LinuxWorld: Business, Business and More Business 345
Clarkson University wins a server from IBM. Sun is bringing embedded Linux to its UltraSparc IIe processors. Wired has an overview of LinuxWorld, talking about how it's all business and the joy is gone; and so does Internet.com; and so does Newsforge, which also has a story about LinuxWorld in Paris. The Register has a lengthy interview with Miguel de Icaza, in which he notes "Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET".
Linux turning into Business..no fun anymore... (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought that's what everyone wanted? To be taken serious as opposed to hey look at the nice kids playing with Linux?
What's wrong with this?
Re:Linux turning into Business..no fun anymore... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's
Re:Linux turning into Business..Now I'm a troll... (Score:2)
Which frigging way do you want it? I never once mentioned that part of the article. I was referring to this...
FROM THE DAMNED ARTICLE:
"Be careful what you wish for," programmer Mickey Haines said. "Five years ago, we all wished that Linux would be accepted by the business world. Our wish was granted. But the payback is a plague of pink-faced guys in shiny blue suits. The expo is all about brains and business now, not art and heart like it used to be."
Well, guess what. Business IS exactly that. It isn't about fun. It's about Business. If it was supposed to be fun, they would call it that.
I am sick to death of people screaming how little respect the "real world/business world" gives the various flavors. Well, here's your respect. Oh, you don't like it? Well, you ASKED FOR IT DIDN'T YOU????
And no, Jbeamon, this isn't directed at you. It's everyone with the elitest attitude...10 years from now I can see people saying yeah, Linux used to be cool, then "THE MAN" took it over and now it isn't.
Re:Linux turning into Business..no fun anymore... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm with you. I don't understand why Linux getting into the business world is a bad thing. I have to assume it is because there are still too many people that want Linux to remain the domain of geekdom. Personally, I look forward to Linux picking up steam and getting seriously entrenched in the business world. It will make it easier for me to bring in more tools that work on Linux - "Hey, we already have the system, I just have to download the source and build it." I've been getting so much resistance to putting in Linux based anything, that I can't see Linux getting serious as a bad thing.
RagManX
Re:Linux turning into Business..no fun anymore... (Score:2)
I don't think so. Linus's book isn't called "Just to be Taken Seriously".
Today, most Linux developers are volunteers. They hack linux for the love of coding, or for recognition, or whatever. It's a hobby, and that's what makes it great, IMHO. When you have IBM/HP/etc. stepping in and saying "hey, stop coding that MP3 player, we need you to work on this database backend"...well, I just don't see that going over well with most hobbyist Linux developers. Which probably means that more and more linux devs will be doing it as their job, not as their hobby. Which is going to make Linux a lot less fun.
Re:Linux turning into Business..no fun anymore... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with previous posters, though, that there's a resistance from Linux backers to allow "big business" to become involved in Linux for fear that their exclusive club won't be so exclusive anymore. What they fail to notice is that some companies (I won't name them due to my personal bias) are making some solid contributions to the Linux community, without co-opting it. Not every company is building a giant space laser to take over the world, you know ;-)
KDE declared the winner due to Gnome scandal. (Score:4, Funny)
If this was US politics, a candidate has just stated he supports a communistic form of governement and cant wait till he gets it installed.
Interesting concept though, using
Re:KDE declared the winner due to Gnome scandal. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:KDE declared the winner due to Gnome scandal. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:KDE declared the winner due to Gnome scandal. (Score:2, Interesting)
The point is, it doesn't matter what Billy and friends do. All that was needed was a standard, and MS had the clout to push that through. But to make it workable, they had to submit it to a standards organization.
So as long as you stick to what is standardized (and since Mono is a completely free implementation of the CLR standard) MS has absolutely no control over you.
Now if you fall into the trap of wanting to make IIS.NET web services on your Linux box, then microsoft owns you. But writing GNOME apps against GTK+ using CLR gives MS no power over you at all.
Re:KDE declared the winner due to Gnome scandal. (Score:2)
Go ahead Ximian, compete with MS. I've seen it before and I've got this feeling that Ximian won't win here..
For the sake of GNOME - I hope I'll be wrong.
Re:KDE declared the winner due to Gnome scandal. (Score:2)
Miguel is certainly not inspiring confidence lately. He's either an utter moron or an utter genius, and only time will tell which, but experience leads me to view his recent statements as probably being in the first category.
Re:KDE declared the winner due to Gnome scandal. (Score:3, Funny)
Is that why KDE is more usable than Gnome?
You want business? You got business (Score:2)
Too bad it can't be both ways. Often times, as mass popularity increases (in this case business adoption), enjoyment level decreases. Probably because you now have people involved who don't see things even close to the same way you do.
By the way, E*Trade moves to Linux servers [com.com]
How much do you love Microsoft's .NET? (Score:2, Funny)
It's clearly a buyer's market.
Change (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, he does say it's a cool environment and I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot more about programming than I do. So, I take back the "click". Hell, I don't know what to think. I do know I don't ever want to donate to M$ again!
I'm sorry, but someone throw some cold water on me (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but someone throw some cold water on me.
