what is the real threat?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Oct 06, 2008 10:53 PM EDT |
I'm getting flamed all to heck over at brand x for positing that Mono is not evil. Other than vague, increasingly unlikely patent threats, what is the danger in Mono? With specificity please, and not "because Miguel hearts Microsoft so he is sneaking in bad stuff." |
| tracyanne Oct 06, 2008 11:36 PM EDT |
Quoting:what is the danger in Mono? I maintain there is none. |
| shmget Oct 06, 2008 11:51 PM EDT |
"what is the danger in Mono?" non-withstanding the patent threads, which are not that unlikely - at least in countries where software patents are recognized as legal - because it is a variation on the theme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2008 12:02 AM EDT |
.NET on Linux (Mono) is ready, and has been so for some time, the development tools aren't quite, at least from my viewpoint.. but I haven't seen MonoDevelop 2 yet. |
| tuxchick Oct 07, 2008 1:21 AM EDT |
How does "embrace, extend and extinguish" apply to GPL and LGPL code, which are the two main licenses used by Mono? Sorry, but all I'm seeing is a lot of hand-waving and no specifics in regards to whatever threat Mono poses. It seems motivated more by distaste than any real threat. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 07, 2008 1:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:How does "embrace, extend and extinguish" apply to GPL and LGPL code The same way it applied to Java. Divide the developers. Get them on Mono and when they're used to it, let Mono whither away and watch the Mono developers jump to Windows which *does* have an up-to-date .Net environment. And developers will dump the outdated codebase. See also OpenGL which is dead on Windows because MS hasn't updated OpenGL support beyond OpenGL 1.2 on Windows. It's a risk in so far that it's Microsoft and not the FOSS project that determines the future direction of the project. The value of Mono is that it's compatible with MS .Net, so there are developers. When it's no longer compatible it's no longer interesting. It may be (L)GPL and it may live on in it's incompatible state, but it's no longer interesting to developers to build on. That, and the patent threats, which have been discussed to death and which may or may not be a problem for you on a personal level. It all boils down to trust. Do you trust Microsoft? |
| azerthoth Oct 07, 2008 4:20 AM EDT |
Sander that process uses the same logic as gradually converting someone to OSS by letting them dangle their toes in OOo but in reverse. I can't see developers changing their OS because MS breaks compatability with a (singular) programming platform. Yes I dismiss the patent issues for two reasons, 1 is that mono maintains a log of clean room processes, and 2 all it would take to shut mono down is for MS to identify, not prosecute, just identify, any offending software processes. Then again if the mono folks decide to fight, that patent has to be able to withstand scrutiny and maintain applicability to the case through specificity. MS has not done so though, even though at this late date intent is laughably easy to prove against the mono folks. TC, IMHO, all the mono is, is handwaving. It's not enough for most people to be for something (OSS) they have to show that they believe in being for something by being vehemently against something else. In our case its not enough to be for Linux, but you also have to be against Microsoft or anything even possibly (justifiably or not) tainted by them. Kind of sad that vocal support is done not in the positive but in the negative. |
| r_a_trip Oct 07, 2008 5:28 AM EDT |
Other than vague, increasingly unlikely patent threats, what is the danger in Mono? Mono tethers us to Microsoft and their way of doing technology. DotNet is ultimately a way for MS to counter Java in an MS specific way. DotNet is a tool for MS to retain traction on their server side offerings and their fat web client strategies. Mono will never be a *Nix native platform. MS controls the specs and therefore the direction. I know the counter-argument that Mono could leave the Microsoft compatibility behind and still be a good development platform. Let's pretend Mono does leave the MS compatibility and diverges on their own. What value add does Mono have above Java at that point? Java runs everywhere and an non-DotNet Mono doesn't. Mono is all about "Ooh Aah, MS tech runs on Linux". The real danger of Mono is the