gag
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Aug 30, 2007 3:57 PM EDT |
Narcissism and paranoia, somewhere therein shall there be a blogger. |
| jezuch Aug 30, 2007 4:10 PM EDT |
Hey! My blog is called "kronika paranoika"! :> |
| hchaudh1 Aug 31, 2007 6:28 AM EDT |
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 7:31 AM EDT |
>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 7:44 AM EDT |
> 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 8:03 AM EDT |
@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: http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000141 or for that matter take any of the postings from http://boycottnovell.com/ ... with another witty comeback I suppose. See, I can do "superiority complex" too. |
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 8:22 AM EDT |
> 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 8:25 AM EDT |
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 8:42 AM EDT |
@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 8:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:windows is a plague that needs to be eradicatedI am all for it and I vote a definite "YES". I hope it is not an ISO voting booth. |
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 9:07 AM EDT |
> ...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 9:20 AM EDT |
>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 9:21 AM EDT |
>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 10:17 AM EDT |
Quoting:Defend what? Not that it's my place, but what, precisely, do you think needs defending?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 10:39 AM EDT |
>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 10:47 AM EDT |
> ...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 11:00 AM EDT |
>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 11:02 AM EDT |
> 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 11:05 AM EDT |
>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 11:22 AM EDT |
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. http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000141 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/03/26/novell-ups-mono/ Mono getting the boost at the expense of Microsoft-independent programming? http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/11/not-shutting-up/ How about this little piece where he defends OOXML: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html http://boycottnovell.com/2007/04/06/mono-speculations/ http://boycottnovell.com/2007/04/06/mono-speculations/ You know what, I am sure you could do this: [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=miguel de icaza site:http://boycottnovell.com/&btnG=Google Search]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=miguel de icaza site:ht...[/url] |
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 11:27 AM EDT |
>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 11:29 AM EDT |
Quoting: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.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. Quoting: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 thatYes 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. Quoting:Should I defend Jeremy Allison while I'm at it?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 11:31 AM EDT |
> 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 11:48 AM EDT |
>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 11:50 AM EDT |
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 11:54 AM EDT |
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 11:57 AM EDT |
>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 11:58 AM EDT |
> 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 12:00 PM EDT |
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 12:08 PM EDT |
>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 12:31 PM EDT |
@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 12:43 PM EDT |
> 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 12:45 PM EDT |
> 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 12:47 PM EDT |
>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: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/search.php?search_terms=ramb... 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 12:55 PM EDT |
> 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 1:02 PM EDT |
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 1:15 PM EDT |
> 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 1:52 PM EDT |
> They have patents on portions of their own .Net implementation. You are correct. I misstated. |
| krisum Aug 31, 2007 1:58 PM EDT |
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 http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-07-09-DotGNU-Mono.html |
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 2:05 PM EDT |
krisum - Thank you for the link. I especially liked this part: Quoting: Richard M. Stallman, founder of the GNU project and president of the Free Software Foundation, said: "With Mono and DotGNU, we hope to provide good alternatives to components of .NET, ones that will respect your freedom, and your privacy. You will be able to use the facilities of Mono and DotGNU either with, or without, the Internet, and using servers of your choice." Guess somebody ought to collar that Stallman guy and explain to him what free software is all about. |
| tracyanne Aug 31, 2007 2:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:Miguel has contributed mightily to Linux and free software. 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 3:22 PM EDT |
Quoting: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. 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 3:28 PM EDT |
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 3:41 PM EDT |
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 4:10 PM EDT |
Quoting: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.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, Quoting:Enough already! Stop reinventing the wheel and start building useful applications with the tools we already have. 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 4:19 PM EDT |
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" ( http://www.amazon.com/Just-Fun-Story-Accidental-Revolutionar... ) to really start understanding the issue. As for the rest of your arguments ... I think Dino covered the high points. |
