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!

.Net On Android Is Safe, Says Microsoft

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the look-we're-not-as-bad-as-oracle-see dept.

Google 377

An anonymous reader writes "With Oracle suing Google over 'unofficial' support for Java in Android, Microsoft has come out and said it has no intention of taking action against the Mono implementation of C# on the Linux-based mobile OS. That's good news for Novell, which is in the final stages of preparing MonoDroid for release. Miguel de Icaza is not concerned about legal challenges by Microsoft over .Net implementations, and even recommends that Google switch from using Java. However, Microsoft's Community Promise has been criticized by the Free Software Foundation for not going far enough to protect open source implementations from patent litigation, which is at the heart of the Oracle-Google case."

cancel ×


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

Really?? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33395946)

Maybe it's another TRAP!

Re:Really?? (1, Insightful)

ccarson (562931) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396700)

The more platforms we have available as developers, the easier it is to find solutions. Being able to program in Java and .NET and mixing a system seamlessly allows for faster development and more bells and whistles. I welcome .NET on any platform because it's better at certain things over Java (and vice versa).

Oh great... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33395948)

I would have been then the first one if i hadn't to install Net Framework for Android.

The FSF? Criticizing Microsoft?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33395968)


"Safe" (-1, Troll)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#33395980)

I, for one, would avoid using the terms ".NET" and "safe" in the same paragraph. I realize they are talking about safe from patent trollage, but it implies that someone would actually want to, you know, actually USE .net or Mono by choice.

Re:"Safe" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396022)

Always gotta have the anti .NET zealot idiocy in each of these stories.

Re:"Safe" (-1, Troll)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396072)

even microsoft doesn't like .net and is moving away from it. why would anyone use something that is about to be deprecated?

Re:"Safe" (4, Informative)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396094)

even microsoft doesn't like .net and is moving away from it. why would anyone use something that is about to be deprecated?

Considering a major release of the .NET framework happened in April, I'm going to go ahead and call you misinformed or a huge troll.

Re:"Safe" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396220)

Considering that Microsoft has cancelled products only a few weeks after they've hit the market, or even before even reaching the market, I'd say that nothing is safe when it's about Microsoft.


Re:"Safe" (5, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396242)

Except that poetmatt is just throwing out FUD. He is intentionally misrepresenting the fact that Microsoft has stopped officially supporting development of things like IronRuby as deprecating the entire platform. The fact that it is even modded as insightful despite being obviously false is quite telling for Slashdot.

Re:"Safe" (2, Informative)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396102)

What are they moving to, exactly..? I get the feeling you're misreading how Microsoft is moving way from dynamic .NET languages (IronPython, IronRuby) which are a rather separate part of the framework.

Re:"Safe" (3, Informative)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396114)

They don't like .NET yet they keep pumping versions after versions of the .NET Framework, C# and Silverlight. Citation needed? I'm not understanding you well.

Re:"Safe" (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396128)

even microsoft doesn't like .net and is moving away from it. why would anyone use something that is about to be deprecated?

Eh? Really?

This is actually the first I'm hearing of this (I'm not an active MS developer) -- are they deprecating the entire .NET? Or just a couple of parts of it?

I actually kind of liked a lot of the aspects of .NET when I was using it.

Re:"Safe" (3, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396196)

They aren't deprecating anything but they have ceased development on a few dynamic .NET languages like IronRuby.

Re:"Safe" (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396246)

They aren't deprecating anything but they have ceased development on a few dynamic .NET languages like IronRuby.

Oh, so nothing at all like deprecating .NET then -- gotcha. :-P

Re:"Safe" (2, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396302)

Yes. poetmatt is lying.

Re:"Safe" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396142)

Who said that Microsoft is moving away from .NET? Everyone I've talked to in Redmond is just dying, personally, to move to managed languages (and therefore away from godawful Win32 "C++").

Re:"Safe" (2, Interesting)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396406)

We've been hearing that for years, and with Windows 7, it appears (from what I've read) if you want do any sort of work, you still need to use C++. Mind you, I don't program for Windows. Do they have any plans in building the next api in managed code for the next windows release, or is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do". Also, is there much of a performance hit using managed code in windows?

Re:"Safe" (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396152)

You mean Microsoft is moving away from .NET version 2.0.

This is like saying Oracle is moving away from Java, because version 1.4 or 1.5 was declared EOL.

Re:"Safe" (0, Redundant)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396174)

Since when? Oh wait, you're intentionally misrepresenting the fact that they are discontinuing IronRuby with deprecating the entire platform. Nice FUD attempt, though, bro.

Re:"Safe" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396550)

even microsoft doesn't like .net and is moving away from it. why would anyone use something that is about to be deprecated?

Ha!... Bull S**t. Not being a .NET developer, I'll have to say it's a lie.

Free Software Foundation and patent promises (0, Troll)

FlorianMueller (801981) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396398)

I've been following software patent issues closely for a long time and I still haven't seen any patent promise that was 100% to my liking. So what the FSF says could also be said about Red Hat's patent promise and many other patent promises and "pledges". The TurboHercules exampled showed how little IBM cares about its patent pledge when it wants to defend its mainframe monopoly. But the worst of all patent licenses is the OIN's patent agreement [] .

