Who are you and what have you done with Tom Adelstein?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Oct 02, 2007 4:12 AM EDT |
This sane, rational and open-minded man cannot be our former Editor in Chief. Can't be. That guy was smart, could write, knew his Linux, and had done some stuff, but had a SERIOUS blind spot when it came to the "M" word. Now, he's working on a project using tools that were created to implement a standard developed by the "M" people? Shivers. Congratulations, Tom, for letting a little of the bile run out. You are putting yourself in position to perform a real service -- an informed skeptic's eye view of mono based on serious experience and understanding of the project and its tools. |
| tracyanne Oct 02, 2007 4:42 AM EDT |
It's good to hear some informed commentary about Mono once in a while. |
| hackmeister Oct 02, 2007 6:44 AM EDT |
So is Tom the new editor in chief of Linux Journal?? |
| Abe Oct 02, 2007 7:24 AM EDT |
Quoting:It's good to hear some informed commentary about Mono once in a while.Yes, and there are many good posts against it too and for good reasons. Many smart good people fall in love with the devil too, but that doesn't make the devil any better, does it? |
| tuxchick Oct 02, 2007 7:42 AM EDT |
hackmeister, no, Tom was editor in chief of LXer. My spies tell me that Doc Searls is the next editor in chief of Linux Journal. Poor man. There's a reason they can't keep anyone in that job! |
| dinotrac Oct 02, 2007 7:57 AM EDT |
>Many smart good people fall in love with the devil too, but that doesn't make the devil any better, does it? I see no indication that Tom is falling in love with Microsoft. Do you? |
| Abe Oct 02, 2007 8:10 AM EDT |
Quoting:I see no indication that Tom is falling in love with Microsoft. Do you? Did I say Tom is? |
| dinotrac Oct 02, 2007 8:21 AM EDT |
>Did I say Tom is? I don't know. I presume that you had some reason for making the following statement: >Many smart good people fall in love with the devil too, but that doesn't make the devil any better, does it? And this thread started with a statement of surprise at Tom coming around to try mono. Please forgive me if I put 2 + 2 together when you meant 2 + 3. |
| tuxchick Oct 02, 2007 8:45 AM EDT |
I follow Tom's articles, because agree, disagree, or shrieking WTF?? he's a compelling, interesting writer. For the past few months he's been writing a fair bit about various Microsoft technologies and products in a favorable way. Check out Linux Journal online and O'Reilly Weblogs, in the Sysadmin section. |
| tracyanne Oct 02, 2007 12:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:Yes, and there are many good posts against it too and for good reasons. Actually Abe there are many uninformed posts against Mono. I have yet to see one that dismisses it because the facts show it to be a poor technology. Quoting:Many smart good people fall in love with the devil too, but that doesn't make the devil any better, does it? Comparing Mono to an evil God is simply silly, there is no comparison, not the least, because Gods are mythical creatures, and Mono isn't. Mono is nothing more nor less than a Free and Open Source implementation of a publicly available specification, in exactly the same way that SaMBa is a Free and Open Source implementation of a publicly available specification. If Mono is evil because the developers shadow Microsoft's implementation, then SaMBa is evil because it shadows Microsoft's implementation. |
| tuxchick Oct 02, 2007 1:05 PM EDT |
The major difference between Samba and Mono is the Samba team are outspoken in their dislike of Microsoft and their roughshod tactics. Where Miguel and Nat seem to luv Microsoft all to heck. So who gets more trust? Not the Microsoft-lovers. |
| tracyanne Oct 02, 2007 1:07 PM EDT |
That TC is the nub of it. Mono is never dismissed for technical reasons, but always emotional. |
| dinotrac Oct 02, 2007 1:14 PM EDT |
Gotta hand it to ya, TC, at least you aren't afraid to say it like it is. |
| tuxchick Oct 02, 2007 6:59 PM EDT |
Not so fast. You can't dismiss it as "just emotional." There's darned good reasons for those feelings. |
| tracyanne Oct 02, 2007 7:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:There's darned good reasons for those feelings. I'm sure of it, it's just that they aren't based on the facts, just ignorance and assumptions. |
| tuxchick Oct 02, 2007 8:32 PM EDT |
Nice putdown, tracyanne. They're based on facts that perhaps aren't relevant to you, which is no reason to slam them. |
| dumper4311 Oct 02, 2007 9:10 PM EDT |
It's interesting watching discussions like this go round and round. The deeply polarized positions expressed here are largely why it's so hard to find an actual FOSS "community." The "free" software people are so busy trying to crucify those of us who'd like to live in (and inter-operate with) the real world, that we never seem to make the progress we otherwise could. Note that hypocrisy is apparently acceptable behavior, however. It's ok to support Samba for doing exactly the same thing as the Mono devs, as long as the Samba devs continue to denounce "the great satan" even while developing an open source implementation of "their" standard. Admit it, it's worth a chuckle. :) Personally, I think M$ is a cancer in the computer software world, their crack dealer business model has done a great deal of damage over the years. But when they're not breaking the law (not often, I know), they've got a right to make a profit just like anybody else. Simple fact is (and the Samba users and devs recognize this), to accomplish anything, sometimes we all just need to get along - even if it's uncomfortable. So what if M$ deviates from the current .Net standard. They've done this with the standard Samba implements in the past, and Samba continues to adapt, does that make them a shill, or a useful tool for interoperability? Unfortunately, sometimes the application of emotion without the temper of reason prevents progress we could otherwise be making as a community in the real world. |
| mvermeer Oct 02, 2007 9:43 PM EDT |
> Note that hypocrisy is apparently acceptable behavior, however. It's ok to support > Samba for doing exactly the same thing as the Mono devs, as long as the Samba
> devs continue to denounce "the great satan" even while developing an open
> source implementation of "their" standard. Admit it, it's worth a chuckle. :) Perhaps to you... the point is, we don't 'own' those technologies. If we let them, they may end up owning us (submarine patents anyone?). The same goes for Samba, but the good news there is that the team is aware of the threat. Faustian deals both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust |
| dumper4311 Oct 02, 2007 10:26 PM EDT |
"submarine patents"??? Please, someone a bit wiser than me correct me if I'm wrong (be kind), but that is one of the biggest red herrings in the software IP world. Tactics like that tend to backfire more often than not, and knowingly allowing a "patented technology" to grow and develop only to sue later is generally used as justification for the invalidation of any such patented rights. As I said, please correct me if I'm wrong. Note that by correction, I mean please provide me with documented instances of where I'm wrong, I really would like to learn something. :) Microsoft doesn't "own" those technologies either. mvermeer's arguement is "at least the Samba devs know they're sleeping with bad people." Once again, emotion (and hypocrisy) without reason. |
| dinotrac Oct 02, 2007 11:26 PM EDT |
