Miguel de Icaza on Longhorn

An anonymous reader writes "In Miguel de Icaza's latest blog entry the Mono project leader discusses the threat Longhorn's new technologies and frameworks pose to Linux and open source. He also directs users to this recent USENET post about the goals of Mozilla, which is a very interesting read. Originally seen on OSnews." Mmmm...Miguel smart. Seriously, good commentary - and ripe for discussion/flame wars.

Mozilla Goals

[swordboy]

Hey - if someone wants to make a goal for Mozilla, here is a good one:

Create a "drop-in" replacement for Internet Explorer. That is, it has the same layout and "feel" of the IE browser without all that monopoly crap.

I'd use Mozilla if I could shift+click and get a new browser window. But every time that I install it, I end up removing it because of little annoyances that happen from my IE habits. I can't expect to make others use it (I deploy many PCs) if I don't do it myself.

Re:Mozilla Goals

[zz99]

I'd use Mozilla if I could shift+click and get a new browser window. But every time that I install it, I end up removing it because of little annoyances that happen from my IE habits. I can't expect to make others use it (I deploy many PCs) if I don't do it myself.

I use Mozilla, Konquror and Opera depending on what OS and which computer I use (work, home, friends, etc).

Every computer I'm forced to use IE, I end up wishing I could remove it because of all the little annoyances.

No tabbed browsing - something all modern web-browsers seems to have.

Crappy network handling. Try spelling an URL wrong. IE hangs for 10-20 seconds with no ability to abort

Ctrl+N to open a new window. IE starts to re-load the contents of the previous window. I start typing a new URL. IE finishes loading the page and inserts the old URL in the middle of my typing. I scream out and install Mozilla on that computer too, regardless of protests from the computers owner

Re:Mozilla Goals

[Liselle]

I've more or less stopped trying to show people that IE is stunting their growth. It makes them onery and defensive. Instead, I like ignoring IE's faults, and show them nifty things in Opera they never knew they needed. Things like mouse gestures, linked windows, tabbed browsing (as you mentioned), customizable interface, crash-recovery, etc etc. Easiest thing to do is link to this Opera zealot's site:

Click [tntluoma.com]

The pacing is well-done. He encourages people to try the browser for a month, because that's how long it takes to really get yourself out of an IE rut.

You know, I just accidentally closed the window before I copied over the link address, but instead of having to search for it again, I just hit ctrl-alt-Z to re-open the last window I closed. Little things like this is why I can no longer stand IE. No offense intended to those poor souls who still like using the back button, or can't turn off images with a single button, or natively block popups without a third-party app.

Re:Mozilla Goals

[bolind]

Ctrl+N to open a new window. IE starts to re-load the contents of the previous window. I start typing a new URL. IE finishes loading the page and inserts the old URL in the middle of my typing.

Exactly my pet peeves with MSIE. Why, oh why, must you reload the *exact same page* when I open a new window? Wouldn't the logical path be that I wanted *to look at a different web page*?!? The only explanation I can see is if you want to fork out in your browsing, say follow a link to the slashdot comments and read the article in a different window, but isn't that what right-click -> open-in-new-window is for?

Also, the thing about focusing the cursor, if I access my webmail, I often start typing before the page is fully loaded. I type my username, hit tab, and start typing my password. In the middle of my password, IE decides to focus the cursor at the start of the login field, and I type half my password in clear view. Argh!

Re:Mozilla Goals

[dasmegabyte]

Actually, most of the time when *I* open a new window, it's because I want to branch my browsing in two different directions without losing my history path. Like responding to a slashdot post without losing my place on the main page.

One of my pet peeves with Firefox (and there aren't many) is that opening a new window, tab, etc, means starting with a clean history. Maybe nice for some, but I'd like a trail of what I did up to opening that window.

In the middle of my password, IE decides to focus the cur

Re:Mozilla Goals

[Augie De Blieck Jr.]

Or, with Mozilla or Opera, you can use the current window as your base for tangents, and then open the links you wish to explore in new tabs (shift-click, or right click --> Open In New (Active or not) Tab) or even new windows. When you're done with those tangents, you can close the tabs and you still have the original page there.

Opening the same window with CTRL-N is something I've never understood about IE. It makes no sense, particularly when you're on a secure site and you ended up logged in twice or force some other odd cookie-based error.

-Augie

Avantbrowser

[The Spoonman]

Check out Avantbrowser [avantbrowser.com]. It's a replacement "front end" for IE, supports tabbed browsing, popup blocker, ad blocker, script blocker, flash blocker, etc, etc, etc. Ctrl-N (or middle-mouse click, or mouse gesture, or however you want to open a new tab) works as you'd like it to (and me, too). As for wrong URLs hanging for 10-20 seconds, that's an oddity. I usually just hit Esc to stop loading the page.

Re:Mozilla Goals

[Jim_Maryland]

IE will freeze up. The amount of time seems to depends on the page your trying to view though. If I'm forced to use IE for a page within my companies Intranet while connected via VPN and specific proxy settings, I find that if I forget to reset my proxy settings, it can hang for a while (few seconds) when I hit my home page. Hitting the Stop button doesn't seem to speed things up either as IE feels it has to load some system page to give me a friendly message by default.

All that said though, a few sec

Re:Mozilla Goals

[revividus]

I'd use Mozilla if I could shift+click and get a new browser window

With Firefox, at least, shift-click does open a new window, and ctrl-click (or the middle mouse button/wheel) opens the link in a new tab, which is preferrable to me.). It has done so for months and months, I don't even know how long.

Now, no one (I hope) is saying you have to use a different browser, but the reason given doesn't hold anymore.

Re:Mozilla Goals

[burnin1965]

"I'd use Mozilla if I could shift+click and get a new browser window. But every time that I install it, I end up removing it because of little annoyances ..."

Are you serious?

Your comment makes me envision all kinds of bizarre situations...

Supervisor: Your engineering report is already behind schedule, why are you using that slide rule?
Engineer: I'd use that elctronic calculator gadget to do my math if they could just make it so I can operate it like mike slide rule.

Supervisor: Why didn't you use t

I have never understood Miguel de Icaza's position

[MrIrwin]

Instead of wasting time on doing the same, why not forge ahead and have something working out of the door first.

The "Microsoft Network" lost out to internet because W95 shipped too late. Let's do the same with Longhorn!

It is interesting that he acknowledges Mozilla's work. XUL has the potential to supply a platform that could nullify Longhown's advantage before it hits the streets.

Re:I have never understood Miguel de Icaza's posit

[Jackdaw Rookery]

What do you mean 'wasting time'?

His post is all about getting something working out of the door first. The point is defining what you need to do and how to go about doing it. Someone has to mull all of this over, privately and publicly, and Miguel's one of the ones doing this.

Good for him.

(Did I troll feed? Sorry)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I have never understood Miguel de Icaza's posit

[telbij]

The truth to the statement "The central point was that paying too much attention to Microsoft simply allows Microsoft to define the game. And when Microsoft gets to define the game, they ALWAYS win." is self-evident. You cannot both follow and lead.

That is specious reasoning; Microsoft gets to define the game regardless. No matter how much we innovate, the pain of migrating to another platform keeps companies on Windows. If we created the next killer app, Microsoft would have plenty of time to copy it before people started to migrate en masse.

The only way to ease the pain of migration is to make things work. Most companies' infrastructure is far too thick to be able to migrate to a whole new platform in one giant leap. So addressing Windows compatibility is critical before many people can even consider Linux.

That said, I agree largely that a single project can't lead and follow, but GNU/Linux is not one project. If you are arguing that resources spent copying Microsoft are wasted, then I think it is only your own time that is being wasted, since open source developers work on what they want and will never all agree to one ideology.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I have never understood Miguel de Icaza's posit

[borud]

You, sir, are absolutely right!

Miguel's crusade to badly copy where Microsoft has gone before isn't really that productive and it has produced rather a lot of sloppy, unfinished, unpolished software that has more promise than usefulness.

