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!

Rotor: Shared Source CLI

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the one-rotor-to-bind-them dept.

Programming 249

Oink.NET writes "The O'Reilly Network reports on an unannounced BOF session at BSDCon 2002 regarding Rotor, a shared souce implementation of Microsoft's Common Language Infrastructure that currently runs on Windows and FreeBSD. It relies on a Platform Adaptation Layer, similar to Apache's Portable Runtime, that simplifies porting to other OS's. As to the licensing terms, the Rotor FAQ says "Microsoft intends to provide very liberal non-commercial licensing terms and is interested in gathering community input on the design of the license." Wonder if that includes Slashdot community input..."

cancel ×

249 comments

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

I GOTTA SAY IT WAS A GOOD DAY! (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134760)

64 dead Palestineans! Huzzah for Isreal!!!

Re:I GOTTA SAY IT WAS A GOOD DAY! (-1)

real_b0fh (557599) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134819)

dude, the fact you got the THREE first posts no this thread means that $las$dot is dying?

Re:I GOTTA SAY IT WAS A GOOD DAY! (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134826)

It means that, as an AC says later on, all of the other fuckers are busy 'Ass Ricking!'!!!

Re:I GOTTA SAY IT WAS A GOOD DAY! (-1)

Mayor McPenisman (557253) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134851)

Nobody wakes up this early on a sat. except the truly devoted Trolls.

Re:I GOTTA SAY IT WAS A GOOD DAY! (-1)

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM (537317) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134928)

You think 10:00 is early? You lazy fuckers! I woke up at 5:00 in the morning, I have cows to feed in the barn.

HELLO MY FRIEND!!!!! (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134766)

Do not read this comment, it is for me and me alone.

Boooo!!!!! (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134769)

Ekkkk!!!

ah, the old cut-off-the-oxygen (3, Insightful)

mikeee (137160) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134770)

Obviously, a plan to get ahead of and preempt commercial support for any shared-source implementations that might have liberal non-commercial licenses (ie, Mono).

The thinking seems to be, give the hobbyists something they can dink around with and they won't be worried about 'software freedom'; they want neat toys, not free software!

Re:ah, the old cut-off-the-oxygen (2)

paulywog (114255) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134800)

And from the looks of it, mono still has a way to go to catch up to the stats on Rotor.

Rotor is a gzipped tarball weighing in at about 18.5 megabytes (14,000 files and 1.3 million lines of code)
My count puts the current mono cvs at around 12 MB(1,930 files, 265,910 lines of code).

Maybe that means mono is just doing a more efficient job of implementing the ECMA standards. :)

Re:ah, the old cut-off-the-oxygen (2)

paulywog (114255) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134820)

But I seriously doubt that this will cut off any oxygen from the developers currently working on mono. Two reasons.

1. I doubt any of them really could care less that MS has developed a toy version of the CLI. However, if it is used in universities as a learning tool, that could unknowingly infect up-and-coming developers with Shared Source access, couldn't it? (maybe I read something wrong)

2. As the articles state, Rotor is a toy implementation, not anything that should be used for commercial development. Maybe that's how Bill thinks of open source development tools, but I think that the developers from mono would disagree with that. Just because something is fun, doesn't mean its a toy.

Open Source / Free Software are not noncommercial (5, Insightful)

Nailer (69468) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134854)

non-commercial licenses (ie, Mono)

For God's sake would you all please stop referring to non free / closed source software as `commercial'? Not only is it simply incorrect there are many Open Source / Free apps produced for commercial benefit (eg, Zope) and many non-commercial apps with non Open Source licensing (eg, much Windows `freeware').

Why is it that people (not referring to the person I'm replying to, just Slashdot in general) claim they care about Free Software so much and have never read The Free Software Foundations list of words to avoid [gnu.org] . I imagine the OSI would shaare this vview.

Long live commercial software, as long as its Open Source!

consistent and nothing new (2)

twitter (104583) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134878)

Microsoft intends to provide very liberal non-commercial licensing terms and is interested in gathering community input on the design of the license.