>"submarine patents"??? It's important to understand what a "submarine patent" really is instead of tossing the phrase around like some kind of magic talisman. If you understand what they are, you will see that submarine patents have no place in the mono discussion. A submarine patent is a patent that stays in the application phase for a very long time -- in the bad old days, it could be decades. They are mostly a thing of the past now because of changes in the law. The "submarine" aspect came about because patents that were still going through the application and approval process were not made public. By judicious modification of claims, wording just foggy enough to keep patent examiners seeking clarification, etc, an applicant could keep a patent alive for a very long time, adding to it along the way. This made a certain nasty kind of sense in the United States: patent protection ran for 17 years from the date a patent was granted. You could let your claims get embedded in all kinds of things. When your patent finally got published, a lot of people might suddenly discover that they are up the creek without a paddle. Since 1995, however, the United States has come into line with GATT and (for most things) grants a 20 year patent whose clock starts ticking at application time. There are exceptions, but, as a rule, it no longer makes sense to draw out the application process because that time comes out of your monopoly period. Spend ten years getting an application, lose ten years of enforceability. A submarine patent that threatens mono would have to be in the application process now for 12 years. Given the current law, I don't think so. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 02, 2007 11:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:The "free" software people are so busy trying to crucify those of us who'd like to live in (and inter-operate with) the real world, that we never seem to make the progress we otherwise could. Pot. Kettle. I don't like Mono and I'll advocate against it. But I'm not hindering Mono in any way from making progress, aside from maybe convincing a few users to try alternative applications that are not based on Mono. It's you that is crucifying "free software people" as being outside of reality and thereby damaging free software advocacy. |
| tracyanne Oct 02, 2007 11:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:They're based on facts that perhaps aren't relevant to you The thing is I not ever seen any facts from the Mono is a Microsoft plant crowd, merely supposition, argument from ignorance and a lot of misplaced angst aimed at the Mono developers. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2007 12:56 AM EDT |
tracyanne - Sadly, I must agree with you. I have yet to see a discussion on Lxer regarding mono that didn't break down to free-flowing bile and a near medieval fear of witches. My favorite is "we already have java so we don't need mono". Sigh. At least TC is honest: She hates Microsoft and doesn't wish to go near anything bearing its taint. It's a primitive position, but an honest one. |
| tracyanne Oct 03, 2007 1:44 AM EDT |
Quoting:I have yet to see a discussion on Lxer regarding mono that didn't break down to free-flowing bile and a near medieval fear of witches. Sounds like the good ole days with KDE and GNOME. Yes TC is honest. |
| jdixon Oct 03, 2007 5:31 AM EDT |
> It's a primitive position, but an honest one. And one I share, as I've noted before. Though hate is too strong a word for my feelings toward Microsoft. Complete distrust is more like it. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2007 6:25 AM EDT |
> Though hate is too strong a word for my feelings toward Microsoft. Please note that my "primitive" description is not referring towards your hate/distrust/miffedness at Microsoft. Rather, it is the tendency to paint mono with those feelings. Sins of the father and all that. |
| mvermeer Oct 03, 2007 7:01 AM EDT |
> Microsoft doesn't "own" those technologies either. mvermeer's argument is "at
> least the Samba devs know they're sleeping with bad people." No, my argument is that they are wide awake. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2007 7:09 AM EDT |
>No, my argument is that they are wide awake. It seems clear that you have not paid much attention to the mono team and how they go about their business. They are very aware of patents, moreso, perhaps, than the Samba team. If being awake is sufficient to soothe you, then you should be very comfortable with Mono. |
| jdixon Oct 03, 2007 7:40 AM EDT |
> Rather, it is the tendency to paint mono with those feelings. Understood. |
| dumper4311 Oct 03, 2007 8:17 AM EDT |
@dinotrac: thank you for the explanation, you're a master of lucid discussion - as long as we agree :) @mvermeer: I apologize, in bed with bad people - but wide awake. I should have maybe called it . . . fornication? Come on, it was a little bit funny, wasn't it? :) Seriously, I don't trust microsoft any more than you do, and I work hard to steer people away from their taint every chance I get. For me it's a very simple question: Who owns your data? The answer to that question for me - anywhere I have a choice - is "I own my data, and control how it's accessed and used, because I support the freedom inherent in the use and development of Open Source and open standards." But a large portion of the world isn't aware of these dangers (or simply doesn't care), thus projects like Mono and Samba are important, if we ever hope to make inroads in this fight. @Sander: I understand your position, and in principle I agree with it. We simply disagree on the best solution. My problem with the "Free software" people is that they use the exact same tactics of control as the much-hated Microsoft to achieve their ends. Sadly, that hurts the rest of us, who would otherwise be working together towards true software freedom (which I feel is expressed very well in the GPLv2, or even a BSD-like license). Note, I don't want to turn this into a "free" software argument, I'm just saying I tend to agree with Dino - attaching the sins of the father argument to projects like Mono (or even Samba) is counterproductive. |
| tuxchick Oct 03, 2007 8:44 AM EDT |
"Though hate is too strong a word for my feelings toward Microsoft. Complete distrust is more like it." Precisely. So who is going to inspire more trust and support? The Samba team, who do not trust Microsoft, or the Mono team with their Microsoft-loving leadership? For me, and I think for a lot of people, this means that the Samba team will always be careful and skeptical. But the Mono people might make bad decisions because they think Microsoft is teh kewl, instead of a rapacious predator that can never be trusted. Which I think is a sensible perspective. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2007 8:53 AM EDT |
>The Samba team, who do not trust Microsoft, or the Mono team with their Microsoft-loving leadership? A reasonable question. I do not know how much Miguel loves Microsoft, but I have trouble caring. Miguel is not alone on mono, and mono has policies and procedures in place to protect against patent dangers. Using mono does not require trusting, liking, or even wanting to share a planet with Microsoft. It requires using mono. As to Samba, their distrust of Microsoft is nice, but no safeguard against anything. Like the mono team, they also need to follow a clear set of practices to be safe. It ain't how you feel, it's what you do. |
| tuxchick Oct 03, 2007 8:59 AM EDT |
