Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
GNU is Not Unix Programming IT Technology

Dotgnu Coding Competition 132

Posted by michael
from the code-warrior dept.
Honestly writes "Apparently DotGNU seems to be offering more than the 'warm fuzzy feeling' to its contributors. Somebody has funded about $4500 worth of prizes for code contributions. The developers have confirmed that the $$$ is in FSF Hands (good hands, I suppose). Here is the split up of prizes. It's almost strange to earn money writing open source. Especially when you're not even employed by dotgnu. Anyway all I can say is ,I like it. It's ideal for a grad student with lots of free time. But hardly anyone seems to have seen the Newsforge posts (except maybe me)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dotgnu Coding Competition

Comments Filter:
  • fp (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pompatus (642396) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @05:03PM (#6834870) Journal
    It's ideal for a grad student with lots of free time.

    Never been to grad school, huh?
    • Re:fp (Score:3, Informative)

      by s20451 (410424)
      It's the Saturday of a long weekend, and as a grad student I'm spending my copious free time ... in the lab.

    • Re:fp (Score:3, Interesting)

      by zCyl (14362)
      Some days I think Slashdot needs a +10, Insightful...
    • Re:fp (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Life of a grad student:

      Year 0: "I will be an agent of change."
      Year 0.5: "Holy S@#&! Quals!"
      Year 1.0: Finished recovering from Quals
      Year 2.0: Hmm, no results.
      Year 3.0: Still nothin'. Do prelim anyway.
      Year 4.0: Realize that for project to succeed, 2 laws of thermodynamics must be violated.
      Year 5.0: Finally convince advisor of above
      Year 6.0: Surf web, drink coffee, contemplate navel. No longer bitter - now at peace.
      Year 7.0: Realize you're almost 30 and still in school. Realize you still don't have a
    • by tetrode (32267)
      I understand that you've never had a job?

  • If... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Spoticus (610022)
    RMS wins, you know it's fixed ;-)
    • Re:If... (Score:5, Funny)

      by wik (10258) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @05:29PM (#6834987) Homepage Journal
      Little do you know, but the real prize is RMS coming to your front door with the FSF Source Patrol van, carrying an oversized copy of the GPL.

      • Little do you know, but the real prize is RMS coming to your front door with the FSF Source Patrol van, carrying an oversized copy of the GPL.

        That would be funny... especially if you lived in Norway or something. "Hi, this is Richard Stallman. I just spent 15 hours and $5,000 travelling across the world to give you this $300 check."

        Seriously... the top prize is $2,000. A decent programmer makes that in a week. This contest is lame.

        -a
        • Re:If... (Score:2, Funny)

          by pyrrhonist (701154)
          A decent programmer makes that in a week.

          No, several thousand Indians make that decent programmer's salary in a week.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Ideal for grad students with lots of free time . Umm....what planet are you from?
  • by Lord of the Fries (132154) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @05:08PM (#6834893) Homepage
    "But hardly anyone seems to have seen the Newsforge posts (except maybe me)."

    Oh great! So much for the easy win for the few of us that did know about it. :/
  • System.Windows.Forms (Score:1, Interesting)

    by rf0 (159958)
    You have to wonder how many hidden calls there are? I'm sure at least on major one will be hidden making this all nice and hard

    Rus
  • What about Mono (Score:4, Interesting)

    by joeykiller (119489) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @05:20PM (#6834950) Journal
    How does this differ from mono [go-mono.org]? It seems to me as the two projects are trying to achieve the same things. If that's the case, why have two projects at all? Why not merge the two efforts? I guess somebody here knows why.
    • Re:What about Mono (Score:5, Informative)

      by Plix (204304) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @05:23PM (#6834962) Homepage
      The Mono FAQ has a section devoted to it [go-mono.com].
      • Re:What about Mono (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        An advanced native-code compilation engine: Both just-in-time compilation (JIT) and pre-compilation of CIL bytecodes into native code are supported.


        Portable.net uses an advanced unrolling interpreter which gives it up to 60% the speed of a real JIT and makes it much easier to port than the mono JIT. It only took a week to port the unroller to arm processors.

