02.22.08
Mark Shuttleworth’s Stance on Mono Inside Ubuntu
Mark Shuttleworth, whom we have great respect for after maintaining his stern stance against intimidation tactics, has responded to our concerns regarding the existence of Mono in Ubuntu. His message to us was CC’d to the Technical Board and the leader of Fedora. It would be worth bringing it to our readers’ attention because some were concerned (if not outraged) about the subject.
Hi Roy
At this stage we see no significant issues with patents and Mono. There is a risk of a patent claim against almost any component of Ubuntu - across every jurisdiction in which Ubuntu ships, the patent minefield is too complex. Our view is that we can deal with patent suits if they arise, but removing or re-engineering the relevant components.
“We cannot live in fear of that threat, we can only respond to it as an when it arises.”Yesterday’s announcement from Microsoft suggests that they have come round to the view that patent litigation is not an effective strategy for them.
The real patent risk to free software, in my view, is not a large-scale industry participant like SONY or IBM or Microsoft, instead it is a small, hard-to-identify patent holder who does not actually need to get products out the door. We cannot live in fear of that threat, we can only respond to it as an when it arises.
I don’t mean to undermine the good work that you do in reminding people of the risks, but only to say that we have discussed this in Ubuntu and are confident that the course we are on is a reasonable one.
Mark
Woods said,
February 22, 2008 at 6:18 am
Well that is definitely a relief to hear. I think Mr. Shuttleworth has a definite point in that we shouldn’t live in fear of patents. This is the FOSS-side of things after all; is there anything we can’t rewrite if some patent-troll comes calling? On a more somber note, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance - Jefferson”, which makes sites such as this so valuable (I guess its safe to say that people at least are aware of the Mono-problem…)
I seem to recall reading once an article (in Linux Format) where Mr. Shuttleworth was mentioned as saying that Microsoft was more sinned against than sinning when it comes to patents (meaning that Microsoft has itself suffered from patent-trolling and would do more so in the future) Could Microsofts new announcement mean that, at least when it comes to patents, the business side and FOSS side will finally start standing together against patent-trolling? (My heady optimism is probably explained by the beautiful day outside…)
Bootnote: I’m still keeping Mono far away from my system. Luckily projects like Xesam make this easier (giving the boot for Beagle…)
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 22, 2008 at 6:34 am
Woods, Mono has problems other than software patents. I shall post a new article about it in about 10 minutes.
Victor Soliz said,
February 22, 2008 at 8:01 am
I think there are flaws in MONO’s design, if the intention was really to make a dev platform and not a way of porting .net apps to other operating systems, then I think keeping the .exe and .dll on it was a very bad idea, right now MONO apps force the OS to start to look a lot like windows.
I think MONO would have been great without OS devs using their time to aid silverlight and without those terrible ideas, there was no reason to copy .net’s implementation, free software could have done something better than .net instead of blindly copying it.
Victor Soliz said,
February 22, 2008 at 8:04 am
Right now, I am starting to think we can’t fight the beast. What Mark is saying is that we shouldn’t limit ourselves for fears of Microsoft, perhaps he is right. I think, instead of fighting mono we shall start to make mono more ours than MS’, fixing that .exe / .dll stuff would be the start, the problem is that we would need mono devs’ help to do it, and they do seem to behave too pro Microsoft (I mean, the whole moonlight debacle is ridiculous). Perhaps a fork…
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 22, 2008 at 8:11 am
With all due respect to your good arguments, I think you’re absolutely backward on this one. Microsoft is, for all I can tell, is in a terrible shape (posted half an hour ago) not just because of FOSS, which has its growing pains such as Mono, but also because of Google and other disruptive attack vectors. Hang in there and see how things flip over.
remi said,
February 23, 2008 at 1:50 am
I’m not sure if the readers of this blog are mostly opensource users/advocates or developers … but I would be interested to know how most developers feel re: mono in linux, versus general users.
I’m not saying that the issues aren’t worth thinking about … but I *greatly* enjoy being able to choose my own development platform (linux) when I have to code using .NET.
A lot of companies code in .NET as it’s an industry “standard,” kindof like Java. It’s “tried and true.” I, personally, love being able to code in .NET on linux - and totally free!