GNOME 3.0 could perhaps be using APIs by the traditionally evil folks at Microsoft? Now, see if you have as much trouble imagining this as I do -- a long-haired, super-smart, (sexy, even) traditional Linux user who has used GNOME for years now embracing a Microsoft-ish manipulation of his GUI. Ever more far-fetched would be SUN Microsystems, who hate Microsoft more than all of us do, ditching their CDE GUI for GNOME, which in turn gets hooked into Microsoft
I'm skeptical, but it'll sure be fun to see how this all plays out.
Re:I'm sorry, but someone throw some cold water on (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, I use a tweaked-out Commodore 64 for basic web browsing and email purposes. The rest of my time is spent improving Knuth's algorithms with pencil and paper methods in order to achieve a better run-time.
.NET Gnome? (Score:2, Insightful)
I really like Gnome, and I don't want it to be tied-in to a major Microsoft project.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to win is not to play (Score:5, Interesting)
Porting Gnome to
I love the idea of a common runtime environment that supports C++, Java, Perl, Python, etc., runs on all platforms, etc. etc. etc., but I DON'T want that platform in any way controlled by Microsoft (or by Sun, or RedHat, or me!) If any one entity controls the platform, that one entity has entirely too much power - we've simply traded one monopolist for another.
Now, if Miquel wishes to create such an environment under GPL, with no patents held by any organization, then I'm all for it - that way no one organization can embrace and extend the spec. But
Beating MS to the punch (Score:4, Interesting)
If you can make
But that's a really dangerous game to be playing, methinks.
Miquel scares me sometimes.
DG
http://streetmodified.org/books.html
Re:Beating MS to the punch (Score:2)
Not to mention,if you read the article, Miquel's got nothing but love for much of the windows-esque API. UNIX-ish API's will be emulated.
To me, it sounds like they've found something that meets their goals more efficiently, and they're running with it. Sounds like a consession to me.
-Michael
Re:Beating MS to the punch (Score:2)
I think that having developers on Unix learn an API that will be usable on Linux AND Windows will be EXTREMELY powerful. Not only does the free software world benifit from wider app support, but Linux programers, who love Linux, will also have an easier time programming in Windows at work when need be. Not only that, but programmers will be able to write applications in pretty much any language, on any platform, and expect them to work pretty much anywhere. As long as application developers don't build in platform specific code on purpose, this should be a realistic goal.
The only real risk, I think, is that our apps will run on Windows, but Windows apps won't run on Linux, thus making Windows stronger. However, that still is promoting free software - our free applications can still excell, on Windows or on Linux.
Re:Beating MS to the punch (Score:2)
Re:Beating MS to the punch (Score:2)
I feel like one of the Bishops in the Church of Linux has told us to embrace the Fallen Angel himself. Sorry, but if you can't beat `em, work on someone's team that CAN.
More Mono Trolling, Don't You Folks Get Tired? (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering that C# and the CLI are ECMA standards [slashdot.org] exactly how does Microsoft control the Mono platform? However Java is very much still entirely controlled by Sun which hasn't stopped a vibrant Free Software community to grow around Java [sourceforge.net]? So even if C# and the CLI were completely controlled by MSFT (which they aren't) there is no reason why Free Software cannot benefit from it. Now, if Miquel wishes to create such an environment under GPL, with no patents held by any organization, then I'm all for it - that way no one organization can embrace and extend the spec.
According to miguel [slashdot.org] the Mono runtime is released under the LGPL, the compiler is released under the GPL, and the class libraries are released under the X11 license..
From where I sit that is all FREE SOFTWARE unless you are one of those GPL zealots that believes that if it isn't GPL it isn't Free Software even though we all know that Apache, BSD, Kerberos, BIND, etc aren't GPL.
Re:More Mono Trolling, Don't You Folks Get Tired? (Score:5, Informative)
1) If Microsoft changes the spec for C# or CLI, can ECMA deny the changes?
1a) If they can deny the changes, can Microsoft still call C# "C#"?
2) Are C# and the CLI completely free of patents?
If the answer to 1) is false, then at any time MS can change the spec on what C# is, and leave Miquel to play catch-up.
If 1) is true and 1a) is true, again MS controls the table.
If 2) is false (it is, by the way...) then at any time MS can jerk Miquel up short and deny everybody the right to use the code without paying them a royalty (think Unisys and LZW).
I assure you, I am neither a troll nor an idiot - rather I am a person who can see beyond "that's cool" and ask myself what the downsides are.
You make the common mistake (Score:4, Interesting)
Quite frankly, I don't ever expect Mono to be a port of the
As for your second set of questions, I somehow doubt that MSFT can hand over their technology to a standards body yet still threaten to sue anyone who implements it. However, IANAL and stranger things have happened.
Re:You make the common mistake (Score:2)
For me the "showstopper" for C# is the lack of checked exceptions. I predict this will kill C# software reliability. I fear many people don't understand in time what a fatal mistake this is. Otherwise, I might have liked it.
Re:You make the common mistake (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, many people believe that checked exceptions in Java do more harm than good for large projects. For example:
c eptions [mindview.net] a butz03-1.asp [java-zone.com]
http://www.mindview.net/Etc/Discussions/CheckedEx
http://www.java-zone.com/free/articles/Kabutz03/K
Adding checked exceptions to CLR is even less appealing because you'd have to implement them for all languages.
Ximian is already on life support (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a Microsoft play through and through. And it surprises me that Michel is that STUPID to fall for it. I think the reason is because MS seriously sweet talks into into Michel's ear. And most likely the Ximian team went through various scenarios and thought, "Hey this is a win win situation." But the reality is that it is not a win win situation. Microsoft will string along Michel until they do not need him and Ximian anymore. And then there will be a new annointed one.