Well dino, there's a pretty big difference between "Oops, that nasty sneaked by us" and "We embrace the nasty on purpose, with affection." |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2007 9:02 AM EDT |
>Well dino, there's a pretty big difference between "Oops, that nasty sneaked by us" and "We embrace the nasty on purpose, with affection." You've got to define the nasty. If you mean Microsoft technology, both Samba and mono embrace it on purpose. If you mean patents or IP traps, neither Samba nor mono embrace them. |
| tuxchick Oct 03, 2007 9:32 AM EDT |
And that, my fine *saurus, sounds just plain naive. Because Microsoft does not play by any rules but their own, and are the masters of dirty tricks. You can't predict where the next Microsoft nastiness will come from. So the wiser course is to not trust the project that is led by an outspoken fan of Microsoft. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2007 9:49 AM EDT |
>And that, my fine *saurus, sounds just plain naive. Feel free to think me naive and I will feel free to think you paranoid. The world is built on having to do things together with people you don't trust. That is why we have laws, contracts, and treaties, not to mention big sticks, advertisements, courts, and armies. If you limit yourself to dealings with those who mean you well, you will limit yourself indeed. |
| jdixon Oct 03, 2007 10:03 AM EDT |
> That is why we have laws, contracts, and treaties, not to mention big sticks, advertisements, courts, and armies. None of which have proven effective against Microsoft, though I don't believe the army has been tried yet. > If you limit yourself to dealings with those who mean you well, you will limit yourself indeed. It's not that Microsoft doesn't mean us well, it's that they've demonstrated they actually wish us harm. There's a big difference between the two. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2007 10:06 AM EDT |
>It's not that Microsoft doesn't mean us well, it's that they've demonstrated they actually wish us harm. There's a big difference between the two. Sounds kind of like the former Soviet Union, and yet we managed to enter into treaties and assorted exchanges with them. >None of which have proven effective against Microsoft, though I don't believe the army has been tried yet. None of which have proven effective? Have you seen how much money Microsoft has paid out over the years in IP infringement suits, antitrust actions, etc? Have you seen the trouble they're in with the EU? Life isn't all or nothing. It's true that we can't simply say Zap! and wish Microsoft away. It's also true that real life works more slowly than television shows. If everything had gone according to plan, Microsoft would now own the server room as well as the desktop. As it is, they are only one of the server room options and the desktop is in play. For that matter, their other businesses (phones, games, mp3 players) haven't exactly shaken the earth. Dell sells Ubuntu and, given how badly Vista is faring, I wouldn't be surprised if installed and actually-used Ubuntu desktops outnumber installed and actually-used Vista desktops. You have, I presume, noticed how much Microsoft has loosened up its position on Vista -> XP "downgrades". Microsoft is big and fat and lost. There's always a danger that it will slip and fall on us, which would hurt. It's big enough that even aimless swipes can do serious damage, but it's a wounded beast that's fallen and has yet to show that it knows how to get up. |
| jdixon Oct 03, 2007 10:15 AM EDT |
> Sounds kind of like the former Soviet Union, and yet we managed to enter into treaties and assorted exchanges with them. Which they routinely broke until certain Presidents started threating to pull out of treaties and demanded verification. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2007 10:17 AM EDT |
>Which they routinely broke until certain Presidents started threating to pull out of treaties and demanded verification. Ummm....Reagan insisted on verification AND he entered into arms treaties. It can be done. BTW -- there were countless agreements and unofficial understandings -- not mention a Moscow to Washington hot line -- beyond nuclear arms agreements. Both sides were smart enough to know that they had to find a way to coexist. |
| jdixon Oct 03, 2007 10:50 AM EDT |
Sorry missed a quote. > Have you seen how much money Microsoft has paid out over the years in IP infringement suits, antitrust actions, etc? Have you seen the trouble they're in with the EU? None of which have significantly altered their behavior, much less their attitude. So yes, I'd still call them ineffective. I'll admit that it's a debatable point. > ...but it's a wounded beast that's fallen and has yet to show that it knows how to get up. We can agree on that point. > It can be done....Both sides were smart enough to know that they had to find a way to coexist. Yes, it can be done. But I'm not sure that Microsoft is that smart. Nor am I sure that the effort required is worth the possible gain. I know it's not for me. Obviously the Mono folks and Novell disagree. Which is fine; that's what freedom is all about. I have no desire to stop others from using SuSE, from working on Mono, or from using Mono if that's their informed choice. They're just not for me. |
| Abe Oct 03, 2007 11:15 AM EDT |
Quoting:Mono is nothing more nor less than a Free and Open Source implementation of a publicly available specification, in exactly the same way that SaMBa is a Free and Open Source implementation of a publicly available specification.You definitely are confused. There is a big difference between Samba & Mono implementation. All what Samba does is interface with MS file system and authentication. It simply talks to MS interface, it doesn't use/emulate or clone its software/interface. It simply reverse engineers it to interoperate with it. Mono on the other hand is completely different implementation. Mono emulates .Net (C# etc...) and uses its verification templates or what have you that they get from MS. Who knows what else they are getting from MS! The issue is not emotions as Tracyanne claims. It is facts that we have to deal with unnecessarily if we were to use Mono. I don't believe it is worth it. Mono might be the best thing since sliced bread, but do we really need it when we have other alternatives that could do as good a job if not better. Don't mis-understand me, .net is a good framework. It has to be since it is over 95% copy of Java. The only thing that .Net has that FOSS doesn't is a good set of development tools, like VS. That is not something that is desperately needed although it is nice to have. To have such tools does not necessarily need Mono, anything else can be used to create those tools, Java is one, Python is another, C++ etc... The Mono developers can do whatever they please, but what they can't do is convince us that Mono is free of any patents. We don't trust MS and to my knowledge, MS never gave a clean bill of health as we expect from them. Simply saying that Mono is an open standard is not enough. If .Net is free of any patents, why doesn't MS say so openly to close the subject on this issue. It would be for their own good because If MS would say that, I am sure some FOSS developers will have no issues using Mono to develop FOSS applications and no one would have a reason not to. MS will never say .Net has no patents, they simply can't since they know it does have them. |
| dumper4311 Oct 03, 2007 11:24 AM EDT |
@dinotrac: You getting dizzy yet? |
| number6x Oct 03, 2007 11:57 AM EDT |
SJVN is reporting that MS plans to allow more .NET internal code to go "shared Source".