You have to remember that most of mono is build on top of open ECMA specs … making it a perfectly legal implementation. The only questionable bits are things like ADO.NET and Windows.Forms.
I haven’t coded in .NET in awhile, but I love the fact that I can whip up a quick script/app, compile to an .exe, and email it to someone who’s on a Windows box. (there might be some issues compiling to bytecode using mono and using the windows .NET runtime … but it always works fine for me)
Just my $0.02
P.S. .NET has created a big community of (truly) open source Microsoft programmers … there are way more open source .NET projects (GPL compatible, etc, not weird MS licenses) than any other Microsoft technology has created, that I can think of. I don’t remember lots of open source VB apps / libraries. Hell, it became popular enough that there have been *multiple* open source cross-platform implementations!!! (mono wasn’t the first/only project, and it wasn’t always under Novell, either) How evil does _that_ sound???
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 23, 2008 at 2:19 am
remi,
You raise a valid point, but be aware that the issue here is the incorporation of Mono as part of the base (or core) of GNU/Linux distributions, not the use of Linux for .NET development.
ue said,
February 23, 2008 at 5:16 am
I think he does the right thing in not worrying too much, any software of any significance can be attacked by patent trolls.
However, I don’t think mono is such a good idea. It will always chase the tail of Microsoft .Net. It would be better to go for java, that now is fully open source if you want a managed language. It is already available on more platforms than mono, and if you really need to integrate with .Net it have good tools to do that too. The java development and specification process have been much more open than that of .Net even during the closed source days of Java. This means that going with java will make FOSS much more in control, than if you get too much involved with mono and corresponding Microsoft technologies.
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 23, 2008 at 5:38 am
Read this post from yesterday. It’s not really just about patents.
paul said,
February 23, 2008 at 7:14 am
Why do we need MONO or NET at all?
Java is much more Enterprise ready than MS NET and MONO.NET. NET is nothing more than a clone of Java in 90% of its respects, Even the damn libraries names are the same. Just substitute java/javax for System., etc.
The danger is choosing any MS based technology is that we are feeding the beast and sooner or later, you will get eaten!!
Why in the world would anyone who desires an Open System choose to use a technology that is controlled by a singel entity (I mean the NET specs, not the Mono Project itself).
Unless you want to be a MS propeller head, jst say “NO” to MS and MS based technologies.
Randeep Jalli said,
February 23, 2008 at 7:34 am
Personally I maintain my position, (IIRC) Ubuntu has signed NO agreement with Microsoft shielding its users from the risk of litigation wrt Mono. I think its is important that what Mr. Shuttleworth is relying on here is a gentleman’s agreement. Microsoft has been known to use this kind of tactic to try and beat out or “extinguish” competition in the past. Just google “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish” this could very well be another attempt to do the same kind of thing. Until and Unless microsoft issues a statement to the affect that it WILL NOT sue users who have mono installed on their system I will not install any of the mono libraries on my computer. Just relying on the fact that they have been sued by patent trolls, and do not want to have it happen again out of the goodness of their hearts, is very irresponsible and goes against what Microsoft is, a COMPANY. Just like any company they are here to make money and if enough linux users install Mono and they see that they may be able to litigate a business model suprise:THEY WILL DO IT(or at least their shareholders will force them to ).
While Mono may be a clean implementation of .Net, just remember that Windows Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET are PROPRIETARY WINDOWS COMPONENTS. That was(probably) the reason for the Novell-Microsoft agreement. As far as “living in fear” some times it may be a good thing, it keeps children from putting their hands on hot stoves.Microsoft is a VERY litigous company and although they may try and make it look otherwise DONT FORGET THAT.
Mike said,
February 23, 2008 at 7:35 am
“Java is much more Enterprise ready than MS NET and MONO.NET.”
Java has serious problems in areas such as generics, value types, native code bindings, and native GUIs. And if you have been following the Java news recently, even the Java community is mighty unhappy with the recent language development.
Besides, what makes you think Java is patent-free and unencumbered? Sun has numerous patents, and they have been blocking attempts at independent implementations any way they can. If you want Java, Sun’s shitty implementation is your only option.
Come up with something better than Mono if you can and if you like, but Java is not the answer, Java is a disaster.
“Why in the world would anyone who desires an Open System choose to use a technology that is controlled by a singel entity”
Mono is its own project, and Mono desktop apps on Linux generally don’t use dotNet technologies.