What disappoints me is that Michel thinks he can outfox Microsoft. Bigger people have tried and have their problems. Michel is a small fry and when Bristol or Mainsoft or Software AG tried to get more action MS stopped them dead in their tracks. Standards mean squat to Microsoft. How many people does Microsoft have on the standard bodies and how many does Ximian? Get my point folks!!! Sorry for being so harsh, but after having talked and written about Microsoft for a decade (switched to Open Source) I am amazed that people still fall for this tatic.
Re:Ximian is already on life support (Score:2)
The point of it is that even if (well, rather when, in my opinion) Microsoft starts corrupting the standard it doesnt really matter because the point isnt really interoperability with MS, it is getting another useful development platform that isnt as tied to languages as the ones we have now.
Think of it this way; the entire world is coding in assembler. Along comes the evil empire and says 'hey, we've made up this C thing'. We can build a C compiler too, and use it for what it's worth. Sure enough, the Evil Empire went along and built incompatible API's outside their C reference which made the portability idea useless, but the language and the associated standards would still be a good thing.
Of course, I dont think Miguel is even near critical enough of MS, and heck, the whole
Re:More Mono Trolling, Don't You Folks Get Tired? (Score:2)
DOM, LDAP, HTML, Kerberos, IMAP, WebDAV, HTTP,
What do these things have in common? They are all industry standards that Microsoft decided they didn't feel like being compatible with. Many would even say that Microsoft saw opportunity to leverage a monopoly by breaking standards compatibility.
Putting aside patent issues, your point that Mono is not controlled by Microsoft directly is clearly true. But do not put "Microsoft" and "standards" in the same sentence and expect to be taken seriously.
Re:More Mono Trolling, Don't You Folks Get Tired? (Score:2)
So what ? Is that a reason not to use DOM, LDAP, Kerberos, IMAP, and HTTP ? Who cares what Microsoft do with them ?
Vote: Miguel de Icaza for Troll of the Week (Score:5, Funny)
:Peter
Re:Vote: Miguel de Icaza for Troll of the Week (Score:2)
That's the great thing about open source! (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, back in the good old days (circa 1980) IBM's VM/370 OS was "available source", and we used to play with and modify it. Some of those modifications even got picked up by IBM. We also used it for business (the customer of those modifications).
There's (obviously) nothing to stop businesses from exploiting the benefits provided by those that play with the OS.
And, as long as there's source, there's nothing to stop people from continuing to play.
And they said KDE ... (Score:2)
Take that!
Well, this ain't a troll, cause I'm not going to rm -rf
BTW, I'm a programmer, so I shouldn't find it hard to figure out what
Re:And they said KDE ... (This one you can OT) (Score:2)
a) Microsoft makes
b) www.microsoft.com is their homepage
And yes, I could start there, but don't you imagine that I've already been there, and, by virtue of me asking for
Re:handrolled distro? (Score:2)
IANALWA, but this can't be all bad (Score:5, Insightful)
I say the same thing to this as I do to that. There are still plenty of cool sites put up by random people. You still have to look for them just like you used to have to in the early days. YOU DON"T HAVE TO DO WHAT THE MASSES DO. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH THEIR TV SHOWS OR LISTEN TO THEIR MUSIC.
Getting depressed about what the masses do with a new concept is silly and counterproductive. All that does is shows how much you are buying into what Madison Avenue is trying to sell. You get irked because some knockoff is getting all the attention. Well, why do you care who all the masses are being told to pay attention to? Why are you letting them tell YOU what to pay attention to?
Britney Spears does not annoy me--that may be because I never see her or hear her music. If I want to hear edgy, innovative, gutsy music I know where to look--off the beaten track. Lamenting the fact that it isn't on the radio is a waste of a lament.
Enterprise stuff may be getting all the industry/press/expo attention right now, but that doesn't stop a single GPL/open source product from getting done, nor should it have any bearing on our passion for the freedom, quality, and community of open source/free software.
Personally, I am thrilled to see people there to make money. And an important part of that is just the "to see people there" part. With this economy we should totally expect that a lot of the fun, innovative, exciting, and cutting edge stuff would be gone. A lot of that was funded by the pre-bubble-burst wild-eyed investment community. The fact that ANYBODY showed up this year is wonderful. And if IBM and HP are not only there, but completely bullish on linux's future, well, I'm ecstatic. It's a huge victory for us that they are there at all, and that they are as enthusiastic as they seem to be.
Linux in the enterprise might not be what excites you about Linux, but it is still an exciting possibility.
These may well be the people that create your next Linux using job--I say we welcome them with hearty handshakes and reciprocal enthusiasm.
Re:IANALWA, but this can't be all bad (Score:2)
Sweet! Bookmarked, thanks!
Re:IANALWA, but this can't be all bad (Score:2)
New Proposed Icon (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.geocities.com/heavenstrash/gnomeicon
A few random points: (Score:5, Informative)
I also got to experience the feel of the old days, having brought my TiBook for a demo system. There were quite a few Apples in evidence, and I proabbly spent more time talking PPC Linux than I did KDE. The PowerPC Linux crowd continues to have all the community feeling that Linux as a whole lost when the gold rush started. Curiously, the Apple guys who stopped by the booth seemed completely uninterested as all the Linux guys drooled over the TiBook.
