Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Richard Stallman Says No To Mono

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the therefore-not-a-monomaniac dept.

GNU is Not Unix 1008

twitter writes "There's been a lot of fuss about mono lately. After SCO and MS suing over FAT patents, you would think avoiding anything MS would be a matter of common sense. RMS now steps into the fray to warn against a serious mistake: 'Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C#, leads the community in a risky direction. It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use. .... This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. ... [writing and using applications in mono] is taking a gratuitous risk.'" Update: 06/27 20:22 GMT by T : Read on below for one Mono-eschewing attempt at getting the (excellent) Tomboy's functionality, via a similar program called Gnote. Update: 06/27 21:07 GMT by T: On the other side of the coin, reader im_thatoneguy writes "Jo Shields, a Mono Developer, has published an article on 'Why Mono Doesn't Suck,' why it is not a threat to FOSS, why it is desirable to developers and why it should be included in Ubuntu by default."LastGuyonEarth writes "Gnote was started on April 2009 by Gnome developer Hubert Figuiere, known also for his work on Abiword. The goal of Gnote is to provide a Free Software implementation of Tomboy that doesn't rely on Mono. The ultimate goal is to replace Tomboy in an effort to make Gnome and GNU/Linux distributions non-dependant on Novell's implementation of Microsoft's .NET platform. For our testing purposes, I installed Gnote 0.5.1 on Ubuntu Jaunty through a personal PPA, but I would love to see it officially packaged in the near future."

cancel ×

1008 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mono post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496243)

Please don't use me.

"M$" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496257)

Wow, what are you, four years old? Is it really that hard to just use Microsoft?

Where is the editor to edit this graffiti out? This crap does not belong on the front page of news site at all.

Re:"M$" (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496291)

Wow, what are you

He was one and he was many... ;)

Re:"M$" (0, Redundant)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496299)

Sla$hdot makes money from adsense and other advertising, in order to make more money they need to bait readers in, i hope this site doesnt sell out altogether like tâchcrunch tho...

Re:"M$" (2, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496301)

Well, it is from Twitter. So you're close. Hi twit! Glad to see you back with you're insightful erudite expositions.

Re:"M$" (1, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496589)

OMFG, he used a $ for an S in MS! That's wonderful news. Instead of discussing the point he brought up, we can just complain about the $ and dismiss his criticism of Microsoft.

It might be childish to use M$, but it's more childish still to dismiss his argument because of it.

Why is my articul in red (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496267)

it's all red on teh slashdot front page =(

easy solution (5, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496269)

rename it to GNU/Mono

Stallman also says no to web browsing (3, Interesting)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496333)

Stallman also says no to web browsing. [lwn.net]

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496465)

I would think that Stallman could spell "daemon" correctly, or does he really have Satan's minions working for him?

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496611)

Daemon simply means demon in mythology so I would bet in his eyes the term is interchangeable, it is in mine.

Re:Stallman also says no to web browsing (5, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496583)

Stallman also says no to web browsing.

No he doesn't. As the linked post says, he doesn't browse the web for PERSONAL REASONS. That's a completely different thing than advocating against using software that is patent bait.

He also doesn't belive in "root" (3, Informative)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496585)

Why GNU su does not support the wheel group (by Richard Stallman)

Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest. For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and keep- ing it secret from everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.)

However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual su mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with the ordinary users, he can tell the rest. The "wheel group" feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers.

I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find this idea strange at first.

su manpage - GNU Shell Utilities [freebsd.org]

Re:easy solution (1)

vivin (671928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496487)

Does that mean that by using GNU/Mono, we'd all suffer from GNU/Monia?

*ducks

MS not M$ (5, Insightful)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496279)

WTF is up with these editorialized summaries. The abbreviation is MS, or Microsoft if you prefer the long hand. Let people form their own opinion without stupid name calling.

Re:MS not M$ (0)

maxrate (886773) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496319)

Agreed - especially when people are so proud of NOT being 'biased' !