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 23, 2008 at 9:04 am
I might be repeating this for like the 20th time in this Web site alone, but it’s important. Remember that Novell paid for Mono ‘protection’, whereas Linspire and Xandros appear not to have received any. The deals are not identical and there is a lot more to be said about clues and things to come (w.r.t. Mono). I don’t trust Microsoft’s ‘goodwill’ (giving away its so-called IPR). History tells us we mustn’t trust them blindly. This suspicion (caution rather) which works against Microsoft’s invitations is simply well earned due to past deeds. Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on me.
When Sun resorts to malicious prosecution, give me a shout
:-)
For all I know, back in May 2007 when Microsoft assaulted Linux with unsubstantiated threats, Sun went out of its way to offer its patents, in case Linux requires them as a defensive tool.
Rambo Tribble said,
February 23, 2008 at 10:04 am
Really, the only justification for Mono is for it to be used in a shop;s transitioning away from .Net to a true open environment. That is, however, an extremely valid justification.
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 23, 2008 at 10:12 am
This, I suppose, was the raison d’être, but I am most worried to see that Novell is actually teaching children how to program in Mono (.NET) instead of teaching them something like C++ or Java.
Rob said,
February 23, 2008 at 6:36 pm
There are three ideas here:
one - that mono is a bad technology and there are better choices
two - that the implementation of mono is less than what it could be
three - that mono is based on .Net which a Microsoft technology and we all know that anything having to do with Microsoft is evil and must be banned or we will all be borged
idea one - that mono is a bad technology and there are better choices: well guess what: technology like everything else will either find a market or die. Mono has found a number of uses that the programmers could not find anything that would work for them (game scripting) and some very good applications have been developed like beagle and some others come to mind. In the case of the scripting engine: nother else could be found and in the case of the applications: mono enabled the programmers to realize their ideas is programs that enriched society (and yes the OSS communities).
idea two - the implementation o mono is less than perfect: well this is open to opinion. The original developers of the project want to create a bridge tools set that support developers to be able to provide solutions that span Windows, Linux, and Mac OSX and other platforms and with they have and some success. To change the underlying implementation would be invalidate the whole premise for having mono and yes some might want this there is a small and possibly growing number of users that need/want this.
idea three - is the old Microsoft is bad argument which is getting old. we need to get over this and get on with building new and innovative software and systems.
What I think is that if mono enables programmers to develop innovative software and/or systems this is a good thing. If there are patents then let the mono team know and they will change the mono tools to make sure there is not a problem and the religion - well leave it at the door when MS (or a number of other players) tries to pull a fast one then we can deal with it. We spend way to much time and energy on worrying about “The Evil Empire” and not enough about creating new and innovative software.
Go forward - explorer create new things and remember “keep your powder dry” you never know when you will need it!
Dan O'Brian said,
February 23, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Rob: precisely.
If Roy spent half the time he spends writing anti-this and anti-that articles and spent it instead of improving Linux software (be it KDE, GNOME, whatever), he would be a lot closer to realising his ultimate goal of the world being able to free itself from Microsoft than he is now.
If the Linux software isn’t ready for a mass influx of technically non-savvy Windows users to use, then they won’t come. All the finger pointing, mud slinging and propaganda in the world isn’t going to change that.
(Note: personally I feel that Linux software is very close if not already ready for the average non-tech savvy Windows user, but there are always improvements that can be made to make it even easier for them).
Dan O'Brian said,
February 23, 2008 at 7:09 pm
er, my first paragraph should say:
“If Roy spent half the time he spends writing anti-this and anti-that articles and instead spent his time improving Linux software (be it KDE, GNOME, whatever), he would be a lot closer to realising his ultimate goal of the world being able to free itself from Microsoft than he is now.”
Meaning… if Roy spent 8 hours a day working on improving software and 8 hours a day advocating Linux instead of spending 16 hours per day writing anti-this and anti-that articles, we would be closer to victory over Microsoft than we are now (how much closer depends on how talented a programmer Roy actually is).
gary g said,
February 23, 2008 at 7:42 pm
>Yesterday’s announcement from Microsoft suggests
>that they have come round to the view that patent
> litigation is not an effective strategy for them.
What has flyboy been smoking?
I’ve read the agreement and dont see any signs of that.