I don't mean to say anyone should trust Microsoft's patent promise blindly, but one should look at the promise in connection with obvious business interests. I can't see how Microsoft would do anything that would run counter to its strategic interest, as a platform company, to maximize developer support.

Re:Free Software Foundation and patent promises (2, Informative)

JImbob0i0 (1202835) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396742)

Oh come on Florian!

Microsoft's strategic interests are Windows and Office. Those two cash cows act as coverups for every other project they lose money on.

Everything they do is focused on getting people onto those two items as a platform... from that follows Exchange, Sharepoint, IIS and their other server infrastructure offerings.

I wish you would stop out spouting that nonsense about TurboHercules. IBM never attacked the open source project Hercules. Let's get that clear from the outset. They *do* have licensing requirements for Z/OS based on resources available to the system such as CPUs. They will not license their software to a virtualised platform.

This is no different than Apple's position with MacOS X on their hardware and the licensing position they take.

Re:"Safe" (2, Insightful)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396066)

I, for one, would avoid using the terms ".NET" and "safe" in the same paragraph. I realize they are talking about safe from patent trollage, but it implies that someone would actually want to, you know, actually USE .net or Mono by choice.

As opposed to Java? Damn right I'd use Mono.

Re:"Safe" (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396480)

Yeah I guess if you don't know how to program, then sure you'd use .NET. FYI no one is using mono. Seriously if you are a .NET developer you are not using Mono, you're developing on Windows, not some second rate implementation.

Re:"Safe" (3, Insightful)

not already in use (972294) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396088)

I use both by choice all the time. The .NET platform is leaps and bounds ahead of the Java platform in nearly every way.

Oh, that's right, Java is licensed under the GPL, so it's inherently better. I forgot, ideology trumps technical merit. Now, in typical slashdot fashion, mod parent Insightful and me Troll. Thanks, and have a good day.

Re:"Safe" (5, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396210)

Oh, that's right, Java is licensed under the GPL, so it's inherently better.

To be fair, a decent contingent on slashdot was always saying that Java wasn't open source enough, and in light of the recent Oracle-Google lawsuit, it turns out they were right.

In the context of this particular story, I'm not sure how .NET doesn't look better than Java -- you've got one's parent company saying they won't sue you (even if that's not a great guarantee) and one that's actually suing you right now.

Re:"Safe" (3, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396454)

Well... to be fair, there is a difference between Oracle suing the GOOGLE company and Microsoft promising not to sue YOU (user/developer) for using the Mono implementation... mainly because Novell/Microsoft relation.

I wonder how far would Microsoft allow Google to go in implementing a C# compiler/interpreter in the same way they are doing it with java...

Re:"Safe" (1)

BassMan449 (1356143) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396556)

Actually I think Microsoft wouldn't care if Google implemented a compiler for Android. Microsoft makes a lot of money off the development tools for .NET (largely Visual Studio) and expanding the potential developers to Android would likely only help Microsoft. Look at the huge boom of iPhone developers and imagine a similarly large group developing for Android. That would be a lot of potential customers for VS.

Re:"Safe" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396538)
Promissory estoppel

Microsoft has made a public promise not to sue. If your business relies on that announcement, and then Microsoft sues you. You have a defense.


Re:"Safe" (2, Informative)

smartr (1035324) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396768)

To be fair Android isn't using Java licensed under the GPL.

Re:"Safe" (1, Flamebait)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396718)

Except that Mono is *also* under the GPL. No, it's not about ideology, it's simply some slashdotters have a vendetta against Microsoft that they'll follow even against common sense.

Names (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#33395986)

MonoDroid will be a commercial product licensed in a similar fashion to our Mono for iPhone product MonoTouch.

They really need a better naming theme.

Re:Names (3, Funny)

daeley (126313) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396130)

Why, is it too MonoTonous?

Re:Names (1)

not already in use (972294) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396184)

Yeah, they should precede everything with a recursive acronym that sounds really awkward when actually saying it out loud. That would be a much better naming scheme.

Re:Names (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396248)

What are GNU talking about?

Re:Names (2, Funny)

not already in use (972294) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396306)


PS - My gnuts itch.

Re:Names (0, Redundant)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396370)


Re:Names (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396228)

That is actually a name of a font that I use in Linux: Droid Mono Sans.

Lifting the Lid on the Guilty Yid (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33395990)

The liberals got it exactly right. For years now they’ve been telling us how “vibrant” mass immigration has made stale, pale White societies. Well, London was certainly vibrating on 7th July and that got me thinking: What else have the liberals got right? Mass immigration “enriches” us too, they’ve always said. Is that “enrich” as in “enriched uranium”, an excellent way of making atom bombs? Because that’s what comes next: a weapon of real mass destruction that won’t kill people in piffling dozens but in hundreds of thousands or millions. Bye-bye London, bye-bye Washington, bye-bye Tel Aviv.

I’m not too sure I’d shed a tear if the last-named went up in a shower of radioactive cinders, but Tel Aviv is actually the least likely of the three to be hit. What’s good for you ain’t good for Jews, and though Jews have striven mightily, and mighty successfully, to turn White nations into multi-racial fever-swamps, mass immigration has passed the Muzzerland safely by. And mass immigration is the key to what happened in London. You don’t need a sophisticated socio-political analysis taking in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Jewish control of Anglo-American foreign policy, British colonialism, and fifteen centuries of Christian-Muslim conflict. You can explain the London bombs in five simple words:

Pakis do not belong here.

