Miguel de Icaza on Mono, Ximian/Novell, XAML 481
moquist writes "Netcraft has an interview with Miguel de Icaza, of Gnome and Ximian fame. Icaza expounds his thoughts on Mono (the .Net framework for open source), the current direction of Microsoft's .Net, Novell's acquisition of Ximian, Novell's Linux desktop environment, Linux for grandmas and kids, and "the greatest danger to the continuing adoption and progress of open source" (Hint: it's pronounced "XAML".)."
Disappointed in Miguel (Score:5, Insightful)
It should also be very obvious to anyone who knows this stuff just how giant a security risk all that sort of technology would present. I'm sure g-man thinks they've got it all sewn up now with these hardware controls, but cracks in the structure are inevitable and one can only imagine a world where just clicking to visit a website, rather than downloading a trojan installer that may or may not complete, instead downloads a robust trojan installer that will complete. And people are already getting pretty damn sick of tithing to both Microsoft and Symantec. Keep selling that crapware until they can't swallow any more!
Meanwhile, the linux desktop is coming together more and more and Microsoft's uber-desktop is pushed back again to.. when?
Computers are cheap. And I can tell you from experience it's not that hard to convince someone to try linux after you've helped the reload their computer for the second or third time. It's up to the product to keep them there once they've made that transition - if we can't beat the crap MS has been shoveling with another two full years of development time, it won't be because Bill and Steve are to blame.
Re:Its that loser miguel again praising Windows. (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't he talk about anything other than Mono and Microsoft Technologies? I swear he must be an employee.
He's the most visible member of the Linux community who does stuff related to MS technologies. We need people like him, people who are aware of and can help plan counters to upcoming technology that has the potential to bring great change (great as in a large amount of change). Silencing him would be like silencing a sentinel. It's good to be aware of current and future Microsoft stuff, even if you don't like Microsoft.
Miguel is right-on-target!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've worked in Unix engineering environments since 1984 at HP and Sun (Operating Systems, Networking and Graphics). I've observed over the years that the Unix community took Microsoft very lightly and never very seriously. The unix industry has not traditionally worked with the same user community as Microsoft. But Microsoft has matured very quickly and now delivers some outstanding technology for developing applications! The
The stack that Microsoft is creating will not only empower more people to create more sophisticated applications, but will increase the productivity of application programmers by at least 30% over todays Unix/Linux development stacks!!!
Mozilla is a great start in the right direction, but cooperation between the Gnome, Kde, and Mozilla camps will need to occur in sort order to compete with the Microsoft stack when it comes to application interface development.
GigantanKramePithicus
Re:Its that loser miguel again praising Windows. (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm... Because Mono is what is is working on, it's his job, and is basicly WHY he is being interviewed. And he talks about MS because Novell and other companies are hoping that they can compete against MS by backing Linux heavily.
What do you want to hear is opinion on the agricultural problems of nothern India instead?
Isn't it a bit like complaining that a basketball coach talks to much about basketball in interviews, or a monastic priest talking about God to much?
Anyways, if he was working for MS, I don't think that Gnome 2.6 would be so freaking wonderfull.
XAML is only scary because it's Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said that, why isn't there an far-reaching OSS project to replace HTML? For one thing I guess it's a lot easier to impose a standard on the world when you have the dominant platform. Will Microsoft convert the web into a network of C# apps? I hope not.
De Icaza really talkative these days... (Score:0, Insightful)
Understandable, but not necessarily very professional.
Could he, at least once, address the issue of KDE's future, now that the largest supporter is within Novell, and Ximian has a say, too.
Why all this admiration of MS tech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes i wonder if Miquel is just a pawn in a game and doesnt understand it. There are more than one way to skin a cat and i find it appaling that we should mimic Microsoft at all times and play catch-up instead of setting the pace and standards ourselves.
Maybe thats what Microsoft is most afraid of, to loose control over the heading of the software industry. Open source have control over web servers and can take control over the protocols on the web if we just do our own thing. If we only follow what Microsoft do we will always be number two and thats no where to be.
