Microsoft as an Open Source ally
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cjcox Feb 15, 2008 10:49 AM EDT |
Well... it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Everything and I mean EVERYTHING that Microsoft does has a purpose solely to benefit Microsoft and ONLY Microsoft. Partnerships in Microsoft land are arrangements made with extreme non-partner motivations. In other words, if there's ever a fire, only Microsoft will escape the building. Not much of a partner really. So... OSS and Microsoft. Microsoft is totally anti-GPL (the only license designed to protect intellectual property). We'll see what happens, but my guess is that Microsoft hopes that people will take advantage of their OSS creations so much that the technology will get safely embedded and the Microsoft can change the license and do what they do best: embrace and extend. Impossible? Think about it. It's like a drug addiction. If what is entrenched and free suddenly becomes non-free and there's nothing viable competition wise (everyone went to sleep after the grand celebrations of Microsoft's apparent conversion), then you go back to your "connection" and buy from the "dealer" you used to know so well, regardless of the price. Something Wicked This Way Comes... be VERY careful. Microsoft WILL NOT let their OSS offerings be used in a way that they do not endorse.... but regardless, the plan is to own you/us. And Balmer is actually 200 times worse than Gates in this respect. |
| NoDough Feb 15, 2008 11:45 AM EDT |
cjcox >> Everything and I mean EVERYTHING that Microsoft does has a purpose solely to benefit Microsoft and ONLY Microsoft. Well, yeah. You could replace "Microsoft" with the name of any other business in the world and this would be equally true. Furthermore, if I am one of the shareholders in that business then I expect nothing less. I know what you are getting at. The excerpt above states what I am about to reiterate. Any business will support a partnership if it's a good business decision for them. When it becomes a bad business decision, they will no longer support it. Microsoft is no different in this respect. However, it is hard to imagine a case where strengthening FOSS makes good business sense for them. |
| tracyanne Feb 15, 2008 1:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:However, it is hard to imagine a case where strengthening FOSS makes good business sense for them. It is good in a business sense if they can tie as much FOSS as possible to their Operating System. An important vector for that is .NET and C# and VB.NET. DOtNetNuke is one such project that comes to mind. It is Free OpenSource Software, published under a modified BSD license (there is a clause about modifications being shared with anyone who uses the modified code). But DotNetNuke is written in VB.NET, and so will only run on Microsoft Operating Systems. This is one reason why projects like Mono are so important, as they make it possible to free that software and make it available on non Microsoft Operating Systerms. |
| hkwint Feb 15, 2008 2:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:This is one reason why projects like Mono are so important Microsoft thinks of it the other way around: Mono is important to make people who first had no relation of any kind with Microsoft dependent on its .NET platform and its 'assumed' IP. Once that's done, Windows will always support the most up-to-date version of .NET and Windows will always have the best implementation of .NET. |
| cjcox Feb 15, 2008 4:22 PM EDT |
I like Mono. A lot of people look at it as supporting .Net... but actually their goal is a totally FOSS ... BETTER THAN .Net. In other words, while a lot of people are expecting Mono to bring a compatibility platform, Mono's goal is to bring a REPLACEMENT for .Net... even on Windows. Will it be successful? Not sure. |
| tracyanne Feb 15, 2008 4:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:Mono's goal is to bring a REPLACEMENT for .Net... even on Windows. Will it be successful? Not sure. That pretty much sums it up, It's not .NET on nix, it's Mono on all platforms. |
| tracyanne Feb 16, 2008 1:04 PM EDT |
By the way Monodevelop is still hellishly unstable, especially when one is trying to develop a web application, so I don't think it's going to knock MS Visual Studio off it's perch any time soon. |
| schestowitz Feb 16, 2008 1:37 PM EDT |
Mono is great as it is, but see discussions from a month ago about dbus sharp and other components that slowly put more Mono at the heart of things. Miguel even talked about Evolution extension written in Mono. What if people become too dependent on Mono? Think about 'Mono lockin'. Microsoft may be bluffing those 200+ patents, but Mono makes intimidation easier. Mark Shuttleowrth spoke about the big differences between a $0 Linux and a 0.01$ Linux. Microsoft suffers from Linux because of the free lunch (or Ballmer's idea of "free soda") situation. Mono is not free lunch. It makes it easier for Microsoft to compete (long-term). |
| tracyanne Feb 16, 2008 2:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:Mono is not free lunch. It makes it easier for Microsoft to compete (long-term). Actually it doesn't. But it does add choice to both Windows and Linux users in tha same way that Apache does. Mono on Windows. Microsoft doesn't need Mono to compete, all Microsoft needs is to keep Linux users locked out of Microsoft Products. One example of that is that I am forced to continue to develop on Windows, because currently there is no viable way for me to develop software other than on Windows. I don't have the time or the money to learn PHP or Perl or Python, and I can't even get any of the Java IDEs to work properly. So don't tell me it's improves Microsoft's ability to compete, it does nothing of the sort. Not having it means I have to use Windows. You spend most of your time talking paranoid delusional crap |
| tuxtom Feb 16, 2008 8:02 PM EDT |
tracyanne, it does not take money to learn to do the things you say so don't have the time to do (But you really don't want to make the time). Those things are part and parcel of any modern programmer's/linux systems administrator's repitore. If you are going to tell me that you develop on Windows but can't learn PHP then I can only only recommend another career choice. Sorry if that offends you, but you can't blame this on Microsoft. How do you have the time to learn an alternative operating system and post on these forums every day? You can develop PHP just fine on Windows (though I could not understand why you would want to do so). These are your choices and mindset, not external circumstances that are forced on you by Microsoft. Even if you have a family to support you can still steer your own ship without blaming your self-imposed limitations on a corporation. |
| tracyanne Feb 16, 2008 10:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:t does not take money to learn to do the things you say so don't have the time to do (But you really don't want to make the time). I've been trying the last 6 months just to get a Java IDE to actually work, so don't talk to me about not trying. |