Re:A few random points: (Score:2)
> uninterested as all the Linux guys drooled over the TiBook.
Probably because there's nothing in the PPC Linux world that's all
that interesting to Apple; whereas, the TiBook is a magnificent piece
of kit that everybody drools over, even Windows users.
Peace,
(jfb)
Anyone heard from RMS? (Score:2, Interesting)
Doesn't he have some serious pull with the GNOME people?
Re:Anyone heard from RMS? (Score:2)
"Bradley Kuhn, v.p. of the Free Software Foundation, said he was there as an ambassador to preach freedom as in speech. Richard Stallman, always true to his principles, would not be attending LWCE, said Kuhn, because Stallman doesn't patronize events that don't use the term 'GNU/Linux.'"
- Robin
Don't forget Oracle will run/dev on Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
But their main servers will all be Linux.
As to those who gripe about "darned business Linux" stuff - what's stopping you from doing your own Open Source projects? We never paid attention to Windows - you don't have to pay attention to Business glomming on to Linux either.
-
What *is* Icaza thinking? (Score:2, Troll)
"He also had praise for the new Microsoft security model.."
Based upon what?
"..dismissed the notion that Redmond was employing embrace and extend to its web services protocols.."
Oh, yeah, right. M$FT has certainly changed it's tune...
"..and put the message that the community should get over its beef with The Beast."
uh.. well... Maybe he's willing to "get over it"
It's plain he's intent on hopping into bed with Unca Bill: you can see that by the brown tones on Icaza's nose...
t_t_b
It's quite obvious what he thinks. (Score:2)
I dunno what drugs he's on either, but Miguel is under the impression that Windows is the best operating system out there, period. Since no other OS is as "user friendly" as Windows, in order for open source to Succeed we must clone Windows in every way.
Thank God the grown-ups are now in charge (Score:2, Troll)
The children had their run; now that all the IPO money has been frittered away, it is time to pay the bills.
HP, Compaq, Sun, CA, Oracle, IBM, and friends are serioius about Linux and they are taking no prisoners.
Linux is gaining momentum where it counts: with the grown-ups.
I've often been confused by the Us vs. Them (Score:4, Insightful)
I've read comments on it 'not being fun' any more. I've also seen comments here stating that the Opensource-ness of Linux is being attacked by the close-sourced monsters. I was wondering if that comment was referring to just the spastic comment aout including
I think IBM doesn't sit up all day thinking of somehow 'stealing' linux for themselves. They see it as a viable, important alternative to the closed and controlled Microsoft, and probably even Intel regime. They see the gartner charts that show with current trends that Intel servers running MS OSes are going to account for 85% of the money spent on IT infrastructure in the server market.
The reason I think they're even against Intel is that all of their big-ticket-lots-o-press-with-linux in it adds are about the zSeries or the iSeries products. There is hardly a mention about Linux running on Intel based systems (xSeries).
I think IBM sees Linux as a way to sell more of their 'big iron' high margin systems and to not have to continue to fight the idiots at Dell who try to commodotize the server market when they see the server market as more than just a commodity...
Just My $0.02. I may be wrong.
His nose just got browner... (Score:2)
OK: old argument, old news... UNIX blah blah blah security blah blah blah happens to everybody blah blah blah...
Yeah, right.
Sounds like a typical M$FT apologist, don't he?
"...They happen to be really bad at managing their bugs, and not providing fixes on time, but that's another issue..."
Wait!
Stop right there, Miguel, that's the whole f*cking point!
You can't just blow off the single biggest issue there is with M$FT "security" just because you're sucking up to them...
Security is a marketing issue to M$FT -- not a security issue, despite Unca Bill's recent homily.
Until M$FT demonstrates in a consistent manner, over an extended period of time that they're doing *anything* differently, anyone with an ounce of integrity wouldn't be sucking up to The Beast® this way...
Like someone already said, at least there's still KDE...
t_t_b
You missed the point. (Score:2)
I think Miguel was dismissive of Microsoft's security problems because he won't be affected by them. Buffer overflows are implementation problems, and the Mono project is doing a completely independent implementation of .NET. Microsoft's design is sound, they just tend to write shitty code.
I'll put it another way. Who cares if Windows is built like a screen door? One of the big selling points of .NET (and therefore Mono) is that I can run the same web services on my secure *nix box that my neigbor runs on his virus-laden Windows box. So long as the security model is sound (and it looks like it is), then I can run Miguel's stable and secure Mono instead of the crap coming out of Redmond.
Remember, Microsoft has used some really good ideas in the past (OLE, the registry, microkernel architecture, Active Directory). It's just that their actual implementation of those ideas has been truly awful. Miguel is getting around that by writing his own code.
Re:You missed the point. (Score:2)
This is a very broad generalisation, and your statement, in that level of generality, is simply false. It's true that they are slack with getting bugfixes out. It's also true that their desktop software has enormous security holes, largely because it's designed to run on DOS++. However, it's not true that all of their designs are "bad". For example, the NT security model is in theory pretty good. The main problems arise when users try to install and run boneheaded applications that need to run as administrator. Also, the default settings are traditionally fairly poor.