Re:Disappointed in Miguel (Score:5, Insightful)
What Miguel is afraid of, I think, is not that this technology will be mind blowingly good, but merely that it will be good enough. Let's face it, Microsoft has been very good at "good enough". What do I mean by "good enough"? Well, potentially riddled with security holes that will be sloely patched over the 5-10 years following it's release - a debacle as far as security concious users are concerned - would still count as good enough. You see, the people in management who buy into these things are notorious for their lack of long term planning, and consideration of security. Look at what Microsoft has already happly foisted onto the corporate world - code riddled with exploits, but because it offered the right new features business bought into it.
The catch with XAML is that if business buys into it in a big way, it's going to be a serious blow to any OS other than an MS produced one. Why? It's the ultimate embrace and extend of HTML to lock people in. It's an HTML extension that is intimately tied to copyrighted Windows code that MS has exclusive control over. It offers enough in the way of new wizzy features that, management ignoring security issues as they usually do, it could easily get serious uptake. Once you take a dose of that drug though, it will be very hard indeed to break the habit.
Or, to put it another way, this is Microsofts latest and most addictive crack. It has the potential to get a whole new generation of computers hopelessly, horribly, unescapably addicted to Microsoft products. It is worth being afraid of it.
Jedidiah.
Re:Embracing and Extending XUL? (Score:5, Insightful)
Search on google for "cross platform toolkit" [google.ca] and note the second link - the XPToolkit [mozilla.org] from our friends at Mozilla. On that page what is the first text after the page title?
Vision: We make cross-platform user interfaces as easy to build and customize as web pages.
IMHO, Miguel isn't the only person who got scared - my bet is BillG and/or StevieB saw what Mozilla does and had a $3B coniption - XAML being it's end product. It's how Microsoft reacts every time something provides a hint of a credible threat to Windows dominance - destroy it before it destroys us.
I know that I would love a RAD tool (a la VisualBasic maybe, but with less suckage) to make XUL apps. I could then write-once-run-on-gecko with any of the quick and dirty development work I had to do, and the OS wouldn't matter one whit. (Hey, I can dream, can't I?)
Soko
There is no competition to open source (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source is _not_ about competing with anybody else. It is _not_ the goal to create a competing technology to win market share or anything. Open source is an exercise in technology, invention and freedom.
Why should we fear XAML or widespread adaptation of it? And why should we therefore pursue clone technologies?
We dont have the pressure to compete in any market place! We can look at the software _we_ use and see what we can do better. Maybe an XAML like technology is good. Lets think about the ideas. But maybe it isnt good, then lets do something else. You decide, not some abstract competition.
Technologies like Linux, Mozilla (XUL+++), etc. came not from the desire to do something that could lure _others_ away from somebody elses technology, but to enable the developer to use hard and software they way he wanted to and the way he thinks others may want to use it. Yes, open source takes lots of ideas, but then they are made better and often different. The drive should come from within, from excitement about the technologies and new ideas.
Instead of worrying about what others might do and how others will perceive our software, we should get excited about it ourselfs first and make it good and work well. There is no fight, there is no competition. Dont waste your thoughts about others, think about how you can realize your own ideas and make them better.
Maybe then we can focus on and enjoy development again.
Let others sleep bad at nights worrying about "the competition".
Regards,
Andre Eisenbach
The advantages of taking MS seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the popularity of Perl, Python, etc, it makes sense for a language independent VM and libraries for programming. Is the CLR the best for this? Well, no, but there's a good case that it is best thing right now, or at the least, good enough!
I think a killer Open Source project would be port Java over to the CLR. To be really evil and fun, make it a JVM->CLR rewriter. Of course, Sun will sue you like mad, but that not why it wouldn't happen (it helps MS too much), but it would break Sun's hold on Java a bit more. Especially with Mono in the mix.
And now to for the flamebait (This is a post with MS stuff it in, after all).
Microsoft does have true innovations in Longhorn. (See, I told you). And it is worth paying attention to and evaluating. Passing it off as vaporware or FUD isn't wise, considering the bits are getting into people's hands right now.
