Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming Microsoft Software IT Technology Linux

Mono-culture And The .NETwork Effect 502

Posted by timothy from the who's-zoomin-who dept.
Sun Tzu writes "This article discusses the dangers posed by a very successful Mono project. Microsoft has several means at their disposal to effectively shut down Mono if it should ever gain critical mass. Unfortunately, Linux would be the big loser if that were to happen."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mono-culture And The .NETwork Effect More

Mono-culture And The .NETwork Effect

Comments Filter:
  • Does this surprise anyone, really?

    • Re:well, DUH! (Score:5, Informative)

      by alext ( 29323 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @02:22AM (#7206243)
      Not given the number of times this has already been discussed on /. I suppose.

      My impression (from a far from neutral viewpoint) is that each time it comes up the discussion has progressively become less "that's a neat thing to do" and more "sounds risky, a bit unimaginative, and isn't it ultimately pointless?"

      Probably the hardest thing to gauge is the risk from MS - we'll carry on debating this until, and probably after, the C&D orders hit the doormat.

      The "unimaginative" and "pointless" accusations are easier to get a handle on. Once it's conceded that portability of an application from Windows to Linux is unlikely to be fully realized (at least, not without an equally comprehensive yet-to-appear WINE layer), then the bottom-line value of Mono is immediately suspect. If I can't actually port my source code, what's it to me whether Mono uses the same bytecode format or not?

      As has been mentioned before, DotGNU is perhaps more worthy of support since it has tied itself less completely to MS's apron strings - Java bytecode is supported in principle if not in practice, for example. However, the Python and Parrot efforts are perhaps the projects closest to the goals of OSS that are capable of delivering the same benefits as Java and Dotnet.

      Lastly, it should be kept in mind that Java on Linux is huge, probably the biggest factor driving Linux in the enterprise - IBM, BEA and Sun all have high quality JVMs for Linux. If it were possible to compare investments. The investment going into Mono is infinitesimal in comparison.

    • No, but it's still FUD (Score:2, Informative)

      by p00ya ( 579445 )
      Ever since mono was in its infancy all I've seen from the majority of linux enthusiasts and developers toward mono and .NET is unfair dismissal of it just being an "M$ replacement for java" that is "all very well until M$ decide to sue."

      The mono developers (in particulap Miguel) have had enough meetings with Microsoft not to be too worried here. In addition, some of the patent issues fall apart since Microsoft has failed to defend it.

      Although not all of mono is protected by the EMCA standard, the core is

      • The mono developers (in particulap Miguel) have had enough meetings with Microsoft not to be too worried here.
        Year 2005, Microsoft decides to sue. [grim music in the background]

        Fade in. Courtroom.

        Miguel: "But we had tons of meetings, you can't sue us!"

        Steve Ballmer: "What meetings?"

      • there should be a FAQ about this:

        TRADEMARKS must be defended or lost.

        There is nothing to stop you waiting years before you defend a patent - it will still be valid. and indeed this would appear to tbe the modus operandi of some post-bubble companies.

    • Re:well, DUH! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cshark ( 673578 )
      Of course they could shut down mono if they wanted to.

      They have a C# patent which they could choose to enforce if they wanted to, and several method patents they could enforce on other key pieces of the framework. But I don't think Linux would be the big loser here. Linux doesn't need Mono, C#, or .NET. But Microsoft does. With Novell in charge of Mono now, it would seem to me that M$ would be the big loser in the event that they ever decided to shut mono off. It would hurt them with their standards effort

  • Not to worry ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dzym ( 544085 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @12:29AM (#7205719) Homepage Journal
    You can't dictate/predict software usage displacement when people on Linux and other *nix-style operating systems continue to use obsolete and broken software just because they've always used them. Sendmail and ISC BIND come to mind.
    • How about the far huger number of people who still run Win95? Or Win3.11 for that matter. What's your point?

      • Re:Not to worry ... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by IM6100 ( 692796 )
        Most of the systems running Windows 95 and Windows 3.1 aren't running services. They're also usually not 24/7 connected to the Internet and facing it in a way that malcontents or malware can capture and use the machine. So a monoculture of Windows 95 machines only poses a threat for peer-peer outbreaks, i.e. Outlook viruses, etc. Windows 3.1 machines are even less of a threat.

        They're so completely different from the problem that broken Sendmail and BIND implementations represent, that I just have to ask

  • Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @12:31AM (#7205735)
    "Unfortunately, Linux would be the big loser if that were to happen."