And you can sum up how to prevent further London bombs – and worse – in three simple words:


At any time before the 1950s, brown-skinned Muslim terrorists would have found it nearly impossible to plan and commit atrocities on British soil, because they would have stood out like sore thumbs in Britain’s overwhelmingly White cities. Today, thanks to decades of mass immigration, it’s often Whites who stand out like sore thumbs. Our cities swarm with non-whites full of anti-White grievances and hatreds created by Judeo-liberal propaganda. And let’s forget the hot air about how potential terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are a “tiny minority” of Britain’s vibrant, peace-loving Muslim “community”.

Even if that’s true, a tiny minority of 1.6 million (2001 estimate) is a hell of a lot of people, and there’s very good reason to believe it isn’t true. Tony Blair has tried to buy off Britain’s corrupt and greedy “moderate” Muslims with knighthoods and public flattery, but his rhetoric about the “religion of peace” wore thin long ago. After the bombings he vowed, with his trademark bad actor’s pauses, that we will... not rest until... the guilty men are identified... and as far... as is humanly possible... brought to justice for this... this murderous carnage... of the innocent.

His slimy lawyer’s get-out clause – “as far as is humanly possible” – was soon needed. Unlike Blair and his pal Dubya in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombers were prepared not only to kill the innocent but to die themselves as they did so. And to laugh at the prospect: they were captured on CCTV sharing a joke about the limbs and heads that would shortly be flying. Even someone as dim as Blair must know you’ve got a big problem on your hands when there are over 1.6 million people in your country following a religion like that.

If he doesn’t know, there are plenty of Jewish journalists who will point it out for him. There’s the neo-conservative Melanie Phillips in Britain, for example, who never met an indignant adverb she didn’t like, and the neo-conservative Mark Steyn in Canada, who never met an indignant Arab he didn’t kick. Reading their hard-hitting columns on Muslim psychosis, I was reminded of a famous scene in Charles Dickens’ notoriously anti-Semitic novel Oliver Twist (1839). The hero watches the training of the villainous old Jew Fagin put into action by the Artful Dodger:

What was Oliver’s horror and alarm to see the Dodger plunge his hand into the old gentleman’s pocket, and draw from thence a handkerchief! To see him hand the same to Charley Bates; and finally to behold them both running away round the corner at full speed! He stood for a moment tingling from terror; then, confused and frightened, he took to his heels and made off as fast as he could lay his feet to the ground.
In the very instant when Oliver began to run, the old gentleman, putting his hand to his pocket, and missing his handkerchief, turned sharp round. Seeing the boy scudding away, he very naturally concluded him to be the depredator; and shouting “Stop thief!” with all his might, made off after him. But the old gentleman was not the only person who raised the hue-and-cry. The Dodger and Master Bates, unwilling to attract public attention by running down the open street, had merely retired into the very first doorway round the corner. They no sooner heard the cry, and saw Oliver running, than, guessing exactly how the matter stood, they issued forth with great promptitude; and, shouting “Stop thief!” too, joined in the pursuit like good citizens.

“Wicked Muslims!” our two Jewish Artful Dodgers are shouting. “Can’t you see how they hate the West and want to destroy us?” Well, yes, we can, but some of us can also see who the original West-haters are. Mark Steyn claims not to be Jewish, but his ancestry shines through time after time in his writing. Above all, there’s his dishonesty. One week he’s mocking anti-Semites for claiming that the tiny nation of Israel could have such a powerful influence for bad on the world’s affairs. The following week he’s praising the British Empire for having had such a powerful influence for good. You know, the world-bestriding British Empire – as created by a tiny nation called Britain.

If the Brits could do it openly and honestly, Mr Steyn, why can’t the yids do it by fraud and deception? And the yids have done it, of course. They’ve run immigration policy and “race relations” in Europe and America since the 1960s, and Steyn is very fond of pointing out what’s in store for Europe as our Jew-invited non-white guests grow in number and really start to show their appreciation of our hospitality.

Funnily enough, I’ve never seen him point out that the same is in store for North America, which has its own rapidly growing non-white swarms. And when Steyn launches one of his regular attacks on the lunacies of multi-culturalism and anti-racism, a central fact always somehow seems to escape his notice. He recently once again bemoaned the psychotic “Western self-loathing” that has such a “grip on the academy, the media, the Congregational and Episcopal Churches, the ‘arts’ and Hollywood”. Exhibit one: the multi-culti, hug-the-world, “Let’s all be nice to the Muslims” memorial for 9/11. This was his list of those responsible for it:

Tom Bernstein... Michael Posner... Eric Foner... George Soros...
Well, that’s a Jew, a Jew, a Jew, and a Jew – sounds like a lampshade collector showing off his Auschwitz shelf. But fearless “Tell It Like It Is” Steyn, ever-ready to mock the “racial sensitivity” of deluded liberals, is himself very sensitive about race when it comes to the Chosen Ones. He’ll kick dark-skinned Muslims and their liberal appeasers till the sacred cows come home and he can start kicking them too, but just like Melanie Phillips he never whispers a word about the Jews who created liberal appeasement or about the enormous power Jews wield in “the academy, the media, the 'arts', and Hollywood”.