Sounds like the Microsoft we know. Only M$ can make money. We can be sure what they mean by liberal is that they can comercialize anything they want and lock out the orignials. Like winsock.

No thanks. Not making money, that's a restriction most people can't live with. Comercialization is part of software freedom [fsf.org] . I don't need Microsoft's platforms, so why would I care about Microsoft's propriatory "standards" that let me talk to it? I've got ssh, X, and ftp for talking accros reasonable platforms. For those who want the pain and suffering of chasing the M$ tail there is mono. This toy is sure to be broken without recourse as soon as convienent to M$. Will comercial interests really be so stupid as to fall for yet another M$ trick? I hope not. Tell your boss, don't let this one get shoved down on you by clueless management.

As this is the same old story, I expect the same results for those not under the clueless. There have been more Linux developers than Microsoft developers for a while now. This is not likely to change much. Microsoft thinks people just want neat toys but where people are spending their time tells a different story.

And when some damn H4x0r (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134900)

finds an exploit for it you just know it's going to be called roter-root'er.

Re:ah, the old cut-off-the-oxygen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134932)

Exactly what Sun did to squash the development of Transvirtual's Kaffe VM. Make the JDK appear to be "free enough" to not warrent a good GPL'd alternative.

Re:ah, the old cut-off-the-oxygen (1)

asobala (563713) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134972)

Mono is licensed under the X11 license, not the GPL (ie the source can be closed)

Open source vs Propreitry software. (0)

Steven_Wostoen (564849) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135001)

Open source is a very powerful tool, and, I think has the potential to play a very important part in the future software industry. People here on Slashdot and other developer forums that are linked to Open source software often criticise propreitry software and claim that everything should be Open sourced.

I disagree with that, I am also a firm believer that copyrights should remain in the hand of the IP owner. However, in the case of Operating systems, communications software, communications protocols, and Office/presentation software and formats, I believe Open source is not only preferable, but perhaps neccessary. Having private companies controlling such software and thereby standards is not ideal and could even prove a step backwards in the long run.

Another area where I believe Open source should become the norm is tools. There are few more powerful things than source code to make a tool flexible. However, this is a grey area and there are a lot of cases where propreitry tools are better, and for that higher quality the developers deserve to be paid. A combination of open source tools and propreitry tools is healthy, it helps the market to a state of balance. If all tools were open source, development on them would be hindered, and if all tools were propreitry, they would cost a fortune and development on them would probably also be hindered.

Art-related software such as games, and any other software that is not directly involved with communications or vital business infrastructure, should not be required to be open sourced.

FreeBSD has the potential to fulfill some of the these ideals. It is stable, fast, and an overall brilliant operating system. It could be implemented as a base infrastructure system, powering desktops, servers and eventually embedded devices. This way, game developers would be able to distribute their software with knowledge that the entire system is truly open and Microsoft or any other company will not have advantages due to underhanded management of information regarding infrastructure-level software (OS, etc).

I have talked to several of my contacts in the industry and a lot of them feel the same way. Unfortunately, the current state of the industry makes it impossible to develop for anything but Microsoft Windows, and at a push, the Apple Mac OS, and reasonably expect profits. I do encourage the support of FreeBSD by the general public, because I believe in the long-run, this could be of benefit to everyone. Licenses like the GPL are nonsensical and will never be accepted by serious commercial developers. The BSD license solves this problem and puts FreeBSD at a huge advantage over other free systems.

Haiku? (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134776)

Hello you fuckwad
I am fine thanks for asking
now eat shit and die

Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (5, Interesting)

Baca (7658) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134778)

"Why FreeBSD?

One goal of creating a shared source implementation of the ECMA CLI is to prove that the technical choices being made by the ECMA technical group can be implemented on multiple operating system platforms. FreeBSD seemed like a good choice, since it is both a representative UNIX implementation and a platform that has historically encouraged unencumbered experimentation. Microsoft has no plans for supporting other platforms or chip architectures in this implementation at this time."