    Linux would be at exactly the same spot in which is started. Mono is a work in progress and really isn't embedded itself into Linux yet or probably will for a long while.
    • Replace 'Linux' with 'GNU/Linux', replace 'GNU/Linux' with 'GNU/Linux projects that are commited to Mono technology". Change 'be the big loser' to 'would have to be abandoned or migrated to the Windows .NET platform'. As for 'Mono is a work in progress and really isn't embedded itself into Linux yet or probably will for a long while', the article addresses this -

      The optimum time to shut down Mono will be after much Linux development has committed to it. By then, Mono technology will have infected many pro

    • Mono is a work in progress and really isn't embedded itself into Linux yet or probably will for a long while.

      So, what you're saying is that:

      Mono is a work in progress and really isn't [hasn't] embedded itself into Linux yet or probably will [embed itself into Linux?] for a long while?

      What is it you're trying to say, man?

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2)

      by Baki ( 72515 )
      Imagine in a few years time, almost all popular & important Linux apps would have been developed in Mono. Then some lawsuit comes and kind of outlaws this. Suddenly much of Linux application development would be halted, forcing them to rewrite/migrate to another development. Of course this would be an enormous blow to Linux.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LarsWestergren ( 9033 )
      >>"Unfortunately, Linux would be the big loser if that were to happen."

      >Linux would be at exactly the same spot in which is started.

      Well, except it might lose an enormous amount of good will in the business world.

      Boss:"You said Mono was compatible, but now it turns out it isn't, and we have to spend huge amounts of money migrating back to Windows. This is the last time we try to bet our business on this open source crap. Oh, and you don't have to bother showing up for work tomorrow."

      You would

      • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Urkki ( 668283 )
        Now I have to ask... Why not use Java?

        Would that not be far simpler and safer option for enterprice-wide deployment, when you have the power to decide on the version of JVM to use etc?

        What's the supposed big benefit of .NET, so that it'd ever be worth considering using Mono and risking MS doing the expected a bit later?

        • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by LarsWestergren ( 9033 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @05:14AM (#7206847) Homepage Journal
          Now I have to ask... Why not use Java?

          Exactly! I do use Java, for exactly the reasons you state. I can understand that some Open Source people might be sceptic of a standard controlled by a company. Fine. But how some people can hate Sun and Java in one moment and then applaud Microsoft in the next is mindboggling.

          And don't give me that crap about .Net being some how open source or ISO compliant or whatever. A very small part of it is, most of it is still secret and proprietary. To then say that the whole .Net is open as Microsoft claims is then using "weasel words".

        • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by the_mad_poster ( 640772 )

          Exactly. Thank you.

          I really don't understand the insistence on making things work with/like Microsoft's comparable offerings when Microsoft has made it so clear that it doesn't want to play with the other kids in the playground. If Microsoft is shady and might sucker punch you, don't play with them, it's that simple. It would be NICE to have compatibility and portability, but if they won't bite, screw them - go head to head instead, they're not offering anything innovative or interesting in the forseeba

  • That will teach you, GNU hippies (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Stealing Microsoft innovation and borrowing on this corporation's achievements without asking. Microsoft paid money to their programmers while they wrote this wonderful API lib, so why should anyone get it for free?
    • Actually the "API lib" is free. It just only runs on the windows platform.

      The funny thing is MS has released a portion of the framework for the BSD platform, it's called ROTOR: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=3A1C93FA-7462-47D0-8E56-8DD34C6292F0&displa ylang=en

  • Variety (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ycros ( 561209 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @12:34AM (#7205755)
    Linux's strength lies in its variety, not everyone will commit to developing with mono.
    There will always be alternatives.

    Whereas with Windows development everyone and their dog are jumping into .net.

    You don't have to use mono on Linux, on Windows this is becoming less of a choice.

  • It would be a shame... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mrt300 ( 580362 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @12:34AM (#7205758) Homepage
    ...if MS where to shut down the Mono project. The last few releases have really come a long way and I, for one, am looking forward to the day when I can use Mono on Windows as a complete replacement for the MS.Net binaries.

    A very worthwhile effort is the mod_mono subproject, which aims for Apache integration, allowing us Apache users to dish out ASP.Net faster and more securely than IIS.
    • Why would you go with mod_mono as opposed to mod_perl? I'm not trying to be snyde, I'm a perl developer who has done lots of things in mod_perl and have been totally happy with it. I am, however, always on the lookout for the advantages of other languages. Would mod_mono simply be so you could use .net languages in Apache or is there some technical advantage to using .net?