| tracyanne Feb 16, 2008 10:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:If you are going to tell me that you develop on Windows but can't learn PHP I don't own a copy of MS Windows and have no desire to do so. I work on Windows at work, because that is my background. I don't have access to PHP on Windows at work, and no one is going to pay me while Im learn. Quoting:but you can't blame this on Microsoft. Who in the hell is blaming Microsoft. I'm blaming Linux and FOSS shops who won't employ me at any price while I learn. I blaming the FOSS comunity for not being more helpful. I'm blaming the developers of Java IDEs fro making IDEs that require an intimate knowledge of the Language before you can set the frigging thing up. Microsoft make it really really easy with their product, and the potential of MonoDevelop is to do the same. How do you have the time to learn an alternative operating system and post on these forums every day? [/quote] Because I'm just a dumb user on Linux. And I have not been able to make any Linux IDE do anything useful, except MonoDevelop, which is still far too unstable to use for anything really useful. You can develop PHP just fine on Windows (though I could not understand why you would want to do so). These are your choices and mindset, not external circumstances that are forced on you by Microsoft. Even if you have a family to support you can still steer your own ship without blaming your self-imposed limitations on a corporation. I don't have access to anyone who can or will help me, and I don't mean forums. Quoting:You can develop PHP just fine on Windows (though I could not understand why you would want to do so). No I can't. I already told you why. Quoting:These are your choices and mindset, not external circumstances that are forced on you by Microsoft. No they aren't. They are forced on me by the unwillingness of Linux FOSS developers any where near me to be in the least bit helpful, or to even consider employing me, even for free, when I was unemployed, and on the dole, a few years back, so I could learn. Quoting:Even if you have a family to support you can still steer your own ship without blaming your self-imposed limitations on a corporation. I don't blame Microsoft. I blame the developers of FOSS development tools for making them so damned difficult to learn, for making them without graphical development tools, in the case of Java IDEs. The one and only FOSS development tool that I can easily transition to on my own, is MonoDevelop, and tfar too many arrogant paranoid delusional creeps spend far too much of their time disparaging it for things that aren't even valid. |
| tracyanne Feb 16, 2008 10:55 PM EDT |
I blame jerks like you for being elitist. |
| dinotrac Feb 17, 2008 2:29 AM EDT |
>I blame jerks like you for being elitist. Easy girl. You could blame a cow for tasting great, but what would be the point? |
| hkwint Feb 17, 2008 4:36 AM EDT |
So Steve Ballmer was right after all it seems, about the developers. |
| dinotrac Feb 17, 2008 5:04 AM EDT |
Hans - I don't know what Ballmer said, but I've know some pretty good Unix developers who went over to .Net and C# who really appreciated Visual Studio and the tool set that goes with it. Never actually used it myself, but it does look slick -- if you are developing on a Windows platform. |
| jdixon Feb 17, 2008 6:10 AM EDT |
Going back to the original comment and response, with which I must take issue: > Everything and I mean EVERYTHING that Microsoft does has a purpose solely to benefit Microsoft and ONLY Microsoft. >> You could replace "Microsoft" with the name of any other business in the world and this would be equally true. No, NoDough, it wouldn't. Most companies actually negotiate partnerships which are mutually beneficial. Both parties get something out of the partnership. Microsoft goes out of its way to use agreements against their partners. Ask Stac and Sun, just to name two. This is why no one in their right mind even tries to partner with Microsoft anymore, and why it was so stupid for Novell to do so. Sorry it took so long for this point to percolate it's way to the surface and get posted. |
| jdixon Feb 17, 2008 6:23 AM EDT |
> I'm blaming Linux and FOSS shops who won't employ me at any price while I learn. Tracyanne has an excellent point here. Linux jobs, either in programming or support, are still thin on the ground. Many areas of the world seem to have absolutely no Linux positions available. The positions which are advertised all seem to be for system managers with 10+ years experience (in many cases, with 5 year old technologies, but that point has been made before). I'm a fairly good support tech/engineer (the title varies depending on who's hiring). I have a wide range of experience with various hardware and networking over the years, have lots of experience supporting end users, and know enough to administer my own systems and home servers. I've used Linux (mostly Slackware) for 14 years now, and it's been my desktop system for 10. As far as I can tell from several years of looking there are absolutely no Linux positions in my area, much less ones that would even consider hiring me. The only Linux career option I can see as viable in my area would be to start a home PC sales and support business similar to ZaReason's. To be viable, I'd have to give people the choice of Windows or Linux, and I'd have to support both. Based on the number of people with home PC's in the area, and the cost savings of using Linux, I think such a business would be doable, but I wouldn't expect to make a lot of money doing so, and I expect that the majority of sales and support would still be Windows, even with the Linux systems being lower priced. |
| Abe Feb 17, 2008 6:28 AM EDT |
Quoting:I blaming the FOSS comunity for not being more helpful.Tracyanne, Are we missing a Silver Spoon? There is Kdevelop, I heard it has PHP support. I personally use Kate and it is more than enough for me. Quoting:...the unwillingness of Linux FOSS developers any where near me to be in the least bit helpful, ...You can find a great wealth of PHP code on the Internet that, not only you can learn from, but actually use to develop your own projects. FOSS using outfits wouldn't hire you because they primarily are using FOSS to save money. May be you don't like development in FOSS enough to make the time to learn it. Quoting:I don't have access to PHP on Windows at work,...I believe MS recently has announced support for PHP in VS. Quoting:but it does look slick...Dino, VS is slick and very easy to use, still, you need to have an idea about what you are working with. It generates the complicated code for you but strips you from any flexibility. It manages the code of large projects, but it creates a complicated situations when it makes a small goof up. Developers like it at the beginning and they learn to hate after. It has many code modules to use, but FOSS has a lot more with the flexibility to change and enhance them. I use both and I still prefer FOSS. It is easier, simpler, flexible, multi-platform, etc.... |
| tuxtom Feb 17, 2008 7:34 AM EDT |
