De Icaza Pleads For Mono/.Net Cooperation 262
suka writes "In a recent interview with the online edition of an Austrian newspaper, Mono project-lead Miguel de Icaza pleads for cooperation between Mono and Microsoft's .Net: 'I think that the deal should include a technical Mono/.NET collaboration, and even go as far as Microsoft recommending Mono for all of their developers looking at migration'. The whole interview has some other interesting bits, like de Icaza's thoughts on open sourced Java and information about upcoming versions of Mono."
so, at last... (Score:2, Insightful)
Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)
What? (Score:1, Insightful)
Microsoft recommending a non-microsoft technology for a migration away from a Microsoft OS? Did i get that correctly?
Hey while we're asking for that one can we ask Microsoft to donate money to the FSF as well? That'll have pretty much the same chance of happening
.NOT NYET (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want cross platform portability they don't rely on Microsoft for anything, rather than try
All Mono does is give them a veneer to claim cross platform portability without actually being cross platform portable.
Like if it would ever happen (Score:5, Insightful)
I say it again: if MS wanted a fully functional port of the
Mono is a Trojan Horse, expect no help (Score:4, Insightful)
Because De Icaza is not only putting Microsoft tech in Mono, he's pushed Mono applications into Gnome and he's loading the MS Trojan Horse onto many GNU/Linux distros.
So what is up with him needing acceptance from Microsoft?
LoB
Nevermind MS.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would Linux users be interested in Mono again? Something about "compatibility" with MS software? You mean software that's slow and buggy and makes me curse like a sailor? No thanks.
As far as I'm concerned, mono stands for "mononucleosis". I sure as heck don't want the human version nor the computer version!
Mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)
They only reason there are "interoperability" issues today is because Microsoft wants there to be.
Re:Good Luck (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)
Mono is multi-platform
Re:Good Luck (Score:3, Insightful)
When has M$ cared about it, unless it was to Embrace then expand? It only cares about interoperability if it's playing catchup in the market. If it isn't, then you're screwed trying to get this from M$.
Re:Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)
MSDN Code License [72.14.253.104]
Miguel needs a reality check (Score:5, Insightful)
Miguel's role in the world is to make it possible for Linux developers to get locked into Microsoft technologies, In due time Microsoft can harvest them in any number of ways. If he thinks otherwise, he needs to reconsider his choices in recreational chemistry.
Re:Instead of catch up (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, Open Source Aficionados are creating an incompatible
Ah, the bitter sweet irony.
Re:The point of Mono? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, 'cause it's not like you can compile other languages like Ruby [javalobby.org] to Java bytecode.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, if you keep them on
Visual Studio is also very nice to work in, and Visual Studio isn't cheap, either. As you use Mono you can reuse those same components on Windows, too (ideally).
Re:Good Luck (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to say it but I always felt Mono was a mistake. The problem with .NET is that it really is a Windows only system. When you try to point that out people say not it isn't you can use Mono. A convent lie that lets .NET compete with Java right up to the point where you have tens of thousands of lines of code and you want to migrate to a different platform. Then the Microsoft sales rep can say, "You know Mono really has fallen behind .NET. You can port your applications if you want but it would just be cheaper to stick with Windows. Once you add in the cost of porting all that code your Total Cost of Ownership will be much less with Windows. Oh and would you like some more copies of Office and another Exchange server to got with that?"
Mono is multi-platform .NET is not.
Even worse... How long until Ballmer starts grumbling about Mono using Microsoft patents?
Mono will never be a safe language for developers ... or even users. Just wait until Microsoft starts talking about how users of Mono applications owe Microsoft money because of the usage of Microsoft patented technology in Mono...
Re:The point of Mono? (Score:4, Insightful)
But really, the first one is the biggie. Why have Perl AND Tcl AND Python AND Ruby? Why have Gnome AND Kde AND Xfce AND GnuStep? Why have Emacs AND vi? Why have bash AND tcsh AND zsh? Why have Sendmail AND Postfix AND Exim? Why have MySQL AND PostgreSQL AND Firebird? Because people aren't all the same, and have different preferences, and, at some level, FLOSS is supposed to be, at least in part, about choice and freedom.
Why Mono and DotNet should synch (Score:5, Insightful)
It also would allow Microsoft to more easily port Visual Studio to Linux, Mac OSX, *BSD Unix, and other platforms that Microsoft claims is too hard to port Visual Studio over to. After that is done, Microsoft can port their application software to those platforms more easily rather than rewriting code for a separate Windows and Mac version of MS-Office, etc. Then it would be one code base, and recompiled for each platform using Dotnet/Mono libraries. If Mono is finally 100% compatible with Dotnet, then the CIL and CLR code will run under Mono as well as it does under Dotnet on Windows. Since Mono exists for multiple operating systems, all that is needed is to compile the code for that OS and it makes cross-compiling easy and less costly.