I think they chose freebsd because it it _still_ driving the majority of hotmail, perhaps this is thier "FreeBSD version of Linux" See the link below:

http://www.cw360.com/article&rd=&i=&ard=110220&f v= 1

"Microsoft has built a FreeBSD version of Linux, but this is more of a publicity gig than a serious endeavour."

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (5, Interesting)

reaper20 (23396) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134786)

I would guess one reason is the old "We're ok with BSD, its the evil GPL software like Linux that we have problems with."

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (3, Informative)

unsinged int (561600) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134808)

Just to elaborate on that a bit... If someone wants to use a Unix-style OS, then typically they install BSD or Linux. Microsoft sees Linux as a threat, so by encouraging BSD the intended effect may be to even out the number of people using BSD and Linux. The point is 95% of all non-Windows users running Linux would be worse for Microsoft than if 50% run Linux and 50% run BSD. Power (or lack thereof) in numbers. Simple.

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134940)

I suppose that might work if it was a BSD and Linux were corporations, the masses are users not developer. Neither of these are truly encumbred by budged management.

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134811)

of course they have no problem with the BSD, the lifted the BSd networking code for (if i recall) Win95.

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (2)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134815)

I think that is part of it. If BSD were more popular than LINUX then I would think MS would be dising the other license.

MS is doing this so that they can support Apple OS-X and rub one into LINUX at the same time. Competing head to head on technical merits alone has never been a strength of MS. MS competes in other ways and this is it. Competing technically is a short lived argument. Technology always gets better. Making the GNU GPL "sound bad" is a good long term decision influencer...

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (1)

Jotham (89116) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134871)

I agree its aimed at the Apple/FreeBSD university market --through this they can try to convince developers to write code once for both Mac and Windows and forget about all this silly UNIX stuff.


Plus since they can't get windows to stop crashing this should atleast make OS X apps just as buggy ... and for only a slight performance hit too.

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3135113)

I haven't crashed once no GPF's no BSOD's since installing XP-Pro. (about 4 months) and my understanding from the rumor mill is that OS-X is about as stable as Win98 and still has some kinks that need to be worked out. So I wouldn't say that this would make OSX just as buggy, since it's already there without the extra code.

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (2)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134829)

More likely the issue is that all the ex-DECies who went to work in Redmond prefer to work with an O/S that looks as much like ULTRIX as they can find these days.

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (5, Interesting)

Snowfox (34467) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134989)

I would guess one reason is the old "We're ok with BSD, its the evil GPL software like Linux that we have problems with."
Well, more importantly, this creates a convenient runtime binding mechanism for neutering GPL. If you're indirecting calls through the a mechanism such as this one, you can use all the GPL code you want and not have to share any source but the GPL-side adapters.

It's a short step from here to creating staged runtime hierarchy bindings so you can even extend the GPL code directly without sharing the source for your changes.

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (1)

Baca (7658) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134799)

I still want to know WTF is a FreeBSD version of Linux?

is that the /usr/compat/linux tree?

It must be some new fangled program written by M$ during "bug fixing month"

NOBODY HERE KNOWS, MY GAY GPL BUDDY!!! (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134891)

So instead we will sit around and say 'M$' and 'Microsux!' and jerking each other off, thinking about open source.

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134822)

FreeBSD driving the majority of Hotmail? Do you just make this shit up as you go along?
The entirety of the web front-end is Windows 2000. The back end is Sun (yes, there is an ongoing project to migrate this platform). FreeBSD never had anything more than a small role in the Hotmail environment, even PRE Microsoft.

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (1)

derF024 (36585) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134953)

i realize i shouldn't feed the trolls, but..

The entirety of the web front-end is Windows 2000.

do you really think anyone but microsoft would put windows on an important commercial web server like hotmail? Before the MS takeover hotmail's frontend was entirely FreeBSD, as were their DNS servers.

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (1)

Ziest (143204) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134957)

The entirety of the web front-end is Windows 2000. The back end is Sun (yes, there is an ongoing project to migrate this platform). FreeBSD never had anything more than a small role in the Hotmail environment, even PRE Microsoft.