I'm not being elitist, I'm just responding to what I perceived as an attitude of entitlement. I've worked long and hard to learn MANY different things both on and off the clock...many 4am nights getting that "IDE" and many other things to work. (I've even worked on my own to become a .NET developer.) Getting to learn on the job while getting paid for it is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to FOSS. Nobody owes you anything; you've got to create your own opportunities. However, once you have put forth some effort and shown (even to yourself) that you you have the ability to learn and adapt to new technologies and...most importantly...be able to solve business problems with FOSS more economically than with closed tools, you will have no problem finding work, even when your .NET brethren are getting laid off left and right or compulsively chasing the next 9-5 cubicle dream on Dice. No one ever said life comes with easy, paid on-the-job training. Argue for your limitations and sure enough they're yours. |
| dinotrac Feb 17, 2008 7:55 AM EDT |
>I'm not being elitist, I'm just responding to what I perceived as an attitude of entitlement. Bull. I'm not much of a developer, but I have written software in more than a dozen languages on a like number of platforms -- depending on how you wish to define platform it could be more or less. I've even managed to pick up a couple of patents for my work in routing voices messages. I thoroughly understand Tracyanne's dilemma, especially from somebody with more to do in life than sit down in front of a computer. I once worked for a company doing python/Zope development. Miserable experience. Couldn't do much of anything interesting without having to go through and examine the Zope source code. But hey -- I thought the purpose of a platform was to save you that trouble. Similar problems with Joomla/PHP, although that seems to be rounding into better shape. You can sniff that somebody should want to go through the same pain you did, but, in reality, what people want is to get things done. A little sharing goes a long way, as do tools to make the job easier. I prefer to work with vi and a compiler, but that's because I'm old. I wish that I had the mindset to use some of the jazzier new stuff. It would make me a lot more productive. |
| herzeleid Feb 17, 2008 8:19 AM EDT |
After reading Tracyannes dilemma, I have to wonder how much pent-up demand there is for some good "linux development in a nutshell" type books. There are tools out there - I managed to get a computer science degree, using linux and only linux, because I found some decent tools and information, but that sort of thing may not be so easy to find under pressure. Anyone feel like contributing their linux development tips and tricks? @dino: I've tried to like the new fangled IDEs but my preferred development environment is based on vi or kate. That's how I like to roll, whether it's c, c++, c#, java, perl, php or prolog. |
| tuxtom Feb 17, 2008 8:53 AM EDT |
dino, to each their own, I suppose. I know tux-"type-A"-tom's views aren't always easy to digest for a lot of people, but I like to think I impart at least some wisdom to the masses. What I went through...and still go through every day...isn't "pain", it is honest effort, and more and more the older I get, discipline. Some people consider walking two blocks to the 7/11 "pain" and drive their cars instead. That isn't doing anybody any good. As far as sharing goes, I share freely every day of my life...in work, family and play. I have mentored many young people without educations who went on to have rewarding careers, many making more money than I do now. Conversely, I have also seen many one-language IDE types with CS degrees from big schools stay stuck in the same rut and doing nothing exciting or new in their careers or personal lives besides taking occasional canned vacations, all the while hanging on for that next cost-of-living 'raise'. That ain't for tuxtom. I've resigned over "painful" commutes or to take off sailing on several occasions. If someone doesn't like the free tools and opportunities available, they are free to create their own...or better yet, purchase them with cash from people willing to put forth the time and effort and "pain" to create and distribute them. I'm more productive and the companies I work for are more productive using PHP than with Java or .NET (and the massive overhead that comes with them, despite the marketing hype). That's my experience in small to mid sized corporations. I'm not saying PHP is a better technology, I'm saying it is for me at this time in my life and career. It makes things a lot easier for me and their ain't no shortage of interesting, lucrative work (and I'm not even that good at it technically...but I am good at solving business problems with it). You can call me elitist all day, but the "jazzier new stuff" won't make you a better developer or expand your range of INTERESTING opportunities any easier that Slim Fast will make you lose weight. My whole point is that you have to sharpen the saw. Even the fanciest new Makita isn't going to make much difference if you have a dull blade. |
| tracyanne Feb 17, 2008 12:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:You could blame a cow for tasting great Sorry dino, venting, I get very angry when I read those sorts of comments. I tried every FOSS/Linux FOSS/Windows development shop within 2 hours drive of where I live, that's not as many as that comment might sound given that I live in country Australia. I got this job by pure chance, because the bloke that owns the company wanted to move up here from Brisbane, and was looking for a C# developer. I'd probably be still on the dole, or even worse than developing on Windows for Windows, selling Windows computers at Harvey Norman or Good Guys. Quoting:I believe MS recently has announced support for PHP in VS. Whoop do do, We're a C# shop, I spend all day developing in C#, I don't have the time, and nor would I get approval, to learn PHP in Visual Studio, you might just as well tell me Visual Studio supports COBOL, Which it does and which I can ptogram in. Quoting:There is Kdevelop, I heard it has PHP support. I personally use Kate and it is more than enough for me. Yes there is KDevelop, and it's not a patch on Visual Studio, there's no intellisense for a start, I haven't used IDEs as primitive as those available on Linux since I moved to Visual Studio back in the late 1990s, and I;ve used all sorts of IDEs on MSDOS and (DEC and WANG mainframes) in the last 25 plus years, and I can't even get the PHP examples to run. Quoting:However, once you have put forth some effort and shown (even to yourself) that you you have the ability to learn and adapt to new technologies and...most importantly...be able to solve business problems with FOSS more economically than with closed tools, you will have no problem finding work, even when your .NET brethren are getting laid off left and right or compulsively chasing the next 9-5 cubicle dream on Dice. No one ever said life comes with easy, paid on-the-job training. With Visual Studio I don't have to worry about the boilerplate code, I can just get on with the job of solving the Business problem, which is the point of writing the code in the first place. With every FOSS tool set I've looked at the tool gets in the way of that simply because I have to spend so much time interacting with a primitive interface. I am can be and am very productive using Visual Studio. There are just the two of us (my boss and myself) developing and supporting code for two of the largest Fitness Industry Companies in the world, and we have time to take on smaller projects as well. I can't imagine doing that with any of the FOSS tools I've tried to learn. I want tools like that on Linux, so I can do what I do on a much better operating System. MonoDevelop has the potential to be that tool, but it is, unfortunately not yet ready. Eclipse is, for it's glossy glitsy User Interface, just another primitive IDE that has no Visual development interface, that is obscure and nonesensicle, and I've yet to see anyone prove me wrong, and I'd like to be. I've followed the instructions for developing GUIs using Eclipse (I need instructions.... it's bleeding obvious in Visual Studio) and I end up with a text based interface where I have to do the layout in code, I haven't had to do that for more than 10 years on a Visual Studio IDE. |