      For programmers who want portability, switching to Parrot rather than mono seems to be a much better bet in the long term.

      For those
    • The last few releases have really come a long way and I, for one, am looking forward to the day when I can use Mono on Windows as a complete replacement for the MS.Net binaries.

      I, for one, welcome our new (open- or closed-sourced) .NET overlords.

  • Mono is no more of a threat than Wine is (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @12:38AM (#7205782)
    Unlike the UNIX braintrust, Microsoft makes sure their products are a moving target to prevent people from copying them.

    By the time Mono has finally reverse-engineered NET 1.1, Microsoft will be releasing NET 2.0. They'll keep adding to the APIs, they'll hook into Windows, leave parts undocumented, whatever it takes to ensure that nothing comes close. Mono will be stuck running trivial or toy programs.

    This is just like the Wine project -- for years people have been promising that you'll just be able to install Wine and fire up any Windows app. But there's always another and another and another API that Wine hasn't gotten around to yet.

  • I've said it before, and I'll say it again.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JoeLinux ( 20366 ) <joelinux@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @12:46AM (#7205835)
    ...I've never understood why Miguel suddenly believes MS that it is playing fair now. I think he should have a chat with Jeremy Allison from SAMBA to straighten him out.

    Maybe he's been taking gullible pills, I dunno. Let .NET die. Do NOT support MS in any way. Continue to "skim the top" of the best features of MS's stuff for interaction purposes only...

    We have MS in a good position right now: Longhorn delayed, about to make a 32 bit to 64 bit conversion that they can't transition with easily, draconian licensing schemes making IT people back up, etc. Now is NOT the time to support MS' foolhardy attempt to dominate the real 'net.
    • Miguel's position has always been that it is the benefits of the C# language and runtime that he is looking to bring to Linux, not just straight compatibility. Even if MS changed their target and broke their class library APIs tomorrow it wouldn't matter, because that's not what it's about. The real advantage to Linux application development can be seen in the GTK# project, which has no equivalent in the MS version of the CLR. GTK# and C# allow us to rapidly prototype and develop GUI's that we can use in

    • Baka. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @01:31AM (#7206048) Homepage
      It's not about the domination of net via .NET, it's about a true, open source virtual machine project with a proper, OO language to go with it. Java is not open source, but Mono is. And Mono happens to be a superset of the Java functionality.

      That fact that it lets you take Windows code and run it faster, better, more securely -- that's just icing.

      To think that this is supporting Microsoft is to think that Samba supports Microsoft just because it implements protocols that Microsoft uses.

      • Java confusion (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jonner ( 189691 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @02:07AM (#7206198)
        You seem to be confused between specification and implementation. It doesn't make sense to claim that Java isn't Open Source, since there are various Open Source and Free Software implementations of Java compilers, runtimes and libraries in addition to the proprietary ones. Here [kaffe.org] is a good list. Some of these Free implementations have been around much longer than Mono. Mono isn't the only Free implementation of DotNet; there's also DotGNU [gnu.org].

    • Actually, I think that Miguel has the right idea. Unlike Wine Miguel is not trying to be binary compatible, he is simply trying to provide a mostly compatible API. In a few years, when it is time to re-up your Windows Licensing 6.0 contracts to Windows oldest-child licensing there are going to be a lot of shops contemplating a way out. Unfortunately, many of these shops will have a lot of time and effort rolled up into .NET applications.

      Mono doesn't have to be 100% compatible to be a good option for th

      • He sees that lots of customers are painting themselves into a corner with Microsoft's .NET

        Except that these customers are painting themselves into a corner with Microsoft's .NET, exactly because they wantto be painted into a corner.

        Development houses using the MS .NET stuff _do not want_ alternatives. If they wanted alternatives, they would be using Java, Python, etc.

        A plan that includes selling product to someone that doesn't want the thing you are selling, doesn't sound so good to me.

        • Development houses using the MS .NET stuff _do not want_ alternatives. If they wanted alternatives, they would be using Java, Python, etc.

          I have been an MS Developer in the past and still occasionally do MS stuff now. Not so often now because all the new stuff in the MS world is .NET, whether you like it or not. Sometimes I can roll out solutions without the person paying for development caring for what it is written in and can get away with other stuff but that isn't often now.