I desperately want this not to be so, but it is.

Microsoft have an important ally in Miguel. It is not necessary to announce vaporware for Linux to frighten off the competition since everyone is already waiting for applications like Evolution to stop sucking so badl

Re:I have never understood Miguel de Icaza's posit

[miguel]

I do not think you read my whole message,
because I stated that there were two options:
to implement Avalon, or to build our own.

We are in the process of specing out what
ours should be (the platform we call
"salvador").

Miguel.

Re:I have never understood Miguel de Icaza's posit

[sweet cunny muffin]

XUL does not have the potential to do this for one simple reason. Almost nobody runs Mozilla. Yeah, I know we all do, but in the real world, on the desktops of people doing their internet banking, their web based email and so on, nobody uses Mozilla, so people cannot ship a web based app using Mozilla tech (XUL). It would have to run on IE to have even a chance in hell of nullifying Avalon, and XUL simply does not, and will never, work on IE.

10%

[Adolph_Hitler]

Around 10% or so run Netscape/Mozilla, still a small amount. This amount could easily rise if AOL wanted it to, but until AOL decides to do so, Mozilla won't gain much support at least not in the USA.

In other countries however this is a different story.

If AOL were to market Netscape like they do Winamp and AIM, everyone would be using it instead of IE. We use AIM and ICQ over MSN already even though MSN comes with the damn OS.

Re:I have never understood Miguel de Icaza's posit

[Anonymous Coward]

This is only half true. As the 'computer person' in the family I get all of the 'my computer...' calls. Most of these calls are related to virus activity and or crappy performance. The most common being performance issues. 9 times out of 10 this is related to LOTS of spyware. Every machine I sit at after removing all of the spyware and setting up adaware to run every so often I remove all links to internet explorer from the users desktop and start menu and replace them with Mozilla. I name the link 'Internet Explorer' and replace the icon on some machines because people do not know what to do in any other case. Once this is done I always get comments like 'The Internet is so much faster now!' and once I tell them about the new 'feature' of tabbed browsing it is a done deal. 100% of these users are STILL using Mozilla. As I am sure all of the readers here know its all about what is PRESENTED to the user. As long as MS continues to bundle IE it will be the dominate browser. If we do not want that to be the case then start removing it from user land and putting mozilla in its place.

Re:I have never understood Miguel de Icaza's posit

[mindriot]

...so people cannot ship a web based app using Mozilla tech (XUL). It would have to run on IE...

So maybe the Mozilla team should consider creating a XUL plug-in for IE then. Is that feasible, or are there technical quirks preventing that from happening?

Re:I have never understood Miguel de Icaza's posit

[IamTheRealMike]

Yes, the technical problem is the Trident, the IE rendering engine, is closed source and mostly rubbish.

You can already "embed" XUL in IE of course, by having the user download the Gecko ActiveX control and effectively embed a renderer within a renderer, but that's a cheap hack and has severe performance implications.

To be frank, I'm 100% not convinced that Avalon is going to be as world changing as Miggy predicts. I think it's especially rash to be starting internal projects even if they are "thought only" to develop a competitor.

Miguel thinks Avalon will be great, because it will let you deploy applications via the web browser that use native widgets, and be nicely integrated with .NET and so on.

But ... but ... but ... Microsoft did this years ago (minus .net). Or am I really the only one who remembers the version of Outlook implemented entirely using DHTML/HTA (which produces native widgets). I can't remember the codename, but the project was scrapped. The benefits of running Outlook inside IE just were not compelling enough to overcome the performance and other problems.

I'm not denying it'd be useful. The long term UI goals for my own packaging/installer project are that the user should be able to launch (and implicitly install) software simply by clicking on an icon embedded in a web page. As far as the user is concerned then the effects would be the same, so the real differences lie in how the developer sees things.

In the Avalon world view, the developer creates widgets on a canvas (AFAIK), ties them together with .NET code, and then .NET CAS allows you to launch it from a web browser without fear of it doing nasty things to your machine (which is a massive oversimplification, but oh well).

In fact, we can do this sort of thing today, with technologies that are either here or just around the corner. SELinux allows you to effectively sandbox native code to a fine degree, similar to .NET CAS except enforced at the kernel level and not by a VM. It's not just a set of kernel security checks - it's actually a security architecture with an exposed set of APIs which allow people to use MAC security features to a high level.

I don't know enough about .NET security to know how it compares, but SELinux policy is easily distributable in the form of text files and allows you use native code, which runs directly on the CPU without the overhead of a VM and huge set of managed APIs.

So, if you can download some native code and correctly sandbox it, you have the start of web app deployment. XAML appears to bear a superficial representation to Glade (note: NOT xul) but using a more customised and therefore human friendly schema.

I say Glade and not XUL because a Glade file is, in actuality, not an UI description at all. It's really a persisted GObject tree that libglade uses along with the GObject reflection APIs to reconstruct the GUI at runtime. I have read that XAML despite appearances is similar: it is a persisted .NET object graph.

So, I think if Miguel starts from "what user experiences does this technology allow" and work backwards, he'll find we already have the basics in production. Sure, they need to be improved and tied together, but they are there nonetheless.

Finally I think it's wrong to say that the reason desktop Linux didn't happen in 1994 was because people were "sleeping at the wheel". The fact of the matter was in 1994 Microsoft already had several thousand people working on Windows full time, whereas desktop Linux had .... none.

Really, I think a simpler explanation is just that MS had a monopoly pumping cash into their development teams, and Linux did not. Its falling behind was therefore completely inevitable until it gained enough momentum to move as fast as Microsoft do.

Here's Why

[sethadam1]

You're deceiving yourself if you think XUL can do it. Microsoft's new technologies WILL be out there, and they WILL succeed. If you accept that, you can be smarter about things. Let's get interoperable so we can compete - THEN we can extend into a new arena.

Miguel "gets it." The future of the web is seamless, safe perfectly integrated rapid application delivery. Imagine delivering an app via website that used native widgets and looked and felt like part of your OS, all while safely sandboxed. It's gonna happen come the Longhorn./NET heydey.

Many fanboys bitch and moan that Miguel laps up the Microsoft swill and ensures their success, but I'd argue it's the converse: Miguel knows we need to reach interoperability to have a meaningful competition in the first place. The better technology doesn't always win. Sometimes you gotta play the game via the home team's rules before the league lets you vote to change them.

Re:Here's Why

[CommandNotFound]

Imagine delivering an app via website that used native widgets and looked and felt like part of your OS, all while safely sandboxed.

This capability has been available with Java WebStart [sun.com] for a while now. Like many Sun and Apple products, they are consciously ignored until Microsoft "invents" them and the fanboys come running into my office to show this "new" technology on MSDN. Yawn. Trying to keep up with Mono is a Microsoft-sponsored hamster wheel, IMHO. If we really wanted .Net functionality on Linux, we would make peace with Sun and pull Java into the OSS world.

You can make really good Java Swing desktop or browser apps that look every bit as good or better than .Net apps. The Pluggable Look and Feels allow this; this site [javootoo.com] has a gallery of some. We've benchmarked real apps with Java and .Net, and the execution times are within 10% of each other. They both suck about the same. :)

R vs I

[sethadam1]

Also to assume Microsoft will win, is to have sold out. If you think Microsoft is going to win at everything they do, why don't you go work for them and help them.

That's the difference between being a realist and an idealist. It would be ideal if Microsoft wasn't a guarantee, but it is for now. Accept it and maybe we can do something about it.

Developing (say, mono ) to prevent platform lock-in is a hell of a lot better than trolling Slashdot and whining about how everyone else's actions are wrong.

Re:Theres no demand for these features.

[gglaze]

Java failed because Sun assumed it was good to use on the web and it simply wasnt.

No, Java "failed" [as a web app framework] because Sun never could put together an applets platform that was fast and produced professional-looking apps.