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp I hope none of the mono developers ever think about looking at the MS "shared source" code libraries or their work in mono could be tainted. |
| Abe Oct 03, 2007 12:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:SJVN is reporting that MS plans to allow more .NET internal code to go "shared Source".Yeah, I just read it and was about to post a link. The big questions is, what benefits them in doing that? Do they really think that anyone of the community developers would want to look into the code just to help them? I think they know better than to think this would happen. There must definitely be some other reason. I wonder what would it be! |
| Abe Oct 03, 2007 12:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:@dinotrac: You getting dizzy yet? Give it time and it will clear up. :) |
| hkwint Oct 03, 2007 12:27 PM EDT |
What Tracyanne and some others fail to do is distinguish between Mono and C#, .NET and ECMA. Mono is good, and open source. No problems with it. ECMA standars are not. They are not open - not everybody who whishes can join ECMA (only corporations can be voting members, and a majority of the members can stop a wannabe-member from becoming a member), and moreover, Microsoft isn't committed to ECMA standards. Look here, Brian Jones from Microsoft has admitted that himself: http://www.techworld.com/storage/features/index.cfm?featurei... If ECMA kind of 'forks' .NET or C# from Microsofts definitions in a way Microsoft doesn't like, Microsoft won't follow those definitions, and the ECMA-standard ends up being a 'non-used' standard, only used by a small minority like the Mono crowd. OOXML showed ECMA standardisation isn't worth %&^*, which self-respecting standardization body would ever standardize such crap? So while Mono is free software and the intentions of Mono-devels may be good, Microsoft may split up the Mono/C# community whenever they like. Probably 90% of them will support the Microsoft-defacto standard, and only a small minority will use the ECMA standard. Therefore, though Mono on itself isn't bad, there is a great risk in using it, and at the same time you are dependent on Microsoft. Sad for those who develop Mono, but we cannot be blind for the truth just because our empathy with the Mono-team and the good technical aspects of C#/.NET. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2007 12:43 PM EDT |
>The Mono developers can do whatever they please, but what they can't do is convince us that Mono is free of any patents. No joke. That makes them just like Samba, Apache, Postgresql, the Linux kernel, MySQL, PHP, etc, etc, etc, etc. So what? Oh wait!!! There is the fact that you are trying to mislead everybody by conflating Mono and .Net. Here's the deal: I don't care if Microsoft's implementation of .Net is covered by any patents any more than I care if Microsoft's implementation of SMB networking is covered by any patents. What I care about is whether Mono or Samba infringes any patents. Really, Abe, you should put a little thought into this. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2007 12:51 PM EDT |
jdixon: >None of which have significantly altered their behavior, much less their attitude. So yes, I'd still call them ineffective. I'll admit that it's a debatable point. I don't know that your statement is true. I see Dell selling Ubuntu desktops. Would the old Microsoft even allow that? But, even if it is true, it misses the point: It doesn't matter so much how Microsoft acts as how they impact the market. Whatever Microsoft is doing these days, Firefox is going great guns, Apple is going great guns, Linux is going great guns, java is going great guns, companies have gotten hundreds of millions of dollars, they are unable to force people onto Vista the way they once managed with XP, so... Who cares about their attitude? An ineffective sulk is fine by me. |
| jdixon Oct 03, 2007 12:53 PM EDT |
> The big questions is, what benefits them in doing that? Simple. How hard do you think it would be for Microsoft to plant a developer in the Mono group? |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2007 12:55 PM EDT |
>Microsoft may split up the Mono/C# community whenever they like. Do you really think that's true? It may be, but I have my doubts. With Java's strength in the enterprise, I seriously doubt that Microsoft can benefit by doing things to .Net and C# just mess up mono because they would inevitably cause a lot of grief for the entire .Net community. I think they got enough of that when they pretty much Visual Basic into a completely new language with VB.Net. Lost lots of Visual Basic people with that one. |
| jdixon Oct 03, 2007 12:56 PM EDT |
> Would the old Microsoft even allow that? If the anti-trust agreement is lifted, will the current Microsoft allow that? They're operating under a microscope now. Once the current anti-trust agreement lapses, I expect them to go back to their old behavior. |
| tracyanne Oct 03, 2007 1:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:why doesn't MS say so openly to close the subject on this issue. It would be for their own good because If MS would say that, I am sure some FOSS developers will have no issues using Mono to develop FOSS applications and no one would have a reason not to. Perhaps the reason Microsoft implies, by saying nothing, that there is a cloud over Mono, is because by doing so they hope to stop the commercial uptake of Mono. If you think about it, instead of simply reacting, you will quickly realise it's in Microsoft's best interests to stop or slow the uptake of .NET technologies outside of the Windows arena. |
| dinotrac Oct 03, 2007 1:58 PM EDT |
>I expect them to go back to their old behavior. I expect they won't because they can't. For one thing, the market has changed. They need the PC sellers as much as the PC sellers need them. Did you notice the big Vista two-step? Oh -- Don't want Vista? All right, then, why don't you just replace it with XP? We don't mind. Does that sound like the Microsoft of old to you? For another, the legal climate doesn't actually change for them very much. The current restraining order doesn't restrain very much. It barely qualifies as a nuisance. However, the fact that Microsoft has been ruled to have a desktop monopoly radically altered the landscape for civil suites. Admittedly, new abuses would require a ruling that the monopoly still exists today as opposed to back in 2000, but the level of proof required is very different. It is an established legal fact that Microsoft possessed a desktop monopoly in 2000. The burden of proof remains on the plaintiff, but they really need only to establish that the monopoly hasn't gone away, which is very different from establishing that a monopoly exists. But...if they do, they will crash and burn and come close to death. More or less like IBM in the late 80s and early 90s. |
| jdixon Oct 03, 2007 2:15 PM EDT |
> But...if they do, they will crash and burn and come close to death. We can hope. I hope you're right about they're not going back to their old behavior. But I know better than to expect it. |
| hkwint Oct 04, 2007 5:29 AM EDT |
Quoting:Do you really think that's true? Doesn't matter what I think, fact is there's doubt. Quoting:I don't care if Microsoft's implementation of .Net is covered by any patents any more than I care if Microsoft's implementation of SMB networking is covered by any patents. What I care about is whether Mono or Samba infringes any patents. OK, here's what I care about: -Are software patents enforceable at all? -No matter of what is infringed or not, its what the court judges about this. Probably software patents are not even really valid patents, I mean, so in a rational sense, people don't have to be afraid of them. But that really isn't the point, the point is patents, just like the stock market, concern irrational fears. In that area, they seem to work well enough for the purpose Microsoft submitted them. |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2007 6:15 AM EDT |
>But that really isn't the point, the point is patents, I agree completely. In the case of mono, people use patents as a straw man. OH NO!!! Mono may infringe some unknown, unnamed patents somewhere. Well, duh. All software may do that. It's like saying that serial killers breather air, so we should arrest everybody who breathes air. |
| Abe Oct 04, 2007 7:12 AM EDT |