clone mentality. Instead of innovating on FOSS and coming up with something original and a snug fit for FOSS, Mono just trods along where others have already been. Following MS is a dead end. MS is a hostile company, with an agenda to crush anything non-MS. Cloning their technology and becoming dependent on it just doesn't feel right. Maybe I need a tinfoil hat, but better safe than sorry. MS may be blustering about patents, but they have more dirty tricks up their sleeves. If they are smart enough to find a patent deal loophole in the GPLv2, they are smart enough to let DotNet/Mono work against FOSS. I won't stop people from going Mono though. If you don't see any implications in MS controlling the specs and a lot of proprietary parts not in the spec, then there isn't a problem, is there? It's just that I won't use any resulting programs from that stable. |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2008 6:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:The real danger of Mono is the clone mentality. Instead of innovating on FOSS and coming up with something original and a snug fit for FOSS, Mono just trods along where others have already been. So when are you going to advocate getting SaMBa out of Linux? SaMBa is, after all merely a clone of SMB/CIFs and increasingly Active Directory, until very recently reverse engineered, in the same way as Mono is. |
| mortenalver Oct 07, 2008 9:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:Mono will never be a *Nix native platform. MS controls the specs and therefore the direction. I know the counter-argument that Mono could leave the Microsoft compatibility behind and still be a good development platform. Let's pretend Mono does leave the MS compatibility and diverges on their own. What value add does Mono have above Java at that point? Java runs everywhere and an non-DotNet Mono doesn't. Mono is all about "Ooh Aah, MS tech runs on Linux". Mono runs on Windows as well as Linux. I suppose it can be run on other platforms as well. |
| hchaudh1 Oct 07, 2008 10:42 AM EDT |
@tc I didn't think you would sell out. But then again, you got plenty of company here at Lxer |
| Libervis Oct 07, 2008 10:50 AM EDT |
Threat of mono? Applications I would otherwise like to use are made slow. I avoid mono because it's an unnecessary bloat. That considered, I'm always annoyed by Miguel's push for mono in GNOME. Make your own Mononome! You did it once you can do it again. Meh. |
| tuxchick Oct 07, 2008 11:10 AM EDT |
The goal of Samba 4 is to be a drop-in Active Directory replacement. Will that make Samba evil like Mono? It's the same thing- a clone of "Microsoft technologies." Giving people an alternative is such an awful thing? |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 07, 2008 11:38 AM EDT |
Tuxchick, Mono is a different beast than Samba. Samba is about interoperability in a mixed Linux/Windows environment. Nobody is running Samba in an all-Linux setup. Mono is not about interoperability. It's about competing with the stacks we already have in Linux (Java, Python, Perl, etcetera). You can't compare Mono with Samba because they both do "something" with MS technology. They do totally different things with it.Quoting:Sander that process uses the same logic as gradually converting someone to OSS by letting them dangle their toes in OOo but in reverse. Only the embrace and extend step. FOSS does does not Exinguish. We do not have a history of obliterating competition by any means possible. Microsoft does. Quoting:I can't see developers changing their OS because MS breaks compatability with a (singular) programming platform. Research OpenGL v.s. DirectX. Why do you think so much gaming is Windows only? Doing cross-platform games with OpenGL is not hard. ID Software does it all the time. It's impossible to do when you're on DirectX. Microsoft broke OpenGL and the game industry jumped. People will jump. If you're a paid Mono/.NET developer on Linux and MS breaks Mono, you will jump OS because it's a helluva lot easier than trying to pay the bills by learning a new programming language. |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2008 11:54 AM EDT |
