Attachmate Fires Mono Developers 362
darthcamaro writes "Love it or hate it, Novell's open source Mono project has inspired a lot of debate over the last 7 years. Mono brings .NET to Linux, with some interesting patent connections. The project is now at a crossroads, with news today that Attachmate had laid off the US based development team for Mono."
And nothing of value was lost. (Score:2, Insightful)
(I will gb2/b/ shortly).
Re:Good. (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah. And then you will come saying that Java is perfectly fine in the GNU ecosystem.
Looks like Attachmate didn't want Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Firing the mono developers didn't convince me of this. It's the fact they're basically moving Linux development to all be under a european division and giving them control over all the decisions. It's like they got that odd Linux thing and don't know exactly what to do with it.
I worked at Attachmate for awhile, and this doesn't really surprise me.
Not many tears (Score:2, Insightful)
>"Mono brings .NET to Linux,"
In a way that lags so far behind current versions and with limitations to make it unsuitable for just about anything useful. I am not shedding that many tears. It was a dangerous road to begin with (patents, not completely open, etc), and it is a shame those resources were not directed to something that would have truly benefited Linux and other Open Source platforms.
In any case, I am sure development will continue in some way. But without those resources, it will just continue to slip further and further behind.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents.
No, C# itself is covered by an open standard. Your suggestion of Microsoft Patent Ire is entirely academic, and Microsoft's patents covering Linux kernel technology are much greater concern
And with Java, the danger is not academic. Oracle is actually suing Google over patents for their implementation resembling Java.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
ECMA standards don't protect you from patent lawsuits. Especially not when the standard is saddled with RAND patents (which virtually guarantee that open source usage is out the window.)
Re:Not many tears (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I'm not going to wholesale bite but you really need to bring some Citation to this FUD.
You see, a simple google search results in this: http://mono-project.com/Compatibility [mono-project.com]
Which show's that as far as base libraries and feature support, Mono is almost all there with full .Net 4.0.
Seeing as that's the latest version of .Net and not even the latest version that a lot of businesses are targeting, would suggest that Mono isn't lagging at all.
GOOD: Just think of energy saved... (Score:4, Insightful)
By not loading up multi-megabyte runtime to print "Hello world!"
Re:Good. (Score:1, Insightful)
Except he said nothing about Java whatsoever. Why do you (and the first person to reply) insist on stuffing words in other people's mouths?
Because C# and Java have duopoly for modern enterprise programming languages with critical mass; there aren't credible alternatives besides those two. Discouraging C# use, means encouraging Java use, and vice versa.
Re:Not many tears (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone that build's cross platform .NET apps using Mono, you should definitely STFU, and you obviously are talking out your ass. .NET compatibility in mono these days is steller. The only things we really lack are features of Visual Studio, not so much mono itself. MonoDevelop however is pretty dang good. In .NET we've been getting some amazing database ORM's that point & click to build your DAL automatically for you. In mono its a little bit more old-fashioned having to invoke command line for auto-generation. WPF obviously is not available, as to be expected when developing cross platform, so you use GTK. Go back to fox news dude.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.
This is the very definition of FUD. You have some assumptions made up of complete guesswork, and from that you try to scare the development community from using this language/platform. You have absolutely no facts to back up your assertions, and yet year after year people keep spreading this FUD and year after year it does not come true.
The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.
So what is the answer? To avoid applications written in C#? If you do that, then you have already lost the applications without any lawsuits being filed. The paranoia wins.
In years to come, when Microsoft moves on to its next programming system that supplants .NET, I am sure you will pat yourself on the back saying how you saved the open source world from an attack that only existed in your imagination. It is like Donald Trump fanning the flames of a nutjob conspiracy, and then claiming a victory because the unlikely accusations proved to be untrue.
Re:Looks like Attachmate didn't want Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the fact they're basically moving Linux development to all be under a european division and giving them control over all the decisions. It's like they got that odd Linux thing and don't know exactly what to do with it.
Or maybe they realize that the US Patent system hopelessly f'ks things up for Linux development. Or if not hopelessly, at least expensively.
Re:Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
In all the MSDN conference media -which I do not define as MSDN proper, but programmer conference media-, Microsoft has not only embraces Mono but showcases it.
Since I know Microsoft well, that is all the reason I need to avoid Mono now and forever.
Did you... not see the recent Microsoft PDC conference video where Miguel De Icaza himself presented on Mono?
I hope you are not under the misapprehension that Miguel de Icaza has a shred of credibility left with anyone, least of all me.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Java is open source, GPL even, and has a patent covenant from Oracle not to sue for it's use.
How much better could it fit in the GNU ecosystem?
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has not only embraces Mono but showcases it.
Since I know Microsoft well, that is all the reason I need to avoid Mono now and forever.
So on one hand we have people stating that we should avoid Mono because Microsoft does not like the competition and will eventually crush it with their patents, while on the other hand we should avoid Mono because Microsoft likes it and showcases it as evidence of the .NET CLR cross platform status.
It seems Microsoft can't do anything right!
I hope you are not under the misapprehension that Miguel de Icaza has a shred of credibility left with anyone, least of all me.
It is quite damning of Miguel that he has lost the support of the paranoid set. So what has he actually done? He has created a programming platform that works, has withstood the test of time, and that has not been crushed under the legal might if Microsoft. He proved the naysayers wrong.
Re:Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes fear, uncertainty, and doubt are warranted. IMO any time you're dealing with MS you should be fearful, uncertain, and doubtful. MS does have a history, you know.
No, Microsoft does not have a history of breaking their Microsoft Community Promise. They have never created a standard and then sued everybody for using that standard. (No, FAT32 was always a proprietary file system)
Mono is not going to be killed by Microsoft's patents, just like OpenOffice was not targetted for using Microsoft's file formats (despite being rumoured for years that MS was just about to sue). You are correct that Microsoft do have a history, but it appears to be a history of letting others use their IP if it is not something that they actively licence.
So why doesn't Microsoft sue? Because it would be a public relations nightmare - just as it was for SCO. That is the nail in the coffin for this FUD for me. Microsoft are just not stupid enough to put themselves in the position of such a David and Goliath lawsuit by going after the open source community.