Quoting:What I care about is whether Mono or Samba infringes any patents.May be except hkwint (he seems to have shield against patents to be so comfortable with) most care about that. The difference between Samba and Mono, as I explained before, is Samba is interfacing with Windows file service by reverse engineering the SMB protocol. SMB was invented by IBM and MS modified it. So did Samba. So MS & Samba are in the same boat. MS had amble time to claim infringements but they didn't. It doesn't make sense to assume that they have any valid claims and didn't voice them sooner. There must be something that is preventing them from doing so. I happen to believe that they have their own infringements on patents held by others that could get them in serious trouble if they do voice the infringements by others on their patents. Note that, the Samba team has been keeping up with the MS changes by reverse engineering and I believe that is legal every where. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block Mono is a different story all together. The technology it uses was invented/copied and controlled by MS. The Mono sponsor and leaders work closely with MS to maintain compatibility. Who knows what MS is releasing to them and what agreements they have made that we don't know of. We have no guarantees and most of the negotiations are obscure to us. Am I to trust them? Not I, because knowing their track record of working with MS and the deals they make. I wouldn't trust them or their judgment and I believe many others don't either. The bottom line is, Mono is not worth the risks, especially when there are alternatives in exists that can do as good of a job if not better. So Why take an avenue when we know from history it is going to lead to nothing but trouble. |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2007 7:23 AM EDT |
Abe - Your assumption that revers-engineering is safer is just plain wrong. It doesn't take much thought to realize why: 1. A fresh implementation based on published specs might infringe a patent because all software might infringe a patent. 2. Reverse engineered software is far more likely to infringe a patent because you are, essentially, re-creating somebody else's implementation, not their specification. Even if you write a specification based on your reverse-engineering -- the old Chinese Wall -- there is a serious danger that your specification, being informed by the patented implementation, will suggest an infringing implementation. Remember the Chinese Wall protects against copyright infringement but offers no protection whatsoever against patent infringement. As I explained, it can actually increase the chances that you will infringe a patent. You really should try thinking this stuff through. |
| Abe Oct 04, 2007 8:56 AM EDT |
Quoting:2. Reverse engineered software is far more likely to infringe a patent because you are, essentially, re-creating somebody else's implementation, not their specification... Your reasoning is bizarre and absurd. Take a TV or Radio transmitting on a channel, any one can build a unit and receive the transmission without infringing on any patents. Now image SMB to be the channel of communication, how is Samba infringing on patents of functionality? Windows uses SMB protocol to transmit and receive on a network, Samba does the same, where is the infringement? They both use SMB, which neither MS nor Samba have any ownership of or have patents to cover it. Assume, just assume, that MS has specific patents in SMB, the Samba team is not aware of it. It is MS's responsibility to bring it up in the open and voice their grievance, why don't they do that? Spare me the "Chinese Wall" and such. Send me a link to look into if you don't mind. It seems to me that this is nothing more than made up legalize mambo jumbo that doesn't apply here. |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2007 9:33 AM EDT |
>Your reasoning is bizarre and absurd. It seems that way because, as your response reveals, you don't understand it. >Now image SMB to be the channel of communication, how is Samba infringing on patents of functionality? I didn't say that they are, but you seem to believe that they can't be. A few things: 1. Nobody can patent the idea of broadcasting and receiving electronic signals over the air. They can -- and have -- patented specific technologies for doing so. There is a rather famous story of nefarious dealings by RCA stealing television broadcast technology from Philo Farnsworth and patenting it as their own. 2. SMB is not the idea of computer networking. It is a specific implementation. I don't know the extent to which the Samba folks reverse engineer what. I don't know if the packet traffic between systems contains anything whatsoever that is or could be patented. What I do know is that you seem to have some bizarre belief that investigating the very part that may be patented somehow insulates them against infringement? On some other planet, maybe. Not here. >Assume, just assume, that MS has specific patents in SMB, the Samba team is not aware of it. It is MS's responsibility to bring it up in the open and voice their grievance, why don't they do that? Keep your arguments straight, Abe. This discussion started from your presumption that Samba is safer from patent enforcement than mono because mono implements a published international standard whereas Samba reverse engineers a Microsoft implementation. I never claimed that Samba violates any patents. I was addressing your "logic". As to Microsoft's responsibility, they don't have to tell anybody anything. You are confusing the prerequisite for seeking damages with some over-arching obligation. Let us, for the sake of argument, presume that they do have enforceable patents that cover some aspect of SMB that Samba managed to pick up in its reverse-engineering. Presuming that Microsoft has not already provided sufficient notice (you know -- those notices you see on packages with those little lists of patent numbers that apply to the product within), they would announce to the world, Casablanca style, "Shocked! We are just shocked to learn that Samba is violating patents blahblah, yadayada, and thisnthat. We demand all users of Samba to cease and desist using our technology and we plan to take immediate action against the Samba developers." The clock starts ticking once sufficient notice is provided. Microsoft can immediately go to court and seek equitable relief (injunction) and money damages. Money damages, however, will not be granted for infringement taking place before notice was given, so the value would be greatly reduced. I suspect that Microsoft would not enforce any SMB-applicable patents even if they had some because they would quickly be invented around, making the effort rather pointless other than a few giggles over the temporary scampering and disruption it caused. As to Chinese Walls, you should be embarrassed. Try googling Phoenix Technologies and the story of the first IBM PC BIOS clone. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 04, 2007 9:35 AM EDT |
Quoting:Your reasoning is bizarre and absurd. Actually, you're both right. Dino is right that reverse engineering carries a greater risk of violating patents. You're right because it doesn't apply to Samba. That's because Samba is reverse engineering a network protocol, looking purely at what travels over the wire in order to recreate the client and server. I.e. it's publicly available data. Not so when you reverse engineer the applications themselves. There may be patented technologies inside an application that don't travel over the wire. An extremely efficient method of encoding/decoding for example. If you implement the specification or just listen to the wire, you'll end up doing the encoding/decoding the slow way. If you reverse engineer the application you may end up implementing the efficient way. |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2007 9:43 AM EDT |
>I.e. it's publicly available data. **Note** I will presume you are referring to the protocol-specific bits and not the user data carried within the packets ** End Note** You have to be careful with this idea. Being publicly available is not the same as being public domain. For example, all patented technologies are publicly available because patents are published for all the world to see. They are not, however, free to use. Same for copyrighted material -- even that broadcast over the airwaves. Frankly, I have trouble imagining what could be thrown in packets for a network protocol that is actually patentable, but -- who knows. More likely, I suppose, is that the makeup of the information will suggest a preferred implementation that happens to be patented. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 04, 2007 2:27 PM EDT |
I meant "publicly available" as in "you don't have to crack or reverse engineer to get at the data". I.e, you can listen in, just like you can listen in on a conversation between two people.Quoting:Frankly, I have trouble imagining what could be thrown in packets for a network protocol that is actually patentable, but -- who knows. More likely, I suppose, is that the makeup of the information will suggest a preferred implementation that happens to be patented. Exactly. And IMHO that's the exact difference between Samba and Mono. Samba reverse engineers a wire protocol. Mono reverse engineers an application. So Mono has an increased chance of violating some Microsoft patent. |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2007 2:44 PM EDT |
>Mono reverse engineers an application. I wasn't aware that mono reverse engineered anything. I know that they do implement some parts of .Net that are not part of the ECMA standard. Do they have to reverse engineer to do that, or can they simply implement publishede APIs? |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 04, 2007 3:05 PM EDT |
Knowing the quality of MS's API specifications, it's easy to conclude they had to reverse engineer it :-) |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2007 3:07 PM EDT |