The important point is that the security problems are largely a result of poor implementations and poor practice. Poor design for the most part is not the culprit. In the case of Mono, implementation issues are not really relevant, since Microsoft are not the implementor.
Re:You missed the point. (Score:2)
Security problems are largely a result of poor implementation and poor practice. However maybe you haven't seen CERT digests or read about Microsoft security flaws, they aren't just poor implementation in most cases, it's absolute incompetence. As for mono, if you would read my post again I never talked about their implementation as much as I'm talking about someone assuming it's secure. Also if you continue reading you will see I'm not talking about the mono implementation much at all except to say we'll basically have to wait and see. I'm talking about the
We will see in the longrun how this turns out.
Re:You missed the point. (Score:2)
IMO, NT is reasonably secure. Most of the problems stem from the fact that people tend to undermine the security either by very poor practice, or by using boneheaded legacy applications.
However maybe you haven't seen CERT digests or read about Microsoft security flaws, they aren't just poor implementation in most cases, it's absolute incompetence.
I've read a lot of them. Most of them boil down to the fact that their products are written for poorly designed legacy applications, or their products have stupid defaults (eg IIS turning on all functionality by default, instead of using secure defaults)
As for mono, if you would read my post again I never talked about their implementation as much as I'm talking about someone assuming it's secure.
No one is assuming anything. The specifications are available for you to read. So far, you don't really have much of an argument except that "it's Microsoft, so it SUX".
Miguel can't be serious (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't you see that Microsoft isn't doing this to be nice, they aren't even doing this for web services. They are doing this to own the whole goddamn thing. The internet, what developers develop in, how things operate.. EVERYTHING!! And you are gonna sit there and honestly interview with someone on some bullshit about how this is good for you/us/me/developers because it makes things easier and that Gnome 4.0 will support this. This is Microsoft getting out of the OS business and into a much larger market. If they become the standard (standard meaning widely used) this will set off World War 3.. Everyone trying to break ties with Microsoft will again have no choice but to follow a standard they created and will no doubt make proprietary extensions too breaking said standard submitted to the ECMA when their standard+extensions becomes standard (widely used) you are fucking OWNED.
I hope this doesn't happen because if it does, you'll be known as the fucking typhoid mary in the free software movement.
"MS =
Re:Miguel can't be serious (Score:2)
On what basis do you make this claim ? Since when did Microsoft own ECMA ?
IMO, the fact that Microsoft wrote it is largely irrelevant. If it's standardised, and it's useful, there's no reason not to use it. The worst that Microsoft can do is sabotage compaibility by adding a lot of their own extensions, but then again, so what ????? We can write our own extensions too, and the platform will continue to be useful in its own right. We can continue to support the standard subset of .NET. The standard .NET platform will contain at least as much functionality as ANSI/ISO C/C++, so it will continue to be quite useful for writing portable software, even if Microsoft develop their own APIs.
A lot of slashdot posters seem to be more concerned about some sort of anti-Microsoft juhad than they are about developing good software.
Re:Miguel can't be serious (Score:2)
Have you been living under a rock for the past decade? When has microsoft ever played fair with standards? ummmmm never? So what they submitted to a standards body.. how is that going to prevent them from playing unfairly??
1. Submit standard
2. Screw standard add our own shit
3. Lock everyone else out
4. MONO(.NET) == JAVA for linux
What have you acheived in the long run? I can understand using mono for
Re:Miguel can't be serious (Score:2)
Do Microsoft own ECMA, or don't they ? The standard is not controlled by them. Whether or not they wish to make an implementation that supports their own standard is a seperate issue. Much like ANSI/ISO standards for C and C++ are quite useful, even though Microsoft haven't done a fantastic job at supporting the C++ standard.
1. Submit standard
Exactly. It's a standard. It has a life independent of MS.
2. Screw standard add our own shit
So ? They can also add their own C and C++ libraries, and extensions. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't use C and C++. In fact in the case of C and C++, they do worse -- not only do they add their own stuff, they do not support the standard properly either. At least in the case of .NET, there's a pretty good chance that their implementation will support the standard.
3. Lock everyone else out
How will they do this ? People who don't want to use Microsoft extensions will target the standard, or modularise their code so that the platform specific components are isolated; in much the same way as C and C++ programmers do today. However, I suspect that the standard components will have more functionality than the ISO/ANSI C and C++ standard libraries.
I can understand using mono for .net stuff (interoperability of course)..
IMO, this is not a reason to use mono. Because if the goal of developing mono is interoperability with Microsoft, then we are vulnerable to exactly the kinds of sabotage you speak of. On the other hand, if Mono is primarily their to serve as a platform in its own right, it really doesn't matter a great deal what Microsoft do.
I have no problem with people spending time doing absolutely what I feel to believe is dumb stuff..
Well I suppose this is what it boils down to -- whether or not you feel that this is really "dumb stuff". I don't feel it is "dumb stuff" at all. And I think Miguel is smart enough to realise that GNOME is not going to progress rapidly if everyone is stuck using C as an object oriented GUI programming language.
Re:Miguel can't be serious (Score:2)
It's true that the courts said that. However, it's also true that Sun refused to turn Java over to a non-partisan standards body.
So they create C#, give it to some quasi-standards committee.
What's "quasi" about it ? It's better than Sun have been able or willing to do.
What makes you think they won't embrace and extend it?
I didn't say that they won't. My point is more a matter of "who cares if they embrace and extend it ?"
