are explicitly not.I fear that by the time GNOME becomes both popular (it's eating KDE's lunch, based on Linux Desktops' poll) and too heavily associated with Mono, Microsoft can take legal action. It essentially helps create a 'cheap Windows' (function and layout are not mimicked, but underlying APIs /are/). Sure, many customers need .NET for application compatibility, but that's just a convenient disguise. They poison the well. | ||||||||||
| azerthoth Aug 31, 2007 9:23 PM EST |
Good grief, once a standard is published and accepted you can not then turn around and use undisclosed patents to harpoon its implementation. That has been upheld in both US and EU courts already. Mono is creating its hooks to Gnome NOT the other way around, Mono likes Gnome and is being tailored to work within Gnomes existing framework. Both KDE and Gnome have applications tailored specifically for their framework, this is nothing new. The claims that this sullies any particular environment by using the time tested process of building upon existing architecture is pure bunk. If your issue is the license under which Mono is released then you had best remove your GUI from you computer as well, because last I looked they used the same license. You seem to think that your fighting what you perceive as Microsoft trying to co-opt Linux without understanding that its happening the other way around. Heck railing against Mono is a prime example of that, the more MS tries to corral various distros the more and more tightly they bind themselves to the the GPL. You should be celebrating each of these deals, even if they sink distro's one at a time, they cant get them all. Eventually they will be caught in a clever web of their own design. Personally some of the distro's that have tied themselves to MS, we could honestly do without to begin with, Linspire and Xandros having been deformed mutant Linux distros even before the deals. as for OOXML, its an abortion that market pressure will cure within the next decade. If people want to willingly suffer that headache, it is neither your job or mine to protect them. Only OFFER them an alternative. You presented your opinions, and you have mine. Neither of them have any crystalline facts to back them up, however as opinions go both are equally valid. |
||||||||||
| Sander_Marechal Sep 01, 2007 3:07 AM EST |
Hear hear! With the Mono lead engineer being a former GNOME developer, it's only natural that Mono hooked into GNOME before it did into KDE. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Sep 01, 2007 3:29 AM EST |
>Hear hear! With the Mono lead engineer being a former GNOME developer, it's only natural that Mono hooked into GNOME before it did into KDE. Yup. On reflection, though, I think we ought to take up the torch against all of those evil demons who promote .Net for free software and boycott all of their software. That may cause a hardship for some, as DotGNU is a GNU project, meaning we'll have to give up all of the GNU tools, but there's a silver lining there as well: at least we won't have to listen to those silly "It's GNU/Linux" whines. |
||||||||||
| schestowitz Sep 01, 2007 4:08 AM EST |
@sander: While it's probably irrelevant, KDE recently got some Mono hooks/bindings. I read it on the Dot,IIRC. @azerthoth: > Good grief, once a standard is published and accepted you > can not then turn around and use undisclosed patents to > harpoon its implementation. OOXML is associated with patents (see the recent paper from New Zealand's open source society). Mono likewise. Xandros and Linspire had Mono explicitly excluded as far as 'protection' is concerned. That speaks volumes, by my humble assessment. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Sep 01, 2007 5:27 AM EST |
>Mono likewise. What do you know that nobody else does? Can you name a single patent associated with Mono? It is probable that Microsoft's implementation of .Net includes patented technology. Microsoft is a patent-happy place. That isn't Mono. You should learn the difference. |
||||||||||
| Abe Sep 01, 2007 7:38 AM EST |
We as in FOSS community, not my self or my family or your family
No one is telling De Icaza what to do with his time, we (those who don't like using MS patent riddled protocols or standards) are merely saying that we have no need for such technology and it is of no value or benefit to us because it is not worth the trouble for us as a community with clear objects.
Give me some examples where it would be beneficial where FOSS tools wouldn't or couldn't
Yes we do all of them because they are part of the evolution that drives FOSS to excellence. Ingesting patent riddled MS technology couldn't and shouldn't be part of this evolution. The main reason developed .Net is to copy, extend, and extinguish FOSS technology and lock-in customers into a proprietary environment controlled only by MS.