| hkwint Feb 17, 2008 1:11 PM EDT |
First of all, I never did serious programming, so I can't say much about the IDE 'problem'. I have to confess I once tried to write a small 'excercise' C++ program in KDevelop, but looking at all the stuff I had to learn, like making .config scripts etc. I didn't. However, I did write that same program in Windows, which wasn't really difficult, but I had some templates to handle the boring GUI and OpenGL stuff. However, sounds to me it's a good thing after all there's such a thing as Mono. I thought it was just another Microsoft attempt to lock people into their platforms, and even Microsoft their platforms are meant to lock people in. In my opinion Miguel de Icaza still is a Microsoft shill. It's also 'scary' to see this .NET patent encumbered technology move into the 'Linux domain'. But however, till today as a Linux desktop user it's easy to avoid .NET of being part of your desktop, and it's great I could use .NET programs made by 'lazy/productive' (depends on your viewpoint) developers if I chose so. The problem is, like many people I'm still a bit afraid of software patents; the FUD has caught me. And not only me, probably millions more. I live in Europe, but in the US it must be even worse. In my view, it's justified if someone wants to stay away from .NET. That's a dilemma; a platform which make developers productive, so which developers like (that's what I meant when saying 'Ballmer was right') but some users like me don't, though they might like the applications build with that platform on the other hand. The KDE4 API's promise to make developing (KDE)-applications easier and quicker for developers. I'm eager to find out if that will be true! |
| tuxtom Feb 17, 2008 1:34 PM EDT |
tracyanne: I agree that Visual Studio is a great tool, and not having to worry about boilerplate is a good thing. I would venture to say that the cost of developing that tool likely ran close to a billion US dollars, though, and it keeps growing every year. There are many FOSS frameworks out there in nearly any programming language that can take care of a good chuck of boilerplate for you with a minimum learning curve. I can see what you are really looking for is a WYSIWYG tool for building UI's. All my UI's are browser-based these days, and I have become pretty good at layout and automating dynamic content. I don't do graphic design very well, however, so the core look and feel of public-facing apps are usually farmed out with requirements and I do the dynamic voodoo when I receive the skins and graphics...usually with a framework of some kind these days so I don't have to reinvent the wheel with every project. Like you, I have also been flying solo or shorthanded in my career lately on projects that have a nationwide impact. It's stressful but very rewarding. I don't consider text primitive. I feel sorry for people like me who have to read WYSIWYG-generated code...kinda hard to work with it on the fly via vi in an ssh session, which is where I find myself on production systems daily. Eclipse is really a framework for building IDE tools more than it is an IDE in itself. It is not nor ever claimed to be a WYSIWYG UI tool. (IDE != WYSIWYG) I was a Java Software Engineer in the insurance industry for several years when IDE's were still primitive and frameworks were just being developed. It was a Windows environment (Weblogic/IIS/MS-SQL), but all the developers used vi and emacs on their Windows NT workstations. I was the only Linux guy in the shop, though we were only using it for DNS, mail and my Perl reporting engine at the time. We were writing MVC stuff from scratch before standard template and MVC frameworks were out there. Gang of Four patterns and stuff. Even though I haven't written Java in a few years the good practices I learned never left me and I apply them daily. I am also in Southern California, which has a much larger economy that can keep a guy like me locally employed off craigslist alone, not to mention plenty of gray suit channels which I prefer to avoid (it's the 'tux' in me). Your geographic position certainly carries economic constraints that I am not familiar with. It really sounds like me like you should stick with what you're doing and keep Linux/FOSS as a serious hobby...or move to California! Developing in a Windows environment still beats waiting tables hands down. The FOSS WYSIWYG tools are going to take many years to become anything near what VS is today. |
| tracyanne Feb 17, 2008 2:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:I can see what you are really looking for is a WYSIWYG tool for building UI's. Not necessarily. What I want is an integrated environment. That does include WYSIWYG tools. But it also incudes the ability to easily create/edit CSS (with intellisense), same for Javascript, and HTML, and of course C#. |
| Abe Feb 17, 2008 2:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:But it also incudes the ability to easily create/edit CSS (with intellisense), same for Javascript, and HTML, and of course C#. Just stick with VS. FOSS is good for a lot of people but not for what you are asking for. When FOSS developers have time or some outfit is willing to fund an effort, I am sure they will tackle this issue. |
| dinotrac Feb 17, 2008 2:55 PM EDT |
tracyanne - In the dinosaur days -- even before Microsoft was so big and bad -- I used a little IDE called (Microsoft -- yes!!!!!) Quick C. I also had Power C, Let's C and Mark Williams C, but Quick C seemed a little more pleasant to use. I actually used that stupid thing to do C under CICS on an IBM 309X mainframe by stubbing out a few CIS calls. Something about having a fast compiler, usable debugger and code editor in the same place -- all DOS and text, btw. |
| NoDough Feb 17, 2008 3:25 PM EDT |