The same is true of all other Jewish “conservatives”. They’re shouting “Stop thief!” at the top of their voices and hoping that no-one will notice that they all belong to the biggest race of thieves who ever existed. Those bombs went off in London because Jews have stolen large parts of Britain from their rightful White inhabitants and handed them over to the non-white followers of a psychotic alien religion. When non-whites commit more and worse atrocities in future, you won’t need to ask who’s really responsible: it’s liberal Jews like Tom Bernstein and George Soros, who organize mass immigration and the anti-racism industry, and “conservative” Jews like Mark Steyn and Melanie Phillips, who distract White attention from the racial motives of Jews like Soros and Bernstein. Heads they win, tails we lose – liberal, “conservative”, they’re all of them Jews.

Thank you. (0, Offtopic)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396090)

It is always nice to be reminded that there is at least one regard (immigration) in which European conservatives are actually worse than our own American conservatives.

Re:Thank you. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396342)

American conservatives aren't against immigration. They are against *illegal* immigration. I don't see how you can possibly be for it or argue that it's in any way bad to be against it. At most you can try to pass legislation for what constitutes legal immigration.

Re:Thank you. (0, Flamebait)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396606)

Is that why they want to repeal the 14th Amendment?

Re:Lifting the Lid on the Guilty Yid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396222)


It's just not stable. (-1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396012)

.Net doesn't work on Windows operating systems. Why expect it to work on Android?

Re:It's just not stable. (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396042)

.Net doesn't work on Windows operating systems.

What are you basing that on?

Re:It's just not stable. (-1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396234)

A number of applications that rely on .Net that don't work properly. There's nothing you can do to fix them except wait for Microsoft to fix the behavior of .Net.

Re:It's just not stable. (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396276)

Source/citation/example? This is the first I've heard of this and I don't do a small amount of .NET work.

Re:It's just not stable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396528)

The London Stock Exchange?

Re:It's just not stable. (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396672)

Did that even have to do with a .NET bug? They moved away from the MS stack, not .NET particularly IIRC.

Re:It's just not stable. (0, Redundant)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396744)

I can't use a certain app to store file on an FTP server. The app's devs blame .Net. I believe them, as I can use FTP through a terminal to store files to that site.

I can't use another app that has embedded Google maps unless I manually turn off all the security in Internet Explorer first; now, this one may be a dev issue, if there's a way for .Net to use IE libraries with settings of its own instead of the settings for the browser, but so far they say there's no way for them to do that.

Re:It's just not stable. (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396412)

So because some random app doesn't work right, it is .NET's fault?



Re:It's just not stable. (0, Offtopic)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396766)

Because some random app doesn't work right and the developers of the app isolated the problem to a .Net component, it's .Net's fault.

Because you make presumptions like you did you're an idiot.

Take better care of your car.

Re:It's just not stable. (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396598)

A number of applications that rely on .Net that don't work properly. There's nothing you can do to fix them except wait for the developers to fix their poorly-written app.

Fixed that for you.

Re:It's just not stable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396052)

.NET works perfectly fine on Windows, maybe you should fire your devs and get new ones.

Re:It's just not stable. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396256)

.Net has bugs. My devs shouldn't have to reimplement portions of .Net to do what .Net says it's supposed to do.

Re:It's just not stable. (2, Insightful)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396272)

You submit bug reports and they fix them. Java has bugs too, C++'s stdlib has bugs too.

Re:It's just not stable. (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396064)

Care to support that assertion?

Re:It's just not stable. (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396176)

.NET works on Windows OSes just fine. Stop developing against outdated versions like .NET 1.0, and you will have a much better experience.

Re:It's just not stable. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396274)

You're prepared to tell me there are no bugs in the most recent version of .Net? None? Zero? Nil?

It's software. It has bugs. In this case, bugs that pop up in critical places and can't be hammered into place without avoiding .Net for that feature entirely.

Re:It's just not stable. (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396414)

It's software. It has bugs. In this case, bugs that pop up in critical places and can't be hammered into place without avoiding .Net for that feature entirely.

Still waiting for an example. One would be enough to have a serious conversation about it. If you can't come up with even one, then please stop repeating yourself.

Re:It's just not stable. (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396576)

You're prepared to tell me there are no bugs in the most recent version of GNU Libc, Win32 API or Java SDK? None? Zero? Nil?

It's software. It has bugs. In this case, bugs that pop up in critical places and can't be hammered into place without avoiding Glibc, Win32, or Java, for that feature entirely.

Re:It's just not stable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396288)

Absolute FUD. It works fine on Windows, and it works fine on Linux with Mono. (Haven't tested anything on OS X, but I gather Mono works just fine there as well.) Really, you can let go of your anti-MS zealotry. Ballmer's reign of terror is basically over (I think he's finally realized that his aggressive approach didn't work, and that he didn't really know as much about tech as he thought he did) and MS is actually starting to innovate again. They've made a few solid statements recently supporting F/LOSS--this being one of them. Microsoft doesn't automatically suck any more than Apple is automatically awesome.