The only problem is, he is making things that is helping a convicted competitor who wants to hurt or destroy FOSS. |
||||||||||
| tuxchick Sep 01, 2007 8:08 AM EST |
heh, that's a quote from the movie 'Spinal Tap.' I like to use it when I run out of useful things to say :) |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Sep 01, 2007 8:17 AM EST |
>Give me some examples where it would be beneficial where FOSS tools wouldn't or couldn't Goodness, Abe, you really aren't paying attention. First: Mono is a FOSS tool. So is DotGNU. Perhaps you missed that fact -- which would be hard given the quote from Stallman earlier in this thread. Second couldn't or wouldn't isn't an appropriate standard, given that we could eliminate all scripting languages save one if that were the test. However, in my own experience, I have encountered situations where .Net tools were the only thing that could get me through my day. Specifically, I worked in a shop that acted as a portal to assorted web-based services. Many of our clients used .Net. One problem we ran into came as a result of Microsoft's implementation of HTTP 1.1, and expect-continue headers. If the folks on the other end, ummmm -- ummmm---weren't up to speed on lower level protocol issues, the best thing we could do was run a sample of their code and/or provide a few C# test cases if our own. At that point, I could use Microsoft .Net or mono or, presumably, dotGNU. Sending a python script to .Net guys wouldn't get me very far. They could run it. I could say Ah ha!! I would have the satisfaction of saying that I'm right, but there would be more work to do. With some sample code, they often would fix the problem on their end, using our sample as a guide. You, I'm sure, are ten times smarter than I am and could do the same thing every bit as well with some awk snippets, but, given my poor undeveloped skill set, C# was great. BTW -- did you know that the Sansa Connect wireless enabled MP3 player (and CES Best of Show winner) is mono-based? I suppose you'd prefer they use Microsoft... |
||||||||||
| tracyanne Sep 01, 2007 2:20 PM EST |
I really can't add much to this conversation, other than to point out that dino is right. Mono is as FLOSS as Emacs. It's irrelevant that it's based on a standard published by Microsoft - and yes it is a standard, and it is open. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Sep 01, 2007 3:27 PM EST |
> The only problem is, he is making things that is helping a convicted competitor who wants to hurt or destroy FOSS. Abe, how is Mono helping Microsoft? I don't trust anything that has Microsoft roots, so I keep as far away from it as possible, but I don't see how it helps them. I may be being dense, or there may be something I don't know. Both have been known to happen. :) |
||||||||||
| herzeleid Sep 01, 2007 7:04 PM EST |
> how is Mono helping Microsoft? It seems to me that at least, mono is draining developer attention away from j2ee, lamp and other traditional unix style building blocks, and getting them to spend time and attention on windoze technologies instead. For those who drink the mono koolaid, microsoft is now leading the way, and the followers spend their time and energy attempting to follow as best they can. Is developer mindshare something we want to give away so lightly? |
||||||||||
| tracyanne Sep 01, 2007 7:36 PM EST |
Except Mono isn't a Microsoft technology any more than SaMBa is, it's a FLOSS technology based on a publicly published standard. |
||||||||||
| herzeleid Sep 01, 2007 7:43 PM EST |
> Except Mono isn't a Microsoft technology any more than SaMBa is, it's a FLOSS technology based on a publicly published standard. The whole reason for the existence of mono is to provide an open source implementation of the *microsoft* .net world. Therefore they must remain in lock step with microsoft from here on out to remain relevant in terms of their original goals. And by mentioning samba, you bolster my argument. The heroic efforts by the samba developers to try to track the endlessly changing microsoft api without any help from microsoft, are a case in point. With samba, it was necessary just to get a foot in the door, but in the case of mono, we've got folks willingly jumping ship and going the microsoft way, despite the fact that j2ee remains a very viable environment. |