Re:MS not M$ (1)

flannelboy (344272) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496443)

Technically, it's MSFT. MS is Morgan Stanley.

Re:MS not M$ (0)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496559)

Don't be absurd. Slashdot has always had a clear and admitted linux/anit-microsoft bias.

Re:MS not M$ (1)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496329)

Surprising, not posted by Kdawson.

Re:MS not M$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496331)

I only come to Slashdot anymore to laugh at the constant anti-Microsoft circle jerk that the zealots enjoy spending their days partaking in.

It's really not the same site that it used to be.

Re:MS not M$ (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496425)

Yeah... There used to be much less M$ and Apple fanboys. And all in all much less lamers. Sigh...

Re:MS not M$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496367)

People with Multiple Sclerosis are offended that you want to associate them with Microsoft.

Re:MS not M$ (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496475)

Just in case you missed the picture of the borg Bill Gates? It's not like Slashdot has ever made an attempt at passing itself off as objective. It's a great way to blow off steam after having to spend the whole day working with Microsoft products.

Hopefully people around here can form their own opinion even WITH stupid name calling.

Famous M$ technologies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496561)

M$ Mono -- bringing M$ Conficker, Nimbda and Slammer to Linux.

Re:MS not M$ (4, Informative)

timothy (36799) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496617)

You're right.

I didn't catch that in the original submission; thanks for seeing it.

timothy

Icon at the top of the page? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496281)

Can someone tell me what the icon is supposed to be for GNU is Not Unix??

Re:Icon at the top of the page? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496477)

A gnu [wikipedia.org] with a security blanket [wikipedia.org] .

Great (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496283)

Now we must obey. Gus has spoken.

Fortunately, noone care about this fossil anymore.

Be free. Use WHATEVER you want.

Stallmans just mad because (4, Funny)

doas777 (1138627) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496297)

he can't make us call it "gnu-mono", so it must be bad.

Yup (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496305)

I tend to think of Stallman as a bit of a nut, but I pretty much hold the same view of Mono. It's a trojan horse.

Re:Yup (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496339)

You meant: its a trap!

Yes it is.

Re:Yup (1)

Livius (318358) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496599)

Why else did Microsoft put so much effort into plagiarizing Java?

Stallman Says No To Mono (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496311)

...yes to AID$.

Microsoft, I said NO! (4, Insightful)

eyepeepackets (33477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496315)

It's absurd that Stallman has to actually issue this warning considering Microsoft's history of behavior not only with competition but with their business associates as well. Anyone who has been both alive and conscious these past twenty-five years knows forming any sort of relationship with Microsoft, either directly or indirectly, customer or partner, is just asking for a raping.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO! (-1, Flamebait)

Kenja (541830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496355)

He doesn't "have" to other then because of a deep need for attention.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO! (3, Insightful)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496407)

Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of. I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously? Comparing them to rape? Grow up.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO! (1, Insightful)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496497)

MS' treatment of open-source, calling it a virus, massively downplaying it, then stealing it and slapping their own licence on top of it, well, thats rape in my book.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO! (5, Informative)

weav (158099) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496581)

Ask Spyglass, the company from which MS "licensed" what became MSIE, whether they felt raped when MS started giving away MSIE thus rendering the royalties to Spyglass $0.00 (plus the minumum quarterly fee)...

Maybe as a customer you haven't had anything to rape you for aside from license fees for products. If you were a developer / business partner, I suspect you would say differently.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO! (0)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496609)

I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously? Comparing them to rape? Grow up.

I know it all sorts of fun and games to bash people for semantics on slashdot, but seriously? Complaining about a common colloquialism? Grow up.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO! (0, Troll)

Trillan (597339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496413)

That's the point. He doesn't "have to." Every techie (possibly except him, though I doubt it) understood this years ago. By saying this now, though, he gets attention.

Stallman feeds from attention.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO! (1)

ammorais (1585589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496539)

If he doesn't "have to", why does Debian included Mono?