This is incorrect. At the time Microsoft bought Hotmail it was the largest single FreeBSD site in the world. IIRC, the machine count was just over 5000. Since then Microsoft has replaced most of the FreeBSD machine with either Windows 2000 or Sun boxes. There are a few FreeBSD left but not many. My sources, who worked at Hotmail at the time of the Microsoft takeover, tell me that the remaining FreeBSD boxes are doing DNS duty.


Please get your fact straight.

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3135106)

Oh yeah? Largest FreeBSD site in the world, eh? What functions was it running? Enlighten us all, oh mr. smarty pants.

Re:Why FreeBSD, here's my opinion (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134852)

FreeBSD version of linux.. Well.. Linux is a kernel. FreeBSD is a FULL Operating System. This just proves the intelligence of the average slashdot reader. Sad..

Jealous Bitch? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134869)

Yeah Linux isn't the only version of Free UNIX out there...they probably chose to implement on FreeBSD because they didn't have to worry about any chance of source contamination with the smelly GPL license. BSD is business friendly...GPL isn't end of story.

As a FreeBSD user I think it's kinda funny that we got an app before you Linux twerps did!

Maybe you'll have to write a FreeBSD emulator subsystem into your kernel!

Re:Jealous Bitch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134929)

The BSDL is monopoly-friendly. The GPL is business-friendly. As long as you're not in the business of monopolizing.

Re:Jealous Bitch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134984)

Oh yeah...that's right, so Sleepycat software (of Berkeley DB fame) is a bunch of Monopolists huh...oh yeah and so's Sun...cause they use BSD code extensively. BSDi and WindRiver must be the worst (Never mind that BSDi is outta business right now) because they have a couple of products that are based almost entirely upon BSD. And don't forget Apple...now there's a monopoly and a half.

Yup that's right.

Sheesh...i'm sick of you FUCKING MORONS!!! Half of why I use FreeBSD is because I'm sick of the stupid GPL orthodoxy mentality expressed by jackasses like you.

Slashdot...where if it ain't GPL it's a Bad Thing.

Re:Jealous Bitch? (-1)

Genghis Troll (158585) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135050)

It's true; that GPL orthodox mentality expressed by jackasses like him really sucks. On the other hand, you yourself suck even harder. In general, it'd be better if you were both dead.

Possibly OS X? (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135101)

It might also provide a base for an OS X version of .NET (I'm not sure if any plans have been announced in that direction).

RMS Japanese Interview Exclusive (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134788)

Japanese Guy (JG): Starlman-San, are you an ass ricker?

RMS: What!?!

JG: In Japan, it is rumored you are an ass ricker.

RMS: I am not.

JG: Are too.

RMS: AM NOT!!!

JG: Can I poop on you?

RMS: WHAT!!!!

good old vga games era... (1)

gTsiros (205624) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134790)

Rotor was a gravity-based vertical 2d scroller game with vga/ega graphics

*sigh*

coincidentaly, i w4r3zeD it lately, and played it.

like a punch in the face sending you 10 years backwards...

Slashdot community input? (-1, Troll)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134792)

You mean a bunch of open source beatniks who have yet to get a real job who will simply want to debate "GPL" vs "BSD" endlessly?
For the sake of the planet, I hope not.

Re:Slashdot community input? (4, Funny)

spike666 (170947) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134836)

yeah right. look around. its more of a community of people who "hate" microsoft, but want to make .NET work outside of Wintel. thereby aiding microsoft in world domination. you also have the legions of microsoft employees who troll and subvert. and then of course the mac fiends. (of which i am one) and somewhere theres the few unix heads who contribute.

i guess i'm just sick of hearing people who "hate" microsoft helping them by promoting their architecture and systems. to me it is the biggest hypocritical side to slashdot. well other than the subscription gig.

Re:Slashdot community input? (-1)

Mayor McPenisman (557253) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134859)

[[...the legions of microsoft employees who troll and subvert]]

I don't remember getting a paycheck from them for trolling and subverting.