||||||||||
| tracyanne Sep 01, 2007 7:57 PM EST |
Mono is one of the things that dragged this developers mindshare away from Microsoft. |
||||||||||
| azerthoth Sep 01, 2007 8:23 PM EST |
So herzeleid, basically your saying we shouldnt bother with the borg act against Microsoft, you know use their tactics against them? *note* intentionally obtuse to make a point */note* |
||||||||||
| herzeleid Sep 01, 2007 8:41 PM EST |
> So herzeleid, basically your saying we shouldnt bother with the borg act against Microsoft, you know use their tactics against them? If there were such a borg act as you envision, I'd be all for it. The idea that mono might be such a borg act remains to be seen. Truth be told, I'm glad mono exists - thanks to mono, I was able to do my c# programming on linux, and thus keep my college record untarnished: I earned a degree in computer science without ever having to use windoze. Assembly language course? I used nasm. java, c, c++, lisp, prolog, are all easily done on linux, but were it not for mono, I'd have had to borrow time on a winpeecee, something I did not really care to do. So who knows, I'm not saying it won't turn out as the pro mono folks say; maybe it will turn out to be a good thing on balance, but I'm not about to be lulled into thinking the monster is down for the count, when he's actually still able to cause us all a lot more trouble - and while there is hope with this mono thing, there's also danger. |
||||||||||
| tracyanne Sep 01, 2007 10:22 PM EST |
Actually that is not true. Mono is a Free and Open implementation of the published and freely available standard. It doesn't have to lock step with .NET. The developers may choose to do that, in that they may continue to reimplement Windows specific technologies, such as WinForms, for compatibility, but already Mono implements *nix specific technologies thereby extending Mono way past anything that Microsoft can do with .NET. Indeed there are Windows specific technologies that it's unlikely the Mono developers will ever bother to attempt to implement. In other cases, such as Silverlight/Moolight they are. Mono stands on it's own merits, irrespective of anything that Microsoft does with .NET, and that was Miguel's original original intention, as a useful FLOSS technology. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Sep 02, 2007 2:54 AM EST |
> It doesn't have to lock step with .NET. And, in fact, it doesn't. Just being on a Unix platform give it some advantages. I know of one developer who chose mono for a project over .NET because mono/*x gave him superior serial I/O capabilities. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Sep 02, 2007 5:06 AM EST |
>It seems to me that at least, mono is draining developer attention away from j2ee, lamp and other traditional unix style building blocks Ummm.... Look at your statement and understand what it means. If it's true, then there IS a place for mono. If there were no place for mono, it wouldn't be draining anybody's attention away save for the people who create mono itself. As the presence of 88.8 billion Linux distributions demonstrates, choice is a good thing. |
||||||||||
| Abe Sep 02, 2007 5:52 AM EST |
Can you verify that Tracyanne? From what I hear from MS is that they have patented technologies.
And how do you explain De Icaza claiming that, one would be able to compile and run code created with Mono on Windows platform and vice versa?
Again, How do you explain that against the claim Icaza keeping pace and compatibility with MS, which has been his major selling point for Mono? WinForms and WebForms compatibility, and we end up with MS setting the standards for web 2.0 and its development framework. I bet everyone will living happy ever after under MS control, right! How about MS-XML doc formats and such? Let wake up, MS has a grandiose plan for all this interwind technology they have been releasing for last few years.
