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!

De Icaza Pleads For Mono/.Net Cooperation

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the talk-to-me dept.

Novell 262

suka writes "In a recent interview with the online edition of an Austrian newspaper, Mono project-lead Miguel de Icaza pleads for cooperation between Mono and Microsoft's .Net: 'I think that the deal should include a technical Mono/.NET collaboration, and even go as far as Microsoft recommending Mono for all of their developers looking at migration'. The whole interview has some other interesting bits, like de Icaza's thoughts on open sourced Java and information about upcoming versions of Mono."

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

Frosty (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18507771)

All others bow before me.

Jack Valenti has stroke so cooperate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508141)

The MPAA-RIAA-M$ evil axis is beginning to crumble, so don't get all warm and fuzzy feeling inside now. They can still regroup even though they look weak now due to...

MPAA = Jack Valenti has stroke
RIAA = sales down 20%
Microsoft = Vista takes 10 times longer to copy a file

Mono (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18507823)

My cousin tried Mono in college. Some bed rest and lots of fluid and she eventually got better.

Yeah right (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 7 years ago | (#18507827)

>Microsoft recommending Mono for all of their developers looking at migration

Why would it be in Microsoft's best interest to support migration to Mono?
Doesn't EEE make more sense for them?

Because SUSE will soon become MS-linux (1, Troll)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508047)

It will take some time (5y, 10y tops) and MS will buy Novell, puppet of 2007
By then, they'll probably even buddle Exchange and SQL

I know I might be trollin' a bit here but I still think "Novell's deal with the devil" is a win-win for MS:
-Suse Dies => big woop for MS
-Linux Dies (as if) => party time @ MS (and possibly the break up of MS a-la-ma-bell)
-Suse becomes real big => MS gets first dibs to buy/control it.
MS:parasite of the IT

Re:Yeah right (4, Insightful)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508345)

Because it saves them market share, which is still valuable. If you're going to lose someone to Linux, you can at least keep them partially on your platform. This makes it easy, or sometimes desirable, to switch back to Windows (for integration into other Windows software, etc).

Furthermore, if you keep them on .NET, you may also keep them on SQL Server and Exchange, which are very very pricey and I'm sure turns a nice profit.

Visual Studio is also very nice to work in, and Visual Studio isn't cheap, either. As you use Mono you can reuse those same components on Windows, too (ideally).

You know... (4, Insightful)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509169)

You know, this guy got mod'ed troll, but at worst I think he was off-topic.

In all reality, that is a quintessential Microsoft move.

Purchase into a market, then leverage their OS monopoly to drive adoption of SUSE, or whatever they may call it then. It's already begun, but imagine a version of Linux that also supports the ACTUAL Win32 API, or true cross-compatibility between Windows and this one linux distro.

Sure, the Microsoft-Haters in the linux community would throw fits over it and boycott it entirely, but the businesses that use Linux for web servers and db servers and such don't care about that. To them it would mean the best of both worlds. And in all honesty, they'd be correct.

Of course, it would probably be bad for the Linux community, I'm not denying that. But this is a very standard modus operandi for Redmond. It's certainly more than just a troll.

Benefit. (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18507829)

I suspect that it's simply a matter of Microsoft seeing no true benefit in cooperating and operating hand-in-hand. If there was potential benefit, they'd do it. Simple as that. I think he'll have to try much harder to plead his case to get a corporation to want to unfold its arms for anything it doesn't see as directly improving its own bottom line.

Re:Benefit. (2, Interesting)

Vicegrip (82853) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508671)

Perhaps, but it's narrow minded if thats the case. If Microsoft supported Mono they could point to it for those wanting an open-sourced .NET platform without having to change any of their current proprietary works.

A simple "we will not sue" would be a nice place to start for instance. I can't see how that would be a big risk. Therefore, I can only suspect that the reason it hasn't been done yet is that certain senior management is too pig headed to admit a different strategy is needed. Java is GPLed now. Microsoft is going to need an answer sooner or later. Maybe for once they won't wait until the opposition has a huge head-start. *cough* *cough* *cough*

It's called keeping your options open. A little bit of support now could pay off big time in the future when Microsoft gets fingered for not having an open source .NET solution.

so, at last... (2, Insightful)

WeAreAllDoomed (943903) | more than 7 years ago | (#18507841)

the sleeper activates...

De Icaza is a disgrace to OSS. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18509409)

I know a lot of people in the OSS community think of De Icaza as some sort of god. But when we look at his actual contributions, I think they've set the OSS community back by years.

Take GNOME, for instance. When GNOME was first established, KDE was already the premiere OSS desktop environment. There were some minor licensing issues, but with Trolltech's cooperation those were quite easily worked out. Regardless, a lot of effort was put into GNOME to duplicate what KDE already offered. Even today, we still see that GNOME has not yet caught up to KDE. And with the upcoming release of KDE 4, it's unlikely that GNOME will ever be able to catch up to KDE, let alone overtake it. Nearly a decade of effort has been wasted on GNOME, with so very little to show.

And then we have Mono, the subject of this Slashdot topic. Again, so much valuable time and effort has been wasted on creating a product that really is of no benefit to the OSS community. In fact, it blatantly stands against what OSS is all about. And beyond that, we already have a common runtime: the POSIX interface shared by Linux, *BSD, and even commercial UNIX systems. And even on top of that we already have many language options: C, C++, Python, Perl, Tcl and Ruby, just to name a few.

Like GNOME before it, Mono is essentially a waste. Just imagine how much further along projects like KDE, Python, Perl, and Ruby would be if effort and expertise hadn't been wastefully siphoned off to GNOME and Mono. It's quite conceivable that Linux could have been a major rival to Windows on the desktop.

Good Luck (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18507845)

Good luck on that. Microsoft most certainly doesn't want its application platform running well on other operating systems. The whole point of .Net was get something there while it fucked over Sun. I'm afraid that Mono, like Samba and OpenOffice, is stuck reverse engineering Microsoft, and that will always be a game of catchup.