There is a lot of PR BS which tries to make it seem like it but its like trying to squint at 3am in the bar and trying to make yourself believe that the willdebeast at the end of the bar doesnt look like Karl Malden.
If you want to believe that, its your choice but this week’s announcement was nothing more than spinning a decision they lost and have to respect.
Of course, the EU answered right back with “We will believe when we see it. You tried to pull the same stunt 4 times before.”
And Roy hits it right on the nose:
“…but be aware that the issue here is the incorporation of Mono as part of the base (or core) of GNU/Linux distributions, not the use of Linux for .NET development.”
Personally, I dont trust Miguel “OOXML is a superb standard” Icaza because of many of his stances. He’s tried so hard to be Microsoft that he seems to be suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Of course, he is also a di**..
Exe, DLL, the only missing now is ActiveX…yum.
Dan O'Brian said,
February 23, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Resorting to personal attacks now, are we?…
Oh wait, I forgot that it’s different when Roy and his ilk do it…
no said,
February 23, 2008 at 8:52 pm
If we spent more time on developing great software based around pure open source frameworks and libraries, we wouldn’t be having this argument and Microsoft would be playing catch up to us.
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 23, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I don’t approve such language (in fact, Groklaw would have deleted such a comment, but we have no censorship here).
There’s no ‘ilk’, so please stop pretending there’s a ‘cult-like’ activity. The only grouping that I see here is one of Mono developers who essentially do a denial of service attack in the comments.
That is the classic line I’ve been hearing for like… forever, whenever the subject of Mono comes up.
Your argument is of course valid and difficult to challenge, but it becomes a problem when you have the so-called ‘Mono stuff’ and so-called ‘non-Mono stuff’ competing against each other for inclusion. It ought to be agreed what we want the Free desktop to be and then work together rather than unproductively reinvent the wheel.
Jose_X said,
February 24, 2008 at 12:14 am
The more dot net there is, the better off Microsoft is and the worse off Microsoft competitors are.
The better off Microsoft is the worse off FOSS is. Microsoft’s closed source monopoly platforms need to be unmonopolized. Mono helps keep them strong when the mono apps are directed at the general FOSS group instead of at those coding on MS dotnet.
Anyone that downplays Microsoft’s closed source monopolies has their cards on Microsoft’s side.
Maybe I will elaborate later, but this is getting stupid.
I’ve been writing a lot recently, and I want to take a break (not to mention I am very busy on weekends) http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-02-22-017-26-OP-MS-DV-0001 .
Happy said,
February 24, 2008 at 2:19 am
I don’t really care if people choose to use Mono or not. My personal choice is not to use it. I believe that in the long run it is not going to be a good thing for FOSS.
I use Fedora and it is easy for me to just remove the offending package and anything that depends on it. I assume Ubuntu users can do the same.
I guess if Gnome or Fedora ever gets to the point where Mono is a required package, then I’ll move to something else.
soot said,
February 24, 2008 at 4:47 am
>I don’t approve such language (in fact, Groklaw would have
>deleted such a comment, but we have no censorship here).
Roy, you didn’t even notice, but Dan has parodied your own language. You are constantly attacking pro-Mono posters here as being Microsoft’s ilk. Which I see as much more of an insult than what Dan has written.
Live by your own standards, Roy.
soot said,
February 24, 2008 at 4:49 am
Dunno about the censorship-bit, either…
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 24, 2008 at 4:54 am
Please show me where I said or insinuated this. I have not a doubt in my mind that this is false, but other people who comment here or send me E-mails call Mono programmers all sorts of things. I don’t do this myself. If you choose to characterise myself based on content added by others to the site, then you’re just asking me to delete comments, which we never do (neither me nor Shane).
The question to ask here is this: does one maintain (and also define) a high standard by removing poor content (censorship) or maintaining integrity by avoiding censorship? Groklaw is sometimes criticised for banning disruptive users and deleting rude comments. So which is it?
soot said,
February 24, 2008 at 5:28 am
Well, since you asked for it:
“It was nowhere. Microsoft uses GNOME and Novell (via de Icaza and ilk) to boast pseudo-support of OOXML. ” (boycottnovell.com/2008/01/01/novell-praises-patent-deal/)
“The Register would retain someone of your ilk for any purpose other than humour.” (boycottnovell.com/2007/03/page/2/)
And countless ones where you called Novell and other companies MS’ ilk.