If you really believe there has never been any demand for fully functional applications running in a browser, your vision of the demand for apps has been far too narrow over the last 10 years. There was absolutely high demand for this type of application in 1995, and even more so now. Some isolated examples are coming closer and closer to this vision already, just making use of DHTML and proprietary browser enhancements. Good examples are the newer versions of Exchange Web Access and Hotmail, which are both coming closer to fully functional web apps with every new release. Once .NET (and Java too) come up with good, interoperable, solid ways to make this happen, web apps will be springing up in areas that you have never imagined.

More importantly, there is high demand for easily deployable applications in many business environments, and it's obvious that the easiest deployment is no deployment - something which is only accomplished via a universal tool that everyone already has - i.e. The Browser. Just because you personally don't see the need for a web app, does not mean that many thousands of companies with billions of dollars to spend don't have business needs for them.

Not a problem

[sethadam1]

Microsoft is on top of that.

LUA [microsoft.com] is supposed to take care of that. And yes, it is a bit like Unix permissioning, but it does do some cool stuff, like provide each app its own copy of local files and even mock registry hives.

Re:The success of Linux has nothing to do with .Ne

[lintux]

> There's no reason for me or anyone else to buy Longhorn EVER

Just as there was no reason to buy Windows XP. But still, many people did it. And new computers come with Windows XP, so there is no easy way to avoid it.

Especially when the first applications are written that only run on that version of Windows. (Either XP or Longhorn.)

Re:The success of Linux has nothing to do with .Ne

[grepistan]

Let's just hope that never happens... Is there anything around at the moment that ONLY runs on XP?

I help blind users with access to computers, and the evil JAWS screen reader package ($1800!) comes with limitations; you can only install it on win95, 98, ME (why?), and XP home only. No win2000 of any flavour, and no XP pro. The reasons for its restrictions are not technical though; they are built in to ensure that corporate users are charged more than personal ones...

I've started teaching one of my clients some linux skills as X can now talk... the Linux revolution is here for the blind community, as it is for the rest of us!

Re:The success of Linux has nothing to do with .Ne

[tjwhaynes]

I'd probably start by recommending EmacsSpeak, simply because the combination of a complex editor environment with all sorts of smart speech hookups is a hugely important and useful tool for the blind. In some ways, X integration isn't a big thing for the blind - as long as your core environment can access everything you need (email, newsgroups, web pages, coding, etc.) you have no implicit need for X.

There are plenty of others. For Speech synthesis, you are probably looking at Festival. For Voice recognition, you are probably best off looking at IBM Viavoice for linux. GNOME has gone a very long way with the Accessibility toolkit and will continue to push down the accessibility path - for example, take a look at Dasher for an interesting app to aid writing for impaired users. There is a lot more on GNOME Accessibility [gnome.org] to read.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:The success of Linux has nothing to do with .Ne

[colinramsay]

There was a good reason to buy Windows XP - it is great. It's by far the best version of Windows since 95, and for people that were stuck with 98, or God forbid ME, there was a clear reason to upgrade.

Re:The success of Linux has nothing to do with .Ne

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Windows 2000 is not a good OS for the home. My memory is sketchy since I wans't using it much (except at work) but let me see...

What version of DirectX did Windows 2000 ship with? I think it was way behind or something. Games and other multimedia apps weren't very good...

What was the cost? If I remember correctly, didn't Win2000 cost more than Win ME and Win XP?

Win2000 boots up slower than Win XP.

Win XP has better sleep mode, and other power consuming features.

And so on...

Overall, Win

Re:This is changing

[ThaReetLad]

People arent buying typical PCs anymore from Typical OEMs like they were back then.

Really? Someone had better tell Dell, HP and IBM because I think they're still flogging them as fast as they can make them, and we wouldn't want to see them go out of business would we?

Oh we would? My bad.

Re:This is changing

[XMyth]

As more people get more and more spyware on their computer they tend to think it's "getting old" and is "too slow" for today. Hence they want a new computer because all the sudden their old one seems slow. I've seen it several times and I'm sure it's happening elsewhere.

People will always buy new desktop computers and upgrade their OS (you'd be suprised how many typical home users actually do this...).

Longhorn will have a pretty decent installed base once all is said and done I bet.

Re:The success of Linux has nothing to do with .Ne

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Linux won't overtake Windows for a while (I'm talking about home market only--server is another story). Windows just provides too many features that Linux lacks. Windows is also much easier to use. For instance, how easy is it to change video card drivers (or for that matter any driver) in Linux? It is very difficult for causal users. I think 90% of the home users won't get past, say, Nvidia's 3rd instruction to modify the XFree-86 configuration file. Or how about when something goes wrong? Linux is not as

Re:I have never understood Miguel de Icaza's posit

[MrIrwin]

He moved on from Gnome saying C coding was dead, all hail C#, thus dilating OSS approaches. Mozilla's XUL approach was allready around **before** he started MONO.

Certainly he has boundless energy, but many people were allready pointing out that it could be the case to concentrate on getting P&P functionality with what was allready available (and hence beating MS to the market), rather than play MS at a game of catch up that you could never win (they make the rules).

Re:I have never understood Miguel de Icaza's posit

[dasmegabyte]

Well, C coding *IS* dead, or should be. Whether OSS is the future or not is debatable, but non-object oriented, non-exception handling, non-bounds checking languages with hand-rolled memory management are on the way out. They're inefficient to program in and nowadays have little to offer in terms of performance. And thanks to the unsafe block, there are ways to bypass even the smallest performance hit by removing all these safeties.

As for XUL...i can't see why anybody who touted the life of C could also praise XUL. XML is a nice idea for encapsulating data in a hierarchical, human readable format, but it's a bad bad BAD idea for user interfaces and anything else where you want INSTANT access to data. Parsing -- or should I say compiling -- all those words into language a machine can understand wastes time. Sure, it makes sense for a handful of widgets (like a web page), but what if you have an application that loads 300-500 per form like most of the apps I deal in? Not only do you have the rendering overhead, you also have the XML parsing overhead for each of them. I'll stick with JVM and the Windows Forms frameworks.

As for "catching up" with Microsoft...de Icaza's point is that while Linux is treading water with its own kind of uniformity and platform cross compatibility, trying to make inroads into Windows apps, de Icaza's aiming to replicate the .NET initiative in a cross platform manner. There's a subtle difference, but it's an important one: de Icaza's methodology takes the newest strategy from the for-better-or-worse market leader and makes it ubiquitous, instead of trying to make a name for himself with a brand new strayegy. From a risk assessment point of view, there's a much better chance that .NET will succeed than any of the dozens of competing intiatives in the OSS community. And there's less work involved. We the power users may not want to get both feet in bed with Microsoft, but for a lot of companies out there it has proven to be a very valuable strategy. Miguel's trying to give them a means of keeping one foot on the floor, to tap the ubiquity of windows while maintaining (or in many cases, gaining) cross platform compatibility.

Which I'm sure was the whole thrust behind standardizing .NET. MS couldn't say that openly, of course.

Re:I have never understood Miguel de Icaza's posit

[sbrown123]

Why would a bank use XUL for an application (forcing all thier users to download mozilla), when they can let them run native Longhorn appps from thier browser without any installation?


Mozilla has the GRE (Gecko Runtime Engine) which is all that is needed to execute XUL apps. The GRE can be loaded without the browser. Last time I check I think it was a little under 10 megs which is not too bad since 1 GRE can support multiple XUL apps.

Microsoft platform subset

[kspiteri]

Having something similar to the Microsoft platform would encourage developers to develop cross-platform. If a usable subset is developed on mono, the restriction to that subset is the price for a cross-platform application - better than a reimplementation.

Microsoft will not be a bigger threat.

[Dozix007]

Microsoft's threat to the Linux community will not be raised by Longhorn. I doubt that Microsoft's newest OS will have anything drastically new that the Linux community does not already have, or that can easily be added.

Re:Microsoft will not be a bigger threat.