Re:Good Luck (1)

stinkbomb (238228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508071)

[[citation needed]]

Re:Good Luck (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508075)

Well, I think the point he is trying to make is that Novell should have pushed for the cooperation to be part of the deal, as in: one of Novell's demands. Of course Microsoft probably doesn't want to do this voluntarily, which is why it would have a place in the deal.

Re:Good Luck (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508081)

I hate to say it but I always felt Mono was a mistake. The problem with .NET is that it really is a Windows only system. When you try to point that out people say not it isn't you can use Mono. A convent lie that lets .NET compete with Java right up to the point where you have tens of thousands of lines of code and you want to migrate to a different platform. Then the Microsoft sales rep can say, "You know Mono really has fallen behind .NET. You can port your applications if you want but it would just be cheaper to stick with Windows. Once you add in the cost of porting all that code your Total Cost of Ownership will be much less with Windows. Oh and would you like some more copies of Office and another Exchange server to got with that?"

Mono is multi-platform .NET is not.

Re:Good Luck (3, Insightful)

Teckla (630646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508363)

I hate to say it but I always felt Mono was a mistake. The problem with .NET is that it really is a Windows only system. When you try to point that out people say not it isn't you can use Mono. A convent lie that lets .NET compete with Java right up to the point where you have tens of thousands of lines of code and you want to migrate to a different platform. Then the Microsoft sales rep can say, "You know Mono really has fallen behind .NET. You can port your applications if you want but it would just be cheaper to stick with Windows. Once you add in the cost of porting all that code your Total Cost of Ownership will be much less with Windows. Oh and would you like some more copies of Office and another Exchange server to got with that?"

Mono is multi-platform .NET is not.

Even worse... How long until Ballmer starts grumbling about Mono using Microsoft patents?

Mono will never be a safe language for developers ... or even users. Just wait until Microsoft starts talking about how users of Mono applications owe Microsoft money because of the usage of Microsoft patented technology in Mono...

Re:Good Luck (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508469)

Mono will never be a safe language for developers

Mono isn't a language, safe or otherwise.

Re:Good Luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508753)

Sure it is, though It is more formally known as Common Intermediate Language. Granted it is other things as well...

Where were you when I had mod points? (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509183)

Oh, the lameness of it. All I can post is 'ditto'.

Re:Good Luck (2, Informative)

protected_static (949443) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508719)

Mono is multi-platform .NET is not.

Well, by definition .NET is Windows-only. The underlying Common Language Interpreter doesn't have to be. IIRC, Microsoft released a couple of non-Windows versions of the CLI when .NET was first released, including one that ran on some flavor of BSD.

Part of the problem (1)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508997)

is that there are fundamental philosophical differences in programming strategies that a cross-platform tool will be unable to overcome. Windows tends to support object-oriented approaches, while *nix supports data-triven approaches. Some loosely typed languages like Perl and Python allow one to sort of freely meld these approaches (Perl moreso than Python), but this has some strong drawbacks in certain types of projects.

Even if .Net (or Java) were truly cross-platform (write once, test once, run everywhere), these things would not get huge traction in the *nix markets because the approach seems at odds with the OS.

I personally think that software should be written for one primary platform and if you can support others with a minimum of headache, go for it. Then those who work on other platforms should have some responsibility in contributing to the port.

Re:Good Luck (1)

jorgepblank (976019) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509047)

Actually, .Net is an implementation of the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI, ECMA-335 [] ), just like Mono is. .Net only runs on Microsoft supported platforms while Mono tries to run on many more. The fact that .Net isn't cross-platform doesn't matter, because it is Microsoft's, what do you expect? But that does not necessarily mean CLI is Microsoft's. The way I see it, Mono is a cross platform implementation of CLI trying to be as compatible with Microsoft's .Net as possible. And like the guy below wrongly said, .Net/Mono isn't a language, all these confusions about are what make unknowing people accuse and put C# ( ECMA-334 [] ) and/or CLI down.

This time is a backwards embrace & extend (5, Interesting)

Nicolay77 (258497) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509363)

I thing all the projects started by Icaza have been secretly backed by Microsoft (except midnight commander). This includes Gnome.

MS monopoly is all about protecting the API. As Ballmer said: developers, developers, developers! They had one API everybody used, win32, and it was their crown jewel. As long as everybody keep developing for win32, MS would win.

Then came Linux. If Linux distros could provide a competing API to Win32, MS would be screwed. MS solution? fragment the Linux API. You see, one of the main values of a successful API is that it's universal. So how to destroy Linux? Destroy the universality of the API. Make not one, but TWO competing APIs! Then developers would have endless religious wars and Linux would not grow as a competing commercial platform against Win32. How to do it? Make Gnome and start a religious war against the then 'closed license' QT libraries. Forward ten years and what's the result? Nobody uses either KDE or Gnome to develop commercial software, the 'developers, developers, developers' are still somewhere else. Oracle uses Java as the API when running in Linux. And who started Gnome? Icaza.

Meanwhile Java becomes stronger against C++. Developers switch to Java.

Now what happens, MS decides to create a new API from zero, sacrificing their beloved Win32. The new API is then called .NET. They have to do this, because they could not destroy Java. Now MS has to protect .NET, make it the universal API that every developer would use. Linux (as always) is a threat to MS. So what's MS strategy this time? The same they used against Java, just a little backwards.

Against Java they used the embrace and extend, promoting J++, that used MS proprietary extensions to the Java language to achieve developer lock in. To protect .NET from Linux, they would do a backwards embrace an extend: give Linux a limited .NET implementation, so that developers would still be locked to .NET proprietary extensions in the Windows platform. This limited .NET implementation is MONO. And who started MONO? Icaza.

Right now it is Java vs .NET, everywhere where developers make $$$.

Icaza is also a strong backer of the Novel-MS deal.

All I can see Icaza doing lately is telling everybody: "why can't we be friends?", but I seriously suspect the motives behind it.

Re:Good Luck (2, Insightful)

gambit3 (463693) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508087)


When has M$ cared about it, unless it was to Embrace then expand? It only cares about interoperability if it's playing catchup in the market. If it isn't, then you're screwed trying to get this from M$.