TC - As you can see from the responses in this thread, nobody has a rational basis for calling Mono evil that can't be applied to something else they would call good. Mono derives from Microsoft technology, as does Samba, or, for that matter, AJAX. Mono developers are friendly with some folks over at Microsoft, as are Mozilla developers. People are afraid of patent threats to mono, but have never come up with any. The mono development team actually has policies and procedures for avoiding patent issues, which most OSS projects do not. I don't know what patent threats Microsoft has hurled at mono, but it can't be as many as they've hurled at linux. People are just plain pissed off at Miguel and Novell for doing something they didn't think should be done. The real question is this: Will developers be able to use mono to make good software available for Linux? Only time can answer that one. |
| shmget Oct 07, 2008 11:55 AM EDT |
@ azerthoth "Yes I dismiss the patent issues for two reasons, 1 is that mono maintains a log of clean room processes, " I'm afraid you do not understand patents. 'clean room' protect you against copyright infringement, not patent. With patent, it doesn't matter if you can demonstrate that you re-invented the wheel 'on your own'. (actually it does matter, because if you do then you are slapped with 'simple infringement', and not 'willful infringement' - which carry an automatic x3 penalty. That's why software engineer are encouraged NOT to browse patent repository, to be able to defend that they didn't know...) "2 all it would take to shut mono down is for MS to identify, not prosecute, just identify" 'reason 2' is actually in support of the patent thread reality, not in favor of dismissing it.. mono is a time bomb. more exactly a remotely controlled bomb, and MS own the remote. |
| jdixon Oct 07, 2008 12:14 PM EDT |
> Will developers be able to use mono to make godd software available for Linux? Thus far, it appears the answer to that question is no, but I'll admit that the jury is still out. The programs produced to date have been less than awe inspiring, to put it mildly. |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2008 12:28 PM EDT |
>mono is a time bomb. more exactly a remotely controlled bomb, and MS own the remote. Except that they don't. Patent threats can be defused by "inventing around" the patents. It happens all the tiem. I even earned patents in my younger days by inventing around voice routing patents held by AT&T. Here's the thing: Patents are public. If mono is violating some Microsoft patent, anybody can find out about it!! Absolutely anybody, including the mono development team. You're so certain that mono is a time bomb, perhaps you know which patents it violates. You should share that knowledege with Novell's legal team, I would think. |
| gus3 Oct 07, 2008 1:02 PM EDT |
@dino: Has the patent undergone actual, detailed review? Or is it some vague legal filing designed to put Microsoft in control of it for 17 years? You know, like OOXML with its numerous sections stating "to be determined later, as Microsoft deems necessary." |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2008 2:43 PM EDT |
gus3 - 1. With the exception of patents for drugs delayed to market because of FDA testing -- and a few other adjustments available to compensate for procedural delays, the term of patents applied for after 1995 is 20 years from the date of the original application, not 17 years. Prior to 1995, the term was 17 years from the time the patent was granted, and could be extended once for a total of 34 years. 2. Patents are issued for things that are reduced to practice, not for specifications. Patent examiners are charged with determining that the new technology has been demonstrated and that it is, in fact, both new and sufficiently novel to warrant a patent. 3. Software patents have been a total disaster on 3 important counts: a. For the first 50 hears of the computing age, nobody believed that it was permissible to patent software. No patents were granted. This is bad in one very important way: The PTO's first source of prior art is previously granted patents. That's part of the reason you see so many utterly crap patents -- patents for things that have been done before. b. The very purpose of computers is a sort of innovation that would be patentable in other disciplines : finding a new way of doing things. Specifically, you take manual processes and implement them with computer software. Finding a new way to smelt aluminum, for example, could earn you a patent even though other ways to smelt exist. Putting something on a computer shouldn't be considered an invention -- the Von Neumann machine itself is the invention. c. For whatever reason, patent examiners have not given software developers much credit for creativity. That sounds a bit perverse -- after all, you would think that granting patents means we have been creative indeed, but... no. You see, something that should be obvious to the ordinary practicioner is not patentable. If you think practicioners are dolts, lots fo things will meet the threshold. Fortunately, recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly raised the bar, so the flood of software patents should (I hope) slow down. Unfortunately, the patents already granted are presumed to be valid so court challenges must prove that they aren't -- a version of innocent until proven guilty. |