        In the future Portable .net will have a full jit as well as the portable unrolling interpreter (which is much faster than mono's interpreter).

    • Because (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Each project is sure that their way is the only "sane" way to go about it. Each project looks down at the other with disdane, simply for being different.

      It's the same reason that there are now ~300 MP3 player projects on SourceForge.
    • Re:What about Mono (Score:5, Insightful)

      by qtp (461286) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @06:40PM (#6835291) Journal
      why have two projects at all?

      Perhaps, because different projects might come up with different implementations that have strenths that the others might not.

      Sometimes a parallel effort is needed in order that different approaches to the same problems get to be explored fully.

      Because it is sometimes better to fork a project, not because one approach is "wrong" but because another is equally good.

      Because it might be better to merge to separate efforts later when both have more mature codebases.

      Because having two separate projects nmight enable the coders to more easily see alternative methods that neither effort would have thought of without the other.

      Because there is more than one way to do it.

      • That's great, but we're dealing with a limited number of skilled programmers. If there were unlimited resources, a parallel approach might work better.

        But why fork a project needlessly when combined efforts could produce a product that is ultimately more intuitive and polished than two rough apps that waste twice the time for twice the learning curve?

        I apologize for the run-on sentence.
        • but we're dealing with a limited number of skilled programmers.

          Open Source is not a corporation, nor is it a (managed) Democracy. It is, howerver a volunteer effort where programmers are permitted to put thier efforts behind whicheber effort they see fit, for whatever reason.

          But why fork a project needlessly when combined efforts could produce a product that is ultimately more intuitive and polished than two rough apps that waste twice the time for twice the learning curve?

          It is more likely that a sin
  • here is a link to a sample code that should be "finally" supported?

    http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/dotgnu-p ne t/pnetlib/samples/FormsHello.cs?rev=HEAD&content-t %20ype=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

    (remove the space %20) that /. introduces
  • Dyslexia??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jpetts (208163) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @05:34PM (#6835013)
    I read that title as Donut Coding Competition!
  • by JessLeah (625838) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @05:39PM (#6835035)
    As much as I love Open-Source/Free Software, it IS very very hard to make a living making it. I'm not talking about writing code for an employer, and then getting permission to release it; I'm talking about actually making your living DIRECTLY off of making, releasing and "selling" open source/free software, a la Red Hat (who just recently turned a profit for the first time). I'd love to hear some more stories from people who've actually made money by coding OSS/FS.
    • I call myself a "free software consultant", and I am making a considerable fraction of my income writing free software. I am paid by companies who use free software, and who want me to enhance it with new features. The other part of my income is teaching seminars in the J2EE field, and doing regular consulting work, usually with an emphasis on free software solutions. From my personal experience, I can say there are lots of opportunities if you really want to work in this field, and put the emphasis on f
    • As much as I love Open-Source/Free Software, it IS very very hard to make a living making it. I'm not talking about writing code for an employer, and then getting permission to release it; I'm talking about actually making your living DIRECTLY off of making, releasing and "selling" open source/free software, a la Red Hat (who just recently turned a profit for the first time). I'd love to hear some more stories from people who've actually made money by coding OSS/FS.

      Practically all the core Linux and BSD c
  • by adeyadey (678765) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @05:40PM (#6835039) Journal
    What about this Malloc routine I've just written?
    Do I get a prize?

    Darl McBride
  • pgp key? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by molo (94384) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @05:44PM (#6835062) Journal
    That message is signed with a pgp key. However, the key doesn't seem to be available on the public key servers, so how can we validate the message?

    If anyone has DSA key 0x7525EC32, please speak up.