Re:It's just not stable. (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396536)

Would it kill you anti-MS zealots to just stick to facts?

I mean seriously, it's not like there are no actual problems to criticize MS for, but if you have to use lies and bullshit to do it, it's not going to help your case against them. If they're evil, then point out why they're evil. If it's true, you shouldn't have to make up bullshit about them.

Squishysoft is smart for a change. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396030)

Microsoft has had such a failure of Windows Mobile that not pressing there luck with Android might be the only way they can keep people potentially developing on C#. Lets consider C# is a poor Microsoft Excuse for merging Java and C++ and is as stable on a Windows platform as most poorly coded Java Apps. If Microsoft were to push for a suit Google would laugh and say sure we'll remove it we put it there to pity you.

Safe from what? (5, Insightful)

dreyergustav (1013913) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396036)

Some of the Oracle patents relate to Virtual Machines in general and not just the JVM. So how can Mono be safe from Oracle?

Beck-Gingrich 2012 ( +2, PatRIOTic ) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396038)

Although I generally believe that the less said about Beck-Gingrich, the better, I do feel obligated to say a few things about Beck-Gingrich's unreasonable equivocations. In the text that follows, I don't intend to recount all of the damage caused by Beck-Gingrich's sinful, contemptible catch-phrases but I do want to point out that it is hardly surprising that Beck-Gingrich wants to attack the fabric of this nation. After all, this is the same egocentric coward whose officious prattle informed us that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. I have not forgotten that he can't relate to anyone other than unsophisticated marauders. I have not forgotten that his belief systems are so irascible, so featherbrained, so postmodernist that there are really no earth words to describe exactly how I feel about them. And I cannot forget that my goal is to contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that I find that some of Beck-Gingrich's choices of words in his witticisms would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "nerdy" for "philosophicojuristic" and "barbaric" for "saccharomucilaginous."

I must emphasize that Beck-Gingrich frequently plays on our emotions. An obvious parallel from a different context is that I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness he is mongering. We need to deal summarily with closed-minded, testy clods. We should agree on definitions before saying anything further about his ill-tempered fulminations. For starters, let's say that "resistentialism" is "that which makes Beck-Gingrich yearn to preach fear and ignorance."

We must balkanize Beck-Gingrich's deranged terrorist organization into an etiolated and sapless agglomeration. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility—a crushing responsibility. However, if we stick together we can can show the world that if Beck-Gingrich were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that it's his belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to make nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such an impertinent idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that Beck-Gingrich insists that he has no choice but to break down our communities. His reasoning is that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but I realize that the tone of this letter may be making some people feel uneasy. However, even if you're somewhat uncomfortable reading about Beck-Gingrich's untoward disquisitions please don't blame me for them. I'm not the one depriving individuals of the right to preserve the peace. I'm not the one draining our hope and enthusiasm. And I'm not the one deluding and often robbing those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to his snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance.

Something recently occurred to me that might occur to Beck-Gingrich, as well, if he would just turn down the volume of his voice for a moment: If history follows its course, it should be evident that the gloss that Beck-Gingrich's buddies put on Beck-Gingrich's false-flag operations unfortunately does little to get my message about Beck-Gingrich out to the world. I wish I didn't have to be the one to break the news that our attempts to present another paradigm in opposition to his short-sighted ravings have so far served only as a divertissement for him and his deputies, who are legion. Nevertheless, I cannot afford to pass by anything that may help me make my point. So let me just state that trying to fill our children's minds with spleeny and debasing superstitions is just as overweening as trying to give lunatics control of the asylum. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.

I've repeatedly pointed out to Beck-Gingrich that he should have been removed from the gene pool before he had a chance to contaminate it. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess Beck-Gingrich somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. His favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". Beck-Gingrich likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. He then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for him to court a hateful minority of dodgy, pharisaical rapscallions. In my opinion, the real crisis is the dearth of people who understand that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that the biggest supporters of Beck-Gingrich's insensate shenanigans are mawkish, improvident peculators and uncontrollable hoodlums. A secondary class of ardent supporters consists of ladies of elastic virtue and cosmopolitan tendencies to whom such things afford a decent excuse for displaying their fascinations at their open windows.

One could truthfully say that Beck-Gingrich needs a mental carminative. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that it is through his detestable folly and selfishness that power-hungry, gloomy hedonists have been suppressing people's instinct and intellect. This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that back when our policemen were guardians, not enforcers, they would have protected us from Beck-Gingrich's brownshirt brigade. Today, it seems that most officers of the law are content to sit back and let Beck-Gingrich cement the foundation of our currently metastasizing police state into the law of the land. That's why we must hinder the power of impulsive scrubs like him. As I make no claim to be an authority on the subject, I defer to the judgments of an Oxford University professor, who has observed that failure to define our terms more clearly will lead to a deluge of complaints by Beck-Gingrich's bedfellows. Beck-Gingrich may mean well, but he ought to unstop his ears and uncover his eyes. Only then will Beck-Gingrich hear that to which he has been too long heedless. Only then will he see that it's not fair for him to dupe people into believing that his viewpoints are Right with a capital R. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: The Mad Hatter and the March Hare from "Alice in Wonderland" behave more rationally than Beck-Gingrich and his goofy, lousy factotums.