[dreamchaser]

It isn't about Windows developing truly new and innovative features. It's about them increasing their already strong lock down on the market. If they get enough people to use some of these new technologies to create content/applications, and if said content/applications can only be accessed by Windows, then voila! Shored up market share.

Re:Microsoft will not be a bigger threat.

[Cereal Box]

I doubt that Microsoft's newest OS will have anything drastically new that the Linux community does not already have, or that can easily be added.

I wouldn't be so sure. Integrated XML user interfaces? Sandboxed VM execution for user-mode applications built in to the OS? Longhorn's got em, Linux doesn't. In particular, the emphasis on .NET apps seems to be a really good idea from a security standpoint -- patch the runtime and all .NET apps benefit, be it performance benefits or security benefits. No more of this "patch a single app" stuff. Microsoft is definitely on the right track with this.

It's attitudes like yours that Icaza is talking about. "Oh, XYZ huh? Yeah Linux has that, if you follow these seemingly endless instructions to get this kludgy hack working." I hate to say it, but just watch. Microsoft's XML UI technology is going to be faster than Mozilla's XUL, and their .NET runtime IS faster than Java, meaning it's actually possible for them to make most of Windows's user apps run in the .NET VM without a huge performance hit. As much as Slashdotters lambast Microsoft for not "innovating", they're definitely taking radical steps with Longhorn. And, as usual, I predict that Linux users will remain stubborn and say "Oh those features are stupid, no one will use them. Linux can already do that with this ugly hack. RTFM" until about two years after Longhorn is released, at which point suddenly you'll see GNOME and KDE emulating all those things that Longhorn has been doing for years.

Re:Microsoft will not be a bigger threat.

[Slack3r78]

I see Longhorn as a threat more from an interoperability standpoint, personally. For example, we're just now starting to get to a semi-usable point with the NTFS filesystem. Longhorn will use WinFS, which is essentially NTFS with a database layer on top of it. Which means Linux will need to reverse engineer in support. Again.

If Microsoft follows through with many of the changes they've announced for Longhorn, it essentially means Linux would be set back to square one as far as being able to work together with a Windows system on several fronts. Nothing MS haven't done in the past, but the thing that makes this particularly dangerous for us is the fact that they're going all the changes are much lower level this time.

This is the reason I've always been unable to decide if I agree with the Mono project philosophically or not. On one hand, I do feel that trying to play catch up with a language implementation where MS is making up the rules cheapens Linux to an extent. On the other, Microsoft is pushing .NET hard with enterprise developers, and if it starts to get strong uptake without Linux support, it would essentially gurantee a stronger uptake of Windows on the server side, which is also bad. It's a catch 22 type situation, really.

In between both extremes

[spectre_be]

Although I don't think the OSS community should be making descisions based solely on Microsoft's heading, I don't think ignoring them is the way to go either. I do think the fact that something like mono exists makes one less argument *not* to make the switch to linux. If you support .net the Linux platform can attract developers which would otherwise be coding for and on Windows only.
Just my 2ç

Great Blog

[Omega1045]

That was quite an interesting read. While I don't totally agree with every point, the gist of the blog is right on target. I think one of the keys to Linux fighting off such threats is to get better cohesion between GNU projects, outside the Linux distro. This weekend I went to install some GNU software on my WinXP Pro laptop. I get to the download page, and ooops! I also need to install 3 other GNU projects just to get the software I want to work. Then I get to one of the other projects, and ooops! I have to install another program to get it to work. To install one app, I had to install 4 others, which meant a lot of navigation and downloading. No sweat. I am a coder; I can do this. But it did take extra time. I started wondering why these were not all packaged together, or why the installer could not simply detect they were not there and install the needed apps. This is one advantage MS has over many GNU projects and the Linux community. They are one company, and can enforce product compliance, etc. The point I am leading to is this: if the GNU community wants to beat MS in the long run they need to make sure more of their apps can easily install on MS boxes without having any knowledge of programming, IT, etc. Once you get people using this software, the switch to using this software on Linux will be much easier. Open Office is a great example of this. I know most GNU projects compile on Windows (or will with some modifications) but it has to be easier for the Windows user to get said applications.

Re:Great Blog

[davecb]

And add two more workds: "on XP".

Omega1045 wrote "This weekend I went to install some GNU software on my WinXP Pro laptop. "

A good, GUI-based XP apt-get, even if it only provides access to Unix-derived apps on XP, will serve two purposes:

1. Show people currently running XP that the Gnu software is really professionally done. In particular, I want to xp-get Open Office.
2. Give us a high-quality GUI to match or beat as we go forward with improving the ease of use of Unix apps.

--dave

Finally seeing the truth?

[mrkurt]

If Miguel thinks that Longhorn is such a threat because it will incorporate the .NET framework, will he come out an admit the truth: that spending all that time and effort on Mono was a mistake and a waste? Trying to reinvent .NET for Unix/Linux never made any sense to me, since the components in .NET that people really want aren't available on anything but Windows. Perhaps this is a shift in his POV as a result of Ximian now being part of Novell, and they are now aiming their sights at trying to dent MS's lock on desktop and market share in the server arena. But no, he sees Mono as part of the potential answer to Schlonghorn-- don't you get it Miguel? .NET was an "embrace, extend, extinguish the competition" move to do Java one better. What makes you think that sticking with Mono will work when MS might well modify the .NET framework by the time Longhorn comes out so as to make it unusable by anything but Windows? Better to start making your own framework now instead of waiting around to see what MS will do.

Re:Finally seeing the truth?

[BlackHawk-666]

The Mono project is an implementation of .NET on other OS's. This means developers *are free* to build any framework they like using the C# language alongside of implementing the MS ones for compatibility. The C# language is highly productive for a programmer, and when coupled with a good IDE can lead to code rates of over 500 lines of code a day (which is roughly what I will pound out on a decent day). By having .NET on Linux I can write an app in Mono on Windows, then easily port it to run on Linux. As long as you stay away from COM and some other proprietry stuff you can enjoy the comfort of the MS IDE whilst producing code for other platforms. Now, how isn't this a win-win for Linux?

Re:Finally seeing the truth?

[CommandNotFound]

By having .NET on Linux I can write an app in Mono on Windows, then easily port it to run on Linux.

Disclaimer: I am not a Java fanboy, but if you really wanted to do this, why not use Java? Instead of waiting for Miquel to try and reimplement an unofficial port of a moving target (.Net), Java on Linux is officially supported by Sun. There are many IDEs available for Java. If you want GUIs, JBuilder is probably the best. For general coding, Eclipse is about the best IDE I've used, once you get used to its philosophy. After a couple of months with Eclipse, I had to go back to VS.Net 2003 for a couple of days, and I was shocked hollow it was and how dependent I had become on the "lightbulb" feature (fix my code) of Eclipse and the refactoring tools. Not to mention the on-the-fly compiling.

As an aside, VS.Net 2005 will have this lightbulb feature, and I predit the MS mainframers at our company will come running into my office to show this innovative "new" feature that Microsoft invented.

Anyway, the features you want are already available. Once you get the cheerleaders from both sides out of the room and get down to real work, Java is about the same as .Net as far as speed and GUI capabilities, and for real (not two-day petstore toys that the press loves) applications, they're about the same as far as productivity. .Net has a little less cruft, but give it a few years and it will have similar cruft as Java. Check out javootoo for nice look and feels for Swing apps.

Re:Finally seeing the truth?

[mrtrumbe]

Yes, but you are missing the point of the parent poster.

The point is: right now Java is available on Linux. And not just available, but officially supported by Java's manufacturer, Sun. Right now, full .NET support (yes, the framework is important, too) is still a long ways away for most Unix platforms, including Linux.

You do bring up valid points, in that Java does have minor compatibility problems across platforms and that Sun ownz Java the same way MS ownz .NET. But what is better: *slight* incompa

Re:Finally seeing the truth?

[drinkypoo]

What components of .NET that people really want will only be available for Windows?

How did you miss that .NET is going to get gnome bindings? This will allow the development of not just portable gnome code, but write-once-run-anywhere gnome code.