          Developers in the bout

  • "discusses" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by agendi ( 684385 )
    Once again..

    "This article discusses the dangers posed by a very successful Mono project."

    Must be using a different definition of discuss. I didn't actually see any discussion in the article. More like ponderings.

    Wouldn't be in the OSS spirit to wish success on anyone now would it?

    Would have been interesting if they looked at other possible outcomes - the bleak armageddon ones that the author favours as well as the more cheery ones.

    My AUD two cents worth is that it'll be like Java has been.. anothe

  • Why would Linux suffer? .NET sucks! I say kill the beast before it becomes cross platform compliant.

  • .NET, It's not about Windows... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Joe U ( 443617 ) * on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @12:50AM (#7205857) Homepage Journal
    .NET is about applications. In Microsoft's case, its mostly about office apps.

    Once Microsoft Office is a .NET application, they would only have one codebase to maintain. (Bye bye Mac Office, No need for Win64 Office)

    They would love to suddenly have their apps run on multiple platforms. Think about it, Windows XP is $150 and Office $400, which one brings in more money?

    And we all know that .NET and Office works best with Microsoft SQL server, and Exchange. More platforms = more money.

    Mono is a dream come true for Microsoft, it will eventually let them sell all their apps to Linux users directly, and they didn't have to write any code to do it.
    • Heh.

      First we complain MS products are built on a proprietary API, and we WINE. [winehq.org]

      Now they sell a product built on a published API, we whine.

    • The only thing is that office is a huge code base, my guess is that it will never be converted. I remember reading somewhere (possible Joel on Software, not sure) that the Excel team still maintains their own C compiler to compile Excel. It would therefore make it an even bigger task than a simple port.

      Also as far as I am aware Microsoft has so far released no products that require .net installed to use them. Maybe I wrong on that but I don't see .net being a prereq on any of their products.
    • They would love to suddenly have their apps run on multiple platforms. Think about it, Windows XP is $150 and Office $400, which one brings in more money?

      Which one is practically required to exist on every PC that Dell/Gateway/etc. sell? What percentage of these companies' customers will actually go on to purchase a $400 software suite?

      MS has bet the farm on its hammerlock control of the OS. If it were really forced to compete based solely on its Office suite and other apps, it's profits would fall f

    • ... as of yet, it does not seem there are plans for a mac .Net port. So the portably to other platforms remains singular in nature, as with any other large .Net application.
      • I seem to recall that MS released a version of .net for OSX and one of the BSD's. These weren't complete production versions (in particular they lacked Windows Forms and the license was intended for personal use), but they showed that it was possible for .net to be a multi-platform technology. Also, links to the mono project seem to come up with some regularity in posts by MS representatives on various newsgroups and message boards.

  • Check out Mono's FAQ (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dumky ( 598905 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @12:51AM (#7205862) Homepage
    The parts of .NET that are standard are safe. The parts that aren't standard aren't required to Mono and can be replaced with other libraries.

    Sure MS can keep changing APIs, but that will hurt them and their customers too. But even if they did, Mono is still a big gain as a Linux development plateform.

    The people from Mono explain this at Mono / FAQ [go-mono.com]
    • The parts of .NET that are standard are safe

      That would be C Sharp and the CLR, which comprise about 120 of the ~1200 classes in Dotnet.

      Thanks, we feel a lot better now. ;-)
  • You write some kickass module for Mono and you GPL it. People want to use that module in .NET and are constantly telling their customers where to get it from. Microsoft decides that this module is so damn common that they should actually distribute it with the runtime environment. Oops.. it's GPL, they can't do that.
  • I believe the work on the CLR and compiler and associated tools are a good thing. If MS is unwilling to port the runtime environment to other platforms but it seems easy enough to cleanly reverse engineer then by all means it should be done.

    However, I always felt the work on the class libraries walks on a bit shakier ground. It isn't so much that the clean room reverse engineering isn't good. I wonder if there is real value to it. Is it better to rewrite System.Web.UI or implement a new compelling set
  • Mono could be used to port off of .NET into a linux or possibly bsd environment. I've never written a large or complex app before, so the comments I'm looking for would be for the following assumption: Now that the apps are in their new environment it would it be as hard of a step to get them off mono an into another simmilar language. Hopefuly people will remember why they ditched windows in the first place and make the next logical step in progression and recode the program. If not I say if they switch ba
  • This would be a good indicator of what Microsoft thinks are the best development tools for the job.