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 4:41 PM EDT |
>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 4:50 PM EDT |
> 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 6:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:the last time I checked the movement appeared to be in the other direction. 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 6:31 PM EDT |
> 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 6:44 PM EDT |
"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 7:16 PM EDT |
> 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 7:21 PM EDT |
> 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 7:43 PM EDT |
>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 9:13 PM EDT |
There is a fine line between clever and stupid. |
| schestowitz Aug 31, 2007 9:31 PM EDT |
Mono is part of a broader thing. Read the following message: http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000294#comment-279592 |
| azerthoth Aug 31, 2007 9:38 PM EDT |
@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 10:00 PM EDT |
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 10:23 PM EDT |
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 4:07 AM EDT |
Quoting: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. 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 4:29 AM EDT |
>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 5:08 AM EDT |
@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 6:27 AM EDT |
>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 8:38 AM EDT |
Quoting:"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.We as in FOSS community, not my self or my family or your family Quoting:I don't especially need mono, but who am I to tell Miguel what to do with his time?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. Quoting: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.Give me some examples where it would be beneficial where FOSS tools wouldn't or couldn't Quoting:We don't need lua, ruby, eiffel, erlang, or python, either, but why make everybody script in perl?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. Quoting: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.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 9:08 AM EDT |
Quoting: @TC will you let me know when I cross the line to clever? I dont want to get above myself you know. 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 9:17 AM EDT |
>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 3:20 PM EDT |
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 4:27 PM EDT |
> 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 8:04 PM EDT |
> 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 8:36 PM EDT |
Quoting:and getting them to spend time and attention on windoze technologies instead. 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 8:43 PM EDT |
> 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 8:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:Is developer mindshare something we want to give away so lightly? Mono is one of the things that dragged this developers mindshare away from Microsoft. |
| azerthoth Sep 01, 2007 9:23 PM EDT |
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 9:41 PM EDT |
> 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 11:22 PM EDT |
Quoting: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. 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 3:54 AM EDT |
> 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 6:06 AM EDT |
>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 6:52 AM EDT |
Quoting:Actually that is not true. Mono is a Free and Open implementation of the published and freely available standard.Can you verify that Tracyanne? From what I hear from MS is that they have patented technologies. Quoting:It doesn't have to lock step with .NET. The developers may choose to do thatAnd 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? Quoting: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.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. Quoting:I know of one developer who chose mono for a project over .NET because mono/*x gave him superior serial I/O capabilities.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 7:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:If it's true, then there IS a place for mono.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 7:23 AM EDT |
>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 7:29 AM EDT |
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 8:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:Mono implements an open standard so that people who work in non-MS environments can use it.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. Quoting:Sigh. OK, I know you can't possibly be serious at this point, but I'll bite. ...I would have expected you to know that.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 8:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:You're really just a troll, right?Wrong, just so every else doesn't have the same thoughts. :) Quoting:Huh? Who cares about MS? Mono is not an MS project....So what? Should everybody stop programming just because somebody working at Microsoft shouts "Patent"?No, on the other hand, is it really worth the trouble though? Quoting:How does Sun claim that somebody compiling Java created on a Windows can run it on Linux and vice versa?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 8:56 AM EDT |
> 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 9:03 AM EDT |
> ...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 9:14 AM EDT |
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 10:13 AM EDT |
Quoting:Abe, that's a good thing, not something to complain about. ...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. Quoting: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.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. Quoting:Those who use it obviously don't agree with us.True, but at the same time they can't tell those who disagree with them not to voice their concerns and opinions about it. Quoting:Abe, we can't stop them from participating.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 11:18 AM EDT |
> 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 11:52 AM EDT |
@Abe