It doesn't matter if Microsoft makes enhancements to .NET, because its core is open. It's true that applications written to run on both Linux and Windows will have to use separate functions if you want to take advantage of Windows-specific functionality in your

.NET and sandboxes

[Xpilot]

From Miguel's blog The sandboxed execution in .NET [1] means that you can visit any web site and run local rich applications as oppposed to web applications without fearing about your data security: spyware, trojans and what have you.

That's true...if Microsoft can get it right. But as in any complex software system, there will be bugs, and considering the scope of Microsoft's deployment base, it could be disastrous. I do not think Microsoft makes worse code than anybody else, it's simply that updating their massive install base is very difficult once bugs are found. Also, the majority of Windows desktop users make poor systems administrators, there will always be bugs and crackers that exploit them. Sad, but true.

He's got a point

[andih8u]

From what I've seen, most linux users are always comparing linux to windows 95 and 98...most of them having bailed out of using windows around then...and they basically are fighting against the ghost of windows past. Whereas I don't see many of these people ever saying "yes, I use winddows xp / server2003 almost constantly in an attempt to understand what I'm up against here."

Market, damit!

[Short Circuit]

I do. I use Windows XP hours on end at work. But I use GNOME on Debian at home. And I prefer GNOME over XP. Even though I'm on a 750MHz Duron.

And, in my opinion, it doesn't matter that I'm a power user in both OS's. I work as a student tutor at the local community college [grcc.edu], and I see people completely new to computers coming into the lab every semester.

They don't find Windows intuitive. They don't find Office intuitive ("Where is cell B5?"). They don't find MS Paint intuitive.

The easiest thing for them to use is the Internet. And that's actually easier to use under Linux than Windows, since IE is absent under Linux. People get all these windows popping up over their screen, and they have a hard time doing anything about it.

There's a lot of people around who still don't know how to use a computer well. They go to community colleges to learn. Community colleges exist to serve the needs of bussinesses, and they have a tendency to swallow market speak. So market, damnit!

Re:He's got a point

[IO ERROR]

From what I've seen, most linux users are always comparing linux to windows 95 and 98...most of them having bailed out of using windows around then...and they basically are fighting against the ghost of windows past. Whereas I don't see many of these people ever saying "yes, I use winddows xp / server2003 almost constantly in an attempt to understand what I'm up against here."

I switched to Linux once and for all in 1995, after trying out a beta copy of Windows 95 (on 13 floppy disks!). Since then I've been exposed to Windows NT, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Me, and Windows XP. For the most part the useful changes in Windows are in the user interface. There's less "configuration" of hardware devices with each iteration of Windows, and the interface itself gets "prettier." (Except for XP, which reminds me of Fisher-Price toys.)

Microsoft has incorporated good ideas into Windows, such as autoconfiguring hardware, automatically recognizing file types on removable media and launching the appropriate program, etc. But for someone for whom the computer is a tool to accomplish work, Windows is, at least for me, a royal pain in the ass in other ways: I can't configure it to my personal tastes. I can't customize it to work the way I want to work. This is where Linux is a big win: it lets me work the way I want (or need!) to work.

Case in point: Even when I'm managing files in Nautilus, I frequently find myself sliding the mouse over to a terminal and running a command on the files. It's easier for me. It's very difficult to manage files with CMD.EXE, however, as anyone who's tried can attest.

As a developer, I'm comparing Linux to (now) Windows XP, and yes, it has some shortcomings that will have to be addressed, and in each case I've found a shortcoming, I've also found a project working on addressing it. So I have nothing to do. :-) (Not exactly true; the project [citadel.org] I'm working on aims to replace Exchange and possibly Active Directory.)

It still remains, though, that my productivity drops sharply on a Windows platform, simply because the tools available do not lend themselves well to efficiency and productivity. They do, however, look really pretty.

Java is a good fit

[Glock27]

Slight flaw in the "Miguel smart" thinking.

This "analysis" is poor:

I see two possible options:

* Implement Avalon/XAML and ship it with Linux (with Mono).
* Come up with our own, competitive stack.

Where is "Java" in that list? Java's only big problem, at this point, is the mindset that "something is wrong with it". It's really quite good, and there is a growing ecosystem of open source stuff (see SWT and friends) growing around it.

Every major computer company besides Microsoft supports it, and a Sun JVM now ships with many (most?) new Windows PCs. Even if not, a broadband JRE download is only a couple of minutes...and ~40% of U.S. households are on broadband if I remember a recent article correctly.

There is also plenty of effort going into Free/OSS JVM development, including gcj and IKVM on Mono.

Java tends to break the MS monopoly...Mono/.Nyet tends to lock it in. Which do we really want?

Re:Java is a good fit

[turgid]

...and even if you're a "native code" zealot, the gcc support for compiling Java source down to native binaries is coming along quite nicely. Allegedly they even have Eclipse using SWT compiling to native code and running quite well. So it goes...

Re:Java is a good fit

[drinkypoo]

Just because the Java platform (or some subset thereof) is present doesn't mean that it is doing the stuff that .NET will likely do. Most of those devices are probably cellular phones and such and most of the applications running on them will have to be tuned/designed for a small range of phones anyway, because phones in a given family share characteristics but others don't and the rubber has to meet the road somewhere. Hence you have java games for specific phones all over the place. Write once, run anywhe

GNUStep

[turgid]

Maybe I'm on a fruitbreak or something, but why not pick up GNUstep [gnustep.org] and enhance that? That way you get some semblance of source compatibility with Mac OSX Cocoa apps. Why follow Microsoft's example? It has always ended in tears in the past.

Re:GNUStep

[Glock27]

Maybe I'm on a fruitbreak or something, but why not pick up GNUstep and enhance that? That way you get some semblance of source compatibility with Mac OSX Cocoa apps. Why follow Microsoft's example? It has always ended in tears in the past.

First, the GNUstep runtime has no concept of a sandbox (or applets for that matter) so you lose a big part of Java's appeal. Second, it uses native code, so you don't get easy portability. Third, it uses Objective-C, which for better or worse has struggled to gain devel

Re:Java is a good fit

[miguel]

Stock Java is not an option because it lacks a few
things: the easy-to-build functionality of a web
page (XAML) and the advanced graphics and rendering
of Avalon.

Sure, they can both be built on top of Java, but
they need to be built, hence the `Come up with our
own competitive stack'.

I happen to think that our stack should use the
best technology available today, and since it
must be a new stack, that stack should be built
on top of the ECMA CLI. For plenty of technical
reasons.

Now, if you disagree with my thought direction,
nobody is stopping you from building your stack
on top of Java, I know that am not spending a
minute there ;-)

Miguel.

But let's not overlook the basic differences

[ahfoo]

That USENET post goes on and on about XML formats and such and I'm not saying that's irrelevant, but XML is really more of a concern for people in specialized projects. I thought that was the whole point of XML. The browser just has to follow the standards.
I think in the browser game it's the little things like pop-up blockers and being able to manage your configs across multiple desktops are what make Firefox kick ass all over IE.
These are the things that closed source has no reason to compete on. It doesn't make anybody money to prevent ads. There's no way MS is going to compete on that front, and yet it's a huge factor for most end users.

We are not doing OpenSource because we hate MS!

[freax]

I don't know nor care much about whether or not going to support Avalon and XAML is a good idea if your goal is nuke Microsoft and Redmond.

However

My goal for Mono, being an active supporter and a small contributor, is not to try and kill Microsoft. My goal is not like most slashdot zealots to wipe and replace Microsoft. My goal is to provide Linux with a platform for developers that they can and will enjoy.

The point is not to compete with the Java world nor to compete with the Microsoft world. The point of Mono is to create both a self hosting platform and a platform that will be somehow compatible with Microsoft.

The point of Mono is not the be 100% compatible! It has never tried to be 100% compatible. The main point of Mono is to create a self hosting platform.