Re:Slashdot community input? (-1)

OsamaBinLager (532628) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134881)

but want to make .NET work outside of Wintel.

What you're looking for, is called Java.

Of course, you're idiots, so you'd never consider using a solution that already exists, has proven its worth, AND has been ported to Linux. You Open Source zealots just want to make things hard for yourself.

Re:Slashdot community input? (2)

spike666 (170947) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135008)

exactly my point.

thank you. if i had mod points to give you, i would.

Can this end now? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3135035)

Since when are all readers of Slashdot the same?

Has it ever occured to people who get upset that one point of view about MS/IP/whatever is followed by the opposite view later on that maybe, just maybe, these two points of view are coming from different people?

CLI (5, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134793)

CLI == Command Line Interface | Command Line Interpreter

wtf is wrong with these people, reusing existing acronyms?

Re:CLI (1)

Gatesninny.net (565318) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134813)

Re: wtf is wrong with these people, reusing existing acronyms?

Like MS telling their customers that DNS = Digital Nervous System. Remember that?

Re:CLI (1)

cyborch (524661) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134906)

and telling us that DNA = Distributed interNet Applications and != deoxyribonucleic acid...

of cause MS knows better than the Hunam Genome Program [ornl.gov] ...

Re:CLI (1)

turbosk (73287) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134892)

It's probly in MS's best interest to make CLI mean anything *but* "command line interface", since that's antithetical to their windows philosophy. I'd bet MS would LOVE to transform those letters into something else and distance themselves from their CLI past.

I'm not sure it's coincidence that they're appropriating the acronym.

Re:CLI (1)

Alanus (309106) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134894)

No, CLI means Call Level Interface as everybody should know... ;-)

Re:CLI (1)

labratuk (204918) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134958)

I know, it's annoying as hell, it took me a good two minutes to figure out what the headline was on about.

Re:CLI (1)

Rudie (141854) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134966)

There are only about 17 000 three-letter acronyms, sooner or later they will have to be reused.

Re:CLI (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135029)

There are only about 17 000 three-letter acronyms, sooner or later they will have to be reused.

It's not the first time I've had an issue with Microsoft re-naming or re-defining universally known concepts, kind of another aspect of their monopoly. It's caused some confusion at work when I say apples and someone else who read a M$ book says bananas.

To thoroughly piss-off geeks, I fully expect them to appropriate XYZZY and PLUGH into some gawd-awful inappropriate manner.

Re:CLI (2)

Mandelbrute (308591) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135045)

wtf is wrong with these people, reusing existing acronyms?
Isn't that the general nature of people that use computers professionally for their own sake?

Example question: IP as used as a word in conversation is

- Intermediate Pressure

- Internet Protocol

- Intelectual Property

- All of the above plus something new soon

The real annoynaces are the acronyms that only apply within a single company or workplace, and those that believe that everyone on earth should know what they mean when they use them.

Re:CLI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3135083)

http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?p=dict&S tring=exact&Acronym=CLI

Cache-Line Interleaving
Call Level Interface
Calling Line Identifier
Certified Legal Investigator
Certified Lotus Instructor
Clear Interrupt Flag
Command Language Interpreter (OpenVMS operating system)
Command Line Interpreter
Common Language Infrastructure (Microsoft)
Communication Line Interface
Comparison Labs, Incorporated
Credit for Low-Income Individuals
Cumulative Leakage Index
Customer Loyalty Index

Re:CLI (4, Insightful)

mattr (78516) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135097)

This is quite intentional and not a laughing matter.

"Embrace and Extend" means Microsoft has an imperative from way up high to subvert anything it perceives as dangerous. This includes weakening de facto standards (made a lot of people code for MS Java) or somehow take over the very concepts we use to think about our environment.

This is very dangerous when the environment is based on agreement by a lot of people as to virtual standards. Ultimately a Microsoft brand name would be planned in such a calculation to completely replace common features of the landscape. Or did you think they would allow "http://" to remain in the Address bar forever?