| r_a_trip Oct 07, 2008 2:44 PM EDT |
Tracyanne: So when are you going to advocate getting SaMBa out of Linux? Not. (I have no need for Samba by the way. I don't have MS legacy systems.) I'm not advocating of getting Mono out of Linux. Everybody is free to pick their poison. I merely hinted that I don't trust Mono to be a viable long term platform an therefore I will not use it. I won't stop anyone from writing Mono software, but you can't get me to take it from you. I bet there are others like me, who don't see the need for a clone DotNet. If push comes to shove, there will be Mono Linux Distro's and non Mono Linux Distro's. You can guess which one I'll use if Mono is on the verge of becoming Gnome infrastructure. Tuxchick: Giving people an alternative is such an awful thing? No. But why reverse engineer and clone everything MS? You'd be better off just running the pure MS stuff. At least you'd be up to date and compatible (within the same version). Good for Samba by the way. They'll make nice AD servers, no doubt. I don't need it though. For my home needs NFS is fine and what my employer wants to run is my employers business (it won't be Samba though). Dinotrac: The real question is this: Will developers be able to use mono to make good software available for Linux? In my mind the question would be: Can they get enough takers to justify writing in Mono? On a personal note: My my, I say no to Mono and everybody is trying to shove a sliver down my throat. Too bad it doesn't work. I'm free to reject Mono for the reasons I stated. Reasons which don't even include patents. You could write a computing panacea in Mono and I will still take my "antiquated UNIX clone" above the Mono heaven. Mono isn't Evil(TM) It is an unnecessary addition to FOSS. |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2008 3:17 PM EDT |
>Mono isn't Evil(TM) It is an unnecessary addition to FOSS That is a perfectly legitimate and defensible position. Lots of software (like GNOME) comes under that category. Not evil, just not needed. |
| tuxchick Oct 07, 2008 3:25 PM EDT |
Ok I think I have it all sorted out. Mono is not a threat to Linux and FOSS, which is how some folks represent it, but there may be some special hazards in using it. Sound about right? |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2008 3:52 PM EDT |
tc - Pretty much, but then, that's true of most software, isn't it? |
| bigg Oct 07, 2008 3:57 PM EDT |
One point about getting developers attached to Mono and then (by whatever process) getting rid of Mono, so that Linux developers have to move to Windows. Doesn't that assume .NET is the superior platform? If the free alternatives are better, why would anyone use Mono? I have a real problem with criticizing anything on the basis that it is better than the alternatives. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 07, 2008 5:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:Doesn't that assume .NET is the superior platform? For cross-platform development, yes. Well, not better but certainly a much broader install base (so a bigger marker for paid developers). I don't know many folks that have Java (not just the runtime) or Python installed on Windows. |
| shmget Oct 07, 2008 5:43 PM EDT |
@bigg
"Doesn't that assume .NET is the superior platform?" No. If 'superior platform' was the criteria, you would have Betamax, not VHS, and MS-DOS would certainly not have seen the day of light. Windows dominance of the PC market is not indication, by any stretch of the imagination, that Windows is a 'superior platform'. |
| techiem2 Oct 07, 2008 5:53 PM EDT |
A random note on the samba/interoperability issue:
I recently found that Songbird (running in windows) has issues reading tags from oggs when read over a samba share mapped on the machine.
When reading over an nfs mount after installing SFU, it doesn't.