>Knowing the quality of MS's API specifications, it's easy to conclude they had to reverse engineer it :-) That's one argument I find hard to counter. The best to date, I think. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 04, 2007 3:22 PM EDT |
We agree! First time this week I think :-) |
| dinotrac Oct 04, 2007 4:31 PM EDT |
>We agree! First time this week I think :-) Quiet now -- Let's bask in the moment! |
| Abe Oct 05, 2007 5:34 AM EDT |
Quoting:but you seem to believe that they can't beNo, I never said that Quoting:Nobody can patent the idea of broadcasting and receiving electronic signals over the airThat is exactly what Samba is doing. Receive and transmits protocol packets. Quoting:This discussion started from your presumption that Samba is safer from patent enforcement than mono because mono implements a published international standard whereas Samba reverse engineers a Microsoft implementation. Samba is safer because they are not copying or implementing MS protocol, they are implementing SMB and that is not MS technology. Mono is not implementing an international standard but rather an ECMA standard. ISO is the international standard body, ECMA is nothing more than consortium of commercial companies that handles fast track standard submissions to ISO. ECMA doesn't have the rigid requirements and screening required to make sure standards are True standards and not a rubber stamp process. It is about time you get the point. What happened, did someone hit you with 2x4! :) Sander, I don't believe I said Samba team reverse engineered the MS file service networking software. All what I was talking about is the protocol interface, nothing else. I even did say it in multiple posts but for some reason, it didn't get through. Instead, Dino, like a good lawyer, kept slip sliding to other points that are not relevant to the topic. Thanks for getting him around to the see what I was saying. Here is what I said. All what Samba does is interface with MS file system and authentication. It simply talks to MS interface, it doesn't use/emulate or clone its software/interface. It simply reverse engineers it to interoperate with it. Samba is interfacing with Windows file service by reverse engineering the SMB protocol. Windows uses SMB protocol to transmit and receive on a network, Samba does the same, |
| dinotrac Oct 05, 2007 6:36 AM EDT |
>Samba is safer because they are not copying or implementing MS protocol, **edit** I just re-read what you wrote and realized that I let you get away with a big fat whopping misdirection. The discussion so far has been about reverse-engineering and copying, not mere implementation for a standard. Mere implementation from a standard carries the same risks for everyone. Shame on you for trying to weasel them together. **edit** You might want to talk to the Samba team. I think they would be surprised to learn that. >Mono is not implementing an international standard but rather an ECMA standard. And I thought lawyers were weasels. I would be rather shocked if courts and regulatory commissions who have denied patent enforcement for open standards sponsored by companies who craftily put together standards that could not be implemented without infringing patents would give a rat's behind about the difference between ECMA and OSI. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 05, 2007 9:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:I don't believe I said Samba team reverse engineered the MS file service networking software. Yes they did. That's why Samba and Windows can interoperate. Microsoft's implementation is (as usual) not quite compatible with the standard, so they had to reverse engineer a bit to get it working. Quoting:Mono is not implementing an international standard but rather an ECMA standard. DotGNU is the one implementing an ECMA standard. Mono is copying Microsoft's *implementation* of the ECMA standard. Bugs, extensions, and all. |
| dinotrac Oct 05, 2007 9:34 AM EDT |
>Mono is copying Microsoft's *implementation* of the ECMA standard. Bugs, extensions, and all. I don't think that's right, Sander. I believe that mono is implementing the ECMA standard and more. They have added some things that Microsoft doesn't have, and they have kept up with some Microsoft things that the ECMA standard doesn't have. I believe those things are compartmentalized, however, Tracyanne is probably in a much better position to comment on that than I am, however, as I have barely ever touched .Net or mono. |
| Abe Oct 05, 2007 9:45 AM EDT |
Quoting:DotGNU is the one implementing an ECMA standard. Mono is copying Microsoft's *implementation* of the ECMA standard. Bugs, extensions, and all. In that case, what I said about Mono also goes to DotGNU. Quoting:Yes they did...The point in my statement is "I" "Myself" didn't say that. I still disagree with you here. They reverse Engineered the protocol NOT "MS FILE Services NETWORK SOTWARE". There is a difference. Windows File services software runs on Windows and Samba File Services run on Linux. They are not the same and can't even be similar because they run on completely two different platforms. Samba doesn't need its own clone on Windows, it uses what is already available to interface with. |
| Abe Oct 05, 2007 9:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:I believe that mono is implementing the ECMA standard and more. They have added some things that Microsoft doesn't have, and they have kept up with some Microsoft things that the ECMA standard doesn't have.If that is the case, how can we explain the claim by De Icaza that Mono is fully compatible with .Net? He does claim that doesn't he? |
| dinotrac Oct 05, 2007 10:12 AM EDT |
>He does claim that doesn't he? I'm not aware that he does. I believe he claims that it is fully compatible with the .Net standard. As it is, there is a migration tool to help developers see if any special efforts are required to port their applications from Microsoft .Net to mono, which seems like a strong indication that you can have some things in Microsoft .Net that don't show up in mono. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 05, 2007 12:08 PM EDT |
IIRC from the thread about this a few weeks ago, Mono *aims* to be fully compatible with MS .Net. It's not (yet) so there's a migration tool. What I am mainly wondering about is what will happen when Microsoft deviates from the ECMA standard. Will Mono follow ECMA or MS .Net? |
| hkwint Oct 06, 2007 11:07 AM EDT |
Quoting:what will happen when Microsoft deviates from the ECMA standard. Will Mono follow ECMA or MS .Net? Then, if you'd ask me, Mono would have lost its right of existence; which is making the .NET standard available cross-platform. If it follows ECMA, 90% of the .NET-devs will not know the standard and 90% of the .NET programs will not be able to communicate with it. If Mono follows the MS implementation, chances of patent infringements are far bigger; since there's a kind of covenant not to sue in the ECMA-standard IIRC. But Dino, why do you think ether signals aren't patentable, but once those signals in the ether have data with the SMB protocol in their contents, they suddenly are? A lot of 'methods of sending data through the ether' in fact _ARE_ patented, like all sorts of ways of modulating and adding extra info. The GSM-protocol is covered by patents as well. Your assumption that the _idea_ of 'broadcasting and receiving information through the air' cannot be patented is true of course, but since the patent system sucks those 'smart' companies came away with patenting the idea as methods and implementations instead, as you should know. A lot of ideas _ARE_ patented in this way. Therefore, there is no justification for a difference between submitting data through the air or through a copper cable maybe (like Samba works over ethernet); both are ideas and not patentable. However, the way in which the data travels, both through the ether in modulated form like RDS or through copper cable embedded in SMB packets can be patented, if you'd ask me. I mean, the 'idea' of using the SMB implementation or protocol is patentable neither. |
| dinotrac Oct 06, 2007 11:23 AM EDT |
>But Dino, why do you think ether signals aren't patentable, but once those signals in the ether have data with the SMB protocol in their contents, they suddenly are? I didn't say that. Essentially, you can't patent forces of nature. When Samuel Morse patented the telegraph, he couldn't patent the idea of using electricity to transmit signals over wire. He had to reduce the idea to practice with a novel mechanism. THAT he could patent. >Therefore, there is no justification for a difference between submitting data through the air or through a copper cable maybe (like Samba works over ethernet); both are ideas and not patentable. That would be correct. It's not beyond reason that a method for sending those packets, controlling them, or encoding the data within them might be patentable. |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2007 12:45 AM EDT |