If I may ask, was that for development or production environment? That is what it seems to be as I see it. If it turns to be the case, what do you think is going to happen when customers decide it is not worth while to have two environments if one can deliver without the extra hassle. .Net is very highly tied with IIS & Windows Server 2003. Is De Icaza luring FOSS developers to do their work for MS proliferation? Last I heard was Apache is almost stagnant and IIS i& Win Server 2003 are on the rise. This rise was cited as the main contributor due to the rise in development environments needed for .Net. JDixson: This is one way Mono of De Icaza is helping MS . herzeleid cited exactly what I meant by helping MS and add to that the perception that Mono is creating for MS being the creative, innovative and ingenious technology maker that MS is bringing to the IT industry and FOSS is copying from. Still, no one has answered my question about what Mono is bringing to the table, which FOSS wouldn't or couldn't furnish? Give specific example and I will try to find you a solution on the Internet. All in all, I don't look at this as Mono vs .Net, I look at in a bigger perspective. It is FOSS vs MS, which is evil that can't be trusted and should never be allowed to participate in no way or form in FOSS. |
||||||||||
| Abe Sep 02, 2007 6:19 AM EST |
Place for what, to develop for MS environment? I have no problem with developing for interoperability sake. What I have a problem with is doing so on MS terms while FOSS has already proved that it can be accomplished and totally on FOSS's terms. If FOSS is going to need MS technology to survive and flourish, FOSS doesn't need to exist. FOSS has to be able to exists and flourish on its own technology innovations, strength, and its own legs. So far it did and there has been no need for any of MS technology. Samba is a perfect example. More interoperability is being accomplished by making many of FOSS tools and applications available on the Windows platform. On the contrary, there is no one single application that MS has made available on FOSS and we shouldn't be doing that for MS. As a matter of fact, MS realizes they have to and they are trying to make FOSS tools available on Windows platform. PHP, Python, Perl are good examples. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Sep 02, 2007 6:23 AM EST |
>Place for what, to develop for MS environment? Sigh. OK, I know you can't possibly be serious at this point, but I'll bite. There is no need for Mono for an MS environment. They already have .Net and Visual Studio and all of that stuff. I would have expected you to know that. Mono implements an open standard so that people who work in non-MS environments can use it. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Sep 02, 2007 6:29 AM EST |
Ok Abe, fess up: You're really just a troll, right? > Can you verify that Tracyanne? From what I hear from MS is that they have patented technologies. Huh? Who cares about MS? Mono is not an MS project. Everybody knows Microsoft has patents. Since when is that news? It's even possible that Mono could be viewed to infringe on some of their patents. After all, Linux supposedly infringes on more than 200 of them in somebody's view. So what? Should everybody stop programming just because somebody working at Microsoft shouts "Patent"? > And how do you explain De Icaza claiming that, one would be able to compile and run code created with Mono on Windows platform and vice versa? Really, Abe. Now you're really getting silly. How does Sun claim that somebody compiling Java created on a Windows can run it on Linux and vice versa? I would appreciate a thoughtful question -- it's good to stretch one's boundaries. This stuff, however, is just reflexive and tiresome. |
||||||||||
| Abe Sep 02, 2007 7:09 AM EST |
Dino, I think you are totally missing my point. Why would anyone want to use Mono to develop for FOSS (non-MS) environment when they have a tremendously capable and powerful FOSS environment? "What does Mono/.Net bring to the FOSS table that FOSS development tools and utilities couldn't or wouldn't furnish?". No one has given me an answer to this question yet. Give one good answer and I will shut up and apologize to De Icaza. In my opinion, FOSS developers shouldn't need to use Mono except if they need to develop on FOSS and be compatible with MS platform. And you are right, they should be using VS, which would require IIS on MS Win Server 2003. In that case, why use FOSS at all? If a company has to do something that can only be done using .Net, they should use Win platform in the first place. Do I prefer that? No I don't, on the other hand, a company should use what is best for the job even if it was Windows Platform. Like it is said, use the best tool for the job.
You are beginning to give a belly ache. :) I am using VS 2005 right now as we post working on a project for the company I work for. I know VS and happen to think it is a pretty good development environment for some people. I myself don't believe it is worth it. It is controlling and restrictive and doesn't allow for creativity and innovation as FOSS does. |
||||||||||
| Abe Sep 02, 2007 7:36 AM EST |
Wrong, just so every else doesn't have the same thoughts. :)
No, on the other hand, is it really worth the trouble though?