Re:Good Luck (5, Insightful)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508089)

Considering that section 3.d.iii of their MSDN code license (Covers the code samples on the MSDN site) specifically disallows you from using any of their code on non-windows platforms, I'd say their position on cross platform compatibility is crystal clear.

MSDN Code License []

Re:Good Luck (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508637)

One word: rotor.

In fact, (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508703)

had mono came out about 3 years earlier (i.e. during the early days of .net), then MS would have cooperated until they felt that they had enough market share taken from java, and then they would have gone after mono. Based on MS's long history of screwing over all their partners, I would say that it was very predictable what this outcome was going to be. What I am amazed at, is that so many expect different of MS. This is the classic case of a dog helping a scorpion across the lake and then getting stung on the other side. The simple answer, that it is in the scorpions nature. Well, it has ALWAYS been in MS's nature.

Re:Good Luck (1)

maop (309499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509053)

So what? Don't use their sample code. By a C# book or look at the many free online tutorials for sample code.

Re:Good Luck (1)

zhobson (22730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508631)

Exactly! I remember pointing this out [] when Miguel tried to justify Mono years ago.

What's "Flamebait" now, huh? Huh? Miguel has been utterly consistent in his unfounded trust of Microsoft and his thorough admiration of their technology.

The "sleeper cell" bit may have been a joke, but it's easy to see how that thinking arises.

Re:Good Luck (4, Insightful)

kosmosik (654958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508687)

> I'm afraid that Mono,

Dunno. I don't use it - *I* think it sucks cause I have installed some apps using Mono on my Fedora box and they crashed really bad all the time. So it probably sucks.

> like Samba

Samba? Well Samba is Samba. Maybe it lacks in some stuff that MS has implemented (AD and such) but still it is de facto standard for CIFS/Windows Networking on non-Windows systems. It is *the* standard for most of unices, NAS boxes, Macs, Solaris, Linuxes etc. So I don't really think Samba fits along with Mono or (read further for OOo) it is not even in the same league it is not even the same game. Samba *is* very successfull and fucking nice OSS project. I have like dozens of servers that do really weird stuff most of that would not be even possible using Windows. Like providing SMB services with custom configuration just to support really old (but trust me - business critical) DOS programs.

I've read about Samba implemementations (search on /. there was a "Ask..." some time ago) that do stuff that Windows could never (for economical or practical reasons) do. Like really wide WANS, really Terminal Services (what Windows provides regarding printing is a joke) spawning multiple operating systems into custom soltuion.

So *please* do respect that Samba *is* the killer-app of Open Source. I can bet that along Apache/PHP/Python/PERL/Java whatever stuff Samba is one off the most important projects that drive OSS adoption on servers (and also on clients - see OSX).

> and OpenOffice,

Well is a cow - bloated, big and slow. But still making OOo work faster (like throwing some hardware onto the problem) is cheaper than getting into MS Office licensing. OOo is *not* MS Office replacement (due to problems with exchanging documents with MSO - but hey even various versions of MS have *severe* problems with exchanging their documents) but as an office suite itself it is really nice. From my (company) perspective it does fucking loads of jobs right - it does basic office stuff almost right, it manages to interact with databases, it can do really nice macros/scripting/programming, it can produce decent PDF files, it can (due to ODF support) interact with other OSS projects (our marketing stuff edits our website right from OO.o via XMLRPC and eZ Publish CMS - imagine that). Etc. So OOo is also in another league than Mono.

Mono? I just don't see any practical use of it for me. Few apps, bloated runtime. What are the advantages? Java is much better for portability.

What? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18507849)

'I think that the deal should include a technical Mono/.NET collaboration, and even go as far as Microsoft recommending Mono for all of their developers looking at migration'

Microsoft recommending a non-microsoft technology for a migration away from a Microsoft OS? Did i get that correctly?

Hey while we're asking for that one can we ask Microsoft to donate money to the FSF as well? That'll have pretty much the same chance of happening :)

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508807)

Hey while we're asking for that one can we ask Microsoft to donate money to the FSF as well? That'll have pretty much the same chance of happening :)

You'd be surprised. Microsoft matches employee's donations to United Way. United Way, in turn, sponsors the FSF. I don't know how much of UW's money goes to the FSF, but Microsoft and its employees, not counting Bill Gates, give more than $15M per year to UW.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508829)

I think that the deal should include a technical Mono/.NET collaboration

Well duh. You mean it didn't? What kind of deal was that?

Sounds kind of pitiful (5, Funny)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18507861)

This is like a pimply teenager begging the homecoming queen to go out with him.

Wait. Did I just compare Bill Gates to a homecoming queen?

Re:Sounds kind of pitiful (3, Funny)

monopole (44023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508433)

More like a pimply teenager begging his lifer cell mate to be gentle.

Why? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18507871)

Why does anyone in the Linux/OSS community even bother listening to what this Microsoft shill/mole has to say anymore?

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508137)

Agreed. De Icaza started out with admirable hopes of helping poor Mexican children through successful Free Software, putting a whole desktop project into motion. That he now is just a corporate shill investing all his time and energy in a misguided language project that even his GNOME colleagues don't take seriously just shows he has ceased to be a big player.

The point of Mono? (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 7 years ago | (#18507879)

(Disclaimer: I somewhat dislike Java and .NET)

What was the point for them of choosing .NET development over Java from FOSS's point of view?
What does it give them they think that Java couldn't? MZ format wrapped binaries?

Re:The point of Mono? (1)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508193)

Language independance.

Re:The point of Mono? (3, Insightful)

metamatic (202216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508333)

Language independance

Yeah, 'cause it's not like you can compile other languages like Ruby [] to Java bytecode.

Re:The point of Mono? (3, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508411)

Well, first and foremost, some people seem to prefer one over the other. God only knows why, but they do. That alone would be reason enough. Second of all, while they have many similarities, they also have many differences, and they're not particularly compatible. Having FLOSS support for both means software written in either can be free. That's a big deal too. It's basically the same reason that the Gnu Compiler Collection includes Fortran as well as C. And finally, while the Java spec was (and as far as I know, still is) under the control of one company, and is subject to change at a whim, Mono is (believe it or not) based on a public standard. It's a fuzzy standard from a dubious standards body (ECMA) that tends to be a bit of a corporate lapdog, and it only covers parts of what MS calls ".NET", but it is a standard, and FLOSS folks tend to really like public standards.

