[Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe?
>Look over here: >http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono >and here: >http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3D7094 >This is bad news :( The first link is not news but rather random blog musings and the second link is more akin to personal opinion than news. >How do you convince somebody to programming in Mono if he already read that >news? While there's a strong urge for Linuxites to dislike any technology that's related to MS, real developers should be without technical prejudice and the benefits of Mono pretty much speaks for themselves. Sure there's a chance that MS might do some patent slapping at some point, but is it really going to be worth their while? After all, Mono makes it a lot easier to integrate Windows solutions with cross-platform software and it makes .NET much more attractive for organisations who're afraid of vendor entrenchment or have reams of legacy software running on assorted boxes. I personally feel that MS is going to be over the moon when Mono stabilises as it will help MS to push their products onto non-Windows platforms and it will help MS push .NET to organisations that might otherwise consider Java and OSS. If you'll forgive the blasphemy, perhaps what's required for Linux to finally 'succeed' on the desktop is for MS to release .NET versions of their product lines - Imagine the joy of Windows Media Player on Linux! Mark ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
[Mono-list] Re: Is it Mono safe?
Oh heck, just bundle mono ecma and tools with gnome and see if red hat changes their tune. ;-) -Dan Miguel de Icaza writes: Look over here: http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono and here: http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=7094 This is bad news :( No, it is not bad news. It is fear mongering. Here is -another- reply: http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/archive/2004/May-20.html Miguel ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
[Mono-list] Re: Is it Mono safe?
> Oh heck, just bundle mono ecma and tools with gnome and see if red hat > changes their tune. ;-) We already did (and they could do it just as well). Miguel > > -Dan > > Miguel de Icaza writes: > > > > >> Look over here: > >> http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono > >> and here: > >> http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=7094 > >> > >> This is bad news :( > > > > No, it is not bad news. It is fear mongering. > > > > Here is -another- reply: > > > > http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/archive/2004/May-20.html > > > > Miguel > > ___ > > Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list > -- Miguel de Icaza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe?
> -Original Message- > From: Mark Easton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe? > While there's a strong urge for Linuxites to dislike any > technology that's related to MS, real developers should be > without technical prejudice and the benefits of Mono pretty > much speaks for themselves. I would have to whole heartedly agree. Good technology is good technology no mater where it comes from. I know a human thing to hate everything that comes from something which is utterly loathed, but the intelligent man would give credit where credit is due. > Sure there's a chance that MS might do some patent slapping > at some point, but is it really going to be worth their > while? After all, Mono makes it a lot easier to integrate > Windows solutions with cross-platform software and it makes > .NET much more attractive for organisations who're afraid of > vendor entrenchment or have reams of legacy software running > on assorted boxes. > > I personally feel that MS is going to be over the moon when > Mono stabilises as it will help MS to push their products > onto non-Windows platforms and it will help MS push .NET to > organisations that might otherwise consider Java and OSS. > If you'll forgive the blasphemy, perhaps what's required for > Linux to finally 'succeed' on the desktop is for MS to > release .NET versions of their product lines - Imagine the > joy of Windows Media Player on Linux! Mono is going to allow is the legions of Windows programmers to easily start leveraging their skills on the Linux/Unix platform. I'm sure that scares and angers the "Linux is the only way" type people because their territory is going to be encroached upon but the people who have helped to support the thing they hate so much. This kind of development can only help to further Linux usage because no longer will installations of software need to be configured, compiled, and installed. The user can skip all that and just install whatever application they wish to use. Christopher McGinnis ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe?
On May 20, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Christopher McGinnis wrote: [...snip...] I would have to whole heartedly agree. Good technology is good technology no mater where it comes from. Would you have accepted a technology that, say, reduced processor heat by 2 orders of magnitude (whatever) from, say, Stalin's soviet union knowing what you know now about that mass murdering government? I think the question at hand is not, or at least should not be, about what is practical. The CLR (or .NET if you'd prefer) is pretty sweet no doubt about it. There is an ethical question regards adopting a MS technology that will help MS. MS is not friendly to my ability to choose. Enhancing their position in any way offers them increasing potential to diminish my ability to choose. This is not silly or over the top. Caution is required here and the development (not linux) world needs to make sure it is protecting it's environment lest we wake up one morning and discover the rain forest gone, the ozone depleted and a requirement to wear #40 sunblock to go for a walk. ---Rick ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe?