Re:Microsoft, I said NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496459)

If you want bad business partnership, look for IBM. Compared to them Microsoft are saints. What IBM does is raping even their best partners' income instantly when they smell even the tiniest bit of money in something. And they smell that often. Only a genuine psychopath forms a business alliance with IBM.

This comes from an IBM technologies consultant by the way.

Re:Microsoft, I said NO! (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496505)

Does this mean I should stop waiting for them to support OS/2?

Re:Microsoft, I said NO! (1)

MickDownUnder (627418) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496537)

What a crock.

Mono is a independent open source project. Microsoft has no real control over this code.

*IF* Microsoft tried to hijack or close down Mono, it would need to do so through the courts, when was the last time Microsoft won a case like that?

I think if Microsoft ever tried to do such a thing, the Mono community would simply do the same thing that Microsoft did to Sun's Java platform (the true origins of C#). When Sun tried to dictate control over their platform Microsoft simply stopped shipping the JVM on their OS and soon after started shipping the .NET runtime. The Mono crew would simply do the same, by simply forking and become something that is not .NET compliant,

This is simply sensless anti-MS zealotry. Applications written on Mono are no more of a risk than those written on any other platofrm

M$ ?? (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496321)

M$? Overly biased summaries are a disgrace. If you don't like a company, fine, but this kind of nonsense is just immature.

Sorry for the rant, I just simply come here for a little higher caliber discussion.

Manged Code (2, Interesting)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496335)

Just say no.

I've been writing some winforms applications and all I've got to say is "no". As a long time Qt programmer, I found winforms initially familiar, but it's got a lot of quirks that drive me nuts.

I'll stick with Qt on C++ thank you very much.

Re:Manged Code (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496571)

quirks like what?

You do realize that QT and winforms are completely different toolkits right? it should be expected that they implement functionality in different ways.

Did RMS get back on his meds? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496337)

He actually didn't make himself look like the raving lunatic he usually does. His argument is hinged on the idea that one day Microsoft is planning to ruin C# for everybody, which I don't think will happen, but he raises a valid concern nonetheless.

Also, get off it with the "M$" bullshit. Yeah, companies like money.

Re:Did RMS get back on his meds? (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496379)

You mean like APPL€?

Re:Did RMS get back on his meds? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496531)

lol, I love that.

It reminds me of the old apple logo with the scanlines. :)

Thanks for putting Stallman in the title (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496343)

That way I won't have to read the summary before knowing the article is a pile of worthless shit.

Stallman is a over-published tool. A singular view (his view) of how the computing world should operate is more dangerous than Microsoft could ever be.

Yes to Mono! (4, Insightful)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496345)

I'm a C# [doze] developer, but I'm with the Linux/GNU crowd when it comes to FOSS ideologies. Installing mono by default on all Linuxes I think is a great idea, because it gives me the opportunity to port my apps painlessly to the widest possible audience! This includes mac.

Re:Yes to Mono! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496447)

Hook. Line. and Sinker.

Re:Yes to Mono! (4, Informative)

IRWolfie- (1148617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496469)

but as stallman was saying: there is still the risk if people starting writing new apps in C# that there will be a big dependency on it which could be crippling if removed a time later

Re:Yes to Mono! (1, Offtopic)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496501)

Try removing GCC from linux ... that would effectively cripple things ya?

So? Why is he still trying to influence things? (0, Troll)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496351)

I don't get why Stallman keeps trying to influence what others choose to do with the software? Why does he feel the need to keep pushing his socialist-community-commune-communistic-leftist software agenda when it's one of the most successful models out there? I just don't get it. He's not the only voice and if they choose to add the "evil" mono to their distribution of Linix that's their choice not his. I just don't get why he keeps meddling in the affairs of others. Doesn't he have his own GNU/Linux/Hurd distribution anyway? Oh, right it's not that popular... oh well... I guess he just needs the attention or something.