    -molo
    • Gimme some time; I'm generating one to match that message. ;)
    • Re:pgp key? (Score:4, Funny)

      by daserver (524964) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @07:03PM (#6835385) Homepage
      Is this a new version of "Will the real slim shady please stand up"? Sorry couldn't resist.
      • Re:pgp key? (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'm 0x7525EC32
        yes I'm the real 0x7525EC32
        all you other 0x7525EC32
        are just 0xDEADBEEF
        so won't the real 0x7525EC32
        please..sign your public key..
        please sign your..no, I think I lost the rhythm of this thing long ago.
    • Here you go:

      -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
      Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

      mQGiBD9AEc8RBAC0LUbRgcVpiR5GhIN3yxSHcFIgdnm4s8r j d6 wWqT9/8ATBnk/+
      MzveHn6TDv1s3GU1eWdzJtMuWSJ3LJkUEo pbTGcpMTqDqE53D/ 7WAAtteEqN7JpG
      j2MfjFhGmIp7mvOEK8tPCxwGtUESyJ+ZZ2 2CGdOR3bB91TwMua hXl9lz4wCg8n6G
      eNzxN/pStiOPdmPzYhwuhrsEAJY7bS6YWS yHMV3Tnr3CFWZWlb If60/ew0TZm3Q2 /WD7PUonQg2qPb0DAg7vNjNCf0TPjtWlSBullQQ7hYniiyI0XQ 7fy6ffBedTdsdn
      SieyePuVXaAXvklErnPisBnMo+4HmNV9nf 33DYgsx0imnh/QSc rmqkFX72QI96Fz
      ChdOA/9lXHoZHVCTmJnr18SVkxrwuh8V
  • Not so strange. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jtalkington (668415) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @05:49PM (#6835089)
    It's almost strange to earn money writing open source.

    No, it's not. Linus, RMS, AC, BP, among many others have been getting paid to write free software for years.
    Part of the stigma associated with OSS is that since it's associated with "volunteers," it is considered hobby level. Lots of people get paid to work on OSS, and ever increasing large software companies (e.g. IBM and Apple) have staff members working exclusively on OSS.
  • by leoaugust (665240) <`leoaugust' `at' `gmail.com'> on Saturday August 30, 2003 @06:00PM (#6835123) Journal

    Besides the chance of winning one of fifteen monetary prizes totalling US$ 4500

    Though it is good start that there is some money, but what comes to my mind is why so little ... 15 prizes averaging $ 300 each

    • that is about 8.5 hours of a coder worth $ 35 an hour
    • or 1 week (20 hours) of a grad students time ....
    • or 2 weeks (40 - 60 hours) of a coder in India's time
    • or 4 hours of a coder worth $ 75 an hour

    I wonder why doesn't some philanthropist wanting to donate to charity or some rich guy wanting to support Linux just give a couple of hundred thousand dollars, or may be a few millions, in prize money - so that it can support a critical mass of programmers that can devote a decent amount of time ..... rather than the tens of hours that are "economically feasible" now ....

    I know ... linux is not about money and all .... but still ... why couldn't it be ... everyone does not have to pay - just those people wanting it very badly have to pay while the rest get a free ride so that society as a whole benefits ...

    and seriously - this is not meant to be flamebait ...

    • Look anywhere and you'll see paypal donating links. Who needs a philanthropist? Lots of individuals can do this. I've donated to xiph and mozilla.
    • I was thinking the same thing. The top prize is $2000. Over four months that's less than $3 an hour. And that's if you win. Screw that.

      Now sure, some people would just do it for the hell of it. However, if they are expecting quality code, it probably isn't going to happen. Anyone with any talent is going to pass this over.

      Quite lame.
      • I was thinking the same thing. The top prize is $2000. Over four months that's less than $3 an hour. And that's if you win. Screw that.

        I estimate that for over half the world's population, it's over half a year's per-capita income. (Per capita GDP by country here [cia.gov]. )

        While you are unlikely to do this purely for the money you live in a rich, industrialized country, for you, the resume item is easily worth the effort. And what the heck, even if you don't win, you are going to learn enough to make it worthw
    • by rhysweatherley (193588) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @07:03PM (#6835382)
      It's a prize, not a wage.