To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. Like a verbal magician, Beck-Gingrich knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. He claims to have data supporting his assertion that might makes right. Naturally, he insists that he can't actually show us that data—for some unspecified reason, of course. My guess is that he's hiding something. Maybe he's hiding the fact that his avowal that he is known for his sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends is all cant and hogwash. Let me express that same thought in slightly different terms: Beck-Gingrich consumes, infests, and destroys. He lives off the death and destruction of others. For that reason alone we need to make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Beck-Gingrich's perceptions.

By the way, as the adherents of Randian objectivism believe, this theme has been struck before. Furthermore, as the adherents of empiricism observe, Beck-Gingrich takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation but it does indicate in a rough, general way that he will flip his lid when he learns that I've been enlightening the mind of Man and improving him as a rational, moral, and social being. Yes, I could add that his trucklers give him credit for things he hasn't done, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that Beck-Gingrich is a serial exaggerator. If I were to be less kind, I'd say he's a liar. Either way, my current plan is to act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even philistinism. Yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but if we let him sow the seeds of collectivism we'll be reaping the crop for quite a long time.

I am not going to go into too great a detail about disrespectful Luddites, but be assured that Beck-Gingrich's reinterpretations of historic events are built on lies, and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. If I hear Beck-Gingrich's spinmeisters say, "Beck-Gingrich defends the real needs of the working class" one more time, I'm unmistakably going to throw up. More prosaically, he offers his helots a vehicle of sorts for their revenge fantasies. I won't dwell on that except to direct your attention to the indelicate manner in which Beck-Gingrich has been trying to cause silly subversion to gather momentum on college campuses.

What I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of a ridiculous, unimaginative wacko. It's a fact. I, not being one of the many cankered, otiose rascals of this world, cannot compromise with Beck-Gingrich; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him and with a warning he must indisputably take to heart: There is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Beck-Gingrich perverts hatred in order to create a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration, it becomes clear that we must indubitably open minds instead of closing them. Does that sound extremist? Is it too libidinous for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life. Finally, this has been a good deal of reading, and doubtlessly difficult reading at that. Still, I hope you walk away from it with the new knowledge that Beck-Gingrich's theories are sheer hypothesis—speculation with not even a scintilla of circumstantial evidence to support them.

Et tu brute? (5, Insightful)

JImbob0i0 (1202835) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396048)

Almost every single company that has had dealings with Microsoft has been stabbed in the back by them...

IBM : OS/2
Stacker : Doublespace
Spyglass : Mosaic
Sun : Java
Everyone : plays4sure (DRM servers shut down leaving purchases useless)
Go : Mobile technology (at least I think the company was called Go)
Caldera : DR-DOS
Novell : Wordperfect

How many times does this have to happen before people see a pattern and avoid partnering with Microsoft? The bigger players can survive the knife between the shoulderblades... the smaller players *if they eventually get a payoff* still usually end up dead anyway.

Re:Et tu brute? (4, Interesting)

stikves (127823) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396194)

(Going against my rule, and replying even though it will risk my karma a lot)...

Unfortunately what you said is only partially true.

For example:

OS/2: Originally Microsoft developed Windows NT as OS/2 - a microkernel which was OS/2 on the front backward compatible with DOS and Windows, and switched to Windows, only after IBM started to show less and less interest in coding, and more interest in their process.

Mosaic: Mosaic was open source originated at NCSA labs, and IE was developed by original Mosaic staff.

Java: Microsoft did not develop .Net, until Sun sued them for license issues, effectively stopping them developing on Java. ... and others.

A story is rarely single sided, but it's very hip to hit on MS on Slashdot...

Re:Et tu brute? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396462)

Java: Microsoft did not develop .Net, until Sun sued them for license issues, effectively stopping them developing on Java.

I think you missed the part where Microsoft made Visual J++ with various extensions and a failure to pass the Java compliance tests. Fixing compliance would have been easy, if they just wanted to make a compatible Java(tm) implementation, but really this was their first attempt to shaft Sun.

.Net is Microsoft's 2nd try...

Re:Et tu brute? (0)

naasking (94116) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396710)

Guess what? That same compliance clause is exactly what's being used to now sue Google over Android. The Java license provides a patent grant assuming you have a conforming implementation. Android is not fully conforming, nor did they ever claim to be, thus they are vulnerable to patent suits based on Java technology.

Re:Et tu brute? (5, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396488)

About Java:

You *DO* Remember that the main problem was with J++ and Microsoft trying to distort a standard (or at least, a standard they *signed* they would respect) to make it incompatible?

Kind of how they made special Javascript or ActiveX extensions which broke the net??

And to expand on that (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396498)

IE was purchased by Microsoft. They didn't do some dirty trick, they found a company making a product they liked and purchased them. Not just the rights to their product, the brought on the developers and all that.

DR-DOS wasn't a product that MS ripped off... It was a product that ripped off MS. MS-DOS launched in 1981. DR-DOS launched in 1989 and was version numbed to be the same as MS-DOS. They weren't breaking any laws or anything, but DR-DOS was designed to be their own DOS, compatible with MS-DOS.