But really, the first one is the biggie. Why have Perl AND Tcl AND Python AND Ruby? Why have Gnome AND Kde AND Xfce AND GnuStep? Why have Emacs AND vi? Why have bash AND tcsh AND zsh? Why have Sendmail AND Postfix AND Exim? Why have MySQL AND PostgreSQL AND Firebird? Because people aren't all the same, and have different preferences, and, at some level, FLOSS is supposed to be, at least in part, about choice and freedom.

Re:The point of Mono? (1)

zbowling (597617) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509011)

Actually you can do more on Mono then Java. and Mono can run Java as a function fully functioning JVM using IKVM.NET ( [] ). In fact that Java based x86 emulator that was posted a few days ago is running on Mono with IVKM. Not so easy to go the other direction ( [] ).

Re:The point of Mono? (1)

BlackEmperor (213615) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508961)

.Net has a huge army of developers, specifically in the ISV sector, which could bring a flood of applications to Linux. Java is, in my experience, used more in a corporate environment.

Miguel de Icaza's web log (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18507897) []

"The crowd at OSNews got upset because I said advocate more collaboration between Mono and Microosft. It is hardly news, I advocated the same thing in August during an interview that I did with Sam Ramji from Microsoft, before I knew of any MS/Novell collaboration."

I feel bad... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18507911)

I've never been fond of the guy, as he always seemed like a blowhard who promted himself at the expense of others. But between Mono (which, OK, was his decision) and the corner he painted himself into with SuSE / Novell / Microsoft / OMGITSATRAP! he's really marginalized himself.

.NOT NYET (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18507937)

Oh just quit it, Mono has no takeup because if people wanted to use Microsoft technology they'd be buying Vista and .NET.
If they want cross platform portability they don't rely on Microsoft for anything, rather than try .NET plus a clone.

All Mono does is give them a veneer to claim cross platform portability without actually being cross platform portable.

Re:.NOT NYET (1)

BlackEmperor (213615) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509015)

The people using Mono already have Vista and .Net as Mono targets Windows developers, not Linux developers. And why do you say it is not cross platform portable? Last time I checked I could compile a program under Mono and run it on windows and linux - is that not cross platform portable?

Re:.NOT NYET (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509039)

Correct. People thinking MONO allows cross platform compatibility with .NET have never coded anything beyond a few forms and command line tools in their lives. No programmer worth their salt will pick .NET for the language or the base framework themselves. They pick .NET because it integrate easily with windows land. (Active Directory, SQL Server or Oracle on Windows, just about anything Windows specific like the journal or the performance counters, IIS and ASP.NET, etc).

As soon as you touch any of that stuff, even if the framework was perfect, crossplatform compatibility goes down the window (pun not intended).

I'm a .NET programmer, but the day I want cross platform, is the day I get rid of my MSDN Subscription: .NET will -never- be it, no matter how hard the Mono guys work.

If you use Mono, its because you like Mono. Not because you like .NET.

Patents, again... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18507941)

I'm hoping someone with more knowledge can chime in here and shed some light on the issue of .NET patents.

My understanding is that Mono exists because of a statement, made by Microsoft, that they won't sue for re-implementations of the ECMA-submitted components of .NET. I think this is the C# language and the CLR.

Mono is now starting to slip into linux distributions and that worries me. Tomboy for example is the default load of Ubuntu 7.04. I'm not a rabid MS hater, but since when does a promise from Microsoft mean anything at all?

Is there any legal protection for the Mono team and those who distribute it?

Re:Patents, again... (2, Informative)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508767)

While MS pledged some patents to be royalty-free as part of the ECMA standardization of C#, those were only the patents that applied directly to the C# language. Mono code is covered by claims in other Microsoft patents as well, and patents of additional third parties.

So, if you use a paid-up copy of Novell, Microsoft says it won't sue you for using Mono. For 5 years, I hear, and then maybe they'll do it anyway.

I can't begin to understand why Miguel would have wanted to devote so many years of his life to a project that MS would invariably claim rights over. Is he just waking up to this now?


Re:Patents, again... (4, Insightful)

wasabii (693236) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509263)

Because he has an honest belief that a) patents are bogus and b) C#/.Net are great platforms.

Is that so hard to understand? If we were all so scared of patents, we wouldn't have a) implemented FAT b) probably not written Linux itself c) would be scared of our own shadow.

There are patents that cover every aspect of every system you use, FOSS or not. This is not an issue that affects Mono specifically, but rather our entire free software ecosystem. It's rather nice to see somebody who isn't scared of his own shadow be willing to take them head on.

Re:Patents, again... (1)

kosmosik (654958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509017)

> Mono is now starting to slip into linux distributions and that
> worries me. Tomboy for example

OMFG some sticky notes app is using Mono. ;) Sorry for irony but it just quite summarizes the attempt of Mono. How about few hundreds of mature Java projects, probably thousands if nod millions of server side comercial Java uses (yes on Linux, or other unices) doing finance stuff and such.

Sorry Mono is just a sad Joke. It does not offer any portability, it is bloated and is a toy. Open Source or die - now we have (open) Java and MS can stick .Net into their butts - lets compete, seriously. It is like the Jihad. No compromises. :)

Really .Net is just some programming language and runtime stuffed on Windows platform - it is tied to Win32, Microsoft does not want it to be cross-platform, so lets have it their way and just fuck it.

Re:Patents, again... (2, Interesting)

paulxnuke (624084) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509093)

My understanding is that the "standardization" rules explicitly allow MS to charge a ("reasonable") license fee for stuff like the CLR.

If they decided to ask one cent per application that uses the CLR on non-Windows platforms:

  • no one could call it unreasonable or exclusionary: many would say that MS deserves to be paid for their research
  • 10 cents extra / copy of the average distro is too much for most makers to absorb, and would cost several dollars to collect in addition to the user outrage involved. Likewise, how about the people who write and distribute a couple of titles?
  • a lot of the programs involved are GPL, which would cause major legal problems in addition to the price

.NET may be the most effective weapon MS has ever had, with the least public relations liability. The last thing they want to do is cooperate with or even officially recognize a project like Mono: that's like making a pet of a cow you plan to eat in the fall.