    • I wonder why doesn't some philanthropist wanting to donate to charity or some rich guy wanting to support Linux just give a couple of hundred thousand dollars, or may be a few millions, in prize money - so that it can support a critical mass of programmers that can devote a decent amount of time

      It's common sense. Most people with $1 million to spare didn't get rich by giving their money away. Also, very few of them got rich by giving away their product for free.

      -a
  • "Competition"? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by wcdw (179126)
    Sounds more like using reverse psychology to get people to work for slave wages.

    Or perhaps I was just put off by the #irc and pnetlib contribution requirements....
  • PNET vs Mono (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 30, 2003 @06:47PM (#6835319)
    Basically Mono's FAQ trashes DotGNU and Mono at every chance. Miguel and the Mono crew has had a smear campaign against DotGNU since day one.

    DotGNU in the past has tried to cooperate and initiated talks in sharing resources, but this didn't go well with Mono.

    The true difference between Portable.NET and Mono is Portable.NET has chosen different technical decisions.

    #1: The compiler is written in C/C++ not C# itself, so it doesn't have the chicken or the egg problem. Mono's CVS is very difficult to get a handle of because of this. PNET's compiler is about 3x as fast as Mono's.

    #2: The topic at hand, winforms.. PNET's winforms only dependancy is X, which means their winforms work on handhelds, osx, etc. Very portable. Mono's requires Wine, not very portable to say the least.

    Thats a rough quick sum.
    • Basically Mono's FAQ trashes DotGNU and Mono at every chance.

      They trash their own software??? Harsh! :P

    • I beg to differ (Score:4, Informative)

      by jpmorgan (517966) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @11:07PM (#6836161) Homepage
      DotGNU in the past has tried to cooperate and initiated talks in sharing resources, but this didn't go well with Mono.

      I was involved in that argument. If I recall correctly, it was a Rhys Weatherly and some others demanding that the Mono be placed under the DotGNU steering committee and that everybody work on their project instead. Of course, at the time it was quite obvious that DotGNU was mostly ideologues who were obsessed with 'defeating Microsoft' through some embrace and extend tactics, whereas most of the Mono hackers were fairly pragmatic about the whole issue: 'This is pretty cool! I'd love to see an implementation of this in Linux!'. Most of the people who weren't turned off by the downright abrasiveness of Rhys were turned off by the zealous ideology.

      As for bad-mouthing, the only thing the Mono FAQ says about Portable.NET as opposed to Mono is that it the runtime (and compiler) are much less tested. Ximian claims that by developing the compiler and most of the rest of Mono in C#, the whole toolchain has been given a much more rigourous workout than Portable.NET.

      In fact, I'd say the badmouthing has been much more in the other direction: there used to be a page around on the DotGNU website (not sure if it's still there) badmouthing Mono. None of the claims had any substance. For example, it claimed that Mono was on shaky legal grounds with regards to hidden Microsoft patents, which may perhaps be true. However, Portable.NET/DotGNU isn't safe from those legal threats either. Further, while Mono was developed from the ECMA (and now ISO) specifications, Portable.NET was initially developed by reverse engineering Microsoft's .NET implementation (without any clean-room engineering), putting it at risk of copyright infringement claims as well as patent claims. This was also part of the reason why there was little interest from Mono in merging the class libraries.

      I suspect things are probably more civil these days. Cooler heads usually prevail in the end.

      As for your other claims....

      #1: The compiler is written in C/C++ not C# itself, so it doesn't have the chicken or the egg problem. Mono's CVS is very difficult to get a handle of because of this. PNET's compiler is about 3x as fast as Mono's.

      Mono's CVS is easy to handle. It is distributed with a partial prebuilt toolchain, that is then used to build the entire toolchain. It's all MSIL, so there are no platform portability issues. It is also standard practice to write a compiler in its own language.

      #2: The topic at hand, winforms.. PNET's winforms only dependancy is X, which means their winforms work on handhelds, osx, etc. Very portable. Mono's requires Wine, not very portable to say the least.

      WinForms contains a number of window-isms, which the Wine project have already implemented. Reimplementing winelib seems silly and a waste of energy. I can't imagine it'd be appreciably harder to port Mono's WinForms implementation across platforms had it been written from scratch than it would be to port winelib itself. And if winelib gets ported, people other than Mono users and developers can benefit from that work.