Think of all the money in R&D that Microsoft would save, if it partners up with Novell and Mono just on the R&R of OSX applications that Microsoft writes if the same code can be used for Windows and OSX with just being recompiled.
Novell Failed With Evolution, so Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember back to TechEd (or was it TechNet) 2001 in Atlanta where Bill and Co. introduced
So, here's Miguel, who failed at getting us enterprise users to adopt Evolution, and he wants us to go with Mono.NET. I particularly love Miguel's naivety in saying he'd want to, "even go as far as Microsoft recommending Mono for all of their developers looking at migration." Migrating from what? Windows? Microsoft doesn't want people to migrate away from Windows. That's the furthest thing on their minds.
In any case, I'll stick to migrating to Java. Now that it is going to be truly OSS, I'll trust them just a wee bit more than our good friends in Redmond.
Forget dot net / mono, use Java (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, now that Java will be GPL'd, why exactly do we need Mono?
.Net only exists because M$ failed to embrace and extend Java. Why does the OSS community need a knock-off of a language that only exists because M$ couldn't control Java?
Re:Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)
Dunno. I don't use it - *I* think it sucks cause I have installed some apps using Mono on my Fedora box and they crashed really bad all the time. So it probably sucks.
> like Samba
Samba? Well Samba is Samba. Maybe it lacks in some stuff that MS has implemented (AD and such) but still it is de facto standard for CIFS/Windows Networking on non-Windows systems. It is *the* standard for most of unices, NAS boxes, Macs, Solaris, Linuxes etc. So I don't really think Samba fits along with Mono or OpenOffice.org (read further for OOo) it is not even in the same league it is not even the same game. Samba *is* very successfull and fucking nice OSS project. I have like dozens of servers that do really weird stuff most of that would not be even possible using Windows. Like providing SMB services with custom configuration just to support really old (but trust me - business critical) DOS programs.
I've read about Samba implemementations (search on
So *please* do respect that Samba *is* the killer-app of Open Source. I can bet that along Apache/PHP/Python/PERL/Java whatever stuff Samba is one off the most important projects that drive OSS adoption on servers (and also on clients - see OSX).
> and OpenOffice,
Well OpenOffice.org is a cow - bloated, big and slow. But still making OOo work faster (like throwing some hardware onto the problem) is cheaper than getting into MS Office licensing. OOo is *not* MS Office replacement (due to problems with exchanging documents with MSO - but hey even various versions of MS have *severe* problems with exchanging their documents) but as an office suite itself it is really nice. From my (company) perspective it does fucking loads of jobs right - it does basic office stuff almost right, it manages to interact with databases, it can do really nice macros/scripting/programming, it can produce decent PDF files, it can (due to ODF support) interact with other OSS projects (our marketing stuff edits our website right from OO.o via XMLRPC and eZ Publish CMS - imagine that). Etc. So OOo is also in another league than Mono.
Mono? I just don't see any practical use of it for me. Few apps, bloated runtime. What are the advantages? Java is much better for portability.
In fact, (Score:3, Insightful)
It occured to me just reading this ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Figure this:
If there is any way MS can prepare to hop the OSS bandwagon that is continously growing without losing their face it is the mono(t)rail (pun intended). In a well built mono they can without haste probe the OSS market for sophisticated free developer tools and their chances to get into OSS bases servicing and specialized proprietary offers without thinning the
Think about it. It's a very smart move and not that a stupid notion at all. They can continue to slowpoke about with their bloated NT/2k/Vista Kernels and go 'plattform independant' whenever the need arises, squishing whatever Zends, SuSEs, Novels and RedHats get in the way. And with a 'Mono excuse' they won't even raise a blip on the antitrust radar doing so.
If this works out we'll see yet another rare of strange things: MS actually trying to build quality software again. For a short period of time that is. Until they regain their stranglehold. Then it's business as usual again.
No, friends, it's absolutely clear to me: Novel bought Ximian, SuSE and then some. Then they went f*cking around aimlessly with those brands for two years. They are MSes easiest, least dangerous, most hidden, most powerfull and - oh, the irony - cheapest way into a potential MS dominated OSS market. This is what's behind all this.
My 2 dollars.
You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
In all reality, that is a quintessential Microsoft move.