Instead of catch up (5, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18507973)

Why not develop mono on it's own, as it's own application development platform.

C# is a good language, having it represented outside of Windows is a good thing. Plenty of C# coders are hitting their streets, and linux could exploit that too.

Instead of dicking around trying to recreate MSFT's libraries (Windows Forms), why not more focus on developing their OWN truly cross platform libraries, (like, say, GTK#)

I had some success writing cross-platform apps based on GTK#, this was over a year ago, and haven't played with Mono since, I didn't want to invest too much time into something that looked like a novelty which would just be pitched.

De Icazas focus seemed to be "do exactly what microsoft does" then, and seems so now.

I'd take a thread safe GTK# over a half-assed wine-implementation of winforms.

But, that's just one little bears opinion.

Re:Instead of catch up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508219)

It's an ill thought out opinion.

First of all, the winforms stuff is not wine-based. Second, why not have both? Why not make it easy to transition windows applications to linux without major changes? GTK# is there, and it's great, so now the focus is on winforms. They don't expect people to make linux applications in winforms, it's just there for cross-platform development (as in, development targeted at windows, while allowing those applications an easy path to linux).

> I'd take a thread safe GTK# over a half-assed wine-implementation of winforms.

Well guess what, you get both. :o)

Re:Instead of catch up (5, Insightful)

tkinnun0 (756022) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508251)

Once upon a time, Microsoft tried to create an incompatible Java.

Now, Open Source Aficionados are creating an incompatible .NET.

Ah, the bitter sweet irony.

Re:Instead of catch up (5, Informative)

agent dero (680753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508269)

Wow, where does one even start to combat the trolling.

If you look in the Mono.* namespace they've developed a LOT of Mono on its own, including Mono.Xml, Mono.Unix, Mono.Math and a wide vareity of other tools. Not to mention now there are various open source projects out there like DBus# [] , Dumbarton [] , and of course Tao [] .

Mono is a definite option now for cross-platform applications (Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, etc) and extends the compatibility to .NET 1.1 and is coming up on having a .NET 2.0 compatible class library.

Don't get yourself mixed up, Mono does allow developers to use .NET code on other platforms, but it is really a powerful framework unto itself nowadays.

Re:Instead of catch up (1)

caseih (160668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508351)

To a certain point, this is exactly what is happening with Gnome and C#. Mono is a decent platform in and of itself if you remove winforms,, etc. In fact .Net really is superior to Java as a platform and development environment (language-wise) in many ways. As long as mono is positioned as a way of porting windows apps to other environments, it is doomed to fail, however.

As for my own cross-platform development, I did once use C# and GTK# for an app like you did, and it worked out well. Now I just use python, and use c/c++ for things that python is not so good at. I'd rather see more python apps in Gnome than C#.

Re:Instead of catch up (1)

zbowling (597617) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509059)

Mono does Python as well by way of IronPython so while it might be python it might not be CPython but its completely compatible. That doesn't also include the GCC backend that will compile all the GCC languages to CLI.

Re:Instead of catch up (1)

jmccay (70985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509095)

Why use GTK? GTK still limits you to GTKs look and feel--even on other platforms. I am not sure if it is available, but why not leverage another open source cross-platform framework that's been around since 1992. I am talking about wxWidgets. It is already cross-platform, and it has been bound to other languages like ruby & python. wx.NET [] started this, but has stalled. You could even use SWIG 1.3.18, or newer, to make the library available to C#.

Like if it would ever happen (5, Insightful)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18507979)

If Microsoft was interested in interoperability, they could have it, anytime. They own the platform, for goodness sake, and if they wanted other their framework to work on other O.S., they would do it themselves. Microsoft strategy is not and will never be help to other platforms to run their applications, they prefer people locked in, with no choice. What is the main excuse for Mono? "To help people that are locked in .Net applications to migrate to Linux". (btw, if those people had plans to migrate to Linux, they would not choose .Net in the first place, as the technology is widely known as MS only. It is not as if it was a market standard, it is 6 years old, tops). Microsoft, on other hand, lists .Net as an advantage over "Unix" [] . Why would they give up that advantage? On the goodness of their hearts?

I say it again: if MS wanted a fully functional port of the .Net framework for *nix, they would do it themselves (like the PS3 people ported linux to their console). The truth is that they don't want.

Mod parent up! (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508053)

Not to mention that ALL the source code for Linux is Freely available online. If there's any "interoperability" issues, Microsoft has access to ALL the Windows code and ALL the Linux code.

They only reason there are "interoperability" issues today is because Microsoft wants there to be.

Re:Like if it would ever happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508151)

(...) if MS wanted a fully functional port of the .Net framework for *nix, they would do it themselves (...)
What would you call Rotor [] , then? This "Shared Source CLI Provides Source Code for a FreeBSD Implementation of .NET" and been out for almost 5 years! Guess who paid to get it developed??

Re:Like if it would ever happen (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508275)

(btw, if those people had plans to migrate to Linux, they would not choose .Net in the first place, as the technology is widely known as MS only. It is not as if it was a market standard, it is 6 years old, tops)

If only it were true. Mono is oft-cited as a cross-platform solution that validates the decision to utilize .NET on new projects. "Well, if we have to support UNIX/linux in the next release, we'll just use Mono!" If Mono didn't exist, .NET would be a lot less popular, with even more support probably going to Java's open source efforts. But if Mono had parity with .NET, .NET would also be less popular. So Microsoft has Mono exactly where they want them right now, and they have absolutely no reason to want to change anything.

Mono is a Trojan Horse, expect no help (4, Insightful)

Locutus (9039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508013)

Why does this guy need comfort from and a working relationship with Microsoft? And why do all of his projects follow some tech Microsoft convolutes from some REAL tech(OOP, Java, etc)? Sure seems like he's got a case of Microsoft envy or something and IMO, it can only be terminal.