I see a spectrum of various forms of open software from the locked up tight GPL crowd on through the truly free *BSD crowd to the awesomely free public domain crowd. There is room for everyone's choices just don't try to force them on everyone else.

When I used to use Bulletin Board systems to download software most of it was in the public domain. Now evil software licenses like GPL have ruined the public domain. It's quite sad to impose so many restrictions on free software.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things? (1)

doshell (757915) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496419)

When I used to use Bulletin Board systems to download software most of it was in the public domain. Now evil software licenses like GPL have ruined the public domain. It's quite sad to impose so many restrictions on free software.

I don't get why you keep trying to influence what others choose to do with the software they write. Why do you feel the need to keep pushing your GPL-is-evil-but-BSD-is-nice-and-public-domain-is-better agenda when the GPL is one of the most successful licensing models out there? I just don't get it. You're not the only voice and if someone chooses to license their own software under the GPL, that's their choice, not yours.

I just don't get why you keep meddling in the affairs of others.

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things? (-1, Troll)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496491)

Cute. But I'm not a famous person with an agenda. I'm not a person with HIS OWN OPERATING SYSTEM and many other programs under a license which HE WROTE to IMPOSE HIS WILL upon the unsuspecting masses in a duplicitous game marketed as freedom when it's really restrictions.

I'm simply a user that is fed up with all the restrictions put onto software by the likes of Stallman. I'm not forcing anyone to choose anything. I just don't like it when others tell me that good software like "mono" is evil because of it's licensing terms or some silly issue involved with it.

Yes I prefer Public Domain over BSD/MIT/Apache/... and over GPL and even GPL over Commercial but I'm not forcing that upon you. You can choose what you want doshell. That is a key difference. Stallman on the other hand goes out of his way to influence people to choose GPL, he gives talks, people fly him all over the world to opine, he gets many perks not mentioned to anyone. He is a major political advocate yet his GPL is highly successful and he continues pushing his BORG like agenda. Like Microsoft he's won already! Give it a break!

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things? (1)

ubersoldat2k7 (1557119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496557)

Won't ... feed ... the ... troll ... must ... resist!

Re:So? Why is he still trying to influence things? (1)

IRWolfie- (1148617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496493)

Thanks for the anti-stallman rant there, but I dont think he's saying Mono is "evil". Its that future lawsuits by microsoft may cause it to be removed and everything that depends on it

MS is smart enough not to do this (4, Insightful)

nateman1352 (971364) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496361)

Microsoft sueing the mono project and forcing it underground through software patents would be an enormous shoot to the foot. Mono does nothing more and proliferate the .NET platform, often at the expense of Java. The thing that Microsoft likes so much about .NET is that while mono and Portable.NET provide a way to make true cross platform apps, there are many, many Microsoft specific extensions to the core, which makes it very easy to make a .NET app that is not portable. In the late 90s Java was the same way thanks to Microsoft's JVM with builtin COM support, and various other Microsoft technologies. The Java of today however is designed in such a way that it is difficult to make a Java app that is not cross platform, which is why that hate it so much. Mono makes .NET exactly what Microsoft wants it to be, technically open yet easily locked to thier platform.

what part of mono? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496363)

What part of mono is he saying is dangerous?

the language c#?

the class library (API)?

the intermediate byte code spec?

All of the above? C'mon now. The pragmatic approach is to identify what parts of the mono project are supposedly at risk and figure out how to get around them. There are many languages that target mono. Not just C#. What about them? One could branch mono into a version that uses a completely different class lib (API) if that's the issue. One could rebuild the back end intermediate byte codes it uses to stay clear of patents if it were really necessary. All would cause pain, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

From what I understand (0, Troll)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496393)

Mono is dangerous because it isn't "DotGNU Portable.NET [gnu.org] ". In otherwords, it is dangerous because it wasn't created by the FSF.

Summary for those who didn't read it (3, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496365)

In short:

Microsoft is evil and is "probably" planning to kill every independent implementation of C#. We have no proof of this, but you have to trust us.