It is not just a claim, it does. Again, that proves my point about Mono having to keep up with .Net. What happens when MS makes a lot of .Net technology riddled with patents? Like I said, VS is a pretty good development tool. In my opinion, it would have been much more logical and beneficial to FOSS for De Icaza to develop tools similar to VS but instead, for PHP, Javascript, Python, Ruby Rails and such. I would have done that myself, since I believe it is necessary to have such tool, if it wasn't for me being "married with children". :) You heard it from me first (Oh gosh, I beginning to sound like SJVN). FYI, MS might be doing that some time soon by including those into VS environment. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Sep 02, 2007 7:56 AM EST |
> mono is draining developer attention away from... and getting them to spend time and attention on windoze technologies instead. Mono lets a developer use Linux and create a program which can be run on both Windows and Linux. I fail to see how that drains developer attention away from Linux. Again, maybe I'm being dense. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Sep 02, 2007 8:03 AM EST |
> ...one would be able to compile and run code created with Mono on Windows platform and vice versa? Abe, that's a good thing, not something to complain about. It means people can use Linux to develop for those who are still stuck using Windows. > ...and we end up with MS setting the standards for web 2.0 and its development framework. If they're truly open standards, it doesn't matter who sets them. It's only when standards are closed (OOXML, for example) that there's a problem. > Still, no one has answered my question about what Mono is bringing to the table, which FOSS wouldn't or couldn't furnish? Nothing that I can see. Those who use it obviously don't agree with us. > I look at in a bigger perspective. It is FOSS vs MS, which is evil that can't be trusted and should never be allowed to participate in no way or form in FOSS. Abe, we can't stop them from participating. As long as the follow the rules they're as welcome as anyone else. Yes, they're evil, and we shouldn't trust them. That doesn't mean we can exclude them and still be true to our principles. Sometimes I think that's unfortunate, but it's still true. Added: And, as I think I said earlier, the fact that I don't trust Microsoft is why I don't have anything to do with Mono. But that's a personal decision. Others are free to (and some obviously do) disagree. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Sep 02, 2007 8:14 AM EST |
jdixon - Yes. Nobody has to use Mono. I've used it a little, but only to help me dealing with client's developers who were .NET guys. It's funny, but I feel the same way about Java that many people feel about Mono. I just don't like it. What's ironic is that .NET was a free and open standard long before java ever was. Has everybody forgotten all those years of Sun explaining why Java had to be controlled by one company? The real problem, I think , that many Mono detractors have is that they don't trust open standards and they don't trust free and open software development. Unlike them, I do. Whether I ever use Mono in any serious way, I don't mind that some people want to work on it. I'm glad that anybody can get a chance to do what they want to do. That, I believe is part of being free as opposed shouting 4 freedoms. |
||||||||||
| Abe Sep 02, 2007 9:13 AM EST |
You are right, it would be a good thing similar to Java. But I don't believe it is Open & Free enough. Besides, I didn't mean that as a bad thing, I was just justifying that this has been a major object by De Icaza and he is going to be forced to keep up with MS changes to maintain cross compatibility. Tracyanne and Dino were saying that Icaza was developing it for the FOSS platform and doesn't have to keep cross compatibility. But his objectives indicate otherwise. Keeping up with and maintaining compatibility with .Net eventually leads to using MS patents. That is not good. Dino is right, De Icaza is an entrepreneur who is looking for an opportunity with MS. I think that is his driving motive.
I look at Mono as a trap and unnecessary for FOSS. As I said, I would rather see Icaza and all the Mono volunteers spend their time on what I suggested in building VS like tools. then again, it is their time and efforts and they are free to do what they like and scratch their itch. They feel good about but others don't. My issue is not to attack Mono, but rather let Dino know that we are entitled to voice our concerns about it the same way Icaza entitled to do what he wants. Dino was saying Mono is a good thing, I don't agree on that and consider Mono to be unnecessary and not worth the trouble.