XAML is nicely balanced and really seems like the first truly usable markup-based GUI language (XUL was close, but not close enough. I think it'd be much more popular otherwise).
Avalon is nice, not totally groundbreaking, but it does kill bitmap-based windowing, and I haven't seen anything that suggest that Linux world is pulling that trigger yet. (X being a obstacle in the way) Apple did, and the results speak for themselves I think.
WinFX has some very interesting ideas in how you structure components, and has the chance to become the next big thing in components (after COM. Another Microsoft innovation! Flames rising).
Finally, WinFS is very, very cool stuff, even as vaporware. I'm not surprised they had to scale it back, because what there are doing is nothing short of rethinking the file system from the ground up. This is a bold thought to take seriously. The notion of extensible metadata alone is powerful. (Before, file metadata was fixed.) Add in searching, extensible relationships, etc and you have something worth paying attention too.
This is innovation, in my book. Invention is coming up with those rare new ideas. I see innovation is taking those ideas and making them applicable, or practical, affordable, widely available, better, used by many and so on.
I think Ford was an innovator for creating a practical way to mass-produce cars. He didn't invent the car, he made it a reality for many.
Microsoft has done that, for better or for worse. Not all innovation is a priori good for all.
Of course, one should never obsess with what MS is doing to the determent of all else. Pay attention, but focus on doing what you can do best, and let the chips fall were they may.
Re:Its that loser miguel again praising Windows. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:XAML is only scary because it's Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish I could get excited about XAML, because I like the idea of a complete overhaul of HTML
From what I've read, it's not an overhaul of HTML, but a markup language for .NET applications. HTML will probably stay with us for a lonnngg time because of it's widespread usage and relative efficiency. .NET certainly won't appear on my NAT router anytime soon to provide a management interface, for example.
What bothers me about it is that if and when it becomes dominant it will stop evolving, just like IE and every other dominant MS product. Its goal is not to change the world or fix the web, but to capture market share and make competition more difficult.
What I've seen happen sometimes on the technology side of Microsoft is stuff like COM gets augmented with little features and cruft, and after a while gets replaced by something new, which is .NET in this case. The same thing has happened with Visual C++, which was replaced by the new Visual Studio.NET IDE. Longhorn's WinFX will replace the Win32 API. So yes, evolution for a particular technology or product stops, but in cases like these it's replaced by a new technology, usually because the old one is inadequate for current and future needs.
However, there are also products where they seem to stagnate. IE is one of them (although it's getting a minor upgrade with SP2), and Office seems to have reached a point where additional features doesn't matter anymore for the majority of users.
I think XAML falls in the first category, where it'll probably settle down after a while to be replaced by another technology. Stagnation seems to occur more on a product level than a technology level at Microsoft. Note that I'm not saying Microsoft innovates or makes new technology (I have no stance on this issue), but that they do a lot of new things on the technology side.
all the pieces are in places now, why not just.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I do think that the man has a point. The web is just dying for more RIA, we will need to jump out of the request/recieve process, and if MS comes out with this system with no competition it will continue to dominate, and it will be huge.
However, all the tools to create such interactions are available now. I know many people are going to hate to hear this, but Macromedia Flash provides the framework for all of the things that Avalon envisions to do, the system for developing such apps just needs to be created. The Flash player is installed 98.6% of client systems on the internet. (!)
So hear is an idea: why not incorporate developent of such flash apps into Mono? The swf format is now open and documented.
Macromedia recently came out with a system to do something like this called <a href="http://www.macromedia.com/software/flex/">M
They also have a new (sort of) framework called <a href="http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/
So what is the idea? Just incoporate the functionality of Flex into Mono, you can even use the same format used by Macromedia in Flex, <a href="http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/flex/artic
The drawback is of course speed, and we can't really beat MS there. However if we can get something like this going then it will be a big incentive for Macromedia to offer perhaps a larger + faster version of the flash player. One of the best examples of moves in this direction still has many problems with it, but you can see it here:
www.ego7.net
But, the time is def. limited.