Quoting: Give me some examples where it would be beneficial where FOSS tools wouldn't or couldn'tIt 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. Quoting: 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.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? Quoting: What does Mono/.Net bring to the FOSS table that FOSS development tools and utilities couldn't or wouldn't furnish?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. Quoting: 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?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 (http://www.mono-project.com/Languages). 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. Quoting: .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.This is incorrect; the .NET is designed to be independent of IIS (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/12/ServiceStatio...). 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 1:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:Why would anyone want to use Mono to develop for FOSS (non-MS) environment when they have a tremendously capable and powerful FOSS environment? 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. Quoting:"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. See above. |
| dinotrac Sep 02, 2007 2:43 PM EDT |
>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 7:57 PM EDT |
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.Quoting: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.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. Quoting: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?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? Quoting: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.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. Quoting: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.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. Quoting: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.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 8:12 PM EDT |
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 9:11 PM EDT |
> 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 10:31 PM EDT |
*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 11:19 PM EDT |
> 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 11:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:This is a game microsoft controls, and if we move to mono, they will pull the rug out from under us when they choose. 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 11:42 PM EDT |
Quoting: 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.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. Quoting: 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?Substitute this with Java/Sun and then answer your own questions for other FOSS implementations of java. Quoting: 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.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. Quoting: Cassini is another MS product similar to IIS tailored for .Net. I am not sure what is your point?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 Quoting: 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?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 03, 2007 12:55 AM EDT |
>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 fathers. The writings of the fathers. Progress is bad, because what we've got is plenty good enough. These people read the writings of the Devil and practice strange rituals. Perhaps De Icaza should be glad that the carbon signature of burning somebody at the stake is too high for political correctness. |
| Abe Sep 03, 2007 6:02 AM EDT |
Quoting: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: It is not a matter of I like or don't like Mono, it is whether Mono is needed/necessary or not. In my opinion, Mono is not needed nor necessary and again, it is not worth the trouble. Are you serious? And why shouldn't I mention Microsoft when they are at the center of the whole problem issue? If you are coloring my perception, frankly, that is your problem. |
| Abe Sep 03, 2007 6:04 AM EDT |
Dino:
Quoting:All of Abe's arguments boil down to one thing - He hates Microsoft. Quoting: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.Your generalization is silly Dino and my argument is not about .Net on Windows platform, it is about Mono on FOSS. Quoting:He is, indeed, passing moral judgment. .NET is bad because it came from those nasty people from Microsoft.Silly conclusion again. I am not passing moral judgment and didn't say I don't like .Net. All what I am saying is Mono, as an implementation of .Net on FOSS is not needed or necessary. Yes, there are things I don't like about .Net, like its way of controlling your code and not allowing you to be creative, other than that, I like the tools and wished that De Icaza would have developed some thing similar for FOSS tools instead of VB and such. Quoting: 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 fathers. The writings of the fathers.You are being outrageously irrational. I am a religious person and proud of it, but I am not naive and certainly not medieval. Be careful Dino, your making religion sounds like a bad thing. You might consider FOSS a religion, to me it is not, it is a technology Dino. I am sorry you can't make a difference between religion and technology. I am disappointed, I thought you knew better. Labeling is ignorance. Quoting:Progress is bad, because what we've got is plenty good enough. These people read the writings of the Devil and practice strange rituals. Perhaps De Icaza should be glad that the carbon signature of burning somebody at the stake is too high for political correctness.Not worth a comment other than saying “when they don't have a good argument, they make personal attacks”. You are grounded Dino. I will tell until when. |
| Abe Sep 03, 2007 6:29 AM EDT |
Tracyanne,
Quoting: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.Tracyanne, You keep talking about C#. C# is just one part of .Net and its implementation in Mono is just a small part. Who gave .Net the bill of health that determines it has no patents? If C# is reimplementation of Java, so what are those great enhancements in C# that are so important to you that can't be accomplished in Java? Are they worth facilitating its intrusion to contaminate FOSS? To you, having experience and expertize with it is a good enough reason, To me, it is not worth it and never wanted to learn it simply because it is mostly Java. |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 7:25 AM EDT |