  • I everything produced by Microsoft was crap anyway. Why try and duplicate in on Linux?
  • The scenario outlined in the referenced article is exactly what MS will do. MS will tolerate Mono as long as .Net is second to Java. MS LOVES Mono! It gives enterprise developers a false sense of cross platform runtime. As soon as .Net overtakes J2EE (and they will unless Sun wakes up and redefines their strategy) as the most popular enterprise platform, MS will take out Mono. At that point, there will be tons of enterprises who have lots and lots of C# code that needs a runtime. After Mono becomes liabilit
  • Not that Mono is a bad project, but that's the danger of trying to follow Microsoft. They're leading you where they want to go!

    Frankly, PHP right now is the .Net killer. Java is really cool, but it's still just as bad as C++ with it's flavor-of-the-week APIs. That leaves it with corperate clients, and limits exposure of the little people to the "good stuff" like EBJs. C++ will always be the standard for the pros, but again, it's too much for the "casual" programmer. Basic has too many incarnations.

    • Frankly, PHP right now is the .Net killer. Java is really cool, but it's still just as bad as C++ with it's flavor-of-the-week APIs. That leaves it with corperate clients, and limits exposure of the little people to the "good stuff" like EBJs. C++ will always be the standard for the pros, but again, it's too much for the "casual" programmer. Basic has too many incarnations. Perl is just a touch to high-up-there. but PHP seems "just right".

      There is just so much wrong with this paragraph, it's gotta be a

    • Frankly, PHP right now is the .Net killer. Java is really cool, but it's still just as bad as C++ with it's flavor-of-the-week APIs. That leaves it with corperate clients, and limits exposure of the little people to the "good stuff" like EBJs. C++ will always be the standard for the pros, but again, it's too much for the "casual" programmer. Basic has too many incarnations. Perl is just a touch to high-up-there. but PHP seems "just right".

      You seem to have misunderstood .Net in a very fundamental way. PHP
  • C# is a published stanbdard MS cant change it anymore than vendor schange c++ compilers which is also a published standard... or are you saying using C++ is dangerous?

  • Clue -1 (Score:5, Informative)

    by miguel ( 7116 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @01:12AM (#7205960) Homepage
    Man, the dude writing that stuff is sure one paranoid fellow. A paranoid fellow with little or no vision. No offense, but the guy is drowning in a quite empty glass of water.

    Lets take the following premise:

    `Mono succeeds, and Microsoft then changes the APIs so Mono can not catch up, hence Linux looses'.

    Lets take a sample that is closer to us: Linux and Unix. Linux and GNU are implementations of a fairly popular and interesting technology: the Unix operating system.

    Now, if the Unix creators introduced a new API, or changed a Unix API when Linux was successful, did that change the success of Linux?

    For example, lets assume that tomorrow SCO introduces a new API call into SCO Unix, lets call it "hasuseraclue()" [1]. The system call is highly proprietary and undocumented. Now, will Linux and GNU users suffer from the lack of this API? I am going to leave that as an exercise to the reader.

    [1] Note: by reverse engineering the code, we know that above system call return 0 when ran on the system of the author of the previous paper.

    In a world where Mono is vastly successful, if Microsoft changes/introduce new APIs, do you think it will matter?

    We will continue to implement the .NET APIs while they remain open, and will continue to use open protocols whenever possible (for example, our System.DirectoryServices implementation talks LDAP).

    But Mono has not stopped at implementing the .NET APIs we have been actively implementing our own framework that maps into the Unix world.

    For example, Microsoft has chosen XML Schema for representing, mhm, XML schemas. But the world of XML has been leaning towards Relax NG. Well, we implement Relax NG.

    We implement Mozilla bindings, OpenGL bindings, Gtk+ bindings, Qt bindings, Unix bindings.

    They implement support for 3 databases, we implement support for 11 databases.

    Mono ships with plenty of other libraries, like a BigNum library and APIs to manipulate .NET binaries.

    miguel.
    • and if MS decides to use its patents against competing implimentations of the .net apis?
      that is the big fear, that kills mono dead, and all of the apps that people write for mono will get ported to .NET and everyone will switch to windows.

    • Re:Clue -1 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stevens ( 84346 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @01:40AM (#7206079) Homepage
      Now, if the Unix creators introduced a new API, or changed a Unix API when Linux was successful, did that change the success of Linux?