-Ashot
Disappointed in Miguel-The good enough train wreck (Score:2, Insightful)
Two things. One is it really safe to ASSUME (And yes we are assuming at some level) that "good enough" will always be good enough?
Two as has been pointed out in the past. The biggest choke collar for MS, is MS. THEY"VE ALREADY SATURATED THEIR MARKETSPACE. Now how are they going to force people to give up millions of dollors in investment. Both software and training, let alone the new hardware that may be required (WinTel). For the so far unproven benifits of LongHorn?
.Net/C# us 3GL, XAML and XUL are 4GL ... (Score:4, Insightful)
it. If the OSS community lets Microsoft
define the rules, we all lose. We need to
push the heck out of Mozilla/XUL. XUL needs
to become a de-facto standard. It should make
Avalon/XAML look like just yet another proprietary dead end.
It is time to shift focus
past the 3GL GUI toolkits (GTK/QT) and move
on to some much bigger, 4GL, app building
blocks. This is the only fight the matters.
The future 4GL "application platform" is being decided. Will Microsoft own the platform or will
it be open source.
P.S. Lets put Python into Mozilla/XUL (Javascript *is* a big drag)
Markup languages are still code. (Score:5, Insightful)
Helloooooo, anyone home ?, once you get into creating 'elaborate' stuff in 'markup' then you are smack back into programming and code. Its that kind of thinking that gives us unmaintainable Excel or Word macros, JavaScript, ASP, Perl, Expect/Tk,...list goes on.
It IS programming and it IS in CODE because it has a syntax , a grammer and a vocabulary. Unless it is a natural language parser then its still a computer language.
I'm not knocking the language - I just think its being oversold by saying its not code.
Re:This guy is awesome (Score:0, Insightful)
Even more incredible that an objective post such as yours gets modded up!
Re:Its that loser miguel again praising Windows. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Microsoft has something on the order of 95% of the desktop market. If Linux ever hopes to achieve a greater penetration into that market (which would be a *good* thing), they need to counter things Microsoft does or they become even more marginalized.
> Why not just drive in an own direction?
Yes, it has worked so well for Apple. Their marketshare went from what, 10% to 2-3% over the past decade or two? You need to provide some sort of migration path. I develop applications on FreeBSD, but I do my development on a Windows machine because there are a few Windows programs that I have trouble doing without. I've finally moved over to Firefox/Thunderbird and Open Office, and almost done doing the same for my wife (as a web developer she still needs IE for testing) but games aside, there are a few applications that I use that I don't want to do without.
> Looking at MS at all times is just going to make Open Source spending time following MS instead of going our own way.
Open Source has a potential to do both at the same time... provide a migration path AND compelling reasons to switch over. But without the migration path, it's a scary change. Linux and other open source operating systems don't have enough marketshare to drive serious change in the desktop. I want to see open source innovation, but without that marketshare, it will be ignored and marginalized.
> Now that MS is starting to focus on getting patents and such on everything they do its a disaster waiting to happen if we do like them in everything.
And if everyone believes that Microsoft is doomed any day, then open source will never get the momentum it needs to be a 'real player' on the desktop. Microsoft is a competitor for the desktop market... and you can't afford to ignore competitors.
> We dont need to follow MS every move any longer as long as we stick to open standards.
I'm sorry, but that's just naive. When they have 97% of the marketshare, they CREATE the standards. Open standards don't mean a damn thing if there isn't a serious choice in applying those standards.
> If we follow MS in implementing closed or patented standards on the net we are doing MS nothig but favours and helping the acceptance of closed systems.
And if the open source 'market' ignores those closed or patented standards, they will become further marginalized and the rest of the market will be forced to accede to reality: that those closed standards are where the action is at.
Maybe it's time for the open source movement to do a little "Embrace and Extend"ing of their own.
GreyGore
Who cares of Icaza and .net ? we want OSS ! (Score:1, Insightful)
Icaza is wrong, mono does not help the comunity it endanger it ! Just because,
If MS has pushed
If you are a real OSS (and not a cryptic MS zeelot), you should push real OSS project that can benefit the commuity !