If the only purpose of mono were to provide some kind of Microsoft compatibility, I would be considerably less enthusiastic about it. But the fact is that it is a standards based architecture that is useful in its own right, and will continue to be useful regardless of what Microsoft do with .NET
So uh, what did the Clarkson students write? (Score:2)
Difference between JVM and .NET (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll leave the discussion of Java (the language) vs C# out of this.
The real difference is that with Java/JVM, when MS deviated from the spec (de facto, governed by Sun) Sun was able to get them to stop. Sun put the smack down on MS for trying to make MS-specific changes to MS's implementation of Java. This would have resulted in people developing for MS-Java thinking they were developing for Java, and then having issues when trying to get their code to "run anywhere" besides MS OSs.
With CLR/.NET there's no one to sue Microsoft when they go and take what is touted as being an open spec and change their implementation of it. That will lead to
Or am I wrong? Is there any legal way to punish MS for the type of mischief they tried with Java/JVM and that I predict they will try with CLR/.NET?
Re:Difference between JVM and .NET (Score:2)
Nor should there be. Just as no-one can sue the GNU project for not making g++ ANSI compliant. The important thing about standards is that it provides a target for developers. I can write ANSI-C++ code, as opposed to just writing code that works with a given implementation. Learning which quirks the different implementations have is some work, but at least I can start with a standard target.
That will lead to .NET software that people will think can run on any .NET platform that actually only
runs on MS's .NET.
The worst that could happen is it could lead to one-platform binaries.
Sure, it's an ECMA standard, but that doesn't keep MS from introducting their own "extensions" to it which lock users into MS.NET while still giving the illusion of not being MS-specific.
Standards are supposed to codify existing practice. You can't write useful software if you insist on everything to go through a standardisation process. The standard is not MS specific, but extensions may be. There also may be other extensions, that are specific to UNIX or Linux, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. The real benefit of having a standard is that there is some well-defined notion of what is "standard" and what is an "extension".
Re:Difference between JVM and .NET (Score:2)
All of that makes sense except it totally defeats the purpose of
Explain to me the point of Mono again, plugin and run on diff systems is it?? Interoperability?? Ahh ok..
Re:Difference between JVM and .NET (Score:2)
C#, the CLR, and the Class Libraries *could* solve some of the problems that Miguel saw Gnome was having. Since it could solve some of these problems they are implementing the ECMA spec. If MS doesn't follow the spec, great. If they do follow the spec, great. This *does not effect Mono at all*. The project is not looking for interoperability. If they get it, it's a great benefit, but the primary goal is to solve problems that they personally have.
Re:Difference between JVM and .NET (Score:2)
Re:Difference between JVM and .NET (Score:2)
Depends on what your purpose is.
Explain to me the point of Mono again,
To provide a common runtime/object model that's usable by several different programming languages. It's got very little to do with "interoperability". The standard provides for a limited amount of interoperability. In particular, you have a certain common core functionality that is interoperable.
Re:Difference between JVM and .NET (Score:2)
Very true. I didn't intend to imply that there *should* be a way to make companies adhere to software standards (that is another discussion), but rather that in the MS/JVM case, there *was* a way to keep them from destandardizing a de facto standard.
However, it is important to note that MS is a monopoly, and the actions of a monopoly must be very carefully watched. What *should* be done is to make sure they don't use their position as a monopoly to extend or enfore their control. At a minimum they must be held to a higher standard, since the normal rules of competition aren't in effect. That is where legal techniques should be used when possible.
The worst that could happen is it could lead to one-platform binaries.I agree, but I see the "worst" adjective there not only as a boundary but as a degree. To quote MS, the intent of .NET is "to enable software developers to quickly build and deploy powerful, interoperable XML Web services." If the binaries only run on one platform, it isn't very interoperable. If the "WWW/Internet" becomes ".NET software", they're just one step away from ignoring all Internet communication standards and just having an MS-only web. That would be the worst thing that could happen to the WWW and possibly to the entire Internet.
The real benefit of having a standard is that there is some well-defined notion of what is "standard" and what is an "extension".In Java, there is a mechanism for making platform-specific extensions and the programmers must consiously use them, making the resulting lack of platform interoperability obvious. What MS tried to do with Java was change the behaviour of the "standard" JVM. In that way, it may have been impossible for the developer to know they were using such extensions until they tried to run it using a non MS-JVM.
Re:Difference between JVM and .NET (Score:2)
Not at all. The standard will exist regardless of what Microsoft does. Indeed, there already are standards, such as ANSI/ISO C and C++, and these work, despite the fact that Microsoft is the dominant vendor, and do not do a terribly good job at supporting these standards.
Dwight Tuinstra @ Clarkson U (Score:2)
It's too early to tell... (Score:2)
When the whole
But we all know that MS plays dirty. Other posters have given examples already. Which makes me question whether Miguel is being utterly naive in thinking that Microsoft won't screw the Mono project.
The technical side of
Which leads me to think that maybe there is a hint of genius in Miguel's actions. A paraphrase of a quote describing genius stated that 'A clever person is someone who comes up with an idea that makes you think "I could have thought of that". A genius is someone who comes up with an idea that makes you think "I would never have thought of that!"'
Time will tell I guess.