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 24, 2008 at 5:49 am
Mono or Novell ilk, not Microsoft ilk. Big difference!
Did you follow the link? It’s not me who said this. It was quoted, i.e. someone else’s words.
soot said,
February 24, 2008 at 8:13 am
That makes a world of difference, certainly. How about your frequent insult of pro-Mono posters that they are Microsoft’s ’shills’?!? I’m sure you didn’t mean to insult anyone with that, either?
Dan O'Brian said,
February 24, 2008 at 8:22 am
Roy, it’s clear that all your ranting about Mono in GNOME isn’t going to change anything. The GNOME devs ignore you, Mark Shuttleworth ignores you, the Fedora project ignores you as do many other projects/groups.
Who have you convinced to reject Mono? Anyone beyond a half-dozen ignorant users? Doubtful.
I laughed so hard when Mark Shuttleworth responded to your whining.
Oh well, this arguing was fun while it lasted but I think it’s time I get back to work poisoning GNOME with this Mono disease.
Good luck trying to fight it…
Roy Schestowitz said,
February 24, 2008 at 9:36 am
And once again you put fake words right inside my mouth. I never said this. This recurrence of misattribution is getting tedious. See this recent incident. You make stuff up to provoke and incite people against me. That’s not fair.
False, false and false. With the exception of Mono developers (whom I never contacted), none of them ignores me. Please get your facts straight. Thank you.
Again you are trying to mock me without having any information about my inbox. There are actually some vice presidents of very large companies who appreciate my endeavours which involve combating market abuse.
The issue was raised in the GNOME Foundation’s mailing list and ended with a promise (from Shaw, IIRC) that Novell will be asked to abstain from making GNOME dependent on Mono or strategise on it like it did. I can’t recall the exact details, but I could recheck. The issue was actually raised there by ’some guy’ called Richard Stallman.
I didn’t laugh. He’s a great person and he doesn’t ignore my mail. Whether he agrees with all my convictions is a separate matter altogether.
soot said,
February 24, 2008 at 10:53 am
>There are actually some vice presidents of very large companies
>who appreciate my endeavours which involve combating market >abuse.
HAHAHAHA; oh sure company vice presidents sent encouraging letters to young Roy here…!
Yeah, sure…
Mark Shuttleworth sent you an e-mail made from the template for answering the thousand weirdo-mails he receives every day, and you take that as an encouraging sign, huh?
Well, if it keeps you happy that you can lie to yourself about your total insignificance I guess that is probably all the better for you.
Jose_X said,
February 24, 2008 at 1:35 pm
soot, why would you be so agitated if roy’s writing was that insignificant?
Though it’s difficult to prove lots of things one way or the other, Novell’s, Miguel’s, etc comments are the ones that tend to be the most controversial and removed from reality (I think because they are not being honest with their intentions and real beliefs).
Fact is there are many platforms and languages you can use to build great applications. In all the years that mono has been around I have not seen Linux (OS) go from garbage to wonder on account of mono as one might be tempted to conclude might happen if one had been paying attention all of these years to what was being said by Miguel and others (I am only looking at bits and pieces that have made headlines and been repeated by apparent mono supporters; I don’t follow Miguel’s blog or anything like that).
Fact is that Novell has positioned itself to benefit financially from the growth of the mono/dotnet world. Miguel and all others associated with Novell are speaking to their paycheck and heavens knows what other potential future financial gains when they praise dotnet. Whether they would be correct or not, the fact is that they are speaking to their paycheck. The center of the main bridge from FOSS to Microsoft platforms is Novell (look at the IP they own and the deals they have struck). Novell has no interest in upsetting Microsoft (taking food from Microsoft’s table). In fact, they may be bound not to take any of certain actions against Microsoft (without Microsoft approval or prompt) while instead engaging in others. Meanwhile, Novell is likely to get a nicer deal in the future if the FOSS dotnet mono world grows to any significance. Unquestionably then, Novell and those closely associated with Novell fall well short of being disinterested bystanders.