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 13:50 -0700, Rick Kitts wrote: > On May 20, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Christopher McGinnis wrote: > > > [...snip...] > > I would have to whole heartedly agree. Good technology is good > > technology > > no mater where it comes from. > > Would you have accepted a technology that, say, reduced processor heat > by 2 orders of magnitude (whatever) from, say, Stalin's soviet union > knowing what you know now about that mass murdering government? > > I think the question at hand is not, or at least should not be, about > what is practical. The CLR (or .NET if you'd prefer) is pretty sweet no > doubt about it. There is an ethical question regards adopting a MS > technology that will help MS. MS is not friendly to my ability to > choose. Enhancing their position in any way offers them increasing > potential to diminish my ability to choose. you are confusing the issue. it's not the idea that can limit your freedom, it's the implementation that can. that said, your concerns becomes moot. Jeff -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Novell, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.novell.com ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe?
In the end, the 'Microsoft may attempt to screw Linux users over' is not the real issue, but a distraction point to help carry FUD of this sort. Patent issues are not restricted to a particular vendor or product; there are several other open-source and free-software projects which may very well infringe on patents. Some projects, such as the Linux kernel, have taken a reactive view of patents - knowing that a patent exists just means they are liable for punitive damages, so patent issues should just be worked through as they come up case-by-case. Due to this fear of Microsoft and the opportunity of mono to become fundamental infrastructure over the coming years, a more proactive approach is being taken - a legal review leading up to 1.0. So perhaps the correct response is not to counter Microsoft behavioral maybes with counter-conjecture, but instead to say that there is active work to identify legal issues. Indeed, a 1.0 release of mono might very well be "safer" w.r.t. to patents than most other free software. -David Waite On May 20, 2004, at 1:30 PM, Mark Easton wrote: Look over here: http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono and here: http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3D7094 This is bad news :( The first link is not news but rather random blog musings and the second link is more akin to personal opinion than news. How do you convince somebody to programming in Mono if he already read that news? While there's a strong urge for Linuxites to dislike any technology that's related to MS, real developers should be without technical prejudice and the benefits of Mono pretty much speaks for themselves. Sure there's a chance that MS might do some patent slapping at some point, but is it really going to be worth their while? After all, Mono makes it a lot easier to integrate Windows solutions with cross-platform software and it makes .NET much more attractive for organisations who're afraid of vendor entrenchment or have reams of legacy software running on assorted boxes. I personally feel that MS is going to be over the moon when Mono stabilises as it will help MS to push their products onto non-Windows platforms and it will help MS push .NET to organisations that might otherwise consider Java and OSS. If you'll forgive the blasphemy, perhaps what's required for Linux to finally 'succeed' on the desktop is for MS to release .NET versions of their product lines - Imagine the joy of Windows Media Player on Linux! Mark ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe?
On May 20, 2004, at 2:03 PM, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 13:50 -0700, Rick Kitts wrote: On May 20, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Christopher McGinnis wrote: [...snip...] I would have to whole heartedly agree. Good technology is good technology no mater where it comes from. Would you have accepted a technology that, say, reduced processor heat by 2 orders of magnitude (whatever) from, say, Stalin's soviet union knowing what you know now about that mass murdering government? I think the question at hand is not, or at least should not be, about what is practical. The CLR (or .NET if you'd prefer) is pretty sweet no doubt about it. There is an ethical question regards adopting a MS technology that will help MS. MS is not friendly to my ability to choose. Enhancing their position in any way offers them increasing potential to diminish my ability to choose. you are confusing the issue. it's not the idea that can limit your freedom, it's the implementation that can. that said, your concerns becomes moot. Jeff I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying. ---Rick ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe?
