|
Mono released/Used in Munich. Penguin wins
I bet M$ will now attempt to break Mono. BTW, this is the same Munich which asked Microsoft to f*** off.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/05/06/HNnovellmono_1.html
The next release of .NET or Longhorn will almost certainly "break" Mono. M$ will not keep quiet when others take its work and smear garbage on its face. Expect some radical features in Longhorn or Whidbey to break Mono.
Fire and Motion with a sadistic twist. But this time M$ is fighting not wimp like corporations such as IBM, but
almost the entire open source movement.
Karthik
Thursday, May 6, 2004
MS does not have "break" anything. The have applied for a patent on their new file system and DMCA protects them from anyone building through reverse engineering because the new FS is to have encryption.
Anyone who can pay the licensing fee will be able to use the box.
Anonanonanon
Thursday, May 6, 2004
Its not a question of patents or paying royalties. Who will buy Windows Server if their ASP application works like a charm on Linux - and without any changes?.
Karthik
Thursday, May 6, 2004
From what I understand it is in Microsoft's best interest for Mono to succeed.
Dot Net, in my opinion, is Microsofts attempt to gain ground in the enterprise computing market where Java currently dominates. In order to garner wide acceptance they need the CLR and libraries ported to other platforms while at the same time not directly endorsing Solaris, Linux, etc.
I have also heard that the Mono project is receiving soft funds from Microsoft via Mainsoft.
While I certainly don't think that Microsoft is a great ally to the open source world, I think your analysis of Microsoft's Dot Net strategy is a bit simplistic.
lumberjack
Thursday, May 6, 2004
First, I don't want this to come across as an attack, because it isn't. I just want to offer this up in the hopes that you might get more people to read what you have to say.
Speaking for myself, when somebody uses M$ instead of "MS" or "Microsoft", I stop reading. In my experience, a bile-laden rant is usually to follow in those situations.
Also, swearing, while useful in getting attention sometimes, is rarely useful when trying to persuade somebody that you should be taken seriously.
Again, I'm not attacking you. I just want to point some things out in the hopes that, in the future, you might draw a wider audience.
Joe Blandy
Thursday, May 6, 2004
lumberjack -- I do have the same feeling.
Articles say things like "Linux is porting .NET and #C: Microsoft are nervous onlookers."
"Nervous onlookers"? That's like porting Windows to Linux.
It makes Linux little more than a virtual CPU that runs Windows.
Alex
Thursday, May 6, 2004
"Expect some radical features in Longhorn or Whidbey to break Mono."
How could these radical features "break" mono? Indeed Microsoft may extend the framework to include more functionality, perhaps Longhorn specific functionality, but if mono is one of your targets presumably you'll know the cross platform library and constrain your use to it. There are people today doing exactly that.
Indeed, Mono is developing many of its own class libraries (in the mono superset of the framework) -- it isn't exactly breaking the Windows .NET variant.
Dennis Forbes
Thursday, May 6, 2004
Sorry for the bile. But how about arguing my points?
How is my analysis simplistic?. Take a look at the Win32 API. What has happenned now?. The entire Win32 API is being put in the background in Longhorn. What happens to competitors like borland?. They need to recode the entire damned codebase just to keep up with microsoft.
Take a look at the database access. OLE DB, ADO, ODBC, DAO, Jet. THe moment their competitors implement this, they change the paradigm.
IMHO, Mono gaining ground in the linux world is Linux gaining ground. That ***breaks*** M$ monopoly. They will never allow that.
Wht good is it if they win the application wars (.NET) and lose the operating system wars (Linux)? They are close to losing it already on the server side. Why they should seal their own fate by allowing interoperability between Linux and Windows?
And this happening in Munich is something like adding salt to your wounds. Remember the frantic efforts of Balmer to stop the spreading of Linux to Munich? What if a few others start doing this too?
Karthik
Friday, May 7, 2004
A suggestion Karthik....
Read JOS _before_ Slashdot. ;-)
Alternately, before you come on to JOS go for a brisk walk around the block then sit down and have a quiet coffee. Then call your mother and ask how the family is. After that, go into your bathroom, look into the mirror and say "It's only software, not a holy war" to your reflection 10 or 20 times.
_Then_ come on JOS.
Motown (AU)
Friday, May 7, 2004
<<Read JOS _before_ Slashdot. ;-) >>
You are right. I recently started on Slashdot because i have to work on a Linux tool now. But then again, please debate !