      Let me change the example:

      Now, let's say that Microsoft introduced a new Java API, or changed a Java API when Java was successful, did that change the success of Java?

      Well, it did change things. Java has lots of problems on the "run anywhere" side of things as it is, and when major java programs were written with MS-only APIs, cross-platform dreams were totally over.

      I suspect that .NET will also have major Win32-only parts. If a goal of mono is just to be a development platform, fine. If anyone thinks that apps written for MS .NET will be cross-platform, then they haven't been reading their recent history.

      And if Mono is just about a dev environment, then why bother? I can't really see why I should switch to C#.

      • What a pity I don't have moderation points now. Indeed cross platform with any MSFT API is an illusion (without government intervention), please LEARN FROM THE PAST.

        As a mere programming language, .NET/C# has no real advantage to Java (on the contrary). The only weakness of Java is its GUI (Swing/AWT), which gave it an overall bad name. However Java is hughely successful as back-end language at the moment (many large companies, amongst which the one where I work, develop all their software exclusively in J
      • Try actually writing something with C# - you might experiance why.
    • > For example, lets assume that tomorrow SCO introduces a new API call into SCO Unix, lets call it "hasuseraclue()" [1]. The system call is highly proprietary and undocumented. Now, will Linux and GNU users suffer from the lack of this API? I am going to leave that as an exercise to the reader.

      userhasaclue()...it's so cute when assholes try to be witty. Here's my attempt:

      Although no one would notice or care if SCO added a new API call to their proprietary version of UNIX, if Microsoft chooses to add "h
    • They implement support for 3 databases, we implement support for 11 databases.

      And so what happens when Microsoft decides to implement support for 1 one of those databases in version 1.2 that you are implementing support for in 1.0? And they implement this support in a slightly different manner than you are. Well, what happens is you either fork your code or break applications that depend on behavior in version 1.0.

      Either way developers get confused. They spend time answering questions like: "Now how d

    • Re:Clue -1 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 )
      I wish I knew whether you were the real Miguel. Slashdot is loaded with fake ones. :-(

      "hasuseraclue()"...Note: by reverse engineering the code, we know that above system call return 0 when ran on the system of the author of the previous paper.

      Actually, this is one of the funniest and most germane comments you could have made. Think about it for a moment. Traditionally, MS library calls return TRUE for success and FALSE for failure. Traditionally, Unix library calls return the opposite -- 0 for succe
  • Or failing that, to all the paranoid daddyo's here who need to stop being so square.

  • Matter of Trust (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think it basically comes down to several things.

    1. How much do you trust Microsoft?
    2. How much do you trust patent laws and the Patent Office?

  • stop the scare mongering (Score:5, Insightful)

    by penguin7of9 ( 697383 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @01:17AM (#7205986)
    Microsoft has several means at their disposal to effectively shut down Mono if it should ever gain critical mass.

    Those claims are based on the inaccurate perception that the success of Mono depends on .NET compatibility and that Mono applications are .NET applications. That's, in fact, just false. Most current uses of Mono are based on ECMA C# and Gtk#, not .NET. In fact, one of the big strengths of C# is that, unlike Java, C# makes it easy to reuse existing C and C++ libraries; in that, it is much like the relationship of C++ to C. If you already know Gnome, you can start using C# to develop Gnome applications much more easily than picking up Java and Swing (and the Mono/Gtk# applications will work better, too).

    The company to worry about is Sun: open source Java applications do use all-Sun APIs; interfacing with native libraries is just too much hassle, and that's no accident: Sun wants you to use their APIs and give up on the free, open source APIs. And, despite all the JCP mumbo-jumbo, Sun has a lot of control over the Java platform, through numerous patents, through owning key parts of the actual implementation of key parts of the Java platform (e.g., Swing), and through their ownership of the specification and the certification process.

    So, if you are worried about Microsoft's ownership of .NET, just don't use .NET. In fact, I wouldn't touch .NET simply because I think it's technically not very good. But you can still use Mono, which is shaping up to be a great, general-purpose programming platform. And because existing open source libraries, like Gtk+, Gnome, expat, X11, etc., is so easily accessible, it's very easy to start using Mono--it's just a nicer version of C++.

    • Those claims are based on the inaccurate perception that the success of Mono depends on .NET compatibility and that Mono applications are .NET applications. That's, in fact, just false. Most current uses of Mono are based on ECMA C# and Gtk#, not .NET.