>If C# is reimplementation of Java, so what are those great enhancements in C# that are so important to you that can't be accomplished in Java? For somebody who tosses the silly word around so freely, you sure do engage in a lot of it. Why should the presence of Java mean that mono shouldn't exist? Your "logic" would be more consistent if you asked why should anybody use Java, until very recently a closed language controlled by a single company with no open standard, when Mono does pretty much the same thing? For that matter, dotGNU -- and actual GNU project. Seems to me that Mono and dotGNU were blessed by RMS long before Java, which was controlled by a single closed-source vendor. Talk about silliness! People who want to use Java should use it. Ditto for Mono. |
| Abe Sep 03, 2007 7:31 AM EDT |
Dino,
You are grounded remember? |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 7:39 AM EDT |
>You are grounded remember? No, I am right. |
| Abe Sep 03, 2007 8:56 AM EDT |
krisum,
Quoting: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.You can encourage them all you want and that is good. But that doesn't mean you have to use a tool like Mono to entice them to use FOSS while in the process complicate things for your client. There are so many great things that FOSS have to furnishes. FOSS should and can stand on its own merits without contamination by MS technology. If clients want .Net technologies, they should be free to do that. If a job can be done with MS technology but can't with AFOSS, that is what they should use. If FOSS technologies are not suited for the job at hand, or they can't see its vast benefits, by all means they should use MS technologies. I don't believe Mono is helping in this area and that is why I persist that it is not worth being available on FOSS. Quoting:Substitute this with Java/Sun and then answer your own questions for other FOSS implementations of java.Java is Open and GPLed, Mono is GPLed. But Mono is connected and dependent on .Net which is not GPLed. To me, that is not open enough. Again, who gave .Net the bill of health to declare it patent free? I don't have solid evidence that .Net is patent free and I am not about to waste my time looking into it. It is upon MS to declare that, and so far I haven't heard it. Do you have evidence of that? Quoting: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.No, I don't mean standard routine changes, I mean changes MS would make to break Mono. Changes that would purposely break Mono. I don't trust MS like many other people. This mistrust is based on long history of a convicted monopoly with long abuse history. A company known to lock-in their customers and not willing to work with other IT companies or abide by any standards. All they understand is to Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish. So there is no good reason to enable to participate in FOSS. Quoting: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 appsI wasn't aware of that and I gave you that, and I also told you what lead me to believe that ASP.Net is tied to IIS. Does that make it any better? To me, no it does not. From an end user perceptive, It is a work around and I still wouldn't mix and match. I would go with a pure platform instead. It gives me more peace of mind especially when MS is so unpredictable in what they would do to break technologies that is not theirs. History proved that to us. Quoting: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?What .NET application? All what I heard from you was you have C++ library, not a .Net application? Even if it was a .NET app, use MS platform if it is better for your customer and don't complicate it unnecessarily. Quoting: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.What multiple places? Who gave .Net bill or health? Did MS declare it, in a verifiable fashion, to be patent free? I am not aware of that and it would be much appreciated if you could provide a link. Quoting:As for the second point it is already mentioned that the same holds for Java/Sun for alternative FOSS implementations (or others like Samba).You are failing to differentiate between Java and .Net. Java is totally independent of the any specific technologies like Mono is on .Net compatibility. Samba is all reverse engineering of a protocol that MS can't break otherwise it will break its own file networking on their older OSes. There is a difference since it is not as easy for MS to break Samba. Quoting: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.Sorry, that is not a good enough reason in my opinion. You are a vendor and I am an end user, I expect a difference in perspectives since you have business to take care of and I have services to maintain. I believe we did beat the dead horse enough. It is Labor day and I want to take the rest of the afternoon to enjoy myself a little. Have a good holiday. |
| herzeleid Sep 03, 2007 10:15 AM EDT |
Abe: You quoted a statement from azerthoth, then addressed your rebuttal to me (as though I had made the original statement) This seems to be getting quite muddled. Quoted (originally from azerthoth) 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: (your answer apparently to me) It is not a matter of I like or don't like Mono, it is whether Mono is needed/necessary or not. In my opinion, Mono is not needed nor necessary and again, it is not worth the trouble. Are you serious? And why shouldn't I mention Microsoft when they are at the center of the whole problem issue? If you are coloring my perception, frankly, that is your problem. |
| azerthoth Sep 03, 2007 10:21 AM EDT |
I was about to point out the same thing. And no, Microsoft is not at the center of the problem, just at the center of your personal animosity. |
| herzeleid Sep 03, 2007 10:27 AM EDT |