Wordperfect lost on its own merits. It was the be-all, end-all of office programs. However the developers failed to keep it up, failed to improve it, and Office eclipsed it. You ever try using it recently (it is still around, still in development)? It is a pile of crap. It lost because there was a superior competing product. You know, how capitalism is supposed to work and all that.

I'm not claiming MS has never done anything underhanded. However people whine and bitch far too much. That a given product failed doesn't mean MS did anything wrong, it may just mean that the product sucked.

Re:Et tu brute? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396518)

Java: Microsoft did not develop .Net, until Sun sued them for license issues, effectively stopping them developing on Java. ... and others.

The thing is is that Sun had to sue MS to stop the embrace and extend MS was doing.

Re:Et tu brute? (5, Informative)

JImbob0i0 (1202835) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396640)

To answer your counter-points specifically....

The back stab I was referring to for OS/2 wasn't Windows NT but rather Windows 95. As per the documentation put forward by IBM in the USA Vs Microsoft case ... and Microsoft eventually settled with IBM for the damage they caused them: []

Fortunately IBM, of course, were large enough to survive that.

Microsoft actually contracted with Spyglass to provide a royalty form Internet Explorer revenue in order to use Mosaic as a base... Microsoft then gave the product away free and therefore skipped out on said royalties. They eventually had to pay Spyglass a settlement for this action but not before sufficient damage was done and teh company did not survive - being bought out by OpenTV in 2000.,_Inc [] .

With Java Microsoft contracted with Sun to write their own Java VM for the Windows platform. They then added interfaces to the java.* namespace and changed behaviour in this namespace. As a consequence things written for Sun's Java would not run properly due to changes in what was expected to be standard and things written for Microsoft's Java VM were not likely to run in Sun's one. The issue came to a head since Microsoft used the Java name and logos... Note that Microsoft would have been okay if they had used their own microsoft.* or similar namespace... but then that would have made Sun's VM the preferred write once run anywhere target. Sun survived this and the result was Windows XP SP1a and the removal of the MS Java VM. Microsoft were free to continue to develop MS Java VM if they actually stuck to the specs... instead they produced .Net and C#.

I'll let you google the references for that one yourself ;)

It may be hip to hit on Microsoft on Slashdot... however there are occasions they deserve it (just as there are occasions they do not). I put it to you that the highlights I've picked from the past 10-15 years are points against them... and are far from an exhaustive list.

Re:Et tu brute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396656)

From the Wikipedia article you reference:

May 1990. Windows 3 was eventually so successful that Microsoft decided to change the primary application programming interface for the still unreleased NT OS/2 (as it was then known) from an extended OS/2 API to an extended Windows API. This decision caused tension between Microsoft and IBM and the collaboration ultimately fell apart.

When did IBM show less interest in coding?

Re:Et tu brute? (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396664)

You understanding of the reasoning behind Microsoft's forking of OS/2 is faulty - it was related to their managing to pull Windows up into protected mode as a cute hack, making the switch to MS/IBM OS/2 (and associated "long-term planning for PC platform") less urgent and making the kernel team for the joint product (mostly in MS) suddenly working on a product that had a questionable future. It was a conscious choice by Microsoft. You're also off on your claim on .net

Really though, while MS is not very trustworthy, no corporation is. It'd be strange to expect them to do anything but what makes them a profit.

Isn't Dalvik the base of that as well? (2, Interesting)

khb (266593) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396158)

If they are just "porting" then I'd have expected that .net would sit atop Dalvik ... which would make the entire project just as "tainted" under the Oracle theory.

Or is this going to be "raw" bypassing anything that Google neglected to ensure rights to use?

Probably a native ARM executable (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396282)

I don't know for sure, but Google, about 6 months after the original Android/G1 release, made a native SDK available. I imagine that for something like Mono, you would create a native executable JIT compiler/runtime (which is how you do .Net on any other platform). Or, perhaps, your mono code will be cross-compiled to a native Android/ARM binary program which does not require a separate Mono runtime to be installed on end-user phones.

Interesting thing about MonoDroid is that while all the other incarnations of Mono are Open Source, MonoDroid apparently will not be. An interesting choice for Novell, I'd say.

Re:Probably a native ARM executable (1)

BassMan449 (1356143) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396602)

I don't believe MonoTouch (Mono for iPhone) is Open Source.

Re:Probably a native ARM executable (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396682)

Oh yeah, I forgot about MonoTouch. Is that product even still viable? I thought Apple was banning all apps developed using third-party toolkits, including MonoTouch?

Re:Isn't Dalvik the base of that as well? (4, Informative)

duranaki (776224) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396308)

It half sits on top of Dalvik and half on top of their own adaptation layer for native linux. But yes, it's at least half tainted. :)

Re:Isn't Dalvik the base of that as well? (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396360)

Can't wait to see what the battery life of an Android phone is going to be running .Net applications on Mono on top of Dalvik.