People often argue that it would be better to implement our own kickass framework. Well, Mono is just that. Agreed they are filling in the specifications which Microsoft made. But Mono is doing much more than that. And the specification is not that bad at all. Why throw a way a nice specification just because you hate the creator of it? That doesn't make any sense. And I don't hate Microsoft, nor do most Mono developers (oh by the way, Miguel is not the only developer).

Hating Microsoft is foolish and stupid. You don't have to love them (hell I don't) and you don't have to agree with their marketing point NOR technical point of view (mostly for the marketing part I for sure don't), but that doesn't mean that you also have to ignore them completely. I even dare to say that you are a fool and an idiot if you do so.

I would very much support introducing support for Avalon/XAML in Mono if Avalon/XAML is a nice technology. And yes, it looks nice to me. So if it's possible to implement that technology (using Mono or using whatever) then I think that we as an OpenSource community should do that. We should, indeed, (re)implement it, at some point in time.

Not because we can then compete with Microsoft, thats not the point, but because we want to provide developers (and in the end, users of our softwares) with the best technology, the best platform and most choices.

Our users will have the benefit of not having to get locked in that Microsoft monopoly because WE recreated a part of that Microsoft-world.

Lets not forget that we are doing this because of the love of the art of programming, not because we HATE Microsoft. Thats what those stupid newbie Linux usies think why we do it. We love the art of programming. We love to show our art and the best way to do this is by making it public. And we, OpenSource developers, think that the best way to make things public is by licensing it using for example GPL, MIT or whatever OpenSource license.

Just like a lot musicians release their compositions for free, so that students can learn using their materials. I often compare such (classical) music with software code. The author thinks that it's art, the listener mainly enjoys it. But for a lot people it's art, okay?

For software developers, our code is our art. Our users don't give a shit about that code. They want to use our code. We want to distribute our art and show our skills. THATS the main reason why OpenSource exists. NOT because we HATE Microsoft.

Regretfully most people think we are doing this because we hate Microsoft. We don't. (And I speak for a lot OpenSource developers, I am confident about that).

OT: Mono Examples?

[Queuetue]

Off topic, but ... Are there any examples of actual projects using mono that I could try out right now? (On Linux.)

Web apps, desktop apps, utilities .. Anything?

Re:OT: Mono Examples?

[unapersson]

There's the Muine music player [gooeylinux.org].

Re:OT: Mono Examples? Dashboard

[iso]

After seeing Nat speak at the Real World Linux Conference a few weeks ago in Toronto, I decided to check out Dashboard. From what I can tell, no it's not usable. It's clearly CVS-quality code, but that's not the reason it's so difficult. The barrier to entry for compiling Mono apps seems VERY high: you'll need to compile gtk-sharp, gconf-sharp, glib-sharp, gnome-sharp, evolution-sharp, as well as all their esoteric dependancies.

Presumably these dependancies will come out of CVS and will be packaged with GN

I see only one option

[codepunk]

I see two possible options:

* Implement Avalon/XAML and ship it with Linux (with Mono).
* Come up with our own, competitive stack.

wxwidgets and python with a sandboxed execution stack using the already existing xmlrpclib.

Here's the nail, watch your thumb...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great quote:

"If we choose to go in our own direction, there are certain strengths in open source that we should employ to get to market quickly: requirements, design guidelines, key people who could contribute, compatibility requirements and deployment platforms."

Pity that he's obviously not been watching how most programmers actually do programming. Hint: most of them wouldn't know how to create a real requirements document if their lives depending on it. And read the requirements, and then develop real test cases that verify both functionality and coverage? Don't make me laugh.

Once upon a time there used to be two groups of people creating software: the analysts/engineers and the programmers/coders. The first group did the analysis, requirements, modeling and design; the second group converted it into code and punched it in. There was a reason for that, and those people produced some serious applications. Some of those apps are still in use today.

But, sadly, with the advent of the IDE it's now possible for anyone to be a bonafide Code Monkey, and just starting PAK'ing (programming at the keyboard) like crazy.

We're doomed, people. Submit to Bill now and just get it over with and save your passion for something more productive. Like sex.

Miguel: "Linux posed to conquer Desktop in 1994!"

[bryanbrunton]

People were sleeping at the wheel. In 1993-1994, Linux had the promise of becoming the best desktop system.

Miguel is fabricating some silly, alarmist, revisionist history with statements like these.

Linux was a lot of things in 1994, but one thing that is was not was a viable desktop. It was so lacking in the mindshare, number of developers, driver support and basic desktop technologies in 1994 as compared to today, that statements like this just make Miguel look like a silly idealogue.

Re:Miguel: "Linux posed to conquer Desktop in 1994

[miguel]

Am not fabricating anything.

In 1994, the desktop was not a GUI desktop, the
desktop was mostly a command-line universe both
on DOS-based systems and Linux systems.

Linux did have an advantage: multiple virtual
consoles, real multi-tasking, tcp/ip stack
bundled, nfs, file serving capabilities, and
DOSemu with compatibility with the past.

I have to say, way better than DOS + pile of
device drivers and Windows was only starting to
be used with very few applications. Windows 3.11
was out, with really few applications.

Miguel.

Re:Miguel: "Linux posed to conquer Desktop in 1994

[mihalis]

I agree with Miguel here,in '94/early '95, at least in the UK, there was talk that if Windows95 slipped much more, OS/2 Warp might take over! That's how weak windows was (then known as Windows for workgroups 3.11 I think).

It's going to be the greatest thing that ever was

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the age old Microsoft mantra. Long before they've so much as written a line of usable code, before they've even tested the concept, they cry to world that their current vaporware will be the greatest thing to revolutionize the computing industry -- EVER!. There was NT, "The UNIX Killer" before whom the nations trembled, DCOM --- the ultimate framework that would redefine client/server computing, which more than anything made it possible to crash Windows remotely on other peoples machines. There was ActiveX --- Ooohhh --- another name for COM/DCOM/OLE/ATL which would change the web and make alive. Like DCOM, it was little more than a fancy DLL tied to the Windows registry. Lets not forget Windows DNA --- what disruptive technology was that? Then came "Next Generation Windows Services", which like DCOM was been morphed/recast by the marketing department into something more catchy. Yes, dear reader --- it truly is the lastest greatest world changing, paradigm shifting, not-to-be matched-or-conquered --- (trumpets blast) --- .NET. No really, we're serious this time, it's really going to change the world. This is going to be really good --- just wait.

So what's the reality. It's been three years since Almighty Bill declared to the world that Microsoft would make its software secure. Still waiting? Remember how the XBox was going to be the greatest gaming machine ever made --- a year before it was to be release? Well, I see playstation still has 60% of the market. I also hear that XBoxes have been know to catch the carpet on fire.

Maybe I'm too old. At the ripe old age of 33, I've smelled enough MS BS for a lifetime. The only thing I do now with this kind of news is use it to compost my wife's azaleas. I've yet to witness The Unix Killer, trustworthy computing, DCOM in my life, and somehow I doubt Longhorn will change this. I am quite happy with that "Cancer" called Linux and GPL software, that just three years ago was never going to take off. Yep, I'm shaking in my boots.

"Of course?"

[Junks Jerzey]

of course failed to find an agent

Why "of course"? Some kind of conspiracy theory?

There is No War

[rsatter]

MS will win because it looks for problems it can solve for customers with its technology. MS employees are not looking at Linux and going oh look at that feature we need to counter it. Or no problem we already have done that.

Instead they look at the market and say, how can we solve someone's problem. A great example is thin media clients. Linux could have dominated this market. Linux is a robust OS that just runs. It has a low to no cost for deploying to millions of homes. The HD1000 from ROKU (http://www.rokulabs.com) is a great example of what is possible for Linux in this $100+ billion industry.

However, Linux is squandering away the opportunity. MS came in to the marketplace and said to the hardware manufacturers here is a complete solution just install. To a company that cares more about selling hardware than software the choice is clear. Pay MS and design the hardware to run MS technology (especially when you have multiple hardware vendors saying here is the base platform already designed for you). The consumer electronic companies make money by selling hardware not software. Anyone who says to them here is a complete and working system just build the hardware will get there attention.