Once again the standards win. :) (Yes, I know the problem makes no sense whatsoever.....) As for the big interoperability issue, we use samba servers here at the college for our domain controllers. Samba and ldap works well for us and we don't need $$$ Windows DCs running (and crashing). |
| jdixon Oct 07, 2008 9:12 PM EDT |
> I bet there are others like me, who don't see the need for a clone DotNet. Well, you can add me to that list. Not that I have anything against Mono as such, just that I don't need it. > But why reverse engineer and clone everything MS? In this case, because that was Miguel's itch. Personally I suspect Microsoft gave him poison ivy, but what do I know. |
| azerthoth Oct 07, 2008 9:48 PM EDT |
OK, it's time, bring proof or bring beer, so we can tell more grand stories, but bring something tangible to the table. This is one of those topics that really reeks of, 'See how firmly I advocate Linux by opposing all things that have even an unproven and insubstantial hint of MS.' Let me tell you, your not advocating anything but intolerance with that logic. So again, bring proof or bring beer, or better yet high proof beer. Because the proof you will go looking for is all in the tin foil beanie variety. |
| jdixon Oct 07, 2008 10:05 PM EDT |
Azerthoth, playing devil's advocate for the moment: Given Microsoft's past history, why would anyone require proof that they're up to no good? Their mere presence in a vicinity should be all the proof you need that something untoward is going on. |
| rijelkentaurus Oct 07, 2008 10:17 PM EDT |
@jdixon...well, chickens don't like foxes because foxes eat chickens. I couldn't blame a chicken for not liking a dog, because it looks like a fox. And it might really be a fox. FWIW, I don't come down on either side as of now...but I think r_a_trip has a point that mono is an unnecessary addition to the FOSS landscape. |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2008 10:54 PM EDT |
jdixon - The proper response is "Who cares?". The issue at hand is mono, not Microsoft. Mono is a free software project receiving support from Novell. Microsoft created the specification and built the (by far) leading implementation. The best reason to use mono is because you don't trust Microsoft and don't wish to use their products, but appreciate a good (hypothetical -- What little .Net I've worked with seems pretty nice, but I'm not sufficiently expert to have a judgment) idea from some bright people who work for them. |
| azerthoth Oct 07, 2008 11:01 PM EDT |
oh there is something untoward going on, on the part of the 'advocates'. As mentioned before MS could change their standard and immeadiatly break mono compatability (as well as a bunch of their own stuff) and it wouldnt necessarily change mono one whit. And while we are on the topic, why has no one brought DotGNU to the table and laid the same accusations? It's the same thing, an Open Source implentation of .Net as is mono. Why? Simple, mono is associated with Novell, and DotGNU is associated with GNU (aka Saint Stallman). The same technical legal traps, if apply to one, apply to the other. Mono bashing is an offshoot of Novell bashing because of it's Microsoft association. |
| shmget Oct 08, 2008 12:26 AM EDT |
@azerthoth "Mono bashing is an offshoot of Novell bashing because of it's Microsoft association." I certainly agree with you assessment. except that you seem to write that as if it is a bad thing. "And while we are on the topic, why has no one brought DotGNU" I can't speak for others, but as far as I am concerned, I didn't bring it up because I didn't even know that such a futile endeavor had been ventured. "Let me tell you, your not advocating anything but intolerance with that logic." Why on earth should I be tolerant with Microsoft's Practices. Maybe it's a religious thing, but I'm not very keen on 'turning the other cheek'. Despite attempt in post earlier to isolate mono from Microsoft, allow me to list few keywords. I'm sure you'll be able to connect the dot(net?) Microsoft - ECMA - OOXML Icaza - Mono - Patent - Novel - Microsoft Microsoft - ECMA - C# |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 08, 2008 3:16 AM EDT |
Quoting:And while we are on the topic, why has no one brought DotGNU to the table and laid the same accusations? It's the same thing, an Open Source implentation of .Net as is mono. Why? Simple, mono is associated with Novell, and DotGNU is associated with GNU (aka Saint Stallman). The same technical legal traps, if apply to one, apply to the other. No, no, no! I've explained this a couple dozen times before. DotGNU implements the standard, the whole standard and nothing but the standard. Mono brings bug-for-bug compatibility with MS .Net and includes several libraries that are *not* part of the standard but which ship with MS .Net and which were reverse engineered clean room by Mono. It's in these parts that legal traps may hide. Clean-room reverse engineering protects only against copyright infringement, not against patents. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2008 5:23 AM EDT |
>Clean-room reverse engineering protects only against copyright infringement, not against patents. Almost true. Clean room engineering can be of some benefit against patents by reducing the likelihood that you will choose a patented implementation, but has no legal force. It also doesn't protect against serial killers, mortgage foreclosures, annoying sales calls, or a number of other things that have no special relevance to mono. |