One good example is the FSF's GNU Classpath. Those guys are about to bring us the first full opensource VM that will be 100% complient (at least they are trying so). IT will be realy independant from any corporate interrest and fully controled by the community !
This was made possible because of the Apache Group involvment in making the JSPA (the license behind Java specifications) to be complient with OSS comunity requirements.
http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=176
"Sun plans to adhere to the proposed new JSPA licensing model for this JSR, including allowing independent implementations, licensing the TCK separately from the RI, minimizing shared code, and licensing any remaining shared code (such as the verifier) on simple non-restrictive licensing terms. In addition Sun plans to make it easier for academic and non-profit groups to obtain access to the RI and TCKs."
As you know all the Java specification are publically available. But this new policy means that the kit that say "your implementation is compatible, you can now claim it is !" is freely available (no restriction) for FSF (as an example) and of course it means that neither Sun/IBM/Oracle... can control your GPL code
Hence as soon as the J2SE 1.5 TCK is available (should be around july IMHO), Classpath can start to do complience tests. IF they pass the tests, they can show "Java complient" and claim to everybody "First full opensource full Java implementation"
So Mr Icaza, if you want realy to boost linux domination on the server side by making switch from comercial winXX to OSS tux they please forget about MS lockeddown techs, and take the opportunity to push for Classpath !
PS: you got skills and want to help OSS, join the GNU's Classpath project http://www.classpath.org
Re:There is no competition to open source (Score:5, Insightful)
That stupid philosophy is precisely the reason why OSS isn't moving faster and providing more geeks with jobs writing Free code rather than proprietary. Yes, OSS is an exercise in technology, invention, and freedom. But, at the same time, that exercise is worthless if it doesn't significantly improve the state of the industry / society. To do that, it must garner market share because that is the only way to diminish the forces that work against freedom. Do you quite realize that if OSS does not dominate the industry in the fairly near future, the powers that be will effectively make it illegal to write software unless you work for a large corporation with patent portfolio cross-licensing? Do you quite realize that an industry dominated by OSS would be a much more pleasurable one to work in? There is far more at stake here than academic toys and utopian musings. Get out of your bubble.
Re:Disappointed in Miguel-The good enough train wr (Score:5, Insightful)
Shiny things. IT management loves shiny things. As long as there are lots of nice shiny features that they can market to death it will sell. The reason the uptake of XP and Server 2003 has been so slow is because they don't really do a hell of a lot more thna Win2k. Yes, there are some nice new bits and pieces, but I don't know of any major shiny new features that actually break any ground.
On the other hand, Longhorn is their chance to fianlly add some of these "new groundbreaking" features - it's an all out overhaul rather than the incremental stuff that XP and 2003 have been. Of course Longhorn is, for now anyway, the vaporware repository too: "Objected Filesystem? Sure, in Longhorn.", "Graphics card accelerated desktop with scalable graphics? Sure, in Longhorn", "Uncrackable security model, Dancing bears and World peace? Sure, in Longhorn."
Some of the talked about features will undoubtedly make it in. Avalon, I gather, is making reasonable headway. Some of them might not - every time I hear about WinFS it has been scaled back even further, and will do even less. The point is that there are potentially enough shiny things to impress managment.
The thing to remember is that management cares about shiny things. Vendor lock in and ensuing extortion, security issues, and pretty much anything that requires contemplating more than a quarter in advance are irrelevant. Look! Shiny things... oooooh.
Jedidiah.
Re:Disappointed in Miguel-The good enough train wr (Score:5, Insightful)
Shiny things. IT management loves shiny things.
I'm not sure if that is true these days. I think IT management are looking much closer at what kind of bang per buck they are getting.
The reason the uptake of XP and Server 2003 has been so slow is because they don't really do a hell of a lot more thna Win2k.
And this can work to our advantage.