jdixon >> No, NoDough, it wouldn't. Most companies actually negotiate partnerships which are mutually beneficial. Both parties get something out of the partnership. There is only one reason to negotiate a contract that benefits another company. That reason would be that it benefits MY company. The only reason my company negotiates a win-win is that there is a 'win' in MY column. If I rely on the other party to be healthy, then, yes, I want them to win as well. But the reason I want them to win is to accommodate MY win. If my company doesn't need the other company, then I'm looking for win-whatever. If the other company could be a competitor, then I'm looking for a win-lose. Sun and Stac made the mistake of negotiating a contract with a company that didn't really need them. Were Microsoft's tactics unethical, underhanded, and mean? You bet they were. That doesn't mean that Sun and Stac wouldn't have done the same given opportunity. Mind you, I'm not saying that I approve of Microsoft's actions. I don't. In fact, even though I believe that their software is relatively high quality stuff these days, I hate their business and legal tactics. But I'm not naive enough to think that they are alone in them. |
| jdixon Feb 17, 2008 3:36 PM EDT |
> That doesn't mean that Sun and Stac wouldn't have done the same given opportunity. Most companies have a healthy respect for the law. They will at least think twice before breaking it, especially when dealing with another company with the resources to take them to court. To be fair, they may not think twice when dealing with a consumer, who seldom has such resources. Microsoft views getting caught breaking the law and getting taken to court as a cost of doing business. > But I'm not naive enough to think that they are alone in them. No, but of major US companies, they by far the worst. |
| tracyanne Feb 17, 2008 3:52 PM EDT |
Quoting:Just stick with VS. FOSS is good for a lot of people but not for what you are asking for. There are plenty of FOSS supportive companies that could finance something like that, but they seem almost intent on letting Microsoft have that market. BTW 2 hours drive from where I am is in the order of 120 miles, that's most of the way across Texas. And I'm still in Queensland. |
| jdixon Feb 17, 2008 4:25 PM EDT |
> BTW 2 hours drive from where I am is in the order of 120 miles, that's most of the way across Texas. No, that's most of the way across a state like West Virginia. Texas is more like 800 miles across. |
| tracyanne Feb 17, 2008 5:01 PM EDT |
Fair enoughI do know that the nearest major town Bundaberg is the same as Austin to San Antonio. You can actually fit Texas inside Queensland several times, even Alaska will fit inside Queensland. Just to give you some idea of how big this place is. |
| dinotrac Feb 17, 2008 5:28 PM EDT |
jdixon -- Depends on where you cross... |
| jdixon Feb 17, 2008 5:34 PM EDT |
> Depends on where you cross... Well, if we're talking the panhandle then all bets are off. :) |
| NoDough Feb 18, 2008 5:27 AM EDT |
jdixon>> Most companies have a healthy respect for the law. Unless I am mistaken, they are not breaking the law. They are certainly being unethical, probably breaching contract, definitely breaching the spirit of contract; but breaking the law? jdixon>> No, but of major US companies, they by far the worst. Or, at least, the most visible. |
| dinotrac Feb 18, 2008 5:32 AM EDT |
>Or, at least, the most visible. It seems pretty easy to forget names like Enron, Arthur Andersen, Waste Management, WorldComm, etc, etc, etc |
| jdixon Feb 18, 2008 5:59 AM EDT |
> It seems pretty easy to forget names like... With the exception of Waste Management, those are no longer major US corporations. I don't think Waste Management is in the top 100 by market capitalization, but I could be wrong. Perhaps Microsoft should take note... |
| ColonelPanik Feb 18, 2008 6:00 AM EDT |
Be happy, don't worry. Companies/corporations are not honest or dishonest. They are not liberal or conservative. They are not religious or non-religious. Nor are they ethical or unethical. What they are is opportunistic. |
| jdixon Feb 18, 2008 6:02 AM EDT |
> Unless I am mistaken, they are not breaking the law. Correct WRT Sun (that would be breach of contract), but probably not WRT Stac. Theft is still against the law, and they stole Stac's technology. However, in general your point is taken that breach of contract is a civil and not a criminal matter. I stand corrected. |
| dinotrac Feb 18, 2008 6:36 AM EDT |
jdixon -- The situation vis a vis STAC -- which was patent infringement -- was rectified via civil suit years ago. STAC made out very well ($83 million) when you consider that exploding hard drive capacities were already on the verge of rendering their flagship product obsolete. |
| jdixon Feb 18, 2008 7:20 AM EDT |
Dino, how Stack eventually made out has little to do with Microsoft's willingness to break laws, contracts, and agreements. In the end, we're all dead, which is just about as relevant. Yes, Microsoft has paid a high price for some (though not all) of their past misdeeds. That doesn't seem to have changed their behavior any. |
| dinotrac Feb 18, 2008 7:27 AM EDT |
jdixon -- WRT to Stac, we are talking about events that took place 15 years ago. That's a long time in the life of a corporation. |
| jdixon Feb 18, 2008 7:46 AM EDT |
> That's a long time in the life of a corporation. GE's says they've been around since 1878, Dino. I admit that you are correct concerning today's corporate climate, but that's a relatively new development. |
| tracyanne Feb 18, 2008 12:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:However, sounds to me it's a good thing after all there's such a thing as Mono. Yes it is. Quoting:I thought it was just another Microsoft attempt to lock people into their platforms, and even Microsoft their platforms are meant to lock people in. I can't imagine how freeing people to use Linux or any of the other platforms that Mono will work on is locking one in to Microsoft. People do get funny ideas, especially when Microsoft's name come into the conversation. Quoting:In my opinion Miguel de Icaza still is a Microsoft shill. In my opinion he's not. In my opinion he's taken a lot of great ideas that Microsoft has, and made them available in the FOSS realm, and Microsoft does have some great ideas/products, whether anyone like that or not. Quoting:It's also 'scary' to see this .NET patent encumbered technology move into the 'Linux domain'. What patents? Mono is an implementation of the ECMA/ISO standard. Quoting:But however, till today as a Linux desktop user it's easy to avoid .NET of being part of your desktop, and it's great I could use .NET programs made by 'lazy/productive' (depends on your viewpoint) developers if I chose so. Why would I want to avoid using applications based on Mono? See above. Interestingly I don't seem to use any on my system, except Monodevelop, of course, but not due to Patent concerns. I consider myself a lazy programmer. I'm personally not about to do any more work than is necessary. That's why I prefer tools that do the grunt work for me, that way I achieve more for less effort, but each to their own. Quoting:The problem is, like many people I'm still a bit afraid of software patents; And Microsoft would very much like to see Mono fail. The software patent spectre is very useful here. Quoting:the FUD has caught me. And not only me, probably millions more. Yep it works. Quoting:I live in Europe, but in the US it must be even worse. In my view, it's justified if someone wants to stay away from .NET. I think you are completely unjustified, at least on the reasons given. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 18, 2008 1:19 PM EDT |