Karthik
Friday, May 7, 2004
I think Microsoft would be smiling all over their faces. Mono smells like J2EE and will probably serve to run .Net if it's desperately required, but otherwise become a huge hodge podge of crap.
In fact, like Access, it might trap shops into starting .Net apps and then having to upgrade them to correctly working Microsoft server platforms.
OK
Friday, May 7, 2004
Munich doesn't scare us. We handled them back in WWII and we'll handle em again if need be.
Gill Bates
Friday, May 7, 2004
"But this time M$ is fighting not wimp like corporations such as IBM, but
almost the entire open source movement."
As a side note, one could point out that it's thanks to wimps like, say, IBM or Novell, that the open source movement has actually gained acceptance in corporations, which in turn allowed other wimpe like, say, Red Hat, to gain credibility, and market share.
Of course, the former wimps are not "doing it for the movement", but then neither are the latter.
Paulo Caetano
Friday, May 7, 2004
I love Mono even though I have never booted it up. There are several reasons for this. By far the most important one is that if Mono succeeds, we can finaly cross of that "cross-platform" checkbox that is on so many requirements lists. Don't get me wrong, in about 5% of the cases I have seen there were legitimate reasons for it being there, but in 95% of the cases it was just ABM or Java activism (every family has one).
Second is that it makes sense (in the long run). Mono (and Miguel's movement in general) is one of the few islands of reason in the whole OSS story. Most of the OSS crowd seems to want to party like it's 1979 when it comes to development environments. Been there the first time around, so no, thanks.
Just me (Sir to you)
Friday, May 7, 2004
Karthik , what the hell. People in mono are very happy with the help they're getting from microsoft. Microsoft, at least engineers/developers are helping mono. Moron.
fw
Friday, May 7, 2004
Can I just check - everyone does know that any patents the gentlemen from Redmond are granted by the USPTO are not actually enforceable in Germany (where Munich was last time I looked)? Yes? Good.
It must be remembered that Mono implements the bits of .Net which Microsoft released to an international standards body - which they (a) have promised not to seek patents on & (b) might have trouble doing so anyway as once the knowledge is public ally available (in the UK at least) it can't be patented. A final point is that Mono is sponsored by Ximian which is now part of Novell - a company that while not as huge as Microsoft is big enough to make a fight of any legal action.
I do find both sides overdo things in these arguments.
a cynic writes...
Friday, May 7, 2004
I learned a long time ago, you can't win a religious war, so it's best to avoid them. . .
Elephant
Friday, May 7, 2004
To everyone talking about "finally cross-platform" and "Linux will just be a virtual PC" I have a question. In the linked article it doesn't mention APIs. Will Mono have the same desktop GUI components available as a windows developer? If not I can't agree to either of those propositions.
To those posters who think Microsoft wants .net on Unix my question is, if so, why didn't Microsoft just use java and create (perfectly legal if using the correct namespace) extensions to make it better on Windows?
name withheld out of cowardice
Friday, May 7, 2004
name withheld out of cowardice,
frankly as time grows Microsoft customer-base will ask MS to make more and more dotnet libraries (wrappers) available for all their exisitng Win32 libraries. Microsoft has tons of frameworks and standards from TAPI to DirectX, so we can only expect more and more of them being covered as optional wrapper classes you can add to the .Net Framework. For a Mono box running on Windows, it's conceivable that these libraries can be hooked up live, however it's doubtful these libraries will ever run native on Linux without some help from those Wine people (and even then--there will always be a time delay).
So is Mono a great way to port your latest telephony application if it's writing to the TAPI 3.0 standard? The question doesn't even make sense.
Is Mono a great way to port DirectX games to Linux, no.
And the list goes on.. so porting anything from .Net framework to Mono will take care. You have to work within the limits that exists.
Li-fan Chen
Friday, May 7, 2004
"It makes Linux little more than a virtual CPU that runs Windows."
...for 0% of Windows purchase price.
Jim Rankin
Friday, May 7, 2004
>> ... and then having to upgrade them to correctly working Microsoft server platforms.
One example.
Say the .NET virtual machine and class library is not patented, so Mono implements it.
Now say WinFS *is* patented. A poster in a different thread was annoyed at having to define "binary" streams in XML as text data (e.g. <binary_stream data="AB EF FF 00"...> -- at significant overhead.
This seems a perfect application of NTFS "streams": put the XML in the file, and the binary data, into any number of streams. Once NTFS is widespread, this could be commonplace.
Except Linux has no NTFS, and more complex Mono applications will sorely miss this feature.
Alex
Saturday, May 8, 2004
 Recent Topics
Fog Creek Home
| 