Because De Icaza is not only putting Microsoft tech in Mono, he's pushed Mono applications into Gnome and he's loading the MS Trojan Horse onto many GNU/Linux distros.

So what is up with him needing acceptance from Microsoft?


Re:Mono is a Trojan Horse, expect no help (2, Informative)

AJWM (19027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508273)

So what is up with him needing acceptance from Microsoft?

From Wikipedia:

In summer of 1997, he was interviewed by Microsoft for a job in the Internet Explorer Unix team (to work on a SPARC port), but lacked a university degree to obtain a work H-1B visa.

Perhaps he's still trying to live down that rejection. (I seem to recall that he tried more than once to get a job at Microsoft, but I can't readily find a reference.) Mind you, I think anyone who would even apply for that kind of job was probably brain damaged to start with.

Re:Mono is a Trojan Horse, expect no help (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509199)

yup, sure seems like he has a major interest in pleasing Microsoft.

Regarding MS IE for UNIX, that was all a trick to make sure MainSoft got a huge payoff so they could afford the win32 source license. Microsoft had just quadrupled the price of that license to the other Win32-on-UNIX vendors and the result was to kill off all those UNIX apps ported to Win32 since now they had no update strategy. After Microsoft shipped Windows 95, they directed millions putting MS Windows NT againt UNIX, Novell, and OS/2 servers and workstations.

Too bad De Icaza didn't get that job in 97. He'd have lost it pretty quickly as MS IE on UNIX had no legs and it might have 'colored' is idolization of them.


Depth Psychology (1)

slashflood (697891) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508877)

So what is up with him needing acceptance from Microsoft?
Maybe it's because he always wanted to work for Microsoft? Gnome was just plan B [] .

Re:Mono is a Trojan Horse, expect no help (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508963)

Yes, I find this a bit annoying. I used to use gtkatalog to track my software collection. It was replaced by a mono-based application that I have yet to get to work correctly - even on 32-bit linux (let alone 64-bit). I was left scratching my head as to why they'd use the mono platform for something like that...

Re:Mono is a Trojan Horse, expect no help (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509257)

IMO, this is all a good reason for having two or more desktops. Especially when one is driven by someone so infatuated with Microsoft tech and Microsoft is threatening it'll use its patents to stop Linux.


Re:Mono is a Trojan Horse, expect no help (1)

caudron (466327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509283)

And why do all of his projects follow some tech Microsoft convolutes from some REAL tech(OOP, Java, etc)?


De Icaza was at the forefront of Gnome development, the forefront Ximian development, and the forefront of Novell development (pre-MS deal). You may not like his choice here, but seriously, what's with the 'tude? I'm pretty sure he's done more for open source than Locutus of Slashdot...unless "Locutus" is RMS's /. screenname (in which case I take it all back and you are, of course perfectly correct!).

Seriously, attack his decision wrt mono if you must, but not his track record, which is fairly solid. He's earned the right to a little wiggle room on this.

Also, he's right about mono. Linux needs it, whether you 'get' it or not. Explaining why is too involved for a /. forum, but the arguements are out there and they are pretty good. I wouldn't mind seeing more of a break between mono and .NET, but overall his ideas and direction are good on this one.

Tom Caudron []

Nevermind MS.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508033)

Let's see, every piece of software that has anything to do with Mono is slow, buggy and they leave zombie processes everywhere. I hate them to the point where I finally ditched Gnome. I recently updated to SUSE 10.2, which has been afflicted with Mono, even though I choose KDE. I now curse SUSE.

Why would Linux users be interested in Mono again? Something about "compatibility" with MS software? You mean software that's slow and buggy and makes me curse like a sailor? No thanks.

As far as I'm concerned, mono stands for "mononucleosis". I sure as heck don't want the human version nor the computer version!

Re:Nevermind MS.... (3, Informative)

agent dero (680753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508507)

As far as I'm concerned, mono stands for "mononucleosis". I sure as heck don't want the human version nor the computer version!

Mono means monkey in spanish. Thus the monkey on almost ALL the mono-project [] pages.

Re:Nevermind MS.... (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508573)

Ooops, mismoderated, posting to undo.

Re:Nevermind MS.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508735)

why does the mono logo look like a penis with a bad case of dick cheese?

Re:Nevermind MS.... (1)

sh4na (107124) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508639)

A troll marked as insightful... why doesn't that surprise me? Eh.

libs, APIs and tools are completely independent? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508067)

Although our core is following .NET footsteps, Mono has an incredibly vibrant ecosystem of libraries, APIs and tools that are completely independent.

We got libraries and components for integrating with Gtk#, the Gnome desktop, Cocoa on the Mac, Apache, Mozilla, Bittorrent, Flickr, Picassa, Google, music playback, tagging, desktop searching, media handling, GUI design and many many more.

So Mono needs its own libraries for Apache, Bittorrent, Flickr, Google, etc. They are "independent" from .Net? I have to use one set of libraries and APIs on .Net and a different set of libraries and APIs on Mono? Where is the silver lining in that storm cloud?

Miguel needs a reality check (5, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508095)

Microsoft didn't get where they are today by enabling their customers to leave.

Miguel's role in the world is to make it possible for Linux developers to get locked into Microsoft technologies, In due time Microsoft can harvest them in any number of ways. If he thinks otherwise, he needs to reconsider his choices in recreational chemistry.

Money Whore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508215)

Fresh of encouraging new GTK+ development to happen in C# so only mono users can benefit, and now this. He's really doing all he can to maximize his Novell shares, even if it means fucking the whole community to do it.

Jonathan Schwartz from Sun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508239)

He has done more for open source and general community than this guy. Open sourced Solaris (dtrace), Java, etc. Started a discount program for start ups, partnered with Ubuntu on hardware certification and the list goes on. Miguel is an idiot to think that Microsoft will ever cooperate with the Open Source movement. It's just one more strategy by Microsoft to hold back the coming tidal wave of change. Miguel/Novell are traitors for forming any kind of alliance with Microsoft.