Rick Kitts wrote: On May 20, 2004, at 2:03 PM, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: you are confusing the issue. it's not the idea that can limit your freedom, it's the implementation that can. that said, your concerns becomes moot. I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying. The processor heat reduction helps you and your computing industry. Your useage of that IDEA does not in anyway help the Societ Govt etc. Your paying the soviet union for the processors that implement that idea would help the soviet govt. Likewise - C#, the idea of a multi-lingual VM, CLI, CTS etc alone are good ideas (and not original to MS). Using them to help you produce better code in a shorter time does not help microsoft if you use it on your own implementation. It does help them if you exclusively use only their implementation on their OS and place yourself under their control. There are way too many factors for microsoft to overcome to kill mono that it makes it highly unlikely that it will ever succeed. First - there is no single entity that they can shut down, they would have to contest every contributors copyright in every country that they come from (with different views on IP laws) and succeed in EVERY SINGLE CASE for them to have a chance at stopping the distribution of the CURRENT source. Those developers would still be free to create a workaround and continue after a setback - witness the SCO debacle and the approach all the authors had to working around the problem. Secondly - as pathetic as the DoJ has been in doing anything remotely resembling curtailing of MS's abuse of its monopoly position, it can still incur scrutiny from watchdogs if it attempted to do something so blatant as trying to kill competition from mono. The EU might even actually add some bite to it with a punishment. Then there is the court of public opinion - industry pundits would have a field day sensationalising Microsofts blatant abuse of monopoly power (yet again). Thirdly - as Miguel pointed out - unfortunately most development scenarios are now patent encumbered already. At the end of the day - your taking a risk: is it any bigger than using any other language ??(probably not) would it be insurmountable to overcome any obstacles ??(probably not) Do you get the benefits of this technology immediately to help you and your projects ?? (yes) Regards, Nik ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe?
> -Original Message- > From: Rick Kitts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 4:11 PM > To: Jeffrey Stedfast > Cc: Christopher McGinnis; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe? > > > On May 20, 2004, at 2:03 PM, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 13:50 -0700, Rick Kitts wrote: > >> On May 20, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Christopher McGinnis wrote: > >> > >>> [...snip...] > >>> I would have to whole heartedly agree. Good technology is good > >>> technology no mater where it comes from. > >> > >> Would you have accepted a technology that, say, reduced processor > >> heat by 2 orders of magnitude (whatever) from, say, > Stalin's soviet > >> union knowing what you know now about that mass murdering > government? > >> > >> I think the question at hand is not, or at least should > not be, about > >> what is practical. The CLR (or .NET if you'd prefer) is > pretty sweet > >> no doubt about it. There is an ethical question regards > adopting a MS > >> technology that will help MS. MS is not friendly to my ability to > >> choose. Enhancing their position in any way offers them increasing > >> potential to diminish my ability to choose. > > > > you are confusing the issue. it's not the idea that can limit your > > freedom, it's the implementation that can. > > > > that said, your concerns becomes moot. > > > > Jeff > > > > > I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying. > > ---Rick > Just because .NET is a Microsoft concoction doesn't mean that writing applications for Mono's implementation will in anyway lock you into a Microsoft technology. The idea is out there and will be implemented and used. If the implementation runs into legal issues it will change to avoid those problems and Mono compiled applications may become incompatible with the Microsoft version of .NET. Also, what does ethics has to do with this conversation thread? We all know that Microsoft can be a bully. But I'm sure there are a multitude of other big business that try and bully as much as they can to get more market share. That is the nature of business. Worrying about your right choose seems like a silly thing to worry about since there we always be a choice whether is be OS/2, Mac OS X, Solaris, Be, Irix, or a band new OS some teenager made in his bedroom because he had nothing better to do. Why not instead worry about what new features you are going to put in your application, what direction do you want your product to go in, how can you improve the development cycle to release better products. To me these seems like things that should be worried about and to not be a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Your example of a Stalin Soviet Union is way to on the extreme side and only serves to provide drama. As I said earlier the nature of business is to edge out your competitors as best you can. Grow, devour, grow, and devour, that's what business does. It's just that no other business has be able to perform these actions as well or as easily as Microsoft has. If Microsoft started killing babies I'd have to stop using it. If a competitor goes away, so what. Chris Chris ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe?