Furthermore, Novell has shown others how they too can benefit from a lucrative Microsoft deal. Help Microsoft at the expense of those things hurting Microsoft (yeah, Red Hat.. sure… more like the uncontrolled FOSS community but let’s point the finger at a large commercial entity for obvious reasons) and you get some money and power. Sell FOSS up the river for a pie from Microsoft’s table.
I am not saying anyone in particular is thinking of selling FOSS out, but we wary because naturally anyone with those intentions (at least should push turn into shove) will still say that they “tricked” Microsoft into a deal that hurts Microsoft. Microsoft’s plan may backfire, but it will be in spite of these deals.
Dotnet is a platform. It requires a lot of mental commitment to code for it (true of any major platform). That is a valuable gain to Microsoft who controls that platform’s destiny and has the top tools for dotnet development, and whose survival ultimately depends on many developers coding for their platform over the platform of others. With the ton that Microsoft has on the line and invested in dotnet, the best the wider FOSS community could do to help break up Microsoft’s stranglehold on the industry would be to ignore dotnet completely and continue making Linux (and other open platforms) as great as possible as fast as possible.
However, mono is a clone of an MS platform. To make it “ours” we’d have to start by no longer following Microsoft’s lead in any of the specs associated with dotnet. We’d also take some other steps, too. If we don’t do this but instead spread MS dotnet (through eg mono), we get a bunch of devs that are capable and want to code in dotnet but we can never compete in that domain against Microsoft. This makes it easier for Microsoft to end up with a lot of devs that will be able to make Vista and other platforms strong on account of the many FOSS apps that work there. This makes it easier for these devs to “tell” themselves in the future that working on MS platforms (like Vista) directly with MS tools (like MSVisStu) that will be superior on that platform is “OK”, especially as jobs grow in that area and disappear in other areas.. again giving MS tremendous strength. You can’t out dotnet MS because they set the standard.
And you can’t beat MS on Vista no way no how as long as Vista is closed source or even were it to become fake open source (”open source” not buildable and usable by others).
[Being Microsoft for a minute...] To fight FOSS you need a multi-pronged approach. Patents are one of these things (something that the very wealthy Shuttleworth could resolve for Canonical whatever day of the year he wanted.. at such time leaving a bunch of small independent developers out in the cold (unless it was a deal that solved everything for everyone)). You naturally need a lot of coders coding to your platform’s spec. You also need to make sure that Linux and competing platforms (this is the war MS must win to stay in control) cannot have anything interesting and significant that is lacking in Vista and other relevant MS platforms; hence, you want all interesting FOSS to run on Vista and you want (ideally) all the FOSS devs working in a way where Vista never stays behind. Furthermore, if the devs code for your dotnet platform (ideally everyone) then you gain several things. The devs are somewhat stuck in their position because shifting API etc is not an easy thing to do. Simultaneously all other platforms are suffering, in particular, commercial companies for java, lamp, etc suffer and are easier to be bought out or have them come to Microsoft with hat in hand. As jobs grow in that area and others wither, many of these devs really become stuck. MS gains power over everyone and real FOSS bit rots and/or becomes illegal or its user and developer base become marginalized and stigmatized. Anything related to MS assets (eg, certifications and hardware) goes up in value further giving MS leverage. Real FOSS loses the support of (dying) Red Hat and many others that do really contribute to a clean FOSS. Part of the marginalization is when it becomes clear (in that hypothetical future) that you can’t really make a living on FOSS or find top quality business tools there (at least not with the completely free non-MS stuff), and gains in hardware support will take leaps backwards. … OH, make sure some key players and technologies stay in your corner, for example, buy off Novell so that as many bridges as possible to MSland continue to be maintained for all time (and Novell’s job is easier and cost efficient if the greater FOSS community will just play along).
With this background, here is my view on Microsoft’s recent spec “gift” to us http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080221092839846 . It’s a long reply in the comments section of the MS announcement article Andy Updegrove wrote a few days back http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080221092839846 . You can also find that same “Where’s the beef?” comment here http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_management/2008022102126OPMS
The best way to break the Monopolist’s stangle hold is to work on Linux/free platforms, taking advantage of the *specifics* that that platform has to offer (at least at the POSIX, LSB, etc level) and let Vista and all things MS rot. MS by themselves cannot compete with us. They have had a huge lead, but the lead has been disappearing fast, even with the current helping hand Novell and others are giving to Microsoft today.