      Anyway, just my $0.02.

      • Re:I beg to differ (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TummyX (84871)

        WinForms contains a number of window-isms, which the Wine project have already implemented. Reimplementing winelib seems silly and a waste of energy. I can't imagine it'd be appreciably harder to port Mono's WinForms implementation across platforms had it been written from scratch than it would be to port winelib itself. And if winelib gets ported, people other than Mono users and developers can benefit from that work.


        WTF!? WinForms is based on windows controls but that doesn't mean you need an impleme
      • by bizcoach (640439) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @11:11AM (#6850387) Homepage
        No, you weren't involved in any of the three attempts to establish cooperation
        with Mono.

        The first attempt was made by the DotGNU coreteam and the
        Free Software Foundation, privately, immediately after the existence of the
        Mono project had become public knowledge (that was in early July 2001).

        You must be referring to the second of these attepts, which was not initiated
        by the DotGNU project but by a third party (Martin Coxall)... making Mono part
        of DotGNU was his idea, not ours... both Miguel (the Mono project leader) and
        I posted in the thread which resulted from this proposal, and I got upset about some
        of Miguel's comments, but in retrospect I think it's very understandable that
        the Mono folks were not interested in talking about cooperation in the context
        of such a proposal.

        In April 2002, we made a third attempt to establish cooperation with Mono.
        This attempt was much more promising than the earlier two, and it has involved
        offering a sizeable chunk of pnetlib I18N code to Mono under the X11 license,
        which they have integrated into their class library.

        DotGNU is still open to discussing any mutually beneficial ways of cooperation.
        For example, some parts of the class library could be developed jointly, using
        a neutral cvs server. We have proposed this to the Mono project multiple
        times, so far it seems that the Mono folks are not interested in this kind of
        cooperation. The I18N code which was integrated into the Mono libs forked
        immediately, so that doesn't count as a mutually beneficial form of
        cooperation.

        Your claim about DotGNU Portable.NET being "at risk of copyright infringement
        claims" is totally false. Our procedures have been carefully checked and
        declared ok by a competent lawyer (Eben Moglen, professor of law and legal
        history at Columbia Law School). I do know however what discussion you
        probably remember. Here is how it went: I asked whether Mono has proper
        procedures for reverse engineering (in hindsight I regret having asked
        this question publicly, I now think it would have been much more appropriate
        to ask this kind of question privately), and Miguel replied that the Mono
        project doesn't have the resources for that, and he added a verbal attack
        against the procedures used by Rhys in the early days of the Portable.NET
        project. You really shouldn't be concerned about what Miguel wrote about
        Portable.NET in that message. First of all, reverse engineering for purposes
        of interoperability is always legal in the country where that work was done.
        (EULA clauses that forbid it are legally null and void in that country.)
        Secondly, the early versions of Portable.NET achieved interoperability in a
        manner that (in the judgement of Eben Moglen) would not have violated the terms
        of the anti-reverse-engineering clause even if that clause wasn't irrelevant
        anyway. (We had not informed Miguel about the details. Why should we? He
        never asked.) Thirdly, the code to which these concerns applied has long since
        been rewritten for technical reasons anyway.

        Nota bene, both projects, Mono and Portable.NET, want to be compatible with
        much more than just with what is described in the ECMA specs. So there is
        reason to be careful. I can assure you that I've been working hard behind the
        scenes of the DotGNU project to make sure that we're as careful as we
        reasonably can be.

        I don't know what you mean with the claim "there used to be a page around on
        the DotGNU website (not sure if it's still there) badmouthing Mono." I
        maintain the DotGNU website and I'm sure that we have never had any such
        page. The DotGNU website moved to the Savannah CVS system on July 10, 2001
        and all versions of all website files since then can still be reviewed at
        http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/projec ts/d otgnu/?cvsroot=www.gnu.org
        Since that website move was just one day after the initial public announcement
        of the Mono project, if your claim was true, the evidence should be there. I
        challenge you to check your claim against the available public record.