That is why MS wins. They solve problems; they don't just invent technology for technologies sake.

Re:There is No War

[ratboy666]

"Microsoft will win...here is a complete solution..."

It doesn't matter. Perhaps Miguel is trying to "beat Microsoft". If it works, bully for him. Torvalds understands it -- the destruction of Microsoft will be (if it happens) an unintended consequence.

If Longhorn is that good -- it will be used. But lets be reasonable. Linux is a hobbiest OS. And it works really REALLY well. Some companies are deploying it; leveraging its strengths. It will go into cell phones, TV sets, home routers, and internet applianc

Reality Check

[The Slashdolt]

First of all, you have to decide who you're talking about. There are server based code(ie. web development, aka think client) and client side code (ie. fat client). I develop server based code. We use Java. We use Java because our customers use so many different platforms. We've deployed on solaris, mvs, linux, windows, and many more. There is not even a remote possibility that we will be switching .NET for these types of applications in the near future. The only people who would switch their server code to .NET would be people who are currently in the VB.NET/ASP.NET world already.

The client side (desktop) is the area where all Miguels comments seem to be directed. Will your word processor of choice be written in .NET? Your photo editing software? I don't know, I can only speculate. A direct comparison between OSS and commercial/microsoft versions of a product reveal that in most cases the OSS version is more secure and has better features. So why, oh why, do people not use the OSS version? Simple, marketing!

You see, software developers work on projects. And projects ARE NOT PRODUCTS! You can have a successful project, which may not be a successful product. And as microsoft shows, you can have an unsuccessful project, which is a successful product. Projects become successful products because of good marketing. OSS has little or no marketing, and this is the fatal flaw. If only apple could help market some OSS projects we could see just how successful they could become. Think about it, if you saw an ad for the "Sexy, New, Feature Rich, Gimp project"(note that a name change would be mandatory for this project to be marketed, project vs product). Now put this ad in Cosmopolitan magazine (this is where you see ipod ads...). Put it everywhere. Make it sexy, make consumers, that's who we're really talking about here, want it.

Many of the developers on these projects are not going to like this. Nobody wants to "sell out" their project. But if you're after the client side market(aka desktop), then you're targeting consumers, not developers.

Miguel's bleak viwe of the future...

[theendlessnow]

What Miguel fails to realize is that IF his twisted view of the world comes to pass ONLY an complete and total idiot will use Linux... period.. or any other competing OS implementation. As he has already mentioned, Microsoft has the channel, and under his bizarrely incorrect viewpoint, the world WILL blindly follow Microsoft. Of course, we have all seen how successful Microsoft has been over the past couple of years in getting everyone to blindly follow them.... err... wait a minute. Actually, it would appear that over the past couple of years, more and more people realize the dangers of a Microsoft controlled IT world. Does Miguel want full control over your IT datacenter too? Perhaps so. Linux is about returing control of IT decision making back into the hands of individual companies. Miguel's vision will take us back to Redmond for ALL decision making.

Follow Miguel, follow Microsoft... there's not any difference except in the end, one may have more of a surprised look on their face than the other. I can hear, "Oh... well.. I never saw that one coming." But in reality, I think Miguel is smart enough to FULLY comprehend what will happen... and that's what is really scary.

Miguel would say that we're all asleep... are we?? I wonder who really has their eyes closed on this one.

Open strategy

[jabbadabbadoo]

Open source is good. Fine. But if the open source community is to compete with Microsoft, is "open strategy" a good thing? Like this mozilla strategy discussion [google.com]??? The answer is NO!

Sure enough, Microsoft has DEDICATED people reading this stuff. Access to it is just a click away. Market strategy is all about surprise. So I'm proposing a new movement. Open Source, Closed Strategy (OSCS). Seriously.

As usual he's about halfway right.

[theolein]

MIguel, in his usual way, is about halfway right, I think.

He is definitely right that MS won a lot of its marketshare by simply bundling stuff with the OS and by having enough money and time to survive mistakes that killed competitors (XBox, WinCE, Plug and Pray, Bob, J++ etc).

He is only halfway right that Longhorn and XAML, Avalon and .Net will Take Over The World(TM). From his perspective as a .Net implementor on Linux, he obviously sees it as the best thing since Corona beer and tacos. Those technologies will surely become very popular in the Windows world, and I'm sure that a good deal of companies that are currently within the Windows loop will make heavy use of local Web applications a la XAML.

But, as has been the case before, it's only half the picture. The other half of the picture is that those people who see it as critical to have their web applications be compatible with the myriad different Windows OS versions, the myriad different OS types right across the board will still use Java/PHP etc for server based apps and keep the frontend in the browser. The XAML local web applications are very similar to Java Webstart in concept, but will find it only marginally more acceptable in the real world, for purely compatibility reasons.

Granted Java has been an unmitigated disaster client side, with Sun having screwed up by introducing the white elephant known as swing and thereby permanently giving client side Java the reputation of being slow, even though this is no longer true with modern CPUs. This hole will probably be filled by .Net and XAML on Windows machines since the idea that Mozilla will get it together in a reasonable amount of time to get their engine to render anything in the way of the Avalon engine is probably expecting too much.

And the price/performance and price/freedom of implementation benefits of Linux are truly starting to find adherents across the world in a serious manner.

In the end it will probably be that Windows will provide the better experience but that Linux will provide the lower cost and "be good enough" very much like Windows 95 was compared to its competitors.

Re:Migel please just go work for Microsoft

[REBloomfield]

Or maybe Miguel is just open to the fact that Microsoft *is* the de facto standard, whether you like it or not, and is trying to make integration just that little bit easier?

I'm all for Mono, software should be cross platform, and and it would be nice to see this succeed where Java unfortunately didn't.

Standard for what?

[Adolph_Hitler]

I thought Sun Solaris was the standard for servers? I thought Apple the standard for schools? Face it, there is no standard. The standard software is the software which comes first. Microsoft steals standards but never sets them. The browser was not invented by Microsoft, Netscape was around long before IE. Just like Google owns the search engine and AOL owns instant msging, Microsoft is not standard. We should take the good features of OSX, BEOS, Unix and Windows and make the best OS. Forget about copying Microsoft as if Microsoft innovates. Copy Apple, at least Apple actually does invent new technologies instead of just new buzzwords.

Re:Standard for what?

[REBloomfield]

I think you'll find that the standard software is that which is most widely used.

Re:Standard for what?

[REBloomfield]

How many companies are publishing applications to run in webstart, or pure VM apps?? There is barely anything that I can take and run it on my iMac, my linux pc's and my windows's pc's seamlessly.

Re:Standard for what?

[Slack3r78]

Bought, not stole. And yes, the Apple that invented things like Expose and the iPod, and pushed technologies like Firewire, Wifi, and USB years before their PC counterparts.

Re:Migel please just go work for Microsoft

[Adolph_Hitler]

Mono will fail along with .Net, the technology is good but depending on Microsoft is bad.

Unless Mono seperates itself from Microsoft completely as a stand alone replacement technology, I don't see a use for it to even exist. Mono must be better than Microsofts .Net or it dies.

Also I wouldnt give up on Java just yet, with the embedded market picking up steam Java has a bright future, brighter than .Net .Net is a good technology, that is all it is. XUL is good too, so is QT.

Re:Migel please just go work for Microsoft

[BlackHawk-666]

This is a key point that everyone is missing. Mono is an attempt to harness the power of all those Windows developers (that's me too at present, ubnfortunately). MS will start to churn out all it's products as .NET apps, meaning they *will* run unchanged on Linux. Mono is the new Wine :-) It's also about lowering the barriers of entry to Linux programming. Now, programmers, especially the new generation who seem to do it only for cash, not for the pleasure of it, are just as fearful of change as everyone else it seems. They don't want to learn new langauges or switch to a new OS, they are happy with what they know now. This may seem a harsh characterisation but way too many of the programmers I know are like this.