| krisum Oct 08, 2008 5:35 AM EDT |
@sander
Quoting: Mono brings bug-for-bug compatibility with MS .Net and includes several libraries that are *not* part of the standard but which ship with MS .Net and which were reverse engineered clean room by Mono. It's in these parts that legal traps may hide. Clean-room reverse engineering protects only against copyright infringement, not against patents.Afaik, Mono implements the published APIs for this. Unless you have some specific evidence, there is no reason to believe that they have resorted to reverse engineering of MS.NET algos or have seen/copied the rotor code to get bug for bug compatibility. As has been pointed out then, unless you bring out any specific instances where Mono's implementations/algos are covered by some MS patents this is just hand waving. Besides if this be the concern then why don't those who oppose Mono say this straight, instead of going on about "MS is evil" kind of stuff? Mostly looks like an afterthought, and those who are really concerned with this can simply avoid those APIs. @shmget Just because *you* have no use for Mono does not mean that it is futile for *everyone*. For instance I have experienced at least two uses of Mono: 1) allowing existing .NET applications to run on Linux unchanged or porting with minimum effort, and 2) allowing existing .NET devs to leverage their skills on the FOSS platforms Note that this is not just theoretical. My company has a distributed caching/messaging product that has a server part (in java) and client APIs which are available in C++ and .NET (besides java). Performance and scalability are critical (and deal makers/breakers) for our customers and so we recommend those using .NET applications to migrate to Linux using Mono to get better performance and scalability (besides other advantages we all know of). Btw, the performance and scalability gains achieved by simply migrating to Linux on same hardware can be of the order of 50% and not small. This would not have been possible without Mono. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2008 5:53 AM EDT |
krisum -- So what? Mono is evil nasty bad stuff based on a spec Microsoft came up with. As your company includes .Net in its technology basket basket, it must be an evil nasty bad company. As your mono stuff will run on Linux, Linux must ban evil nasty bad OS. No way to we want an OS that runs stuff that originated with a Microsoft idea. Say no to mono. Say no to Samba. Say no to AJAX. Say not to Linux. Freedom is all about being able to to nothing at all to show how good you really are. |
| tracyanne Oct 08, 2008 6:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:Freedom is all about being able to to nothing at all to show how good you really are. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. Only in the Linux world it's just another word for I'm so damn paranoid I'd tie myself in knots rather than do anything sane or rational. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 08, 2008 6:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:unless you bring out any specific instances where Mono's implementations/algos are covered by some MS patents this is just hand waving. Mono implements ADO.NET, ASP.Net and Windows.Forms. These are *not* part of the ECMA standards and may be covered by Microsoft patents. |
| krisum Oct 08, 2008 6:41 AM EDT |
@sander
Quoting: Mono implements ADO.NET, ASP.Net and Windows.Forms. These are *not* part of the ECMA standards and may be covered by Microsoft patents.So? As mentioned these are published APIs upon which Mono's implementations are based. Your claims of Mono having reverse engineered any of MS.NET algos etc has no basis either. As a comparison remember the days before java was FOSS, classpath/gcj were GNU implementations having specific classes that provided functionality equivalent to sun specific java classes. |
| jdixon Oct 08, 2008 7:11 AM EDT |
> The issue at hand is mono, not Microsoft. Mono is a re-implementation of a Microsoft product. You can't separate the two to that extent. Whether anyone likes it or not, they are related. I don't know about the other folks here, but it's been my subjective impression that everything that comes from Microsoft seems to degrade my computing experience in one way or another. The farther I keep Microsoft from my computer, the better things seem to work. Now, Miguel insists that .Net and C# aren't like that, and are actually good technologies. However, given my past experience with Microsoft, the burden is on him and the other Mono folks to prove that to me. So far, the results haven't been particularly convincing. Mono may be the greatest thing since sliced bread. But when it's modeled on a product from a bakery which has produced only stale and moldy products before, why should I believe that? |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 08, 2008 7:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:So? As mentioned these are published APIs upon which Mono's implementations are based. Your claims of Mono having reverse engineered any of MS.NET algos etc has no basis either. ADO.NET, ASP.Net and Windows.Forms are not part of the ECMA specs. Any patent in any of those is something that Microsoft can use against Mono. |