Purchase into a market, then leverage their OS monopoly to drive adoption of SUSE, or whatever they may call it then. It's already begun, but imagine a version of Linux that also supports the ACTUAL Win32 API, or true cross-compatibility between Windows and this one linux distro.
Sure, the Microsoft-Haters in the linux community would throw fits over it and boycott it entirely, but the businesses that use Linux for web servers and db servers and such don't care about that. To them it would mean the best of both worlds. And in all honesty, they'd be correct.
Of course, it would probably be bad for the Linux community, I'm not denying that. But this is a very standard modus operandi for Redmond. It's certainly more than just a troll.
Re:Patents, again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that so hard to understand? If we were all so scared of patents, we wouldn't have a) implemented FAT b) probably not written Linux itself c) would be scared of our own shadow.
There are patents that cover every aspect of every system you use, FOSS or not. This is not an issue that affects Mono specifically, but rather our entire free software ecosystem. It's rather nice to see somebody who isn't scared of his own shadow be willing to take them head on.
Miguel, bajate de esa nube. (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't understand your project.
Most
"On the migration piece, the open sourcing of Java will not have an effect on Mono. Because the crowd that we are targeting is the
I'm so glad Java is now being open sourced, you won't have this as an excuse anymore. Why would anybody want to develop in your environment, which has serious patent concerns? It lags behind and has no serious number of tools for anybody to use?
Your statement about MS recommending Mono is bizarre. Why would Microsoft recommend Mono? The only reason for them to even mention your project, is in the chance a customer maybe asks about running in other platforms. I could definitely see MS just mentioning Mono to get a customer, but they surely will have no incentive for anybody to use your technology.
Finally, why is this project called mono? It reminds me of the phrase:
"El hombre crea y el mono imita", which seems apt for your project (Man creates and monkeys imitate)
De Icaza is a disgrace to OSS. (Score:3, Insightful)
Take GNOME, for instance. When GNOME was first established, KDE was already the premiere OSS desktop environment. There were some minor licensing issues, but with Trolltech's cooperation those were quite easily worked out. Regardless, a lot of effort was put into GNOME to duplicate what KDE already offered. Even today, we still see that GNOME has not yet caught up to KDE. And with the upcoming release of KDE 4, it's unlikely that GNOME will ever be able to catch up to KDE, let alone overtake it. Nearly a decade of effort has been wasted on GNOME, with so very little to show.
And then we have Mono, the subject of this Slashdot topic. Again, so much valuable time and effort has been wasted on creating a product that really is of no benefit to the OSS community. In fact, it blatantly stands against what OSS is all about. And beyond that, we already have a common runtime: the POSIX interface shared by Linux, *BSD, and even commercial UNIX systems. And even on top of that we already have many language options: C, C++, Python, Perl, Tcl and Ruby, just to name a few.
Like GNOME before it, Mono is essentially a waste. Just imagine how much further along projects like KDE, Python, Perl, and Ruby would be if effort and expertise hadn't been wastefully siphoned off to GNOME and Mono. It's quite conceivable that Linux could have been a major rival to Windows on the desktop.
Re:De Icaza is a disgrace to OSS. (Score:5, Insightful)
The "licensing issues" you refer to were not minor; they were simply not compatible with the ethos of a fully free desktop. To the best of my recollection, at the time of GNOME's inception there was no end in sight to Trolltech's proprietary hold on Qt. Qt was GPLed at least three years after GNOME was began. Dealing with Qt's "minor licensing issues" was not as trivial and straightforward as you make it sound.
.NET 3.0 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:De Icaza is a disgrace to OSS. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a few points... (Score:2, Insightful)
When MS says "cross-platform" they mean mobile devices (running a Windows-esque OS of course). Look at the system requirements for the compact .NET 2.0 runtime and it should be obvious enough: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=9655156b-356b-4a2c-857c-e62f50ae9a55&displa ylang=en [microsoft.com]
Microsoft actually released the 1.0 CLI sourcecode with support for BSD and OSX, and the license is not that bad, except for a small paragraph which prohibits any commercial use (breathe easy, the catch has been revealed). http://msdn.microsoft.com/MSDN-FILES/027/002/097/S hSourceCLILicense.htm [microsoft.com]
The people at MSDN aren't that bad, the marketers seem to dislike the smell of source code =). I've used both C# and Java extensively and there are numerous areas where C# shines above Java like types, generics and operators (overloading) for instance. There is a much higher level of consistency inRe:The point of Mono? (Score:1, Insightful)
I did not think you can.
The language independence is misleading, it is rather skinnable languages: only languages made for the runtime can do it.