Re:Isn't Dalvik the base of that as well? (2, Insightful)

ma3382 (1095011) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396390)

"MonoDroid applications run with the Mono execution environment. This execution environment runs side-by-side the Dalvik Virtual Machine. Both runtime environments run on top of the Linux kernel and expose various APIs to the user code that allows developers to access the underlying system. Both Mono and Dalvik are runtimes written in the C language." []

Way too soon for MS .Net lawsuits (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396180)

.Net has been around for years and years, Mono has been around for almost as long, and there's been no lawsuit, so Microsoft has no interest or intention of suing, right? I'm not convinced. The way I always figured it, if you're going to sue for something like that, you wait till the 'unofficial' platform has become wildly popular and it's largely too late to 'turn the ship', so to speak, then you sue.

Microsoft's problem with .Net and Mono is that while it's become used somewhat, it hasn't really become used to the extent that, say, Java on Android (where every Android phone has the Dalvik VM and nearly every app is written in Java). Mono exists on Linux/Mac/*BSD, but mostly people don't use it that much, in my experience (I'm sure someone somewhere has a story about how there company has a mission critical app built on Mono, running on Linux or whatever platform, but I just don't see most Linux distro's deploying many Mono apps by default, and I don't see any widely-used 'killer apps' that are built on Mono).

Basically, .Net/Mono never reached the point of deployment and mission critical-ness to warrant a lawsuit, because MS would likely get small-time damages right now. Gotta wait till the damages are worth the bad PR (which may never come in .Net's case).

You Owe Me a Keypad Dude (1)

twmcneil (942300) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396532)

a mission critical app built on Mono

Look, I know your point is that it's unlikely but still just having those words together in that order made me spit my coffee. New keypad please.

does not compute (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396268)

If you are a dedicated .net developer looking to make mobile apps, this makes the android platform really appealing.

Mono touch on iphone still requires a paid account, and suffers from an uncertain future. Windows phone only has silverlight and xna options. I don't know much about silverlight really, but i have little interest in learning it, and xna is pretty low level if you intend to make forms type things. Android is like this happy place of unencumbered .net app development. Who'd have thought it?

MonoDroid is not Free Software / Open Source (5, Informative)

molo (94384) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396290)

From the FAQ [] :

How much will MonoDroid Cost?

We have not yet announced the pricing for MonoDroid, but you should anticipate that the price will be in the same range as MonoTouch ($400 USD for individual users, and $1,000 for enterprise users).

How is MonoDroid licensed?

MonoDroid is a commercial/proprietary offering that is built on top of the open source Mono project and is licensed on a per-developer basis.

Re:MonoDroid is not Free Software / Open Source (2)

rantomaniac (1876228) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396626)

It's a pity. It wouldn't even have to be open source, but a free license for open source apps would be nice.
They're not going to make C# ubiquitous in the open source world if they don't cater to open source developers. Java is a better investment for them, despite being technologically inferior, because they can reuse code and skills between desktop and mobile development.

Just in case ... (1)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396298)

As an open source developers, we should develop a new language that will compile down to MonoDroid which will then be able to compile down to Droid. That way, if MS pulls their shenanigans, we can still, er, program for the droid. Um, yeah. Or you could learn Java.

Huh? (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396392)

Define "safe".

Ha ha ho ho hee (0)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396416)

And I thought my jokes were bad.

Google Go (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396506)

Yeah right Google is going to use .NET?

You're funny de Icaza and apparently an idiot. Google has been working on it's own language for sometime. They are not going to use some 2nd rate Java knock-off language like .NET.

But keep up the comedy routine.

is it worth it? (1)

Jeek Elemental (976426) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396514)

so say I ignore all the controversy and possible patent traps etc., drop my current language of choice, and pick up java or .net, what is the gain?

Comparing Java and c# (4, Informative)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396574)

Below are the analyses. Two of the biggest things in Java's favour are that they have distributed OpenJDK under GPLv2, with the implied patent grant that gives, and Oracle is a member of OIN and there are thus a bunch of GCC and Classpath packages they've promised not to use their patents against. is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.

Except C# is an open standard (3, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396698)

It is ISO/IEC 23270 ( That means it is not something under MS's control and just subject to their promises. Now that's not all of .NET, that is different, but comparing C# to Java and ignoring the face that C# is an open standard, like C++ and Java is not is a bit disingenuous.

90% of fortune 500 companies can be wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33396646)

.NET Rocks!

MonoDroid is not open/free software (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396690)

MonoDroid is not open/free software, is a commercial and closed product based on Mono. Novell probably pay MS some royalties for it under their agreements, so Microsoft saying they will not sue and they probably are profit from it is funny

Assurances are meaningless (3, Interesting)

pslam (97660) | more than 4 years ago | (#33396758)

It doesn't matter how much they assure that they won't go after free implementations. Without it written in legalese, irrevocable, it's a worthless statement.

What happens in, say, 5 years if/when Microsoft is feeling the pressure of competition? Let's say they're going bankrupt. Sound unlikely? Well, replace 5 years with 20 years. They'll find they have this lovely patent pool full of wonderful words which are potentially worth billions of dollars. Like every single example I can think of in the history of computing since 1980, of course they'll sue using their patents to draw out their death.

The same applies to any of the big names: Google (you're next), Oracle (already doing it), IBM (somehow never died), Sun (via Oracle), for starters. The nuclear weapon analogy holds nicely here too. The software patent mess is Mutually Assured Destruction. But amassing them and then saying "We won't use them"... what happens when your state collapses? Where do they go?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?