Microsoft and WHAT developers ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508263)

the ones in "developersdevelopersdevelopers" ?

havent they all got a chair thrown towards them already ?

eheheheheehee. couldnt resist. sorry.

Why Mono and DotNet should synch (5, Insightful)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508495)

This gives a great opportunity to allow Visual Studio developers to port code to Linux, Mac OSX, *BSD Unix, etc by having Dotnet and Mono synch up to be 100% compatible in the code and CIL, CLR used.

It also would allow Microsoft to more easily port Visual Studio to Linux, Mac OSX, *BSD Unix, and other platforms that Microsoft claims is too hard to port Visual Studio over to. After that is done, Microsoft can port their application software to those platforms more easily rather than rewriting code for a separate Windows and Mac version of MS-Office, etc. Then it would be one code base, and recompiled for each platform using Dotnet/Mono libraries. If Mono is finally 100% compatible with Dotnet, then the CIL and CLR code will run under Mono as well as it does under Dotnet on Windows. Since Mono exists for multiple operating systems, all that is needed is to compile the code for that OS and it makes cross-compiling easy and less costly.

Think of all the money in R&D that Microsoft would save, if it partners up with Novell and Mono just on the R&R of OSX applications that Microsoft writes if the same code can be used for Windows and OSX with just being recompiled.

Re:Why Mono and DotNet should synch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508713)

Fuck you, nigger.

Re:Why Mono and DotNet should synch (2, Interesting)

Moocow660 (975091) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508871)

Disclaimer: I am a C# dev working at a Microsoft Partner

You realise that Visual Studio is mostly written in C++. .Net on any other platform won't help at all. In fact, most of Microsoft's big name products are mostly native code, and will be for a very long time - why re-write something that works?

The big problem with 'porting' .Net as you describe is that a lot of the actual .Net framework is simply a thin veneer over win32. This means in order to 'simply' port .Net, you need to reimplement large chunks of win32 on your target platform.

And don't even talk about .Net 3.0, a good chunk of which *is* WinFx. Do you really think Microsoft is going to implement some of its core functionality for competitor's platforms? Why would they? For that matter, why would they let someone else do it?

No, the reason to use .Net (and the reason I have a job) is because (in my opinion) its a much better way to write windows software than using win32 directly. If you want interoperability go elsewhere, say for example the much maligned Java.

Re:Why Mono and DotNet should synch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18509071)

Fuck you, Nigger.

Re:Why Mono and DotNet should synch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18509223)

Considering Microsoft gets most of their revenue from Operating Systems then I doubt any of what you said makes sense.

The only reason anything Microsoft works on a non-MS OS is to keep the lawyers off their back.

Re:Why Mono and DotNet should synch (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18509315)

"Think of all the money in R&D that Microsoft would save"

I would save them nothing, for the obvious reason that they're no doing it.

As for the rest, thanks for pointing out the obvious reasons why developers may like a cross-platform language. I know them. That's why I'm using Java. Any reason I should switch to C#? Is a GUI toolkit running through Wine supposed to look more native or fell less bloated on Linux or MacOSX?

The only developers this would help are those currently writing Windows-only apps. Considering that the one reason Microsoft came up with C# was precisely to prevent those from writing cross platform Java apps, it's easy to see why it's not gonna happen.

And for the record, even if they did, I'd stay well clear anyway. Not taking the risk of ending up with a mass of code that can't use features I need because the latest Linux .NET is suffering "technical difficulties" and possibly won't run on the latest Windows .NET.

Novell Failed With Evolution, so Why Not? (4, Insightful)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508543)

I've been a SUSE user for about two years now. I have exclusively SUSE on one laptop and dual boot one desktop with Win2K. My other desktops have either SUSE/XP or SUSE/2K at work. I remember the big push after Novell bought Evolution and brought all the Mono developers on board, where they said, 'hey, let's all be one big mono happy family and everyone use Gnome.' Of course, us KDE-fans screamed and pouted and stomped our feet so much, that Novell pulled back to some degree.

I remember back to TechEd (or was it TechNet) 2001 in Atlanta where Bill and Co. introduced .NET to us as "the next big thing." Even back then I thought of it as a half hearted attempt to marginalize Java. (Not that I had any love for Java at the time.) Now, they have the market share they want, we've all got VS 2005 loaded on our machines (next to Netbeans 5.5) and those few who use Linux (including me) as a desktop may want to use C#/Mono to develop. Well, the problem is, there's no good IDE. Monodevelop isn't really up to the same level as VS 2005 or NetBeans (or Eclipse, for that matter) and is currently at a 0.13x release. Who'd want to develop an enterprise-scale application using that?

So, here's Miguel, who failed at getting us enterprise users to adopt Evolution, and he wants us to go with Mono.NET. I particularly love Miguel's naivety in saying he'd want to, "even go as far as Microsoft recommending Mono for all of their developers looking at migration." Migrating from what? Windows? Microsoft doesn't want people to migrate away from Windows. That's the furthest thing on their minds.

In any case, I'll stick to migrating to Java. Now that it is going to be truly OSS, I'll trust them just a wee bit more than our good friends in Redmond.

Forget dot net / mono, use Java (5, Insightful)

d3xt3r (527989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508553)

Seriously, now that Java will be GPL'd, why exactly do we need Mono?

.Net only exists because M$ failed to embrace and extend Java. Why does the OSS community need a knock-off of a language that only exists because M$ couldn't control Java?

Re:Forget dot net / mono, use Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18508697)

Because some VERY lazy developers just need the "ease" of C#.

Re:Forget dot net / mono, use Java (4, Interesting)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509101)

First, .NET isn't a language. It's a platform. If you recall, Java was one of the original languages that was going to ship with .NET, but Sun threw a fit, filed a bunch of lawsuits, and Microsoft finally just took it out.

Because Java isn't good at everything (Actually, I find it's good at very little), the .NET platform supports all of the following languages:
Ada, APL, Basic, Boo, C, C#, C++, Cobol, Eiffel, Forth, Fortran, Haskell, IL/MSIL, J#/Java, JavaScript, LISP, LOGO, Mixal, Modula-2, Perl, Pascal, PHP, Prolog, Python, Ruby, RPG, Smalltalk, and Tcl/Tk.