Quoting: "I believe that mono is implementing the ECMA standard and more. They have added some things that Microsoft doesn't have, and they have kept up with some Microsoft things that the ECMA standard doesn't have." Mono is a Free and Open Source implementation of the ECMA standard, it also is as fully compatible with .NET, as is currently possible. Neither statement makes it a copy of Microsoft's implimentation, nor does either statement mean that it includes Microsoft patents, or Microsoft "IP" - whatever that means - or that it includes Microsoft code. The fact that SaMBa is considered - in the words of it's developers - "Bug for Bug compatible" with Microsoft's SMB/CIFs implementaion, is considered a good thing. The fact that Mono MIGHT be - it's hard to say if it is, as many features are still incomplete - "bug for bug" compatible with .NET is, apparently, not. Interesting dichotomy. In addition to Mono attempting to be as compatible as possible ("bug for bug" would be considered useful) with .NET, Mono also implements a number of Unix/Linux features that Microsoft cannot duplicate - at least not easily. So Mono is more than a clone of .NET, it is it's own implementation of the ECMA standard. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 07, 2007 3:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:Mono is a Free and Open Source implementation of the ECMA standard, it also is as fully compatible with .NET, as is currently possible. Neither statement makes it a copy of Microsoft's implimentation, nor does either statement mean that it includes Microsoft patents, or Microsoft "IP" - whatever that means - or that it includes Microsoft code. Do you know? Then please show us the patents and point out how they not apply. Thing is, nobody knows. Mono = ECMA standard + Microsoft extensions. Who knows what's inside those extensions. In contrast, DotGNU is just the ECMA standard, without the MS extensions. The thing I am wondering about is, what will happen when MS deviates from the ECMA standard? So far, they have not. Which makes it possible to be compatible with ECMA and with .Net. But what will happen if MS deviates? DotGNU will follow ECMA and become incompatible with .Net, but I am wondering what Mono will do. My guess is that they'll follow .Net and become incompatible with ECMA. *This hasn't happened yet*. .Net is currently compatible with ECMA. I am just postulating (sp?). But knowing MS, i'd say "It's just a matter of time". |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2007 3:29 AM EDT |
Quoting:Thing is, nobody knows. Mono = ECMA standard + Microsoft extensions. Where do you get that from? There are no Microsoft extensions in Mono, the code is pure Free Open Source, licensed under 1 or another of 3 different Free licenses. In the same way that SaMBa contains Free Open Source code that does the same things as Microsot's implementation of SMB/CIFs, Mono contains Free Open Source code that does the same things as Microsot's .NET. Those code are not Microsoft extensions they are Mono extensions. Quoting:The thing I am wondering about is, what will happen when MS deviates from the ECMA standard? Miguel has already addressed this, he did so when he first published documentation on Mono - it's available on the mono site, for anyone who cares to look and be informed, rather than work from hearsay. The mono developers will either do as the SaMBa developers have done and try to stay in sync, or baring that, due to legal reasons, rather than technical, go their own way. As Miguel pointed out when he started the Mono project, the technology is valuable in it's own right, not just because it is also used by Microsoft. |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2007 4:10 AM EDT |
Here's what Google thinks of Mono - http://code.google.com/soc/2007/mono/about.html |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2007 4:12 AM EDT |
The FAQs on the mono site - http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_General |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2007 4:14 AM EDT |
The Mono White paper - http://www.mono-project.com/Mono_Rationale |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2007 4:19 AM EDT |
From the Mono FAQsQuoting: Do you fear that Microsoft will change the spec and render Mono useless? |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2007 4:24 AM EDT |
Companies using Mono - http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_MonoQuoting:Medsphere (http://medsphere.com): The Medsphere OpenVista software allows physicians to access complete patient health information at the point of care, and it runs on both Windows and Linux, thanks to Mono. Medsphere customers now have the flexibility to choose the OS that is right for them, without worrying about application availability. |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2007 5:20 AM EDT |
>Do you know? Then please show us the patents and point out how they not apply. Sander - You are being utterly dishonest here and should be ashamed of yourself. You're asking Tracyanne to show you the patents that mono does not infringe? Please. I thought we had already plumbed the depths of irrationality here. Apparently not. In semi-rational world, it would be fair, then, to ask you to show us all of the patents that Samba doesn't infringe. That, however, is not the same thing to you because rationality doesn't apply when you don't like the subject of the discussion. |
| jdixon Oct 07, 2007 5:42 AM EDT |
> As Miguel pointed out when he started the Mono project, the technology is valuable in it's own right, not just because it is also used by Microsoft. Well, that's Miguel's opinion. As a non-programmer looking on from the outside, I don't see it. I don't see where it's any better than a number of other technologies already available. But, if Miguel wants to pursue it, that's his concern, not mine. |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2007 6:33 AM EDT |
>But, if Miguel wants to pursue it, that's his concern, not mine. Careful there, that's a rational opinion. |
| jdixon Oct 07, 2007 6:59 AM EDT |
> Careful there, that's a rational opinion. I try, Dino. :) If I fail on occasion, that only makes me human. |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2007 12:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:As a non-programmer looking on from the outside, I don't see it. I don't see where it's any better than a number of other technologies already available. Then your opinion is probably uninformed, and how would you know if it's better or worse than other technologies - you're a non programmer, remember, so if you don't see it with Mono then you don't see it with Java, or C++ or PHP or Perl or Python etc............. And Miguel IS a programmer. It's also MY opinion, for the same reason that Miguel is qualified to hold to that opinion - yes I know argument from Authority - but in the light of some of the uninformed opinions expressed as to why Mono is a bad thing I feel like being an arsehole about it. |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2007 2:46 PM EDT |
>Then your opinion is probably uninformed, and how would you know if it's better or worse than other technologies Tracyanne, I think you are chasing a straw man. Whether or not mono is better than other technologies is an important question if you are choosing a technology with which to implement something you need to do. It is of absolutely no importance if discussing the merits of free developers exercising their will to create and use it. If all free technologies were evaluated that way, we'd have a far less cluttered and far less interesting FOSS landscape. |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2007 4:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:Tracyanne, I think you are chasing a straw man. You're right, I suspect. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 07, 2007 4:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:Where do you get that from? Mono *implements* the extensions Microsoft made to the ECMA standard in .Net. If you're going around and calling me dishonest, at least try to keep up with the discussion and not just the last post. We were talking about who is implementing what technology. And it's right there in the Mono FAQ. Quoting:You are being utterly dishonest here and should be ashamed of yourself. You're asking Tracyanne to show you the patents that mono does not infringe? Tracyanne says that Mono isn't violating any MS patents by implementing MS's extensions to the .Net standard. Fine. Show me. And the patent clauses in the MS-Novell deal don't count because Mono was excluded from that. So either there's another patent covenant in play that covers whatever may be in MS's extensions, or the patents MS has are known and someone checked to make sure Mono isn't infringing. Point is, nobody knows whether Mono is infringing on MS patents by implementing the extensions. Only Microsoft knows and they don't tell us about it. And quit calling me dishonest. You don't see me attacking you either. |
| jdixon Oct 07, 2007 5:09 PM EDT |
> Then your opinion is probably uninformed, Well, the fact that I do not work as a programmer doesn't mean I haven't programmed, merely that it's been quite a while. I also tend to read quite a bit. So maybe we could settle for semi-informed. |
| jdixon Oct 07, 2007 5:12 PM EDT |