Quoting:What patents? Mono is an implementation of the ECMA/ISO standard. Mono is also an implementation's of Microsoft's libraries that are not part of the standard. There could be patents in those. That's the difference between Mono and DotGNU. DotGNU only implements the ECMA/ISO standard. Mono also implements MS's libraries. |
| Abe Feb 18, 2008 1:27 PM EDT |
@tracyanne Your first closing [ quote] is missing a slash, which is making all others not to display properly. Quoting:However, sounds to me it's a good thing after all there's such a thing as Mono.For those who have no need of Mono, are happy and satisfied with pure FOSS, It makes no difference and they really careless. Quoting:In my opinion Miguel de Icaza still is a Microsoft shill.I believe that too. He didn't take the idea, he is building a compatible clone. Quoting:What patents? Mono is an implementation of the ECMA/ISO standard.Is it really an ISO standard or just ECMA? Besides, are we sure there are no hidden patents. I wouldn't trust it until it is officially declared by you know who. Quoting:I live in Europe, but in the US it must be even worse. In my view, it's justified if someone wants to stay away from .NET.Wooow. How could you claim that! If someone is suspecting and is being careful here, and doesn't need to use Mono or whatever to accomplish what is needed that could be done by other ways and means, how is that unjustified? I thought you said "but each to their own". Whatever happened to that? |
| tracyanne Feb 19, 2008 1:44 AM EDT |
Quoting:Mono is also an implementation's of Microsoft's libraries that are not part of the standard. There could be patents in those. We've been over this before, that's crap. Mono does not implement .NET Libraries. It implements Mono Libraries that are interface compatible with the .Net Libraries. There are no patents in those. SaMBa does exactly the same thing. |
| tracyanne Feb 19, 2008 2:20 AM EDT |
Quoting: Your first closing [ quote] is missing a slash, which is making all others not to display properly. Fixed. Quoting:For those who have no need of Mono, are happy and satisfied with pure FOSS, It makes no difference and they really careless. Mono is pure FOSS. For those who have no need of Mono there are plenty of other FOSS tools to choose from. Quoting:He didn't take the idea, he is building a compatible clone. Which is a good thing, because now Microsoft won't have the monopoly on the technology, and Open Source .NET projects can be ported to Linux and other operating systems, and they will no longer depend on Microsoft's operating system, thereby freeing those projects. Quoting:Is it really an ISO standard or just ECMA? I've already answered this in a previous post. Quoting:Besides, are we sure there are no hidden patents. I wouldn't trust it until it is officially declared by you know who. We can't be sure, on the other hand we can' be sure there are no patents in any technology used in Linux and Free Open Source Software. Bill Gates and Steve Balmer are not about to tell you there are no patents in Mono, they stand to loose too much by doing that. Quoting:I live in Europe, but in the US it must be even worse. In my view, it's justified if someone wants to stay away from .NET. Easy, the reasons you gave, that there may be patents encumbering Mono, are spurious, unjustified reasons for not using it. By your reasoning, you should stop using any technology that is also available in Windows. Which means you should stop using Linux. Quoting:I thought you said "but each to their own". Whatever happened to that? I did, you just chose to use it out of context. Quoting:I consider myself a lazy programmer. I'm personally not about to do any more work than is [un]necessary. That's why I prefer tools that do the grunt work for me, that way I achieve more for less effort, but each to their own. You are free to do things the hard way. I choose not to. |
| tracyanne Feb 19, 2008 2:47 AM EDT |
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecm...Quoting:This Ecma publication is also approved as ISO/IEC 23271:2006, which is freely available here http://isotc.iso.ch/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2489/Ittf_H... |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 19, 2008 2:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:Mono does not implement .NET Libraries. It implements Mono Libraries that are interface compatible with the .Net Libraries. There are no patents in those. Until MS comes out and declares that those .Net libraries (those not included in the ECMA/ISO/Whatever standard) do not contain any patents, I don't trust it. They recently patented page flipping by using gestures. Who knows how many silly, overboard and obvious patents they have on the stuff in their .Net libraries. |
| tracyanne Feb 19, 2008 3:22 AM EDT |
Quoting:They recently patented page flipping by using gestures. Who knows how many silly, overboard and obvious patents they have on the stuff in their .Net libraries. Based on that assessment I think you should probably stop using Linux and Gnu toolsets, after who know how many silly overboard and obvious patents they have in Linux and Gnu toolsets. |
| tracyanne Feb 19, 2008 3:37 AM EDT |
Actually they haven't patented page flipping using gestures, they've applied for a patent. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 3:55 AM EDT |
DOES NOBODY UNDERSTAND PATENTS AROUND HERE?????? Good Lord, but I'm getting tired of people who think that patents are some kind of magical yeast-beastie living under a bridge and waiting to eat your children. Patents do pose very specific dangers, but SHEEEESH. It is not sufficient to sit back and whisper "patents" as if you were sprinkling holy water. That's especially true now that the Supreme Court has raised the obviousness (something that would be obvious to a skilled practitioner is not patentable) bar to a more appropriate place for software. All of this patent-encumbered talk about .Net must be coming from Microsoft moles. Those are the only people who would know about any patents relating to .Net because MICROSOFT AIN'T TELLING US!!!! And,. gosh, boys and girls, the term makes sense only when referring to a specific implementation, not to a general category. If Microsoft's implementation does something in a way that is patented, it doesn't say diddly about mono's implementation -- one way or the other. Think of it like aspirin, ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and naproxen-sodium. All do the same thing. All, with the possible exception of aspirin, have been patented. None infringed on the others. Mono is one of the few projects I know about that actually makes an effort by policy to avoid patent infringement. They may actually be less susceptible to patent claims than most. Don't know. Patent claims are a cloud over everybody. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 19, 2008 4:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:DOES NOBODY UNDERSTAND PATENTS AROUND HERE?????? Yes I do. I'm just suspect of MS either collaborating with Novell to get FOSS dependent on MS patents, or trying to "trap" Novell/Miguel. I just keep smelling a big fat turd hidden just out of sight. |