Also... use our C# implementation "DotGNU Portable.NET" instead [gnu.org] . We are immune to everything I just said in the article and I won't bother you with why.

In otherwords, I'm confused. Does he like C# or not? If he doesn't, why does the FSF have their own .NET implementation? What makes theirs so special?

Re:Summary for those who didn't read it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496457)

It sounds to me like he doesn't mind C# itself, he's just concerned with the fact that Mono is an implementation of something Microsoft owns a patent on and one day Microsoft might leverage that patent against anyone using it.

If that was true (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496485)

Then why is he pimping his own c# implementation [gnu.org] in the very same article? Their project sounds exactly like Mono.

It's not Debian that needs to be discouraged (1)

eugene2k (1213062) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496371)

It's GNOME. AFAIK Debian developers basically want to lessen the amount of resources devoted to repackaging GNOME.

Confused (3, Insightful)

wampus (1932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496373)

Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries, right? What exactly do you risk by using it?

Re:Confused (4, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496545)

Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries, right? What exactly do you risk by using it?

Submarine patents for one. Investment of effort into technologies where MS can break compatibility for two. Buying into standards MS has too much influence on is simply asking for them to use that influence to hurt you at a later date. After the 20th or 30th such instance you'd think people would learn to be a little less shortsighted.

Re:Confused (5, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496549)

Being owned in court by Microsoft due to patent infringement.

Or more likely, losing customers because mid development cycle Microsoft starts threatening to sue companies using Mono, as it infringes their patents.

They've rattled this sabre before.

C# / .NET is a standard (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496381)

It is not going to be revoked, it cannot be revoked.

Although initially this seems to give support to the MS platform, IMHO this is a move that will start to break the idea that to use C# one must have windows and say that you can write the same applications on linux.

Once people can write an application and deploy it anywhere, users will have real choice, even if C# isn't the best basis to stay on for life. Worry about getting users to the platform and then worry about putting the code in C/C++.

Re:C# / .NET is a standard (1)

schwaang (667808) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496569)

AIUI, Stallman's position is not against C# as a language, or implementing C# on Linux. FTA:

The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://swpat.org/ [swpat.org] and http://progfree.org./ [progfree.org.] This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.

I wish some knowledgeable folks would weigh in how possible it would actually be for MS to do this for C# in particular. (Do they already hold relevant patents?)

Whether you like MS and think Stallman needs a shave and a bath or not, it is an indisputable fact that MS has threatened to use patents against Linux in the past.

Re:C# / .NET is a standard (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496615)

The issue at hand is does microsoft have patents that could one day be used to prevent other people from implementing that standard, for whatever microsofty reason they wish. (Think MPEG, standarized but patent restricted) Some people seem to think this may be the case and are therefore concerned.

(I don't really care about .NET/Mono enough to have looked into this myself, or even really give a damn)

fatwa issued against Mono (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496385)

Check. We'll see what the other FOSS clerics say.

Java? (1)

lsdi (1585395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496391)

Ok, but what about Java? It's just a matter of time before it licensing model changes. What are we going to do? I don't think I will start coding ERP applications using C,CPP, PERL, etc. I would pretty much install Windows or something that would get the job done faster.

Re:Java? (5, Interesting)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496577)

Licensing wise, Mono and Java are fine. However, the patent arsenal for Java has been approved for use by anyone. Microsoft has not done the same with .NET.

Thus, using Mono you are in a very real situation involving IP litigation. With Java, Sun has publicly pledged anyone can use Java, so they'd be hard pressed to sue you for using it.

M$ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496395)

Who cares about linux anyway? Its like 2% of the market.. If it had been any good it should have went past Mac by now.

Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general? (5, Insightful)

jjb3rd (1138577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496399)

Mono is a free (GPL) reimplementation of commercial software. Isn't that how GNU got started in the first place? Didn't Stallman and friends reimplement the commercial Unix libraries as free (GPL) software? Wasn't he potentially violating patents? Why was it okay then when it's Unix, but not okay now when the technology came from Microsoft? Do the commercial Unix vendors holding those patents behave any differently than Microsoft (ahem SCO)? Mono is 2 generations behind Microsoft, yet has a pretty good stable offering and makes a very nice easy path for the majority of all developers in the world (WINDOWS Developers) to make the transition to Linux and GNU...this isn't something Stallman should be against, IMHO.

Re:Isn't this antithetical to GNU in general? (1)

synthespian (563437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496553)

*Good* point! But, due to the size of the members of the Church of Stallman, I'm guessing you won't be modded up.

I mean, geez, this issue has been beaten to death. Only fools would take Stallman seriously. Not even Debianites listen to him anymore wrt C#/mono.

If anything, getting away from so much C is gonna make Linux apps safer, instead of this endless stream of security bugs.

another reason:it doesn't play to Linux's strength (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496403)

Another reason to avoid Mono is that IMHO it doesn't play to Linux's strengths.

C# is almost kinda almost neat on Windows because it interacts nicely with windows's objects. On Unix/Linux where things more often communicate through pipes, streams, files, etc, it seems to me Python's a better tool for most jobs.

And another gripe with C# and .java is that they don't seem to me to ever be the best tool for a job. They're horribly inefficient to develop in (python's much better), mediocre OO languages (ruby's better), bad at doing low level stuff (C's better), etc. I'd say that Python + C extensions is a better solution for almost any problem C# can be used for except for interacting with Windows internals.

contradiction (1)

kova70 (520896) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496409)

what amazes me is that RMS is saying at the same time that it is good to have a C# implementation, but warns against writing apps in it... if not outright imbecile, that's at least a very stupid position

Re:contradiction (5, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496471)

what amazes me is that RMS is saying at the same time that it is good to have a C# implementation, but warns against writing apps in it...

Except that's not what he said. He said it's good to have an implementation but bad to include that implementation and applications that reply upon it in GnuLinux distros and components. It's akin to saying that it is good to have support for FAT filesystems in Linux, but stupid to include a FAT partition by default when installing Linux along with applications that only work on FAT.

... if not outright imbecile, that's at least a very stupid position

Not everything you don't comprehend is stupid. Sometimes, you're just a little bit stupid instead, and so misinterpret the words of others in stupid ways.

Re:contradiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496565)

Just like it's good to have Wine, but it's bad for people to write applications using Wine. Even when google made their applications available through libWine people cried about native code.

I don't see how it's different for Mono

the dangers I see (1, Troll)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496423)

I don't know if this is overreaction. But I can certainly agree with him under some circumstances.

1) Is there a licensing concern using the C# language, or any of the compiler technology? Specifically, are there any software patents that could be leveraged against the open source community for using the C# implementation that could result in a massive court action? I do not know the details of any agreements (if they exist) but knowing Microsoft's stance on OSS, there is certainly potential for future abuse. Something along the lines of "Use of C# on any non-Microsoft platform is henceforth prohibited."
2) Is C# considered an open standard? Secondly, is the specification controlled by Microsoft directly? Or, is it influenced by the communities? Java is a similar monster, but it's been my observation that Sun (Oracle) is a willing participant in the Linux/Unix space so it hasn't been such a problem. An Example here would be something like, "C# compilers and applications now depend on a library that is currently available on Windows platform, any reverse engineering or decompilation or efforts to replicate this library will result in criminal penalties."

I'm certainly hesitant to use C# in anything simply because I don't trust Microsoft. I admit it openly. It doesn't mean I won't use what they make, and I think a healthy distrust isn't always a bad thing. If I end up using anything based on C#, I'll keep it in the Windows space.

Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU... (1, Insightful)

nweaver (113078) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496431)

As much as Stallman would like to say otherwise, Linux is not GNU/Linux, and GNU is not all free software.

And lets face it, Debian has a choice:

Either not include a useful application for the sake of "purity", or include a useful runtime and applications which use it.

IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?

Re:Sorry RMS: Linux != GNU... (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496521)

IS the goal to create a useful system or a pure system?

I define useful as something that doesn't contain legal entanglements.

Richard "Dick" Stallman also says no to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496433)

Brushing his teeth
Bathing
Putting on clean clothes

Re:Richard "Dick" Stallman also says no to... (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496525)

You're bastardizing his name wrong. It's RM$.

Re:Richard "Dick" Stallman also says no to... (1)

ketilwaa (1095727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496595)

No, it's RMÂ

Re:Richard "Dick" Stallman also says no to... (1)

ketilwaa (1095727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496603)

That was supposed to be the judicial paragraph sign, but it was screwed up...

Pot calling the kettle black (4, Insightful)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496451)

GNU and GCC are just as much open source implementations of proprietary technology from convicted monopolists as Mono is. QFT [apebox.org]

Re:Pot calling the kettle black (1)

AppleOSuX (1080499) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496519)

Amen brother.

Re:Pot calling the kettle black (3, Insightful)

wampus (1932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496527)

How is this a troll? C and UNIX were both developed by an even bigger, eviler company than MS could ever hope to be.

FFS edit the summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496467)

Change the damn summary to read Microsoft, or MS. This is really, really stupid. Is slashdot's target audience 10-year olds now?

Re:FFS edit the summary (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496507)

Remember years back when the bulk of Slashdot could poke fun at Digg without being a bunch of hypocrites?

Yeah? Well...

Welcome to the new Digg.

As much as Digg was the punching bag of Slashdot for a number of years it seems that management went out of it's way to seem like Digg 2.0.

Re:FFS edit the summary (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496597)

So you don't like it when they call M$, M$?

Awesome job /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28496473)

I think /. is brilliant by posting an article from twitter. This way he can keep himself occupied by having a conversation among him and his sock puppets on this board and leave the rest of the stories alone. twitter, I hope you're having fun making points and counter-points with yourself, then modding them all insightful. What is your story dude... really?

Also, M$... what is the point of that... really? Reminds me of people calling Obama Obummer and McCain McLame. You do realize you don't do ANYTHING for your argument when you use these ridiculous word games, right?

With friends like these, who needs enemies? (2, Insightful)

ketilwaa (1095727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496543)

Interesting, compared to this [fsfe.org] which has been his comment earlier. Nice to see RMS give the Mono haters more fuel to their flame wars, so that developers can get tangled up in endless discussions about this in stead of actually hacking away. Again, this is one of the reasons GNU/Linux is not gaining more than it does. All MS needs to do in order to keep hackers busy not making great software (and cloning already great C# apps instead), is issue some kind of new vague statement on the nature of .NET. Then, we all lose. Like we've been doing since day 1. Nice. Thanks. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Stallman - growing increasingly irrelavant (1)

TheKingAdrock (834418) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496573)

Does anybody really care what he has to say about Mono & C#?

After fighting a decade+ long losing battle about Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming, he just enjoys trying to continue controlling others and telling them what to do and not do.

People don't seem to be "getting" his point... (5, Informative)

davide marney (231845) | more than 5 years ago | (#28496605)

Love him or hate him, but at least listen to what he is actually saying.

  1. He isn't saying that he doesn't "like" C#
  2. He isn't saying that he is "against" C#
  3. He isn't saying that Portable.NET is "better" than Mono
  4. He isn't saying that "just because" it's .NET, it must be teh 3vil

All he is saying is that Microsoft has already publicly claimed [cnn.com] that Linux violates a couple hundred MS patents. Recently, Microsoft invoked the Linux angle in a patent suit [cnet.com] it filed against Tom Tom.

Therefore, he says, it should be obvious to all that MS intends to enforce its patents. So, the more one uses software based on MS technologies, the more likely it is that you may be impacted by a suit in the future. He calls this a "gratuitous" risk.

Or, in his words:

The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other 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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>