On May 20, 2004, at 7:12 PM, Christopher McGinnis wrote: [...snip...] you are confusing the issue. it's not the idea that can limit your freedom, it's the implementation that can. that said, your concerns becomes moot. Jeff I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying. ---Rick Just because .NET is a Microsoft concoction doesn't mean that writing applications for Mono's implementation will in anyway lock you into a Microsoft technology. The idea is out there and will be implemented and used. If the implementation runs into legal issues it will change to avoid those problems and Mono compiled applications may become incompatible with the Microsoft version of .NET. I'm not concerned with lock in, or MSFT taking mono away, or Linux dying or anything technical like that. I'm concerned, and I think others should be as well, with ubiquity. Also, what does ethics has to do with this conversation thread? We all know that Microsoft can be a bully. But I'm sure there are a multitude of other big business that try and bully as much as they can to get more market share. That is the nature of business. Ah. Justification for anticompetitive behavior. I'm sure Bill wished he had more of that sentiment in Europe recently. Worrying about your right choose seems like a silly thing to worry about since there we always be a choice whether is be OS/2, Mac OS X, Solaris, Be, Irix, or a band new OS some teenager made in his bedroom because he had nothing better to do. Why not instead worry about what new features you are going to put in your application, what direction do you want your product to go in, how can you improve the development cycle to release better products. Well what if one of my features requires reading Exchanges calendaring stuff on Linux?Or how about playing movies in the latest windows media format? Or I want to write a Visio file manipulator? To me these seems like things that should be worried about and to not be a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Indeed. Nothing worse trying to premise an argument based on an incorrect reading between the lines. Your example of a Stalin Soviet Union is way to on the extreme side and only serves to provide drama. I suppose it could be read that way, but drama was not what I was trying to create. As I said earlier the nature of business is to edge out your competitors as best you can. Does the end in fact justify the means then? Grow, devour, grow, and devour,that's what business does. It's just that no other business has be able to perform these actions as well or as easily as Microsoft has. If Microsoft started killing babies I'd have to stop using it. If a competitor goes away, so what. Oh my. ---Rick ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe?
I really have not been at all clear. I apologize. I don't care if MSFT tries to kill Mono. I don't think it can. I don't care of MSFT tries to kill Linux. I don't think it can. MSFT realizes it's advantages through it's ubiquity. It maintains it's ubiquity through unfair means. Hiding APIs, gratuitously changing formats and protocols and so forth. When I was running Linux on a laptop a few years ago it was flat out impossible to participate in my companies calendaring things because the Exchange calendaring protocol is secret. I didn't choose Linux because I hate MSFT, I chose it because I write code and there is no better platform for coding than unix. Before this realization I didn't give a whit about MSFT and monopolies and so forth. I suggest that broad adoption of the CLR tends to enhance or enable continuing MSFT ubiquity. I suggest that MSFT has used it's ubiquity in such a fashion as to make them an undesirable member of the development world I want to live in. One in which the free flow of information is more valuable than making more than enough money, where the best solution is what is sought and not the one which sells the most this quarter. Accepting this the ethical question is, should MSFT be helped? Rejecting this terminates the discussion. I think rejecting the premise entirely though is an abdication of responsibility. I'll stop now. I didn't realize how touchy this was. ---Rick On May 20, 2004, at 7:28 PM, Nik Derewianka wrote: Rick Kitts wrote: On May 20, 2004, at 2:03 PM, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: you are confusing the issue. it's not the idea that can limit your freedom, it's the implementation that can. that said, your concerns becomes moot. I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying. The processor heat reduction helps you and your computing industry. Your useage of that IDEA does not in anyway help the Societ Govt etc. Your paying the soviet union for the processors that implement that idea would help the soviet govt. Likewise - C#, the idea of a multi-lingual VM, CLI, CTS etc alone are good ideas (and not original to MS). Using them to help you produce better code in a shorter time does not help microsoft if you use it on your own implementation. It does help them if you exclusively use only their implementation on their OS and place yourself under their control. There are way too many factors for microsoft to overcome to kill mono that it makes it highly unlikely that it will ever succeed. First - there is no single entity that they can shut down, they would have to contest every contributors copyright in every country that they come from (with different views on IP laws) and succeed in EVERY SINGLE CASE for them to have a chance at stopping the distribution of the CURRENT source. Those developers would still be free to create a workaround and continue after a setback - witness the SCO debacle and the approach all the authors had to working around the problem. Secondly - as pathetic as the DoJ has been in doing anything remotely resembling curtailing of MS's abuse of its monopoly position, it can still incur scrutiny from watchdogs if it attempted to do something so blatant as trying to kill competition from mono. The EU might even actually add some bite to it with a punishment. Then there is the court of public opinion - industry pundits would have a field day sensationalising Microsofts blatant abuse of monopoly power (yet again). Thirdly - as Miguel pointed out - unfortunately most development scenarios are now patent encumbered already. At the end of the day - your taking a risk: is it any bigger than using any other language ??(probably not) would it be insurmountable to overcome any obstacles ??(probably not) Do you get the benefits of this technology immediately to help you and your projects ?? (yes) Regards, Nik ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