> It is of absolutely no importance if discussing the merits of free developers exercising their will to create and use it. Yep. Whether I, Abe, Sander, or anyone else has any use for Mono is completely beside the point. Miguel and others are free to develop and use it as they see fit. |
| azerthoth Oct 07, 2007 5:16 PM EDT |
And on that even I can agree. |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2007 7:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:Tracyanne says that Mono isn't violating any MS patents by implementing MS's extensions to the .Net standard. Fine. Show me. First tell me how I can show you something that isn't there. I expect that sort of argument from a religionist not a technologist. |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2007 7:52 PM EDT |
Quoting:Mono *implements* the extensions Microsoft made to the ECMA standard in .Net. And SaMBa implements the extensions Microsoft made to the SMB/CIFs standard. |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2007 8:06 PM EDT |
>Tracyanne says that Mono isn't violating any MS patents by implementing MS's extensions to the .Net standard. Fine. Show me. No, Sander. That is you lying, plain and simple. She never said that Mono isn't violating any MS patents. She couldn't say that because she doesn't know. In that regard, she is like Apache developers, Postgresql developers, and Linux users like me and you. We don't know. What she did say is that implementing Microsoft extensions does not mean infringing Microsoft patents. That's a very different statement. What your purpose is in twisting it around the way you did eludes me. BTW - Traceyanne is not the one who called you dishonest. I am. I called you dishonest because that is what you are being. Unable to make a coherent and consistent argument for the patent dangers of mono that doesn't apply equally to other software projects, you are trying to twist the conversation and demand that somebody prove the negative? Give me a break. |
| hkwint Oct 08, 2007 9:10 AM EDT |
Well, fact is, nobody knows if Mono (or SaMBa for that part) infringes on any patents at all, and the fact that we are discussing it here shows there's doubt enough for a lot of people for not using Mono (or SaMBa). The fact that Microsoft doesn't speak up on it proves it hasn't made up it's mind whats better: Enforce their IP and earn money in that way, or spread the .NET platform and earn money in that way. Probably they want to keep their options open. As far as I can say, ECMA doesn't have strict rules when it comes to its standards 'not infringing patents' compared with ISO. To this day, lawyers still can't say if ECMA376 (OOXML in popular language) contains enforceable Microsoft IP or not. Fact is, countries like Japan are still not sure, neither are they sure about the MS' covenants not to sue (which probably also surrounds .NET, but I'm not sure). So ECMA is no guarentee at all, and people are 'afraid' of those patents since nobody's sure. It seems, in the case of SaMBa they're less afraid, probably because SaMBa is older. MS' complaining about third party infringements of the SMB protocol is not something Microsoft is going to do, because that will earn them another multi-million euro fine from the EC (now, why didn't anybody notice that as of yet?) So, at least in Europe, people can be rather sure Microsoft isn't going to enforce it's IP when it comes to the SMB protocol. However, with the .NET portfolio we're just not sure. And please remember, calling each other liars is exactly what Microsoft is hoping to reach with its FUD-strategy. Now, we don't want to help them, do we? |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2007 9:28 AM EDT |
>As far as I can say, ECMA doesn't have strict rules when it comes to its standards 'not infringing patents' compared with ISO. Neither ECMA nor ISO policies matter so much as US, EU, and other governmental bodies. Both the EU and US FTC have taken a position that submitting an open standard that requires infringing one's own patents can result in fines and forfeiture of the right to enforce those patents. >MS' complaining about third party infringements of the SMB protocol is not something Microsoft is going to do, because that will earn them another multi-million euro fine from the EC How do you figure? The EU allows for protection of IP. The fines against Microsoft were based in antitrust and have nothing to do with Microsoft's freedom to enforce it's IP rights. >And please remember, calling each other liars is, one hopes, rarely required. Passions can twist your outlook so much that you lose the ability to see it for yourself. In such a case, the only hope may be to call a spade a spade - even when talking to people who are otherwise reasonable and decent folk. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 08, 2007 9:44 AM EDT |
Quoting:In such a case, the only hope may be to call a spade a spade It is not. It just kills the discussion. I refuse to participate in a discussion where people think they have to revert to calling me names. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2007 10:00 AM EDT |
>It is not. It just kills the discussion. In such cases, the discussion has likely been killed already, as inputs and processing unit must be sufficiently open to justify the term. |
| hkwint Oct 08, 2007 12:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:The fines against Microsoft were based in antitrust and have nothing to do with Microsoft's freedom to enforce it's IP rights. Theoretically maybe, but in practice, the first implies the second: The EC is at the moment deciding how much Microsoft may ask for it's IP when it comes to SMB (amongst others), which means though the fines are based on something else, they touch Microsofts freedom how to enforce its IP. So, trying to summarize things which I learned in this thread, and to keep this discussion on topic: -Mono, C# and .NET are technically rather good, -Mono is free software, and the people behind it do good work, -There's a disagreement for how far Mono and Microsofts .NET are compatible (I understand) -it's not sure whether Mono, C# or .NET are covered by enforceable Microsoft patents, -it's not sure whether software patents are valid at all, which may vary per region, -A lot of people are afraid of the patent thread and therefore aim their 'fear' in the form of (negative) energy at Mono instead of at the patent system, -There's disagreement how SMB/SaMBa and .NET IP differ from each other. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2007 1:05 PM EDT |
hkwint - Not a bad summary. |
| tracyanne Oct 08, 2007 1:11 PM EDT |
I'd agree with dino on that, with the additional comment. It's in Microsoft's interests to keep the implied threat of patents over Mono, as this will slow the uptake of Mono. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2007 1:26 PM EDT |
>It's in Microsoft's interests to keep the implied threat of patents over Mono, as this will slow the uptake of Mono. A counter argument could be made that it's not in Microsoft's interest to let any threat hang over mono, as the availability of mono may help the uptake of .Net, most of which will be on Windows. |
| tracyanne Oct 08, 2007 1:30 PM EDT |
I think you are wrong there dino. I beleive this because mono enables the use of .NET applications on Linux and Unix, thus enabling the uptake of Linux/unix, and outside of Microsoft's control. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2007 1:51 PM EDT |
>I think you are wrong there dino. Could be, but interoperability seems to be a big deal these days, and a .Net platform that only works on Windows isn't very interoperable and isn't going to go head-to-head with Java in very many places at all. |
| tracyanne Oct 08, 2007 2:05 PM EDT |
I don't have anything I can point to, and say see, but what I'm seeing is this. Microsoft is making a show of interoperability, but any interoperability they do is of the type that furthers their needs - for example the document conversion agreements with Novell are really about funnelling any ODF document into OOXML, and keeping MS Office as the defacto standard, they fought tooth and nail to enable SMB/CIFS interaoperability on their terms, not the EU's. They've belately offered to help , by supplying test rigs, the development of Moonlight, but at the same time they've maintained a silence on whether Mono can be attacked with patents - fighting Flash is good (and Moonlight is a consumer thing). There's a lot of little things, I haven't managed to pull together properly, that lead me to believe that on the whole Microsoft want to slow the uptake of Mono the platform, because they don't control it. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2007 2:50 PM EDT |
>Microsoft is making a show of interoperability, but any interoperability they do is of the type that furthers their needs - Without question. Trouble is, for Microsoft, that lots of people want real interoperability. That means that "making a show" will wear out its welcome and Microsoft's business will suffer. The roost has grown too big for them to rule. It's great to be the 800lb gorilla, but less great when there's room for the little guys to duck out of your way. |
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!