As far as I can see, the only real benefit of LongHorn to businesses is XAML and its "zero-install over the network" delivery. Businesses are swimming in custom written in-house applications such as billing systems, stock control system, client record systems, etc. I work as a programmer at a web developement business. We specialise in Content Management Systems and basically web based applications. Our clients absolutely love having these applications running centrally on a server while being immediately available (zero install!) on every machine in the office (and out of the office if needed). This is done via a web browser and HTML+Javascript of course. Now, XAML takes this idea and implements it properly and fixes a lot of problems that come with trying to create applications inside a web browser.
What Mozilla needs to do is get their browser out there and on desktops, but more importantly they need to document(!) and further develop XUL. Try to use it for making business applications like I've mentioned above (not chat clients, get serious). Find out where the weak spots and gaps are and fix and fill them in. At the same time they need to get things working happening on the server side. OSS is strong on the server, but we need proper libraries and support for XUL apps on the server written in Java, PHP, etc hell even C# if really want to use a window webserver. For the love of god Mozilla, get in touch with Apache.org, Tomcat and friends. Create a full and complete platform (server + client) for creating and delivery business/database applications. We already have the big pieces.
In 2 years time we want IT management to have to decide between:
--
Simon
It won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
People who upgrade to Longhorn and
It is a complete waste of time to copy Microsoft and expect to survive, innovative products survive. Apple only outlasted OS2 because of its innovation. It only lasted this long because of innovation.
Re:The advantages of taking MS seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not cool. It's just a filesystem in a database. And it's not innovative, it's been done before [oracle.com]. Microsoft can just leverage their OS to integrate it tightly.
Re:There is no competition to open source (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that people misread how Open Source works, but how do you address that? Given those people that misread it are probably blinded by dollar signs, so maybe the only way to get them to get it is to attach dollar signs to it, I fear.
The problem I have with making money of support is that the hard part isn't support, especially if the product works pretty well. Support does not require the skill and training that software development does at this point.
As for MS, MS hasn't ever sued for market dumping, I don't think. Netscape kind of sort of did, but it was a monopoly issue in addition. Kind of hard for MS to call market dumping at this point. Call us when you've lost 20% is probably the response they'd get.
I'll have to look at StarOffice vs. OpenOffice.
I think there is a point in which that free software becomes less free after a certain amount of corporate adoption. Especially if it's add some stuff to free stuff and sell it, GPL or not.
And I do think lots of people in Open Source are trying to grow the pie, but I worry that it's not really working, because there is too much "get MS" mentality vs. "Do good stuff" out there.
Re:There is no competition to open source (Score:4, Insightful)
Define "isn't moving faster". It's moving a lightning speed. It's being adopted by all major IT companies except one. Even the unmentionable company is flirting with pseudeo OSS. Exactly how fast were you expecting it to move anyway?
Re:These MS compatibility projects are a mistake (Score:1, Insightful)
What makes you so sure? After all, MS Office is (almost) a Windows only thing, but
Remember, >90% of the world uses Windows, and Internet Explorer. If businesses can make nice eCommerce sites and things in XAML more easily than any other way, they will, and us Linux users will be screwed!
Re:netcraft confirms (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that strange or incomprehensible? I see absolutely nothing inconsistent about hating Microsoft's business practices and security record, but liking their programming tools and UI.
I thing you need to stop thinking in black and white and recognise that it's possible for a bad company to come up with a good product.
Re:Disappointed in Miguel-The good enough train wr (Score:4, Insightful)
f you have to install a 7 meg browser (mozilla) to make your application work why not just ship an application that updates itself over the network? Better yet why not just write a java web start application.
How is installing mozilla on each and every desktop different from installing java on each and every desktop?
With java you can have web-start applications - with mozilla you can have XUL applications.
I may be missing something, but as far as I can see, there is no difference at all.
Re:Miguel is right-on-target!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Er, didn't Visual Basic already do that? ;-) (With unimpressive results I might add.)