Though this should not necessarily be the case under ideal situations (if we could ignore the MS mononpoly context), unfortunately, I think mono is like a plague to a healthy independent FOSS community, and patents are just a small part of the reason why. Yet in the patents arena by itself, we have more trouble than is worth the trouble. Novell will continue to make sure that mono follows MS’s dotnet without straying and each time getting deeper into territory where MS is more likely to have crucial/key/road-block patents making it all the more unlikley that anyone can leverage or use mono apps in the future when mono would hypothetically deviate from the standard, the standard MS feeds to the world as strategy dictates. The ability to work around a patent diminishes the further you follow a long a particular path that is set up with traps. It’s the accidentally violated patents the ones that most tend to have work arounds (or be bogus or too general), and we know MS will likely make a conscious and very serious effort to set up traps that will be as difficult to bypass as possible. For example, imagine if one fine day you/mono decide not to follow dotnet spec (and so lose patent inmunity), you will likely find that the most fundamental aspects of dotnet are patented. Sure, you may find a work around to a subset of these, but… well, my point is that you will then be hooked and bobwired, and it will be much less painful (short-term) to just let yourself be reeled in further than to fight. Why set FOSS back years? Why give Microsoft many extra years of monopoly control? [I am speaking to those that don't have MS $$$ on the line.]
Without sites like boycottnovell, the actions and intentions of some of these players dealing closely with Microsoft would not be as clear and as widely known.
And one more thing, remember that many commercial companies want to beat Microsoft, but they can take advantage of a slow dying Microsoft to help keep FOSS somewhat under control without (they hope) losing the (unpaid and cooperating) support of the very community they would not mind seeing under control. I say this not pointing fingers but so that the developers and the end users keep their eyes open and a salt shaker handy. The community of the non commercial (or small to medium independent or non profit or gov, etc) players (the bulk of us) are what make FOSS the asset that it is to customers and developers everywhere, and, certainly, within the commercial world, there will be those that do not care about too much more beyond their bank accounts. Maybe in 4 year’s time Novell will do the right thing and not sign another so MS friendly deal. [But buying people off can happen very transparently, so we should focus on what is going on and not who signed what.]
In any case, let’s not help out Microsoft, and let’s remove the Microsoft temptation as quickly as possible. Anything slower in removing them than very fast is taking too many risks for my level of comfort. Why tempt businesses to sell us short?
Also, let’s not get carried away helping to create situations whose threat level will only be clear once the Monopoly is removed.
RlillySR said,
February 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm
No matter how one looks at Mono, the community is potentially opening themselves up to all of problems. The only result is it weakens us.
We are much better off developing our own technology/software to bridge gaps. We should start focusing on FSF high priorty projects like DotGNU Project (Free Software for Webservices and for C# Programming) http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/ and others to put ourselves in a much more powerful position long term.
Victor Soliz said,
February 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm
And so does .net, specially on “native GUIs” , .net does not specify any way to use that, there are gtk# and qt# , bindings for gtk and qt, but if you were to use those you could also use the Java equivalents, both are as pointless.
Or, do you think gnome’s apps use windows.forms? .net is as backward with GUI as Java is, or it is worse considering that it is illegal to use windows.forms outside of Microsoft’s .net. ( Yeah, not even the vague “promise” allows you to do that).
Victor Soliz said,
February 24, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Such a relief…
This is the reason I say we stay with C++ , python, ruby and so many true open source platforms, at least for things for gnome or KDE considering they are the core of open source right now, it does not make any sense to use other things.
Could at least show a little comon sense and get rid of abominations such as .exe and .dll , really.
soot, Dan: Trolling is not welcome, how about you find yourself a real job? Advocating someone’s agenda on the internet doesn’t sound like a great thing to explain to someone on your first date, regardless of how much money they pay you, it is not worth it.
–
I am not sure if this was referring to my posts. Anyways, would like to make some clarifications.
Should still fight MONO implementation on default gnome apps, it does not make any sense to let it happen, should at least be verbose and not let this happen smoothly.
Ubuntu is not going to remove MONO, (not a reason to stop insisting over Mark, might one day help him decide to pick another desktop if Gnome gets too extremist) simply because Canonical doesn’t tend to modify gnome from mainstream a lot, and would be a lot of work to try to battle MONO apps that got feature boosts through Novell (A company that is