| tracyanne Feb 19, 2008 4:16 AM EDT |
Thank you dino. |
| tracyanne Feb 19, 2008 4:24 AM EDT |
Sander as dino points outQuoting:Mono is one of the few projects I know about that actually makes an effort by policy to avoid patent infringement. They may actually be less susceptible to patent claims than most. Has it ever occured to you that the paranoia about mono is exactly what Microsoft needs to keep it's monopoly on the technology embodied in .Net and Mono, emasculate mono and they own a development framework that is powering a lot of new OSS development, and all of it trapped on the Microsoft OS. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 19, 2008 4:32 AM EDT |
Yet I keep waiting for the trap to spring. Let's just say that I would have felt a whole lot better if Mono had been developed by someone totally independent of MS instead of MS fanboy Miguel and Novell. Just a personal feeling. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 5:27 AM EDT |
Sander -- Miguel and Novell were totally independent of MS before they signed the deal, and, truthfully, are still independent of Microsoft. Novell's relationship to Microsoft is like that of Sun to Microsoft, and, in the days when their deal was in effect, Apple to Microsoft. As to "fanboy", you're talking about the person RMS himself entrusted to start the GNOME project. Miguel is a technology buff who really like what he saw in .Net. Face it -- nobody would be successful at doing a .Net implementation as free software unless they really liked the technology. Now -- I think there is case to be made that spending all that time around Microsoft technology and, by extention, Microsoft types, has softened his focus... |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 19, 2008 6:24 AM EDT |
Quoting:Miguel is a technology buff who really like what he saw in .Net. Face it -- nobody would be successful at doing a .Net implementation as free software unless they really liked the technology. I'm not questioning that. But what was he smoking whe he wrote this? http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2985 |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 6:59 AM EDT |
Sander -- Stockholm effect? Let's face it, he's spent a lot of time inundated in Microsoft technology over the last few years. That'll bend anybody's mind. Remember the last line of my post: Quoting: Now -- I think there is case to be made that spending all that time around Microsoft technology and, by extention, Microsoft types, has softened his focus... |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 19, 2008 7:11 AM EDT |
Quoting:Let's face it, he's spent a lot of time inundated in Microsoft technology over the last few years. That'll bend anybody's mind. Agreed. But hopefully you do understand that therefor I trust him less than some objective outsider in keeping Mono free of any possible patent traps that MS may have laid out? This is exactly why I have far less of a reservation against DotGNU. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 7:16 AM EDT |
I understand what you are saying but think you are way off-base. Patents and affection for the technology are two very different things. We can adore patented items -- most of us do, whether we realize it or not -- without wanting to infringe on their patents. I believe Miguel is justifiably proud of mono. But, to my knowledge, the project's policy's with regard to patents have not changed and Miguel is not the only person watching out for such things. For that matter, I would bet that Novell's legal folks check in from time to time. |
| Abe Feb 19, 2008 7:25 AM EDT |
@Tracyanne, Let me put this way. You like .Net and you insist on using it believing there is no risk in doing so. Fine, that is yours and others proactive. OTOH, many others don't feel comfortable with your assessment. Those others are happy and dandy using pure FOSS to do what they need to do. So, please don't try convincing everyone otherwise. You claim SAMBA uses the same methods. No it doesn't, SAMBA doesn't use cloned libraries, it has its own API, on a different platforms than Windows, to talk to the API on Windows, it is an interface not libraries. They are different beasts. You claim SAMBA uses Windows technology, no it does not, it just interfaces without Windows networking and it is all legal now the documentation has been release. You claim that Mono is only using a free ECMA/ISO standards. Like Sander said, the libraries are not part of the standard and being a standard doesn't guarantee they are clean of any patents. Some people don't really care about using it because they can use other available technologies that they are more assured about them not having any patents. Why do you insist on convincing everyone otherwise? Many others feel more safe by not using Mono, especially when there are other technology and tools they can use to accomplish what they want. I guess we agree to disagree. End of discussion. I have couple questions for you If Mono is pure FOSS, why doesn't De Icaza join forces with DotGNU group? If De Icaza's idea is to use such a wonderful technology, why does he keep trying to keep compatibility with Windows .Net and risk the possibility of infringing on hidden patents? That makes no sense to me. Quoting:Miguel and Novell were totally independent of MS before they signed the deal, and, truthfully, are still independent of Microsoft@Dino, This is your opinion, others feel just the opposite. Quoting:you're talking about the person RMS himself entrusted to start the GNOME project. Miguel is a technology buff who really like what he saw in...Time changes and people change a lot more. Come on Dino, we are mature people here. Liking something isn't enough to must have it. We all like and want gifts. Adjusted to our times, a wise man told us "Beware Of Geeks Baring Gifts". |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 7:33 AM EDT |
>Come on Dino, we are mature people here. Sure, but ti would be nice if you would stay somewhere around reality. Paranoia is, well, paranoia. > Liking something isn't enough to must have it. If you are attempting to attribute that sentiment to me, I again suggest that you make the tiniest effort to stay within shouting distance of reality. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 19, 2008 7:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:Like Sander said, the libraries are not part of the standard and being a standard doesn't guarantee they are clean of any patents. I didn't say the latter part. Or didn't mean it anyway. Any part of .Net that's with ECMA/ISO should be free enough to implement. If MS has a submarine patent in there, a lot of legal enteties would start playing whack-a-mole with Microsoft. I said that you should be wary of hidden patents in the stuff that Mono implements but which are *not* part of ECMA/ISO. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 8:04 AM EDT |