Re:It's too early to tell... (Score:2)
They might want to screw the mono project, but they can't. The worst they could do is provide proprietary extensions. This would partially sabotage Windows compatibility, but it would not stop Mono from being useful in its own right. The key point here is that the platform is going to be useful in its own right, it's not just a Microsoft emulator.
If GNOME is ported to Mono, along with GTK, what else could be? Maybe Mozilla, Jabber, Apache and who knows what? If MS intentionally break compatability with Mono, then we'd have two similar architectures with a whole bundle of applications.
I strongly agree with this sentiment. Microsoft can extend it, but then, so can we (-; and we could make it work to our advantage. I haven't been a great fan of GNOME, but I think Miguel's new vision is a winner.
Miguel floats off into Never Never Fairy Land (Score:2, Informative)
With comments like these, Miguel has really lost it. Perhaps he never had it to begin with.
He appears to have this entirely fantastical idea that when Mono reaches 1.0, we will be able to just plug in the existing C, C++, Perl, etc code bases into it and, WAMMO!, instant cross language, cross platform code. I can understand his frustration with updating Gnome language bindings. However, I think his mind has snapped from doing that kind of work.
He has bought into the central
Note to Miguel: the cross languages promises of
Programmers don't like half assed solutions to problems. And that is just what Perl, Python and name-your-favorite-language are inside the world of
(1) Languages evolve. The
(2) The Common Type System and Common Class Libraries of the
Elitist whiners. (Score:3, Interesting)
Business is good. A "mixing of open source and close source ideologies" ends up making a very competitive and successfull candidate. It's not that one or the other is necessarily bad, but that extremes of either become self defeating. Sure RedHat has certain proprietary secrets which they use to make a profit. So what. They also make linux very accessable and allow more people to discover the 'joy' of linux. These heady idealist who scream down with all things proprietary are nothing more than neo-hippy-nihilist-posers who need to think before they parrot. Part of what makes linux and open source such an inspiring concept is that it makes information accessable to the people, and thusly empowers them to some extent. Successfull business' that push open source solutions manage to put the empowering project in more hands, and helps to fuel the ongoing development and exploration in the community. I think it's very symbiotic. The real bitch I think these people have is that money no longer falls out of the trees. Such is the state of the economy. Many of us are finding we have to work for a living. For some of us, this is no revelation. Some of us even find joy in our work.
RMS Attendance (Score:2, Interesting)
Mike
What Sun could do if they want more Linux market (Score:2)
If Sun wants to have people use the Sparc chip in embedded systems like network routers, then they should make some hardware available to do just that. I suggest starting with a small box not larger than the old lunchbox machines (e.g. IPC, IPX, LX, etc) and preferrably smaller, with the following features:
If they sell that beast w/o HD, w/o RAM, but with a 1 GHz CPU, for say $500, I'd bet it will sell fast. Oh, and if IBM does the same but with a PPC-64 CPU at 1 GHz, I'd bet that would sell fast, too.
Now if they added a 2nd CPU, ultra fast 3D graphical video, and joystick controls, and sold it for $300 ... uh, no ... I am not going to share this excellent weed with you :-)
Pogojesus (Score:3, Insightful)
Miguel de Icaza wanting to add real functionality to Linux is not a damning offence. Half the fucking posts on this thread seem to think Miguel is off his rocker or Bill Gates' bitch or something. That is just fucking retarded. He's a damn good programmer who knows Linux is way behind the times when it comes to interacting with the real business world. Stateful RPC methods need to hit the road. They don't fit into topologies where you have multiple servers behind a single address that are all processing requests for the sake up upping your throughput. Stuff like the LVSP isn't going to work with FTP or rsh connections though works well with HTTP. XML based RPC (or any stateless RPC method) are much more efficient in modern networks because I don't need to fuck with my external network configuration to add capacity. SOAP and the whole
Re:Pogojesus (Score:2, Insightful)
You can get fucked if you want to.. I've seen a long list of companies that have been fucked by microsoft and will not wait in line for my turn.
Re:Pogojesus (Score:2)
Alternatives? (Score:2)
Linux needs something other than Microsoft/Gnome.
Java won't cut it, being held tightly by Sun (who is going to use Gnome anyway).
So, what the heck is the alternative? KDE (with the licensing issues?)
The last guy I worked with from Ximian had a severe fetish for python, so maybe they can do something?
Miguel and MS PR. (Score:2)
I have no idea about the "technical" pros and cons of
Average Joe now thinks that MS=.NET and Miguel just said that Gnome=.NET. Sun said they'll use Gnome2 and obviosly Linux uses Gnome, thus indirectly Sun and Linux now support
Next he said that Ximian will lag 1 year behind MS, thus MS is superior and the "leader" in the technology. Now most high-level managers have the technical knowlege of "the average Joe" and to them Miguel just validated that
This is so sad. The game's over. MS wins if they pull this off -- it doesn't matter what is technically superior -- if MS wins the PR battle they can make monkey dung and people will flock to buy it. Case and point: OS/2 versus Windows 3.0.
MS just got one of the "leaders" of Open-Source to fully endorse their technology (and thus indirectly thier products). I'm glad I got my class B CDL so that I can drive busses when MS owns the technological world.
Kinda makes sense (Score:2)
Remember that the GNU Object Model Environment was formed, and it's ultimate final goal still is, to provide a whole heap of things for the FSF's GNU project. Obviously, a GUI infrastructure; a component architecture, GUI applications and other such niceties also fall within it's domain.