Quoting: krisum: 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 Point 1: You indicate that there are no patent issues - this is far from clearly decided. Remember, SCO came at linux with completely ridiculous claims, and were able to get a lot of mileage out of their case, causing a lot of damage to linux in the process. It's not about who's right, it's about who has the resources and the will to cause legal troubles. Point 2: You indicate that sun could attack us as well. You're kidding, right? Sun's long time creds in the unix world should earn them some slack here. Their contributions to the unix world over the years - nfs, nis, OOo etc are well known. They are not the enemies of the open standards community. OTOH microsoft has a long track record of strong arming, threats, bribery and other dirty tricks in attempt to "cut off the air supply" to users of non-microsoft products. It's apparently considered witty and urbane to downplay any idea that microsoft might want to harm their competition, but the record is pretty grim. Point 3: I wouldn't say that mono isn't useful - all tools are useful, but I think it would be a huge mistake to put all our eggs in the mono basket. As one set of tools among many viable choices, it's fine. But if we start looking to mono as our great hope, we're on very shaky ground. |
| Abe Sep 03, 2007 10:39 AM EDT |
herzeleid
My apologies, Too many posts to respond at the same. Sorry. I was shutting down my computer and noticed your post. I will have to read the rest of it later. -Abe |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 11:00 AM EDT |
herzeleid - Oh please. If you wish to skip all the good points and reach your own conclusions regardless, that is your right, but... 1. > You indicate that there are no patent issues - this is far from clearly decided. There are no known patent issues with Mono. As to being clearly decided, that is the case with all software, not just Mono. It is far from being clearly decided whether Java violates any Microsoft patents. In short, big deal. If we stop using all software against which Microsoft might launch a patent attack, we stop using all non-Microsoft software. 2. >You indicate that sun could attack us as well. You're kidding, right? Oh please. This is not middle-school where companies are cliques dividing up into cool kids-geeks-jocks-hoods. Sun is a publicly traded company whose management could change or whose strategies could change. Heck, a number of Sun execs have already turned over and the strategy that opened Java up could start going the other way. Companies are companies and they do company things. So far, Sun hasn't even been an especially friendly one, though they do get points for OpenOffice and for **finally** opening up Java. 3. >but I think it would be a huge mistake to put all our eggs in the mono basket. Is anybody doing that? Seriously. On this thread, I have seen two threads: 1. I'm not interested, and 2. Ooh, evil!! Icky, Icky. So far as I can tell, all of the "we don't need it" arguments are actually #2 in disguise as I doubt seriously that the individuals in question rose so vociferously against John Smith Linux , or the John Smith's little brother Timmy Linux, or Ruby, or heaven knows what. Face it, what has planted cobs up people's nether regions has everything to do with Microsoft and next to nothing to do with Mono. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 03, 2007 11:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:There are no known patent issues with Mono. Contemplate of the fact that Microsoft expicitly exluded mono from the MS-Novell patent agreement. I for one do not believe that Microsoft excluded it explicitly because "There are no known patent issues with Mono". Microsoft believes otherwise IMHO. |
| azerthoth Sep 03, 2007 11:50 AM EDT |
That has already been addressed in this thread, and in the courts. The US and EU have ruled that hidden patents inside a published standard can not be made to apply if they hinder the implementation of the standard. While they may have intended to have that harpoon for a later date, that date has come and gone and they didn't even get to convince anyone that they even had a shiny toy. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 03, 2007 12:58 PM EDT |
It's not about what's in the standard. It's everything just outside of it. All the standard libraries that are reimplemented for Mono (think "merely referenced" as OOXML has). Or specific ways of implementing the standard (if MS can show that technology X in the standard can be implemented in a way that does not violate the patent, then the patent stands and Mono would have to re-engineer that part). |
| jdixon Sep 03, 2007 3:27 PM EDT |
> Now explain to me why you feel competent to pass moral judgment on an accepted FOSS project in words that don't include Microsoft. The problem there is that it's impossible to ignore Microsoft. Not because we don't want to, but because they won't let us. The control the .Net platform, and Mono compatibility exists at their discretion. They have shown on too many occasions to count that they can't be trusted and that they tolerate FOSS only to the degree they have to. They would wipe the GPL and equivalent licenses of the face of the earth tomorrow if they could. So, it seems to me that Abe's reluctance to deal with Microsoft tainted goods is not only reasonable, but prudent. It's not irrational to avoid an area know to be infested with rattlesnakes. The old adage about playing with the devil and getting burned also seems appropriate. His problem is that he is applying what should be a personal decision to others, and he has no justification for doing so. > 1. I'm not interested, ... Yep. And or pretty much for the reasons listed in number two. I will also freely admit that I my emotional reactions to Microsoft's past actions may cause me to be somewhat irrational about the matter. But please notice that, unlike Abe, I have no problem with those who want to developing or using Mono. Not using it is a personal choice of mine. I don't expect others to necessarily agree. As you've noted in the past Dino, it all comes down to freedom in the end. |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 4:01 PM EDT |
>The control the .Net platform, and Mono compatibility exists at their discretion. Not exactly. They control the Microsoft .Net platform, and Mono may or may not be compatible with that. However, so long as Mono and .Net both comply with the .Net standard, there will be some compatible subset. Ideal? Nope. Should you bet the farm on it? I'm certainly not the one to tell you that. At any rate, it's none of my business, anyway. |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2007 4:03 PM EDT |