>If MS has a submarine patent in there, Strictly speaking, there aren't true submarine patents any more. In one sense, all patents start out as submarines because patents aren't made public until they are granted, but... the term actually applied to patents whose applicants kept them perpetual pending by adding/modifying claims and generally jerking around the PTO. That could work to a company's advantage because the expiration clock started ticking when the patent was granted. Now the clock starts when you apply for the patent. Jerking the PTO around just reduces the amount of time that you can enforce a patent. |
| Abe Feb 19, 2008 8:27 AM EDT |
Quoting:Paranoia is, well, paranoiaNo paranoia here. Personally, I simply don't need to use Mono. Thanks to FOSS, I have many other choices. Quoting:If you are attempting to attribute that sentiment to me,...No, I wasn't. That was directed towards De Icaza in love with .Net technology. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 8:41 AM EDT |
>That was directed towards De Icaza in love with .Net technology. In that case, it fits. |
| Abe Feb 19, 2008 8:43 AM EDT |
Quoting:I didn't say the latter part. Or didn't mean it anyway. Any part of .Net that's with ECMA/ISO should be free enough to implement.Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate you said that. My own personal opinion is, being a standard doesn't assure it is not tied to or has no patents. OOXML is a perfect example. |
| jdixon Feb 19, 2008 8:51 AM EDT |
> My own personal opinion is, being a standard doesn't assure it is not tied to or has no patents. Well, that's a given. Those participating in the standard process are supposed to admit to any patents they have dealing with the standard, but that's only binding on the participants, not outsiders. And most standards processes don't require that the standard be patent free, merely that the patents be available on "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 8:57 AM EDT |
> My own personal opinion is, being a standard doesn't assure it is not tied to or has no patents. A standard has no patents. Implementations of that standard may or may not use patented technology. But...here's a key point: If it is not possible to implement a standard without reliance on patented technology and that fact was not disclosed by the standard's sponsor/promoter/submitter/whatever, regulatory bodies in both the EU and US have shown a willingness to foreclose enforcement of the patents in question. This is what happened to Rambus. |
| jdixon Feb 19, 2008 9:05 AM EDT |
> ...regulatory bodies in both the EU and US have shown a willingness to foreclose enforcement of the patents in question. As I understand the process Dino, that's only true if they were a participant in the process. Someone who had no part in the process could still have a applicable patent which the standard body did not catch, and it would still be enforcible. Is that your understanding also? |
| Abe Feb 19, 2008 9:47 AM EDT |
Dino, JDixon,
Thanks, very enlightening information. But still, "shown a willingness" might not be good enough to some.Quoting: Those participating in the standard process are supposed to admit to any patents they have dealing with the standard...In OOXML case, is the ECMA considered the participant since they submitted that standard to ISO, or is Microsoft considered the participant even though the ECMA submitted the standard to ISO on their behalf? |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 9:58 AM EDT |
Guys -- ECMA does not initiate standards. Standards are submitted to it. Microsoft absolutely was a participant. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 19, 2008 12:03 PM EDT |
Dino, can you answer this one too? I'm curious if there's any precedent.Quoting:Someone who had no part in the process could still have a applicable patent which the standard body did not catch, and it would still be enforcible. Is that your understanding also? |
| tracyanne Feb 19, 2008 12:08 PM EDT |
Quoting:You like .Net and you insist on using it believing there is no risk in doing so. No I use .NET because I have no other choice. I would prefer to use Mono, and on Linux, but the reality is there is as yet no decent development tool to do so commercially. Quoting:You claim SAMBA uses the same methods. No it doesn't, SAMBA doesn't use cloned libraries, it has its own API, on a different platforms than Windows, to talk to the API on Windows, it is an interface not libraries. They are different beasts. Exactly the same as Mono. The mono libraries are interface compatible with the .NET libraries. Quoting:If Mono is pure FOSS, why doesn't De Icaza join forces with DotGNU group? How would I know, perhaps they have a different focus, why are there so often so many FOSS projects that do the same thing? Quoting:If De Icaza's idea is to use such a wonderful technology, why does he keep trying to keep compatibility with Windows .Net and risk the possibility of infringing on hidden patents? That makes no sense to me. DotGnu doesn't free OSS projects written in .NET, Mono does, makes perfect sense to me. Without Mono the very large and very active OSS community that depends on .NET is locked into Microsoft Windows. Check out the Code Project http://www.codeproject.com/ for example, that's a huge codebase, all of which is locked in to Microsoft Windows (but for Mono). There's a hell of a lot of very active OSS stuff going on in the Windows world, and most of it written in.NET. Microsoft would like to keep it that way, and the fear loathing and general paranoia of the Linux community works very very well at ensuring that Microsoft keeps that lock in very tightly in place. The problem isn't some possible patent in Mono, that's a possibility in every single peice of FOSS code that goes into Linux - the fact that the majority of FOSS Linux users developers ignore that fact won't make it go away - and Mono is no more problematic in that area than any other FOSS project. So if you fear patent infringement so much stop using Linux, and pay for a license to use Microsoft's Operating System (you'll be safe then). |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 12:24 PM EDT |
Sander - Yes, but that is the case with all software. The notion of an "applicable patent" is something you need to be careful with, though. The most likely situation is that somebody will implement the standard in a way that violates a patent claim, not that the standard cannot be implemented without violating the claim. The solution would then be to change the implementation to one that doesn't infringe the patent. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 19, 2008 1:35 PM EDT |
That I understand as well. But what happens if the standard can only be implemented by violating the patent, and the patent in question is held by a non-party to the standard? That's the case I'd like to see answered. As long as you can work around the patent it's no issue. But what if you can't? |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 1:54 PM EDT |
>That I understand as well. But what happens if the standard can only be implemented by violating the patent, and the patent in question is held by a non-party to the standard? Then the non-party cleans up if people actually implement the standard. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!