        Greetings,
        Norbert.
        • by miguel (7116)
          Well, a few corrections.

          Phase 1: DotGNU and Mono announced on the same day by the FSF. Mono to work on the framework, DotGNU to do the more undefined parts of .NET. Whatever that meant.

          At this point cooperation was not possible, because it turned out the DotGNU team wanted to invent a new virtual machine that supported Java and .NET at the same time. I could see this as interesting research, but not something I particularly cared about.

          Then we were asked something like `you will work with us better th
  • License? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DickBreath (207180) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @06:50PM (#6835335) Homepage
    Can DotGNU be used by a developer who wants to put their own work into making a web based, for pay application, that is closed source, but using DotGNU's tools and platform?

    I love free software and open source, use them, advocate them, and even write some small time stuff and license it LGPL. During the day, I work for a company that develops and sells a software program.

    Here is a quote from the FAQ of DotGNU's Vision for WebServices [dotgnu.org] .

    Am I obligated to give away my webservice source code?

    You are not automatically obligated to distribute your source code, and you are certainly not obligated to just give it away. However, if you sell webservice services, then your customers will expect that you make them the "owner of the data" which the webservice uses, and depending on the exact circumstances that may indirectly give these customers a right to get the source code upon request. Here are the details:

    If you provide a webservice using a GPL'd webservice program (which you may have modified), then the "owner of the data" will be able to obtain the webservices programs under the terms of the GNU GPL, and this implies in particular that they will have a right to get the source code of the exact version of the program which you're using. The terms of the GNU GPL also require you to make a written promise to this "owner of the data" that you will be willing to provide the source code upon request. This ensures that the "owner of the data" will know about this right to the source code.

    The "owner of the data" is typically a paying customer, and the fact that the customer has a right to get the source code increases the value of the service you provide. Therefore you will be able to charge a higher price and/or close more sales.

    You can use the DotGNU development tools to program your own webservices (instead of just modifying the webservice programs which are distributed with DotGNU, or which others have made available under the GNU GPL) and then your are not required to make source code for these webservices available to the customer who is the "owner of the data". However, even in these situations where you are not required to make the source code available to your customers, we strongly encourage you to provide the source code to your customers under the terms of the GNU GPL anyway. We believe that this is ethically the right thing to do, and that it will be good for your business.

    Now I thought the GPL would not prevent this sort of thing? Now I'm really confused.

    I'm sure glad that GNU thinks they know what would be good for my employer's business and that my employer should charege more for their program (which is for schools).

    I thought I had a good solid understanding of the GPL [gnu.org]. I've taken the GPL quiz [gnu.org] , read the GPL Faq [gnu.org] before.

    I thought the GPL only applied to copying and distribution of a program or derrived work. Not to running it privately on my own web site.

    If I distribute my proprietary program, along side a DotGNU program / platform that executes it, I would not think that my program comes under the scope of the GPL.

    If I do NOT distribute my proprietary program, but merely run it at my site, and merely sell it as a service, then I was definitely under the impression that the GPL did not apply since no distribution takes place.

    Still, back to the case where I distribute my program, and a seperate DotGNU program to run it, then I would not think that my program comes under the scope of the GPL.

    Maybe I had better just stay completely away from DotGNU. Stick with Apache and various Java tools instead.

    Just a side note about the customer having their data he

    • The dotGNU web services license seems to be a superset of the GPL. I don't think the GPL forces you to distribute web services code.
    • by penguin7of9 (697383) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @10:33PM (#6836049)
      Maybe I had better just stay completely away from DotGNU. Stick with Apache and various Java tools instead.

      The Apache license is fine, but Java doesn't look like a big win to me. While Sun keeps proclaiming that the platform is open, in reality, large parts of the platform only exist as Sun proprietary code. Even if someone managed to reimplement them, Sun controls the compatibility tests and they can shoot down any implementation they don't like.