Each of them is capable of both creating and consuming code written by any of the others. So I can write in VB.NET, and use a class that was written in C#. I can package it up, and the application just works.

A better question that you should have asked is why would we care about Java being GPL-ed when it's slower, less scalable, only supports a single language, controlled by a single vendor, and YEARS behind. When the Java language becomes forgotten (like all computer languages do) for the next best language, all your code is useless. But all my libraries are just a call away, no matter what language takes the place of what I currently use.

Monoculture (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508595)

I though monoculture already exists in the computer industry...

In other news... (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508765)

...Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was hospitalized today. Doctors say that he nearly died of laughter.

Dear Novell, (0, Flamebait)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18508861)

Fuck you very much.
You are traitors and profiteering scumbags.
You sold your soul to the devil for 30 pieces of silver and you're trying to take everyone else down with you.

Go to hell and die. I was a loyal Suse user and financial supporter. No more.
I would rather sandpaper a bobcat's ass in a phonebooth than use a Micro-Novell product.

That will be all.

It occured to me just reading this ... (3, Insightful)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509137)

Mono is factually sponsored by MS. The Novel/MS deal was all about Mono! The patent-deal thing was a feint (with a neat side effect, mind you)! No, hear me out. Just reading his talk and arriving at page 2 made me notice it. I honestly believe it is and it's not that Miquel is seriously bullshitting about his opinions. Allthough they are notably influenced by black MS accounts - which I am now certain of. Allthough maybe without him knowing for a fact.

Figure this:
If there is any way MS can prepare to hop the OSS bandwagon that is continously growing without losing their face it is the mono(t)rail (pun intended). In a well built mono they can without haste probe the OSS market for sophisticated free developer tools and their chances to get into OSS bases servicing and specialized proprietary offers without thinning the .Net brand or attracting attention. All the while having Mono on the leash. If the test fails, they pull the plug, go completely off trail with .Net and leave behind yet another OSS plattform along with the XUL, Ajax, Java, QT, etc. bunch to bash their heads competing for attention. If it does work out they can slowly shift to OS independant services and tools. They can even combine both with varying intensity in which ever way they require it.

Think about it. It's a very smart move and not that a stupid notion at all. They can continue to slowpoke about with their bloated NT/2k/Vista Kernels and go 'plattform independant' whenever the need arises, squishing whatever Zends, SuSEs, Novels and RedHats get in the way. And with a 'Mono excuse' they won't even raise a blip on the antitrust radar doing so.
If this works out we'll see yet another rare of strange things: MS actually trying to build quality software again. For a short period of time that is. Until they regain their stranglehold. Then it's business as usual again.

No, friends, it's absolutely clear to me: Novel bought Ximian, SuSE and then some. Then they went f*cking around aimlessly with those brands for two years. They are MSes easiest, least dangerous, most hidden, most powerfull and - oh, the irony - cheapest way into a potential MS dominated OSS market. This is what's behind all this.

My 2 dollars.

New tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18509239)

Time to start using the "sucker" tag. In addition to the usual "haha" of course.

Hey, that's a great idea! (1)

seebs (15766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509265)

This reminds me of an Onion headline from Our Dumb Century, to the effect of "Japanese enter well-thought-out alliance with white supremacists."

Microsoft has always been utterly ruthless in suppressing any attempt at compatibility with their software. They make money because they control the API; a competing implementation that's allowed to become comparable is a threat, and they are pretty active about trying to make sure that such things don't stay viable.

Did it really take this guy this long to realize that Microsoft would take every step possible to ensure that his work was never going to be a migration path off Windows, and that most of these steps would involve willful incompatibilities? Was he really expecting that, somehow, just because some open source guys started using some of their stuff, Microsoft would turn around and stop being ruthless monopolists?

I've never been able to make any sense of the whole Mono thing. I mean, it always looked like an attempt to lube up and bend over a barrel just in case Microsoft was feeling playful. With this announcement, it looks like it's not even that coherent.

Crap (2, Informative)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509297)

I like SuSE a lot, and Novell does have the clout to push back against MS (though it is making deals with them), but Mono is just killing the interop effort.

Shout to Novell: Just drop mono and switch to Java...Pleeaseeeze! (pleading like De Icarza).

And yes, I've tried switching my winforms apps to mono and it never worked out. Why? cause the cool features in .Net apps are either referenced unmanaged code or some DLL import hack. .Net only offers great cross coding between MS languages and webservices (I prefer XML-RPC anyway) from my experience and that's it.

Then again, my apps broke switching from .Net 1.1 to .Net 2.0. sheesh.

Miguel, bajate de esa nube. (2, Insightful)

Augusto (12068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18509335)

(literally: Miguel, step down from that cloud - Miguel, get real)

I just don't understand your project.

Most .NET developers are not aware of your project, and most would not want to bother with it. People that use Visual Studio care about using the latest tools and APIs from Microsoft, and when they know you don't even have .NET v2 they don't want to bother.

"On the migration piece, the open sourcing of Java will not have an effect on Mono. Because the crowd that we are targeting is the .NET crowd which is typically not using Java. The open sourcing of Java will not alter the balance of applications that will be ported from other platforms to Linux. If they existed, people were already using the proprietary Java from IBM or Sun or even one of the GNU based efforts."

I'm so glad Java is now being open sourced, you won't have this as an excuse anymore. Why would anybody want to develop in your environment, which has serious patent concerns? It lags behind and has no serious number of tools for anybody to use?

Your statement about MS recommending Mono is bizarre. Why would Microsoft recommend Mono? The only reason for them to even mention your project, is in the chance a customer maybe asks about running in other platforms. I could definitely see MS just mentioning Mono to get a customer, but they surely will have no incentive for anybody to use your technology.

Finally, why is this project called mono? It reminds me of the phrase:
"El hombre crea y el mono imita", which seems apt for your project (Man creates and monkeys imitate)

Miguel, Miguel Miguel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18509343)

how much more of your life are you going to waste waiting for MS to kill your baby?

plead, beg, grovel, it's all gonna result in the same laughter in Redmond.

so sad
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?