This is a seedy corporate tactic and unless we refuse to feed our brains with Microsoft drivel we have only ourselves to blame. They've still got plenty of acronyms to go..

licenses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134807)

microsoft sure likes the BSD license.

Re:licenses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134825)

that is they like other ppl to use it. windows' tcp/ip stack ring a bell?

Re:licenses (-1)

OsamaBinLager (532628) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134885)

Microsoft used the BSD interface, not their code.

And what if they did? The whole point of the BSD license is freedom, for you and me and Microsoft and everybody.

You got a problem with freedom, bub?

Re:licenses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3135053)

Only the BSD licence permits using the source code to kill babies!

Now that is open!

Be very very careful. (4, Insightful)

Ami Ganguli (921) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134816)

The existance of a widely distributed "visible-source" version from MS means that developers of Open Source versions have to take special care to document their development. If there's any similarity between Mono or DotGNU and the MS offering, MS can try to say that their code has been stolen.

Note that if MS really wanted independant implmentations then they would just use a BSD license. They're not doing that, and that means there's something sneaky going on. Don't trust them.

Re:Be very very careful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134904)

True, you'll notice how big a fan Microsoft is of code being BSD licensed... but only when it's not theirs.

The next time MS is slagging off the GPL and bigupping BSD as being better for the software biosphere - point them at this non-commercial bullshit license.

Re:Be very very careful. (3, Insightful)

Jobe_br (27348) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134915)

Absolutely true. Be extraordinarily careful. Its one thing to look at and share code from something similarly licensed to your project, but quite another to incorporate code from this into a GPL or BSD-licensed project. Recall from the end of the article:

When it's available, that 18MB tarball will be available to download, compile, test, and modify (for non-commercial use).

This is certainly not what could commonly be referred to as Open Source. I suppose its great for folks just wanting to work with .NET in an academic environment or to teach themselves (much like I am attempting to currently do), but that's as far as you can apparently go.

Re:Be very very careful. (1)

labratuk (204918) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134982)

Don't trust them.


Come on, this is slashdot. You're preaching to the converted.

Re:Be very very careful. (2)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135103)

The command-line .net runtime and compiler are freely downloadable. I wonder whether they run under Wine. This would be preferable to downloading the 'shared source' version, since there is no chance of becoming contaminated by looking at the source.

I wonder how Rotor impacts VIC20 sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134827)

It could be a problem.

If you code FS, don't _ever_ look at the source (3, Interesting)

lkaos (187507) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134833)

I am absolutely positive that the licensing terms for the 'shared source' are going to involve some sort of extreme IP protection mechanism that will give MS unimaginable amount of power to prosecute anyone who they believe is violating their IP.

From now on, FS developers will have to make sure that anyone on their project has _not_ agreed to the MS shared source license. Kaffe has a similiar policy because of Sun's nasty license.

Re:If you code FS, don't _ever_ look at the source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134889)

FS? What do filesystems have to do with this?

Oh, maybe you meant "FLTK Source"? or... "FreeBSD Software"? Maybe "Fanatical Shithead"?

MYSCDOTA!

Err, I mean, maybe you should cut down on the acronyms.

Re:If you code FS, don't _ever_ look at the source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134897)

doesn't look like Kaffe has much popularity, do they?

Hmmm... (1)

russmack (561355) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134840)

Extend and embrace?

Re:Hmmm... (1)

NetWurkGuy (240604) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134950)

I believe the sequence is Embrace .. Extend .. Extinguish.

I hear it is faster than Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134841)

I was on a bus in Seattle and overheard Bill Gates say Bill Joy admitted CLR was better than Java and begged Bill for a job.

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134860)

Netcraft officially confirms *BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Du to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BSD is dying

Rotor? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134861)

is that kinda like the alien Scrotor?

Input. (3, Funny)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134872)

Wonder if that includes Slashdot community input...

By which you mean fanatical, Stallmanist screeds about the evils of proprietary software? The written equivalent of storming the castle gates with torches, pitchforks, and not a thought in your head?

Probably not.

--saint

Re:Input. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134875)

storming the castle gates, or storming The Castle Gates? :)

(+1, Funny) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134944)

Good one!