True, but at the same time they can't tell those who disagree with them not to voice their concerns and opinions about it.
I agree, on the other hand, FOSS developers need to avoid spending efforts to facilitate and ease MS participation. In my opinion, MS will not do anything unless it is for their own benefit and strengthening their monopoly. I believe many events have proven that to us enough already. |
||||||||||
| jdixon Sep 02, 2007 10:18 AM EST |
> True, but at the same time they can't tell those who disagree with them not to voice their concerns and opinions about it. True, and that's where forums like this come into the picture. Hopefully we can all agree that LXer is a good thing. :) If it helps any, I agree with your assessment of Microsoft., and since I don't trust Microsoft I have no use for Mono. My reaction to Mono is sort of the way consumers in various places probably feel about toothpastes made in China. If you can't trust the source, why use the product? The fact that Mono is not under Microsoft's direct control isn't enough to relieve my concerns. If you recall, that was also my reaction to the Novell/Microsoft deal. That doesn't mean I think Miguel shouldn't be working on Mono if he wants to, or that those who want to use it shouldn't. Those are their decisions to make, not mine. |
||||||||||
| krisum Sep 02, 2007 10:52 AM EST |
@Abe
It is hard to see how one can miss this. For instance my company has a product (a C++ library that provides infrastructure services) that is supported on Linux, Windows and Solaris, and .NET applications cannot be used on Linux/Solaris without Mono. We encourage them to use the Linux version since it is faster, stabler and by far delivers the superior performance of the three platforms. Any situation where .NET applications or .NET developers need to use non-MS platforms is a use case, which is practically quite large developer and application base.
The same can be worded for Java/Sun, though you seem to have no problems with java. Actually in more ways than one .NET provides advantages compared to Java (vice versa is also is true). As a development platform other than java no other framework comes close to it -- not python, perl, ruby, etc. As a developer base it is small compared to java but larger than any of the other languages mentioned (and some of these developers *are* smart) and surely we want to have them working on the free platforms, don't we?
If you count Java among FOSS development tools, then it may be said that .NET does not bring much. But there exists a java developer base and there exists a .NET developer base and those are not going away rather are on the rise.
Are you seriously not aware that .NET standard specifies a platform independent IL just like java bytecode? .NET goes a step further and allows any language to target the .NET platform. For instance, Mono has bindings for C#, Java, Python, PHP etc ([HYPERLINK@www.mono-project.com]). In other words all the features and facilities of the .NET platform are available from all these languages which is quite powerful and something that is not provided by any other FOSS tool I know of. When these make their way into FOSS .NET IDEs like monodevelop and they approach the power of VS then you will have what you ask for all these languages.
This is incorrect; the .NET is designed to be independent of IIS (see [HYPERLINK@msdn.microsoft.com]). Can you provide any evidence to suggest that .NET is tied to IIS or WS2003 (with .NET 2.0, MS itself ships Cassini web server that can run ASP.NET)? On the contrary Mono can only increase adoption of Apache for FOSS platforms since its ASP.NET implementation runs on top of Apache (or Mono's own XSP but for all production usages Apache is the only option) which is the case even on Windows or will be the case since mod_mono still does not work on Windows though apache can be used with XSP using mod_proxy on Windows. I fail to see how *Mono* can increase adoption of IIS. |
||||||||||
| tracyanne Sep 02, 2007 12:24 PM EST |
Because Mono is a tremedously capable and powerul environment. And I can leverage my existing MS Windows development skills (C#) ot program in a Free environment.
See above. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Sep 02, 2007 1:43 PM EST |
>Give one good answer and I will shut up and apologize to De Icaza. Does anybody believe that for a moment? |
||||||||||
| Abe Sep 02, 2007 6:57 PM EST |
Some of the information you cited and supplied are enlightening, on the other hand, they don't change my main point of Mono being that necessary or worth the trouble that it is.