| krisum Oct 08, 2008 9:07 AM EDT |
Quoting: ADO.NET, ASP.Net and Windows.Forms are not part of the ECMA specs. Any patent in any of those is something that Microsoft can use against Mono.Sure, so if you know of any patents in those then let the Mono project know about them. As Mono's FAQ states: "Mono's strategy for dealing with any potential issues that might arise with ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms is: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless." FYI, even DotGNU provides an implementation of Windows.Forms which is in accordance with their goal of "In addition, we want to make sure that many application programs which were written for Microsoft's .NET platform (with no consideration for portability) will work well with DotGNU on many operating systems." (see dotgnu.org for details). Sure it still does not provide anything for ADO.NET or ASP.NET (afaik), but I believe it is more due to lack of developers more than anything else. Btw, the question still remains as to how have you come to the conclusion that the Mono project has resorted to reverse engineering of MS.NET implementation. So then how is this situation any different from classpath before openjdk, or FMJ (JMF API compatible replacement) etc. The situation with Samba was far riskier by your own logic (since it actually was about reverse engineering of the protocol) before the European commission's decision, or wine etc. The point being that such approach (that of providing drop in API replacements) has been part and parcel of FOSS for a long time. It is one of the principal ways to allow easy migration from proprietary platforms to FOSS platforms. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 08, 2008 10:16 AM EDT |
Quoting:FYI, even DotGNU provides an implementation of Windows.Forms Then they share the same risk as Mono does. Quoting:Btw, the question still remains as to how have you come to the conclusion that the Mono project has resorted to reverse engineering of MS.NET implementation. Please point to the ADO.Net, Windows.Forms and ASP.NET references and where it says you can freely reimplement them (like it does on the ECMA CLI standard). 100% bug-for-bug compatibility came from *somewhere*. Quoting:The situation with Samba was far riskier by your own logic (since it actually was about reverse engineering of the protocol) It was not. You do not need to reverse engineer a Windows server for that. Only capture and analyse it's network traffic. That's the differentce between reverse engineering an API on one side and reverse engineering protocols and fileformats on the other side. As I said in my first post: Quoting:It all boils down to trust. Do you trust Microsoft? I do not. And now I'm going to stop responding in this thread because these issues have been hashed out here over and over and over again for at nigh on two years without any result. I'm going to do more productive things. |
| krisum Oct 08, 2008 10:30 AM EDT |
Quoting: It was not. You do not need to reverse engineer a Windows server for that. Only capture and analyse it's network traffic. That's the differentce between reverse engineering an API on one side and reverse engineering protocols and fileformats on the other side.Why do you need to reverse engineer *anything* when implementing a documented API? Even though you ignored the other examples, the point being made was that FOSS development does not cease due to some imagined threat of patents. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2008 11:33 AM EDT |
>Mono implements ADO.NET, ASP.Net and Windows.Forms. These are *not* part of the ECMA standards and may be covered by Microsoft patents. So. What is it in any of those technologies that are a) Covered by patents that b) mono violates? That information is publicly available. Somebody should have found it by now. You might as well say that apache violates patents because it does the same kinds of things that IIS does, or PostgreSQL violates patents covering parts of SQL Server. Heck -- Samba certainly covers technologies that might be patented by Microsoft. And, PS -- those who think that the Samba team has reverse-engineered anything must not believe the Samba developers. Not only have they reverse-engineered, they have finagled bits and pieces of information from Microsoft employees. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2008 11:37 AM EDT |
>Mono is a re-implementation of a Microsoft product. You can't separate the two to that extent. Not exactly. Mono is an implementation of a specification that does the same thing as a Microsoft product. In that regard it's like Firefox and other web browsers that incorporate "crap catchers" so that IE-specific pages don't render too badly. |
| jdixon Oct 08, 2008 12:40 PM EDT |
> Mono is an implementation of a specification that does the same thing as a Microsoft product. Dino, I'm willing to accept that differentiation, but it makes no difference in my final question. The original still comes from Microsoft, and the spec is based on it, not the other way around. Others disagree. See the above comments concerning various .Net features. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2008 12:43 PM EDT |
jdixon - No argument here. If mono is crap, it doesn't deserve to succeed. If it's not crap, it does. |
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!