Mono means they can stay in their comfort zone, but still produce software that will work for people moving to Linux. You're not likely to change the minds of all those Windows programmers who are just doing a job because they are being paid to do it, but you can at least open a path of least resistance towards portability. Go Mono!

Re:Migel please just go work for Microsoft

[SerpentMage]

When originally I heard about Mono I was skeptical. Then I met up with Miguel had a talk to him and was optimistic. There were some posts of his that made me upbeat about Mono. Now ever since Novell bought Ximian I am really skeptical again.

Mono SHOULD NOT be a Microsoft .NET clone. Mono will never succeed and it will fail miserably. Nobody can compete or be compatible with Microsoft, just ask Mainsoft, Bristol, and other companies that licensed Microsoft technologies.

I am amazed that people think it is in Microsoft's interest to build cross-platform application. Microsoft has said, time and time again that it is not in their interest. Microsoft has their own operating system and that is their interest. So what I wonder is why people keep thinking it would be good to run Windows Apps on Linux.

Wine, and CrossOffice are hacks until more applications are ported. When I use my OSX box, or my Linux box or even my Windows box I look for native applications, not emulation. Native apps run faster, better and are more stable.

Mono should go back and focus on doing their own thing again. Just like the Jakarta team focused on building good Open Source applications.

Re:Migel please just go work for Microsoft

[bay43270]

I liked the sentiment of your post, but I have two minor criticisms:

1) Mono is not the new Wine. The mono implementation of WinForms may be (at one time they talked about binding it to wine). I see the main use of Mono to be building Linux applications that only *happen* to work on windows. At first they will use GTK# and later some new better UI toolkit (Avalon# ???, XUL# ???)

2) Mono opens the doors for many more programmers to contribute to Linux, but not just unwittingly. When (if) mono become comm

Re:Migel please just go work for Microsoft

[BuddieFox]

I'm all for Mono, software should be cross platform, and and it would be nice to see this succeed where Java unfortunately didn't.

Its always interesting to see people dismiss java as a failure out of hand with no real arguments for it. Did it fail? Depends on your point of view. Is java cross-platform? Most certainly is! And will continue to be so to a bigger extent than .Net/Mono, C et al will be for the overseeable future. (Dont give me the "C is portable too" crap, just today I found differences in the behaviour of strtok between platforms, not to speak of "compile everywhere").
Is java a failure on the client? Well, as far as circulation goes, probably, but that has three main reasons:
1. Higher learning curve, VB will always be easier to learn.
2. Old myths die hard: yes, Java was slow and java interfaces where ugly and clunky. 5 years ago! Newsflash, Java has moved forward in great leaps since the days of Java 1.1
3. Applets are mostly useless. But: Java != Applets!

Java is a great success just about everywhere else BUT on the desktop computer though, there are millions of java-enabled handsets, there are tens of thousands of java server deployments etc etc.

But.. Hopefully in the future I wont have to choose "java or .Net", hopefully they will interoperate more or less seamlessly, something that there is already work in progress on [berlios.de] in more than one place.

Re:Migel please just go work for Microsoft

[dbIII]

Or maybe Miguel is just open to the fact that Microsoft *is* the de facto standard

If that was the case a URL would look something like \\My Google Company\search

It's a big world out there if you look out the windows - there's more to computers than the receptionists PC or using a desktop PC to replace a Playstation.

The unix way is to have configuration files in known locations with sane names (generally not one of the names of the three stooges followed by a string of numbers), and to use pipes or ports

Re:here is what i think

[REBloomfield]

It's not a clone, it's an evironment that allows portable code. That is one of the points of .NET; with a written VM, the code can run on anything. Like Java, except Microsoft isn't writing the VM's for other platforms, it's down to the users, hence Miguel.

Re:Over used argument

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

If the OS blocked the user from installing other software that would be one thing, but they don't and you can install whatever you want to.

And just how many people do that? If you want a clue, look at the adoption of Opera, and especially Mozilla (which doesn't have the cost barrier Opera hase) against IE. Despite the fact that IE is a security-hole-ridden pile of outdated junk and Opera and Mozilla beat it hands-down on features and standards compliance, huge numbers of people still use IE. Why? Because it came with the computer and they either don't know there are alternatives, don't want to know or aren't allowed to use them because they "aren't supported".

Re:Over used argument

[wfberg]

Despite the fact that IE is a security-hole-ridden pile of outdated junk and Opera and Mozilla beat it hands-down on features and standards compliance, huge numbers of people still use IE. Why? Because it came with the computer and they either don't know there are alternatives, don't want to know or aren't allowed to use them because they "aren't supported".

And because webmasters, especially those using Windows Media, are too stupid to embed multimedia in a way that mozilla can handle (i.e. no ActiveX, dummies). Especially big commercial sites with loadsacash budgets tend to fuck this up, whereas joe schmoe geocities sites tend to actually work (before their bandwidth limit is reached).

Most "IE-only" sites (that don't use javascript to kick you out) work perfectly in mozilla, mostly the windows(multi)media/plugin infested sites suck ass.

Re:3D Icons

[azzy]

Yeah.. I want 4D icons.. when I open a program, I don't want the menu icons appearing /now/ I want them appearing 5 minutes later. But i think this might already be implemented in <insert least favoured desktop environment> and I just used to think it was slow due to bloat.

Re:3D Icons

[spronk]

For example, why is everyone trying to get 2D vector icons when it's obvious 3D or even 4D (fourth dimension is time) icons are the way to go? Why on earth would 3D or 4D icons be the way to go? It's a simple picture that reperesents an application or idea. The simpler the better. Nobody cares if their word processor icon has phong hilights and the like.

Re:3D Icons

[dollargonzo]

although this might appeal to some users, this isn't exactly a technology that any market will jump on, especially developers. if every application requires hardware acceleration to work just to see the icons in the app, developers will be very much turned off by the idea. furthermore, linux desktops already look better than windows.

what linux needs is a technology that windows simply cannot produce without bending over backwards. and i do not mean simple UI enhancements, like tabbed browsing, or virtual d

Re:A Third Option: Java!

[ultrabot]

Why not partner with the people who have the tiger by the tail? Seems like developers in the linux community are standing by while one of the best M$ competitors is gasping for air. Who's side are you on?

I don't think Java as a specification is any more open than .NET. At least Mono has some corporate backing (Novell) unlike open Java implementations and it can be legally shipped with Linux distros. I wouldn't want to see the requirement of having to download all of Java just to use a Linux desktop. .NET

Re:Thoughts

[fitten]

A: Security (you know Microsoft code will be riddled with holes here).

I can write insecure software on Linux just as fast as I can on Windows.

B: Realiability

See above. I've had Windows boxes that are very stable (a year of uptime).

C: Peer review, I, John Q random engineer can verify it.

When was the last time you looked over every line of any OSS package?

D: Speed, basically Windows is bloated and slow.

Funny... my benchmarks in the past don't show this. Compilers from Microsoft (which are what

Re:For those who don't know

[argent]

"In order to increase developer productivity, Avalon will rationalize and reduce the number of APIs in the Win32 stack from over 70,000 down to 8,000."

No it won't. All the existing APIs will still be there, because existing applications use them, and if Microsoft was interested in breaking existing apps for a good reason they'd have done it already.

Avalon will add a new 8,000-element API to the 70,000 already there.

[more blurbs]

Sounds like Cocoa.

Re:Hate to break it to you...

[argent]

If being able to write a program in "a few days" is good, how about "a few hours"? You can write an application in any Tk-based scripting languages (Tcl, Perl, Scheme, ...) in a few hours. You want to link to a database? No problem, in 20 minutes you will have a database application...

UNIX was designed by programmers for programmers. It's always been blindingly easy to develop applications using any number of great toolkits. If "easy" was enough, or even important, Microsoft would be an also-ran.