I can understand your point being a vendor with a product, on the other hand, do you have to use .Net? Is it a requirement mandated by your client? If it is, I think your client would be served better using .Net on Windows platform instead.
Of course I don't have a problem with Java now it is open. It is cross platform right of the bat without any special additional development tools like .Net needs Mono for FOSS. What guarantee do we have that Mono is going to stay compatible with future .Net developments? In other words, what assurance do we have that MS wouldn't sabotage it when ever they feel like it or see it necessary?
That is one of my points and I do realize the fact that both platforms are here to stay. That in no way justifies the need for Mono. As I said before, it is not worth the trouble.
I am very aware of that. You must have missed my clarification why I made that statement in one of my posts. It was to prove the point that De Icaza have to keep Mono compatible with .Net otherwise Mono wouldn't be that beneficial if it was used as a development tool on FOSS only.
I must say this link is very informative and much appreciated. I wasn't aware of http.sys which could be helpful for interoperability. On the other hand, I am not sure I would be in favor of such tools that are part of the OS, which could create undesirable reliability and security issues. I guess that is MS. Cassini is another MS product similar to IIS tailored for .Net. I am not sure what is your point? Whether it is tied with IIS or Cassini, what is the difference? Does Cassini work on other platforms other than Windows? It doesn't look it does, but I could be wrong. I should make one point clear that I started using .Net this year and not very experienced with it. In their MSDN pages, MS indicates that you have to have IIS installed if you want to develop .Net applications using VS 2005 for web server. That could be what gave me that idea since it also makes sense. Again, why would one want to run ASP.Net implementation with Mono on Apache if they can easily and cleanly use MS ASP.Net implementation on Windows platform? You see, as I said in a previous post, I strongly believe in using the best tool for the job and not to go out of my way just to satisfy a preference that wouldn't make a difference. That might sound contradictory to what I said “Is De Icaza luring FOSS developers to do their work for MS proliferation?”, hold on for a minute, it is not. Take a case where Mono was used with IIS or Apache for that matter. Sooner or later and for various reasons, this implementation will start having problems. May be because MS made changes to .Net or may be due to other issues. What do you think the customer is going to do? My hunch is they will say forget this trouble and let's go with Windows and .Net implementations. Is this a likely scenario or what? I know from experience that many companies go through a whole lot of trouble to get around MS issues just to avoid having to go through perceived support cost of two different platform and compatibility issues. |
||||||||||
| azerthoth Sep 02, 2007 7:12 PM EST |
Abe, remove the word Microsoft from your logic, it is coloring your perception. You don't like mono .. fine, we get that part. Now explain to me why you feel competent to pass moral judgment on an accepted FOSS project in words that don't include Microsoft. | ||||||||||
| herzeleid Sep 02, 2007 8:11 PM EST |
> Abe, remove the word Microsoft from your logic, it is coloring your perception. You don't like mono .. fine, we get that part. Now explain to me why you feel competent to pass moral judgment on an accepted FOSS project in words that don't include Microsoft. It doesn't sound as though you tried very hard to understand his thorough explanation. Belittling his position by calling it religious doesn't help anybody here - better to read, understand and try to answer his points about the pitfalls of moving to mono. This is a game microsoft controls, and if we move to mono, they will pull the rug out from under us when they choose. Even a slow old guy like me can see the danger there. |
||||||||||
| azerthoth Sep 02, 2007 9:31 PM EST |
*cough* 1: Where did I call it religous? 2: All the points have been shot full of holes repeatedly 3: where is the promised apology, a good reason was all that was asked for, not a perfect one. as to reading and understanding ... I do understand. I understand that where MS is concerned lots of people throw solid logic right out the window. Will I ever use mono? nope, no need. Belittling people who do and actually see a need for (wait for it) an OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM because the initial standard was published by the evil corporation ... there I have a problem. Congrats though, this actually got me agreeing with RMS on atleast one subject. |