This story is essentially a dupe from a couple days ago...read my take on that [slashdot.org] for yet another perspective. Don't forget, this won't hit the streets until 2006...that's a long ways off. Also read the responses to the "miguel" (not sure if it's the real one) post...I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Re:netcraft confirms (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't understand Mono then. Miguel, Nat et al thought that programming for GNOME in C was becoming too hard, not fast enough, etc. So they decided they needed something new. They looked at the available alternatives, but none of them seemed to fit the bill. They then looked at .NET and C# and they liked what they saw and saw how it could be useful to program for GNOME. So they decided to use that. But the goal was not to copy what Microsoft has, it was to bring a better tool to Linux and GNOME developpers, that tool just happened to be made by Microsoft. This has the advantage that they don't need to write as much documentation as other languages' teams because Microsoft does it for them.
Re:netcraft confirms (Score:3, Insightful)
Miguel also makes some very interesting points about how Windows has managed code reusability to a point that allows it to offer a more integrated desktop than Linux. Check out his text [ximian.com].
That's the one thing about Linux I have to say I find a bit disconcerting: the lack of uniformity among applications (and no, I'm not trying to start trolling about that.) Just read Miguel's text if you're interested.
Re:You missed a point: (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe he's bitter, maybe he doesn't care about not having become an employee.
What you said was your opinion but you stated it as fact.
I don't know if he's got good or bad intentions or wether he'll be good or harmful to the Libre software community. We don't have enough info yet I think, at least I haven't looked into it deeply enough to make a judgement.
That he failed to get a job at Microsoft doesn't say enough to me. Maybe he just wanted to pay some bills.
Re:Comments from an MS Developer (Score:1, Insightful)
My primary beef with C# and .NET is it still sticks to the old windows threading model. Given most programmers have little to no experience with writing complex multi-threaded apps, .NET threading is a mistake. I can understand MS wanted to provide a seemless integration with legacy C++ code, but the end result is threading is no simpler than it was in C++. Most of the changes to threading are superficial in C#. I'm biased since I write backend components and when I write GUI's I prefer to use SWT.
Business apps = YES YES YES (Score:4, Insightful)
"What Mozilla needs to do is get their browser out there and on desktops, but more importantly they need to document(!) and further develop XUL. Try to use it for making business applications like I've mentioned above (not chat clients, get serious). Find out where the weak spots and gaps are and fix and fill them in. At the same time they need to get things working happening on the server side. OSS is strong on the server, but we need proper libraries and support for XUL apps on the server written in Java, PHP, etc hell even C# if really want to use a window webserver. For the love of god Mozilla, get in touch with Apache.org, Tomcat and friends. Create a full and complete platform (server + client) for creating and delivery business/database applications. We already have the big pieces."
Exactly - you clearly Get It.
Let's say there's an existing database in MySQL or whatever - if you could write an interface to it in XUL and have the "browser" construct a rich client front that understands transactions, field validation and persistence - that would be heaven. The Eclipse RCP project is very close to doing something useful and usable in this domain but it still seems to require too much hand coding for the front end.
Re:Denied migration (was Re:it's pronounced "XAML" (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a Java developer, and I for one don't want my career derailed because there was never an open source alternative to compete with
It's not about Technology (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with technologists deciding where technology goes is that they are not customer focused. They are technology focused. From the Microsoft blog featured here the other day, MS was at one time (and probably still is) extremely customer focused. Maybe they've lost it a bit, I don't know.
It's always an internal battle within organizations. Should we embrace some cool tech or not. Boss asks why, IT guy says, "'cause it's the future." Which begs the question.
Is it going to help ME in MY business?
I think the beauty of OS in general is that we make commodity blocks, which we can then adapt to a wide range of uses. When I meet with a client, I ALWAYS start with business questions.
"What are are your current challenges? What would you like to do better?"
Sometime they respond with specific answers about technology. I usually back them up one more step and try to get them to think about the bigger picture, macro style. They have an "A-ha" moment, and then the flood gates open. It usually boils down to wasted time and effort performing some repetitive task.
"Ah, well you know, that's the stuff computers are really good at. Repetitive tasks, that is. Let's reduce the time your people spend managing computers, and put them to work managing your business."