      At this point, I'd not get involved with any of Java, PNET, or .NET--the one thing all of them seem to agree on is that they want to entangle users in a web of intellectual property. Well, actually there is another thing that they seem to agree on: all of them want to run your code in a bloated runtime that's slow to start up. Mono seems to have the most straightforward license of the bunch, but even Mono is at risk of patent infringement claims from Microsoft.

      Just wait for the dust to settle and for Sun and Microsoft to come to their senses with their outrageous intellectual property claims. Until then, you have plenty of other options--there is nothing technically new in any of those platforms.
      • Java doesn't look like a big win to me. While Sun keeps proclaiming that the platform is open, in reality, large parts of the platform only exist as Sun proprietary code

        Obviously, because I study the licenses before even proposing development, I would be considering such things.

        Open source implementations of Java are on the horizon. Today, commercial Java runtimes are available from multiple vendors, so you are not likely to have one single vendor treat you badly.

        It is not impossible that Sun coul
        • Open source implementations of Java are on the horizon.

          It is unclear, however, whether those violate Sun intellectual property. If you check the USPTO web site, you'll see that Sun has numerous patents on key Java technologies, including the basic type verification algorithm.

          Furthermore, even when you just download the documentation from Sun's web site, you accept a license that prohibits you from distributing any implementation of the code that has not passed Sun's conformance tests, and it imposes oth
  • Reading the announcement, one passage struck me as odd:

    2. At least one of your code contributions (a new file or a
    modification of an existing file) must have been accepted
    into the pnetlib System.Windows.Forms codebase.

    Does this mean that only those who already have had code accepted into the codebase can enter the competition? Or am I mixing up verb tenses (passive present perfect, passive future perfect) here?

    • by Anonymous Coward
      No, the passage means the following:
      If you are hacking on System.Windows.Forms at least one of your code contributions needs to get accepted into the official pnetlib so that you are considered as a participant.

      The contest - of course - isn't restricted to people who already contributed something.
  • ...there's a Ruby to .NET bridge [rubyforge.org] over on RubyForge.

    Not sure how much effort it would be to get it working with dotgnu as well... maybe it wouldn't be too bad since much of the connector code appears to be in lib/dotnet/bridge.rb. Lots of C# code in there, though.
  • I wouldn't support such a project. If you try to copy MS, you'll always be behind. Reverse engineering takes a lot of time and it's a moving target, since they can change .NET at will. Look at GNU Classpath (Java reimplementation): they're way behind.

    In these cases I think it's better to create a project that offers the same general functionality, but in a distinctive, better way.

    If only I wasn't so lazy...
  • But hardly anyone seems to have seen the Newsforge posts (except maybe me)

    Not anymore!
    /idiot>
  • The contributions will be judged considering not only the quantity and quality of the contributed code, but taking in consideration also how well the competition participants use the #dotgnu irc channel, the mailing lists and the wiki for coordinating their coding efforts, and for helping newcomers with getting started.

    Okay helping newcomers get started, that's fine, but shouldn't we be judging people primarily on their ability to write code that's useful and easy to read, understand, and extend? I don

  • by Ed Avis (5917)
    The article says that the competition is to implement the System.Windows.Forms libraries. But I thought Miguel was doing some work to use Wine to implement this, since System.Windows.Forms (in true Microsoft style) is just a thin wrapper around the Win32 API.

    Oh wait, that's Mono, not dotgnu. But why can't dotgnu do the same thing?

    Or the other work that Mono is doing, a pure C# implementation of System.Windows.Forms using GTK#, why can't dotgnu use that? I thought this .net stuff was meant to be portabl
    • Re:Wine? (Score:2, Informative)

      by chochos (700687)
      DotGNU is trying to implement System.Windows.Forms using only X instead of Wine or GTK#. This should result in greater portability. So they're writing all the gadgets from scratch, in C#. It's slower than using Wine but right now I can build PNET completely on OSX, and I can't still get Mono to work on OSX and even if I did it would only be for command-line and ASP stuff, no GUI available because I can't use Wine on OSX.
  • Parrot will _own_ them both.

You've been Berkeley'ed!

Working...