||||||||||
| herzeleid Sep 02, 2007 10:19 PM EST |
> 1: Where did I call it religous? Well, you did claim he was "passing moral judgement" (the religious angle) when he was in fact merely laying out, in a perfectly logical way, the signs of a shaky strategy, namely to hope for success in an arena owned and controlled by microsoft. |
||||||||||
| tracyanne Sep 02, 2007 10:23 PM EST |
Actually Microsoft has no control over Mono. They can't pull the rug out as they also don't control the rug, in this case. The danger you see is your fear, a fear based on the assumption that if the idea came from Microsoft it must be dangerous. C# is merely a reimplementation of Java, in many ways a better implementation, that was published as an open specification, long before Sun finally open sourced Java (and probably because Sun was prevaricating). Mono implements the open specification. On top of Mono are a number of reverse engineered implementations of of Microsoft Technologies, such as WinForms, and MonoBasic (read VB.NET), which are not necessary to the success or failure of Mono, but which add compatibility with applications developed for Windows, thus enabling easy porting of those applications to Linux. C#, which is the core of Mono, is a good robust language that among other things makes it easy for developers who come from a Windows background to easily move to Linux. |
||||||||||
| krisum Sep 02, 2007 10:42 PM EST |
This is already replied: they can use Windows platform for their applications, but we encourage them to use the Linux platform since it delivers overall better performance. You have, though, ignored the general use case in question i.e. existing developer and application base. It may be your opinion that FOSS does not require existing .NET developer/application base, but one that lacks reason.
Substitute this with Java/Sun and then answer your own questions for other FOSS implementations of java.
Compatible? You mean changes as new versions of .NET come out. They have been doing that so far. Just realize that the same applies to any alternative FOSS implementation of Java (e.g. classpath) or for that matter Samba.
The following: * that ASP.NET is tied to IIS is incorrect, just that MS implementation uses (mostly) IIS and just like Mono's implementation uses Apache (or would you say tied to Apache?) * that Mono provides an Apache based implementation which can only increase adoption of Apache on FOSS platforms for ASP.NET apps
Even granting your imagined scenario, how is that worse than not having considered FOSS platforms at all since the .NET app in question would not have run on FOSS platforms w/o Mono? You have three points: 1. Mono is riddled with patent issues 2. MS decides the direction of .NET and can render Mono/DotGNU useless if it so decides 3. Mono is not useful since what it provides is already available with existing tools First point has been shown to be incorrect in multiple places. As for the second point it is already mentioned that the same holds for Java/Sun for alternative FOSS implementations (or others like Samba). Third point has been answered in many ways, though you have not considered those since it seems you do not want to hear an answer. Actually in addition to support for C#, Mono allows for pretty nice things like different developers working on the language of their choice for the same project, or a library written in one language usable on all the other supported languages etc, that are not possible otherwise. |
||||||||||
| dinotrac Sep 02, 2007 11:55 PM EST |
>Belittling his position by calling it religious >Well, you did claim he was "passing moral judgement" ***TOS Alert!*** Some believe that it is possible to be moral outside of religion. ***/TOS Alert*** Herzeleid -- At some point you have to call a spade a spade. All of Abe's arguments boil down to one thing - He hates Microsoft. Many of his arguments could be pointed at any development language or toolkit every developed. Nobody "needed" C++, nobody "needed" QT, and nobody needs Sun's original, long-time closed source and only recently opened up .NET precursor, Java. He is, indeed, passing moral judgment. .NET is bad because it came from those nasty people from Microsoft. The spiritual taint is so bad that it infects anybody who gets a whiff of it, even if they have nothing to do with Microsoft. His stance is not merely religious, it's medieval. "Good" technologies doing pretty much the same thing the same way are OK because they are not tainted by the sins of their fathers. Or, in this case, not even the |