>Contemplate of the fact that Microsoft expicitly exluded mono from the MS-Novell patent agreement. Contemplate that Microsoft has claimed that Linux infringes more than 200 Microsoft patents. So what? You can let Microsoft scare you out of your pants or you can go about your business. There are no known patent issues with Mono. Should one arise, we will have something to discuss. |
| tracyanne Sep 03, 2007 6:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:The control the .Net platform, and Mono compatibility exists at their discretion. Not true, it exists at the discretion the Mono developers. There is no Microsoft taint in Mono, it's a purely FLOSS implementation. You are assuming taint, because the ECMA standard was published by Microsoft. The ECMA Standard was for the C# language, Mono is an implementation of that standard. Which means the Libraries, which are what make it Mono were developed to provide Linux functionality. If you look at how the libraries are actually implemented what you will see is that they are simply hooks to Linux libraries, nothing more, Microsoft can't change what Linux libraries do. The only bits that are affected by Microsoft are the mono implementation of WinForms and MonoBasic (a mono implementation of Visual Basic.Net). If Microsoft made some drastic change to their implementation of VB.NET or Winforms, mono would continue to be a robust and useful FLOSS tool. The only difference being that porting to Window MIGHT not be as easy, but even that probably wouldn't be an issue, as Mono uses GTK-Sharp on both Linux and Windows for GUI development, so it really wouldn't matter, and VB.NET exists only to easy porting of VB.NET applications to Linux. |
| Abe Sep 04, 2007 5:37 AM EDT |
@Tracyanne,Quoting:The only difference being that porting to Window MIGHT not be as easy, but even that probably wouldn't be an issue, as Mono uses GTK-Sharp on both Linux and Windows for GUI development, so it really wouldn't matter, and VB.NET exists only to easy porting of VB.NET applications to Linux.A major selling point of Mono was and still is, its cross platform compatibility and interoperability. If this is dropped, and Mono becomes independent of MS WinForms, MonoBasic, AND WebForms, etc... add to that a bill of health of no hidden patents similar to the ones MS has in OOXML standard, then and only than I would consider it a FOSS product similar to the many we have. They way it exists now, I don't see as a viable option for me and I would not recommend for any one to use on FOSS platform. |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2007 5:46 AM EDT |
> add to that a bill of health of no hidden patents similar to the ones MS has in OOXML standard, Let me guess: You never did your homework in school, either, did you? |
| krisum Sep 04, 2007 7:26 AM EDT |
@Abe
Quoting: You can encourage them all you want and that is good. But that doesn't mean you have to use a tool like Mono to entice them to use FOSS while in the process complicate things for your client. ... What .NET application? All what I heard from you was you have C++ library, not a .Net application?This is becoming silly -- it is not "we" who are using Mono, rather "they" who decide to use Mono (and complicate things for themselves as you would say). The details of the particular situation are not important -- we have a .NET wrapper around C++ library. If they upgrade their apps to a newer version of .NET not supported by Mono then yes they will have to work only on Windows, which is something they understand well. Quoting: Samba is all reverse engineering of a protocol that MS can't break otherwise it will break its own file networking on their older OSes.Are you suggesting that MS can change an existing .NET version (e.g. 2.0) and break all existing apps? Of course it will bring out newer versions with changes that Mono may not provide for newer apps using those versions, the same way it has brought out new versions of SMB and has broken Samba more than once for newer OSes. In the same manner Java has been introducing incompatible features in new versions and thus "breaking" (in your words) other FOSS implementations. Quoting: Java is Open and GPLed, Mono is GPLed. But Mono is connected and dependent on .Net which is not GPLed. To me, that is not open enough.You are confusing standards with implementations w.r.t. open/GPL. Both Java and .NET are open standards and are equivalent in that respect. Sun's java implementation is now open, while MS's shared-source reference implementation is not considered "open source". These implementations are independent of and do not affect other FOSS implementations e.g. classpath/gcj for Java or Mono/DotGNU for .NET. The only point you have is: "Microsoft is evil; Sun is good" which makes little sense as Dino points out. Quoting: Sorry, that is not a good enough reason in my opinion.It is an opinion that has been provided ignoring other reasons like existing developer/application base, and in any case there is no reason to insist that others must share such an opinion. |
| Abe Sep 04, 2007 8:30 AM EDT |
Quoting:Let me guess: You never did your homework in school, either, did you?You guessed it, homework is for the birds, I was too smart for homework. Exam grades is all I needed. |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2007 8:43 AM EDT |
> Exam grades is all I needed. Guess again. |
| tracyanne Sep 04, 2007 1:40 PM EDT |
Quoting:Are you suggesting that MS can change an existing .NET version (e.g. 2.0) and break all existing apps? Of course it will bring out newer versions with changes that Mono may not provide for newer apps using those versions, the same way it has brought out new versions of SMB and has broken Samba more than once for newer OSes. In the same manner Java has been introducing incompatible features in new versions and thus "breaking" (in your words) other FOSS implementations. One of the things you forget, is that .NET is not like SMB where Microsoft can make minor changes that have a big effect on SaMBa, and the ability of SaMBa to interconnect with Microsoft's SMB/CIFs implementaion A small change to .NET doesn't have much of an effect on Mono, but instead can have a large effect on .NET developers, because it affects everything they've written. Indeed, Microsoft is promising .NET developers that .NET 2.0 is stable, and .NET 3.0 etc will merely be addons to .NET 2.0 (and this is indeed exactly what .NET 3.0 is), for exactly those reasons, this means that Mono is unaffected. Some of the .NET 3.0 addons, such as Silverlight, can and will be reimplemented as Mono addons (Moonlight, for example), others that are MS Windows centric (don't make sense out side of Windows) won't be. |