When Stallman decided that he wanted a free operating system, and started up the whole GNU thing, he decided to clone one of the most popular hacking environments at the time: Unix. Remember that every working Unix was proprietary at the time. Now, it's up to GNOME to provide GNU with a whole bunch of "modern" features, so why not work off of .NET?
.NET is a lot more centrally controlled than Unix was, so I agree that there's a serious danger of GNOME being burnt horribly. But if they're willing to take that risk, and think they can surmount it, I don't think "We can't use .NET! We're all turning into Microsofties! Linux rules!" on it's own is a valid argument.
And if it doesn't work, there's always KDE. (Just think, as KDE and GNOME branch out further from each other in their goals and approach to things, they might start to get different enough that comparisons can be entirely free of religious arguments! :)
Re:Miguel goes where most fear to tread... (Score:2)
that was number 1...
Just kiddin, you made me do it! I love and respect all desktops equally.
bbh
Re:Miguel goes where most fear to tread... (Score:3, Funny)
I suspect that most people will probably disagree with him, however.
This is /. He'll be lucky to escape with flesh remaining on his bones. Most of the Linux people here have no interest in making peace with Microsoft under any terms except total, utter physical destruction of the company, and anyone who uses MS.
Re:Miguel goes where most fear to tread... (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be kidding. (Score:2)
The parent post must be a joke.
Indeed. (Score:2)
But hey, -Miguel- actually thinks this, so who's to say?
Re:Indeed. (Score:2)
Yeah, the problem Ximian faces right now, IMHO, if they don't do something they are not going to have a business. That means Miguel will have to get a job.
The reality of it is, the industry doesn't seem to make the same mistakes over and over again.. (well, win95,98,me, etc etc).. but, sooner or later, people learn. As more mobile devices (More people in the US are walking around with a cell phone than have computers) start to play into the game (phone/pda/etc) the universal and open standards will win. Maybe MS understands this, maybe not.
Re:Miguel goes where most fear to tread... (Score:2)
Only because that's what it is - and that's what it will continue to be until we see the results.
It's too early to tell if MS is really serious about security - but it IS a good thing that they're announcing it (Hmm - did I just cause you to blow a gasket? I just "praised" and "downplayed" at the same time!) But we can't just say "Oh, everything from MS is going to be secure now" - MS has a very, very bad history when it comes to securing their products, and they lie all the time - the jury on whether the new security initiative is successful won't be in for a very, very long time.
Re:Miguel goes where most fear to tread... (Score:3, Interesting)
Go back and read Miguel's statements on Microsoft's security in context. He correctly distinguishes Microsoft's security design from its implementation.
On paper, .Net's secuity model is quite nice. Just as NT's model is well designed. Unfortunately for all of us, Microsoft has been choosing the wrong pair from [fast, cheap, right]. That was the point of the Trustable Computing Memo. It's time for Microsoft to start coding as well as they design.
Besides, this is a tremendous opportunity for Mono in particular, and Open Source in general. Here, we have a spec from Microsoft, rubber-stamped by ECMA, with both closed and Open implementations. Both sides have something to prove. Microsoft must prove that they can "turn the boat" again, as they did after the Internet Memo, and write secure code. Mono must prove that the tenets of Open Source (many eyes == shallow bugs, full disclosure, etc.) can bear fruit in an apples-to-apples comparison. This competition can only improve the breed. In the end, we'll be able to choose the greater good, instead of the lesser evil. <trollbait /> :-)
For some, blissful ignorance of Microsoft has been the best way to go. Who am I to argue with Linus Torvalds? But Miguel has chosen to take the fight to Microsoft, by competing on their .Net turf. More power to him!
Re:Miguel goes where most fear to tread... (Score:2, Insightful)
I see a lot of posts here in this article by people who seem convinced that Ximian/Mono/GNOME is now evil because it has a vague link to Microsoft, but it seems to me that support for
Consider also, that the Microsoft CLR _is_ a managed bytecode system in exactly the same way that the Java JVM is. If companies start migrating to writing managed programs rather than native ones, it instantly solves one of the key problems that Linux faces - the lack of Applications available.
Ximian isnt evil. They're making something which is quite possibly vital for the future of Open Source Software.
Re:Reaganomics (Score:5, Interesting)
I found this to be true in my consulting business: When I don't have to charge them $250 a seat for Widnows, $400 for MS Office and $250 for various CAL and NT Servers - they tend to spend more money on my cool database applications. Less money going to Billionaire Bill means more for me.
Re:Business + religion = boring? (Score:2, Insightful)
If some meteor hits the earth, and Linux really does become the desktop of ubiquity, something will be lost.
The geek qualities of linux will never be lost as long as there are alternative distributions. As long as someone wants Linux to be a geek toy- it will be. use Debian.
Re:Microsoft Haters (Score:2)
Don't bother.
"..Microsoft Haters.."
Damn straight...
Shoo, M$FT troll...
t_t_b
Re:Conspiracy! (Score:2)
They _do_ exist, and took down RaiseTheFist.com, too...
Re:Clarkson "server" win wasn't just "a server" (Score:2)
I wonder if they would end up offering opportunities for open source freeware developers to do testing of their packages in a zSeries environment in a way that IBM failed to do with their highly restricted and limited program.