Sorry, I ain't got no points right now.

Re:Input. (1)

cyborch (524661) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134936)

The best case is that MS has realised the strength of OSS and is using it to build better software. If MS "embraces and extends" the open source way of developing software we will see much better products comming from MS in the time to come... alas, it seems that Rotor will never actually be used for anything outside windows as it does not include ASP.NET , ADO.NET or Windows Forms.

Most likely this is yet another attempt to make us waste our money and time while MS thinks up their next idea...

But 'till we actually see a license agreement from MS, it's hard to know what they have in mind with Rotor.

The evils of "spin doctors" (3, Insightful)

geoswan (316494) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134874)

"Spin doctoring" is a neologism refering to the act of putting a complimentary "spin" on news that shows some public figure or institution in a really bad light. If you follow the links you will find some other fascinating examples of "spin" being doctored. Note particularly the Microsoft's "gpl_faq.doc" [microsoft.com] and The Commercial Software Model and Sustainable Innovation [microsoft.com] .

I hate this kind of untruthfulness. The authors of the GPL document know the real meaning of open source, and the other terms they plan to redefine. They mean to sway the minds of the rest of the public who don't know how self-serving their redefinitions are.

Re:The evils of "spin doctors" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134935)

At first glance I thought you were chastising the GPL authors for self-servingly redefining the word "free". If that's not what you meant to write, it should have been.

Re:The evils of "spin doctors" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134998)

There is no other defniition of "free" besides that of GPL. All other definitions are self- contradictory. Of course some ignorant people still prefer a self-contradicting version of "free". Well, there will always be morons. For the rest of us, there is GPL

*BSD and the art of failure (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134876)

As *BSD continues its slide into oblivion, it is important to examine the cause of its failure.

So why now? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities?

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shround over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

Re:*BSD and the art of failure (1)

Jotham (89116) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134899)

I don't know about your other figures but Darwin and OS X fall under your failing *BSD umbrella and their percentages are rising.

No no no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134898)

Literally, a deal with the devil. Remember folks, these people are above the law. Doesn't matter what promises they make or contracts they sign. They no longer have any need to abide by any agreement they make.

so what does non commercial refer to? (2, Insightful)

cheese_wallet (88279) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134901)

I only had time to scan the article, so I'm hoping someone who understands this a little better than me can help out...

They say it is for non-commercial puproses...but what part of it? when you build this package, you get a c# compiler and some script compiler, and I assume the class libraries and VM or whatever CLI is (I really don't know). I can understand the part about building an app with their c# compiler being for non-commercial purposes--but don't you need the CLI library or virtual machine or whatever to run a .NET/c# app?

So if I pull down Rotor, build it-- can I use it (the libs/vm whatever CLI is, tossing out the compilers) to run commercial apps? or is that a violation of the proposed license?

I'd also be interested in knowing if this proposed license would prevent someone from selling sourcecode to a project, and have them compile it themselves on their own copy of rotor (which might be conveniently included with the source).
--Scott

Windows Forms? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134907)

A substantial part of the classes are Windows Forms. How do they plan to implement them on FreeBSD?

Re:Windows Forms? (3, Interesting)

tb3 (313150) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135022)

They don't. Windows Forms is not included in the 'standard' they submitted to ECMA. Which makes their duplicity rather obvious. At least Sun tried with the Java Swing library, even if it doesn't work very well.

Community input? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3134923)

Asking slashdot what they think of this would be like asking the KKK what they thought of abolishing apartheid.

Somehow I think they were looking for intelligent informed opinions instead.

paranoia anyone? (2, Redundant)

bob@dB.org (89920) | more than 12 years ago | (#3134938)

and people say i'm paranoid...

Be very very careful. (Score:5, Insightful)
...If there's any similarity between Mono or DotGNU and the MS offering, MS can try to say that their code has been stolen ....

ah, the old cut-off-the-oxygen (Score:4, Insightful)
...hobbyists something they can dink around with and they won't be worried about 'software freedom'; they want neat toys, not free software...

and my personal favorite:

If you code FS, don't _ever_ look at the source (Score:4, Interesting)
...From now on, FS developers will have to make sure that anyone on their project has _not_ agreed to the MS shared source license...

let the flamefest and downmodding begin!