| Abe Sep 04, 2007 3:47 PM EDT |
@Tracyanne,Quoting:One of the things you forget, is that .NET is not like SMB where Microsoft can make minor changes that have a big effect on SaMBa, and the ability of SaMBa to interconnect with Microsoft's SMB/CIFs implementaionA small change is not going to bother the Samba team that much when bigger changes didn't. MS did that already and it was reverse engineered by Samba tem pretty quickly. Besides, even with smallest of change, it is also going to impact compatibility with MS older OSes and MS will have to think twice before the do that. Another thing, If push comes to shove, the Samba Team can even develop their own Windows client that is 100% compatible with the server side at any time without getting impacted at all. I personally am not sure they haven't done that yet. It just might be not enough resource to do all the thing they are currently, especially developing a complete AD compatible server. That will allow Samba to stand on its own as an AD domain that is fully compatible with MS AD. Like TC once said, Samba is a pretty don good architecture for file sharing on Linux that could be even better than what we have now on Linux. Quoting:A small change to .NET doesn't have much of an effect on Mono, but instead can have a large effect on .NET developers, because it affects everything they've written. I fail to see how. Why would a small change in .Net is going to impact its developers but not Mono developers? If MS made a change, what assurance do you have, or on what basis do guarantee that Mon compatibility is going to stay healthy? Besides, .Net updates has been incremental and when MS delivers them, they always release the new versions along with the older one just to make sure thing work properly with the older versions of the framework. Have you noticed that? By releasing older versions with the new ones also contradicts your statement about "(and this is indeed exactly what .Net 3.0 is)" Quoting:Some of the .NET 3.0 addons, such as Silverlight, can and will be reimplemented as Mono addons (Moonlight, for example), others that are MS Windows centric (don't make sense out side of Windows) won't be.I take it you are very much impressed by .Net technology, so why bother with FOSS? Is this all what you see in FOSS of being a copy cat implementation of Windows while FOSS has a whole slew of its excellent development? Let me summarize where I stand as a user: - Any IT project can be accomplished with FOSS alone without any contamination by MS technology. - To borrow an analogy by TC, MS is the plaque and deserve to be eradicated. - FOSS is doing all it can to inter-operate with other platforms and especially MS because it exists and we have to because it is currently dominant. But that interoperability is on FOSS's terms not MS. Vendors don't see it that way but who cares, FOSS is mainly for consumers not developers. - MS can't tolerate any other entity unless it is controlled or dominated by MS. FOSS creates a level playing field for all to exist. MS will not rest until it finds a way to control or defeat FOSS. I would rather not see that. Mono is one way for them to get into FOSS and through Novell. - FOSS doesn't need MS or any other company to survive or flourish, but that does not mean it wouldn't want to welcome whomever wants to participate on equal basis. IBM, Oracle, Google and many others are doing that already. - FOSS doesn't need any other technology, but welcomes participation by others to bring their technology into FOSS for the benefit of all. Others, especially MS, can't understand that. They can't compete unless they lock-in users and abuse their monopoly when everything else fails. I think you got the picture. If anyone thinks I hate MS as a company, no I don't, otherwise would hate IBM and others. I just despise their sleazy tactics, Monopolistic control and abuse, shenanigans, etc... So, after all of that, Do you think I would change my mind! Not likely. Do I use MS products? Every day. Do I like to? I prefer not and try whenever I can. |
| tracyanne Sep 04, 2007 4:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:I fail to see how. Why would a small change in .Net is going to impact its developers but not Mono developers? If MS made a change, what assurance do you have, or on what basis do guarantee that Mon compatibility is going to stay healthy? It will affect developers that use mono to the same extent that it affects Developers that use .NET, but in the case of Mono, only to the extent that it's necessary that the application run on Windows under .NET. In the case of developers who use .NET running on Windows is of paramount importance. In so far as it affects Mono itself it would be negligible, and only to the extent that it required changes to the way in which Mono hooks to the underlying Linux libraries. |
| Abe Sep 05, 2007 1:16 PM EDT |
@Tracyanne, I am no expert on Silverlight, .Net & Java, but this might be a good read you might be interested in About Silverlight http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/07/09/05/1442254.s... About Java & .Net http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=288641&thresh... Enjoy |
| tracyanne Sep 05, 2007 1:58 PM EDT |
I've known about Microsoft support for Linux with Silverlight for some time. My Boss was at the Microsoft Tech Ed, and they admitted they would support Linux with Silver light - they weren't allowed to say so publiclly at Tech Ed for some obscure reason. But the Linux support will be via Moonlight, that's why they published the source for Silverlight under their Permissive license - the same one they are trying for OSI approval with. BTW, you are all aware that Java has a similar, and already cross platform, Canvass that does what Silverlight does. Silverlight is a fairly simple technology, it's based on XML, uses SVG formake scalable images. It's not a really big thing. It's real innovation is that it make developing quality media presentations much much simpler than Flash, and in the .NET (and soon Mono) space makes it possible to easily program against it using whatever language you are familiar with, so you can create rich client server applications much more easily than you can with Flash. My understanding of the Canvass functionality in Java is that this too makes that sort of thing considerably easier. Moonlight uses the Cairo libraies to do it's magic. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 05, 2007 2:16 PM EDT |