      If this is actually an "inaccurate perception," at least people are coming to it honestly, they are not "scare mongering." From the first sentence you read on the go-mono page:

      "Ximian announced the launch of the Mono project, an effort to create an open sour

    • Do you know who is our enemy and who is our friend? You may not like SUN for all its policies, but they are and always shall be part of the good guys (as one of the very few remaining). I can't believe reading such statements from someone who cares for open source and UNIX/Linux.

      It is the only company that has not given in to the enemy in any way. Without SUN UNIX would have died a long time ago (in the real corporate world that is) and thus Linux and FreeBSD would have been much less relevant as well.

      SUN
  • I posted this comment [slashdot.org] a few days ago when LookSmart got shafted by MS. Seems like it's equally well suited here, not to mention Vodafone Fiasco in waiting [theregister.co.uk] and on and on.

    Entering agreement and working with MS fits the definition of insanity. You know doing same thing over and over and expect different results.

  • The article is pretty silly but it reflects a general mindset. "Oooh, Microsoft, ooooh, big bad bully!!"

    Yes, but even big bad bullies tend to look after their own interests.

    It's very hard to imagine hoards of Linux developers jumping onto Mono. Very hard. After all, if the word "individualistic" applied to anything, it'd be Open Source developers.

    But imagine another, much more plausible scenario, for an instant in which Linux is incredibly successful, so much that Microsoft realize that Windows, as a
  • Now, imagine for a moment that Mono, following in .NET's footsteps, is also hugely successful. Further, imagine that, in its success, Mono displaces a large portion of traditional Linux software development over the next few years.

    um, yeah, that's gonna happen. linux development relies on things being open. .NET will never be open. some parts sure, but not the vital stuff needed by microsoft to guarantee lock-in. geez, some dude rants for a bit, about nonsensical scenario, and that makes /.
  • Miguel's gonna be pissed ;)

  • Conspiracy 101 ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @02:15AM (#7206222) Journal

    Okay.. it may just be me, but this guy seems to be more than a little paranoid about this. Lets look at his asumptions and projected serie of events:
    - MS .net becomes successfull
    - Mono starts gaining momentom
    - MS, discovering this, starts secretly patenting key parts of .net
    - MS, being greedy, doublescheming bastards who talks with forked tounges, conviniently forgets to tell anyone about their new patents, but instead makes it easy for Mono
    - Mono, because of this, becomes successfull, and 'infest' (couldn't find a better word, sorry) the entire codebase of GNU/Linux
    - MS, being greedy, doublescheming bastards who talks with forked tounges, suddenly remembers it's patents - and sues whoever is behind Mono
    - GNU/Linux collapses, letting MS laught all the way to the bank.

    Now, IANAL, but I've always been told that if you don't take steps to defend your patents as soon as you discover that someone is violating them, you effectively looses it. And considering MS earlier ways of dealing with people thye think may have violated one of their patents (strike early and hard), they would have struck allready me thinks.

    Besides, it is usefull for MS to have GNU/Linux around - it gives them something to point to when peopel claim that they have a desktop monopoly.


    • Wouldnt' it be hard to patent key parts of .NET if Mono already implements it? Prior art? Sure they might get the patent but Mono would win a lawsuit and you bet we'd all donate to the legal fund. Well, I know I would...
  • "Microsoft has several means at their disposal to effectively shut down Mono if it should ever gain critical mass."

    Am I the only one who read this and first thought of mononucleosis, aka, "The kissing disease"?
  • What's with all the Mono-bashing?

    Everyone seems to think:
    Mono is to dotNET as WINE is to Windows

    That's not the way to think about it at all, try it this way:

    Mono is to dotNET as Linux is to UNIX

    It's just an implementation, it doesn't matter if it's not fully compatible and that doesn't appear to be the goal. The goal is to make an Open Source implementation and improve on it.

    If you look at it this way, suddenly Mono doesn't seem so bad.
  • Anyone who has followed the trend of software patents must realize that Microsoft could have dozens of patent claims covering .NET before Mono rises to prominence.

    You know, you could just look up the information yourself. And find out if MS actualy has any mono patents, rather then just flailing randomly and making crazy paranoid asertions.

    Mono is stupid, I mean, why not create something new? But this article is paranoid. Anyway, I don't see many linux developers switching to mono.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close