Re:paranoia anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3135017)

Mod the parent downn, please, it is repetative, no substance, inflamatory, personal favorite, "hot grits" type of thing. There is not even one original and meaningfull word there. Don't feel bad because the guy chalenges you on the grounds that he will be moded down. This is an old and stupid trick. Judge on merits. He's got none...

License (1)

marcovje (205102) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135016)

Microsoft chooses FreeBSD over Linux, because it
has a more liberal license, but:

"Anyone expecting to use this implementation as the basis for distributing a commercial product would need to negotiate a license for this purpose with Microsoft."

Re:License (1)

DrSpin (524593) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135066)

Any person undertaking this kind of negotiation may need a sawn-off shotgun, or even an Uzi, to be on equal terms with his opponent.

A good translation might be "Anyone expecting to use this implementation as the basis for distributing a commercial product would need to have his head examined"

Mono should't be _too_worried (2)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135032)

Alot of people are pointing out that MS's licensing could turn out to be really bad for Mono should they say that Mono stole their source. But don't forget, Mono itself is written in C#, not C. That is why it is taking so long to get the compiler self-hosting. I am pretty sure this MS compiler is written in C, so Mono should be OK. That says nothing od DotGNU however, and I do agree that MS is probably trying to pull a fast one with this.

Muddying the Waters.... (5, Interesting)

zulux (112259) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135040)

Microsoft is engaging in a tactic called "Muddying the Waters" - when your adversary has crystal clear goals and objectives, you can divert him by giving him extra goals and more interesting things to ponder. Any time spent away form the goals of Free Software is a win for Microsoft.

Remember that the sucuess of Linux is due to the GPL and not due to it's technical merrits. If technical merrit were all that mattated - we all would be running Be right now.

Linux and Free Software are winning becuase we are not playing Microoft's game of Shiny-Box-On-Retail-Shelf software. We are using the desruptive technology of the GPL. and Microsoft is now getting wise and is trying to play our game.

Don't let Balmer make you do his monkey dance.

Why??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3135043)

It's a nice thing watching MS co-operating wih true OSS developers, and not the Linux creeps that lead Linux-based companies to starvation. Although I think MS should stay out of it at all. I'm happy that most people have realised that proprietary software vendors are necessary in order to plot the softare evolution. OSS/FS developers are just waiting for Microsofts and other commercial software vendors to show up with something new that they will embrace and extend. Same with .NET, that's OSS/FS' future...

*BSD is dying (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3135064)

Netcraft officially confirms *SD is dying

Yet nother crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Du to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For ll practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BSD is dying

There is an end-run around 'Non Commercial'! (4, Interesting)

Jack William Bell (84469) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135090)

Available for 'Non Commercial Use Only'? Hmm... But this is a runtime! This has some really interesting implications...

Let us suppose Rotor is fully compatible with the Windows CLI. I develop a commercial application for the Windows CLI. I also test the application for Rotor, but I don't ship the application packaged for it. Instead I ship the application packaged so that it simply expects a CLI runtime.

In my FAQ I mention that it was tested with Rotor and provide a pointer to some generic explanation for installing a CLI application to run with Rotor. My customers wanting to run the app on FreeBSD or Mac (or any future Rotor implementation) simply install the app as described and now have my application there.

Microsoft may have a case against this, but they probably do not have a case against me. And I doubt they would go after all of my customers.

Jack William Bell, who thinks this is a pretty unlikely scenario and is hoping Mono will make it moot.

commercialized (2)

Satai (111172) | more than 12 years ago | (#3135110)

It's too bad that they used a non-commercial license... Just seems like it would be so much better if other companies could take it and turn it into commercial software. Right, Craig? ;-)

So it's a problem when the GPL prevents proprietization of software, but when the MS one even prevents selling it, or using it for commercial work...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>