The problem with SilverLight and MoonLight is that all the required media codecs will only be supplied in binary form and are only licensed to run in a browser (and only Firefox and Konqueror are supported). Also, they cannot be redistributed so we'll have to fetch those directly from Microsoft or Novell. |
| tuxchick Sep 05, 2007 2:22 PM EDT |
So what are you saying tracyanne? That not everyone who works at Microsoft is a rapacious, evil asshat who can't go a day without scorching earth, eating kittens, and robbing widows? That Microsoft actually produces a bit of useful code every so often? I just don't believe it. ;) |
| dinotrac Sep 05, 2007 3:28 PM EDT |
(and only Firefox and Konqueror are supported). I think that Microsoft claims all browsers are supported, including Opera. |
| Abe Sep 05, 2007 3:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:It's real innovation is that it make developing quality media presentations much much simpler than FlashWhich Flash release you are comparing it with? Not the latest one that is still in beta, is it? It might be good to wait and see what new Flash will be like. |
| Abe Sep 05, 2007 3:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:Also, they cannot be redistributed so we'll have to fetch those directly from Microsoft or Novell.And, from what I understood, you have to be running Moonlight on Linux, which Novell will be distributing to all major Linux vendors. No mention of a license or cost. Makes me wonder what is involved. |
| Abe Sep 05, 2007 4:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:It's not a really big thing Not yet, but will be. MS sees where application technology is heading, supporting AJAX should give us a hit or two. This is not going to be for media and advertising only, it will be the technology and tools for building Internet/Enterprise browser based applications. Desktop based applications will be shrinking fast. MS see that coming form Adobe new Flash and Sun Canvas. |
| tracyanne Sep 05, 2007 5:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:Which Flash release you are comparing it with? Not the latest one that is still in beta, is it? I expect not. |
| tracyanne Sep 05, 2007 6:38 PM EDT |
Quoting:Microsoft actually produces a bit of useful code every so often? From time to time. What I think we are seeing here is Microsoft trying to keep their options open. I'm sure they have a better idea of the uptake of Linux on the desktop than we do, and want make money off of that uptake. They wouldn't be where they are today if they couldn't read the tea leaves. The fact that Microsoft's management is a bunch slime doesn't make them bad business people. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 05, 2007 9:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:(and only Firefox and Konqueror are supported). From Miguel de Icaza's mount: http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?src=rss&id=1698 Quoting:Moonlight will run on all Linux distributions and support FireFox, Konqueror, and Opera browsers. I didn't count Opera because it's not an open source browser. But people using Epiphany or SeaMonkey are out of luck. Quoting:Novell will implement Silverlight 1.0 and 1.1 and will distribute it for the major Linux distributions at the time of the shipment. Only to major distro's? What about the hundreds of smaller distro's? They don't get to play with Moonlihght? Quoting:Microsoft will make the codecs for video and audio available to users of Moonlight from their web site. The codecs will be binary codecs, and they will only be licensed for use with Moonlight on a web browser (sorry, those are the rules for the Media codecs). Novell will ship it, but sans audio/video codecs. You'll have to politely go ask Microsoft if you can have them. I smell another lock-in tactic here. Make all but a few major distro's irrelevant and make whatever remains depend on Microsoft. Well, they can [removed for TOS violation]! |
| tracyanne Sep 05, 2007 11:38 PM EDT |
{quote]But people using Epiphany or SeaMonkey are out of luck.{/quote] No. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 05, 2007 11:55 PM EDT |
No? Got linkage? |
| tracyanne Sep 06, 2007 12:15 AM EDT |
Epipany uses the firefox rendering engine, as does SeaMonkey. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 06, 2007 1:34 AM EDT |
That doesn't necessarily mean that the plugins are compatible IIRC. |
| jacog Sep 06, 2007 2:10 AM EDT |
RE: Silver/Moonlight and the announced support... my opinion as posted in another thread: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/25961/ |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2007 2:43 AM EDT |
>Only to major distro's? What about the hundreds of smaller distro's? They don't get to play with Moonlihght?. You know how ridiculous that statement is. Why are you making it? Not only does nobody package anything for all of the distributions, but there is no way to prevent a program that works on SuSE from working on Fred's Fine Linux if Fred has included the appropriate dependencies. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 06, 2007 6:49 AM EDT |
Ah, so recompiling distro repositories is done just for fun, and not because of ABI incompatibilities. But lets wait until the blasted thing gets released, shall we :-) |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2007 7:00 AM EDT |
>Ah, so recompiling distro repositories is done just for fun, and not because of ABI incompatibilities. Excuse me? What the heck are you talking about? Personally, I think you've got a bad case of Microsoft-itis. It is typified by applying every annoyance found in the world of Linux and applying it to Microsoft as if free software were otherwise Nirvana. It just ain't so. |
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!