It's so simple, it's revolutionary. Microsoft did a lot for computing, but they mostly were able to make people slaves [altamente.com] to their personal computers.
OS turns it back into what it should have been all along, Business Automation.
And all this talk about MS's new tech, or .NET or whatever... I have only question: Can a technology by itself really be a magic bullet?
Java will suck for web apps until it is free. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have to install a 7 meg browser (mozilla) to make your application work why not just ship an application that updates itself over the network?
That would be an option if Java were free, so that the appropriate initiatives could be undertaken to have a decent way to run web applications.
Starting back in 1995, various companies asked for a number of features in Java necessary for launching web applications efficiently over the web -- licensees of Java paying Sun the big bucks. I was in one of these companies. Sun has never gotten what it would take to make Java a serious advantage for applications that trickle down to the desktop over the web.
There are many examples of things that would be needed and were repeatedly requested, that I have never seen materialize -- for example (one of many) a really-intelligent class loader that understands how to make applications work instantaneously and reliably over the web. The design doesn't seem that hard, but it is very different from anything that Sun has undertaken. I and other people made presentations to Sun, and they ignored it all, being a server company. Without free software, that leaves no options. This was 9 years ago, and Sun still has not figured most of it out. Companies cannot wait for Sun to get it.
As it is, I couldn't care less whether Sun or Microsoft wins, because it is 6 of one or half a dozen of the other, they will be limited by their own lack of vision. Licensees of Java were ripped off, believing they would be helped by Sun for all the money they paid.
It isn't that companies are not willing to pay. It is that Sun isn't willing to deliver even to those who pay who see how to bring Java out of the box where it is now (and have seen since the beginning).
Re:netcraft confirms (Score:5, Insightful)
Depending on the size of your company, this could cost hundreds or thousands of dollars. In fact, it might be easier to buy Apple computers for many reasons. Each company or individual must make its own decisions about any changes to existing IT infrastructure based on a lot of these factors, but simplistic statements like "Linux is free" are misleading. It sets up extremely unrealistic expectations.
However, there is one way in which Linux beats all the alternatives: It is Free (as in speech).
Re:Comments from an MS Developer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who cares of Icaza and .net ? we want OSS ! (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like the Linux Kernel (an open source re-implementation of a closed source OS kenerl -- AT&T's UNIX at the time), Gaim (an open source re-implementation of a closed source IM client -- AIM from AOL), GCC (an open source re-implementation of a closed source compiler for a language developed by the same vendor that developed the OS -- PCC for the C language from AT&T), Linux NFS (an open source re-implementation of a closed source networked filesystem which the vendor published the protocol for while retaining patents on the technology -- NFS by Sun Microsystems), The Gimp (an open source re-implementation of a closed source photo editor -- Photoshop from Adobe), The X Window System (an open source re-implementation of a closed source windowing system -- PARC from Xerox), Samba (an open source re-implementation of a closed source file system -- SMB by Microsoft) or did you mean something else?
Face it: Open source software has been BLINDINGLY SUCCESSFUL at re-implementing closed-source software and making it popular. Why would we stop now?
Don't be scared - check out MyXaml (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually a good project in this area exists already, the MyXaml [myxaml.com] project.
From the DotGNU perspective, XAML isn't particularly scary. We can simply support and recommend (and perhaps distribute) MyXaml.
Really, from the perspective of the Free Software community, XAML isn't particularly scary. XAML may make the deployment of apps easier, and some of those apps may have been written to run only on MS platforms, but that cannot possibly be worse than the current situation with most apps for desktop computers running only on MS platforms. If indeed the IT world switches to XAML, that's not something to be scared about (except perhaps from a security perspective) because supporting XAML+.NET on free operating systems is in fact easier than supporting native "Microsoft Windows" executables.
So I come to the conclusion that while I don't know whether XAML may perhaps be scary for Novell from a business perpective, or it may be scary for Miguel personally (because the MyXaml project is independent of Mono, and Miguel has historically found it difficult to interact with independent projects in a contructive, mutually beneficial manner), but certainly XAML is not a big threat for anything that I particularly care about.