You forget one thing

Post #26,989 by pwhysall 2/2/02 1:31:56 PM Reply	You forget one thing .NET is actually an ECMA standard, which is what the Mono project is implementing. This casts the "MS will use patents to crush Mono" idea in a different light. BTW, I expanded my post a little and posted it to [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|Kuro5hin], where it's currently on the front page. \\o/ Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #26,990 by Andrew Grygus 2/2/02 2:13:50 PM Reply	Incomplete ECMA Microsoft has submitted the C# language to ECMA but not the APIs and other essential stuff, nor much else to do with .Net (which is still largely undefined, after all). Further, Microsoft will have no more compunctions about "Embracing and Extending" their own standard than they do with other peoples standards. ECMA certification is simply a trap for the unwary. Further, it is my understanding that Sun withdrew Java from ECMA for the simple reason they felt Microsoft owned enough votes in that body to have their way with Java. C#'s ECMA certification doesn't sound like something I'd base my business plan on. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #26,994 by pwhysall 2/2/02 2:44:33 PM Reply	Don't get me wrong I think that the way de Icaza wants to go is not the right way. He's been a bit of a Microsoft fanboy ever since he got hired there onto the IE/Solaris team. The right way forward is to identify what cool stuff you'd do with Mono, then put that functionality into Bonobo. However, the ECMA status of C# and portions of the framework does mean that as long as the Mono project stays true to the ECMA spec, MS can't Crush Them With Patents. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #26,996 by Andrew Grygus 2/2/02 3:08:49 PM Reply	But they need hold only one . . . . important piece away from ECMA to make an ECMA standard .NET implementation worthless. Further, that piece can be added later. This is a card game where Microsoft, and Microsoft alone, can add additional aces whenever they please. Inability to access Microsoft .NET services and servers makes any alternative .NET implementation useless, because those interested in using .NET will have already bought into Microsoft's game. Anybody unwilling to accept Microsoft control will be using Java. Microsoft will win any .NET game. It is reasonable to have .NET compatible development under way with the understanding it is likely sacrificial, but it makes no sense for it to be a key component of the Linux structure, and even less sense to be evangalizing it as Icaza is. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #27,027 by ben_tilly 2/2/02 9:25:33 PM Reply	Don't be so confident First of all, all that Microsoft has to do is let Ximian build a few things in that are not in the standard, and they have the patent nightmare as I described. All that they need to do to give open source a severe headache is wait for people to build on .NET, reveal their patents and then charge a reasonable and non-discriminary fee of 10 cents per user to each project using their patents. The question isn't whether they can collect $200,000 from some poor college kid whose project happened to be on some distribution that might be in use up to 2 million times. The question is whether by making a few people's lives hell, they can scare people from contributing to open source projects. Now Miguel should know this. He has certainly been told it directly many times. Some of the people doing the telling have good reason to know. So WTF is he doing being criminally irresponsible by continuing to walk with both eyes wide open directly into this trap? Cheers, Ben
Post #27,031 by Andrew Grygus 2/2/02 10:08:42 PM Reply	Well, here's a guy on Linux Today . . . . . . who has a petty sensible theory. The writer maintains Mr Icaza is simply selling the Linux community down the river for business advantage, and makes a pretty good case for it. Starts at [link\|http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-02-01-015-26-NW-DV-0115\|"He is no fool . . "] [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #27,032 by ben_tilly 2/2/02 10:18:16 PM Reply	Sounds reasonable to me My main question is whether he has received a downpayment, or whether his 30 silvers is still only a future promise. If the latter, then I will add "stupid" to my private opinion of him. Cheers, Ben
Post #27,273 by Arkadiy 2/4/02 6:18:05 PM Reply	What if he simply sees technical merit? After reading stuff about Mono in Dr. Dobbs, I have another version of Miguel's motivation. I am scared to death to say so, but looks like MS got things right in .NET platform this time around. Remember how Java started? Sun introduced VM and sandbox, with the emphasis on traveling code (applets). Turn out, nobody wants traveling code that badly. What people wanted was RPC, more or less. Then Sun tacked RMI on to it. And then Java Beans appeared. And Java Beans Enterprize Edition.. And so on. Now, MS started right where Sun dropped the ball. Fine, they have sandbox and mobile code. But the whole model is built around interoperation. It is done first and foremost to allow for function calls between pieces written in different languages, running in different address spaces, on different machines, and even in different component architectres. If I understand him right, Miguel saw this aspect of .NET - a better Java than Java - and he decided to use it for Gnome. It's not their class libraries for, say, database access. It's the VM that makes inter-language and inter-process and inter-computer communications simple. That can hardly be patented. And that's what Gnome will be based on.
Post #27,289 by Andrew Grygus 2/4/02 6:57:10 PM Reply	The "techie trap" is always . . . . . to see the technical issues and not see the political and business issues, or regard them as irrelevent. That's why so many companies with superior technology fail, and why Microsoft is so powerful. To Microsoft, technology issues are simply supporting players to business and politics. Using C# is one thing, with limited risk, but de Icaza said ".NET", and that's something else entirely. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #27,302 by ben_tilly 2/4/02 8:48:28 PM Reply	I don't care He has been told, repeatedly, exactly what the trap is. Going for technical merits while ignoring the huge legal and business traps is like the mouse who says, "I know, I know, but doesn't that cheese smell good?" It could be the best design in creation, but that doesn't change that for an open source company to support it on Linux is handing the headsman the axe after making sure it is good and sharp. Cheers, Ben
Post #27,330 by tonytib 2/5/02 1:11:34 AM Reply	and I'll still rather skeptical of its technical merits
Post #27,045 by static 2/2/02 11:52:32 PM Reply	My thoughts. One naive view might be that Miguel might be trying to create a .NET that Microsoft will lose control over. After reading this thread, I'm not sure. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #27,066 by Andrew Grygus 2/3/02 5:01:12 AM Reply	Lose control? Microsoft's specialty is seizing control of everything from everyone. With .NET they start out owning the plan, the specs, the code, the language, the key services, and the physical servers they run on. Somebody thinks they're going to lose control? I realize that everyone who's ever written two equal signs end to end thinks he's smarter than Microsoft, but surely, even a programmer couldn't be that naive? [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #27,071 by ben_tilly 2/3/02 9:22:47 AM Reply	Your list missed an important item The subject of a large part of this thread in fact. Microsoft has repeatedly admitted that they plan to patent the hell out of .NET. They haven't said why, but it seems pretty obvious that one goal is to maintain control of .NET, and another is to keep anyone from developing any service that competes with them on some key points. Cheers, Ben
Post #27,144 by static 2/4/02 4:35:24 AM Reply	Yeah - I changed my mind. I'm still a little mystified as to just what sort of API .NET is - no, don't bother explaining, I'm not that mystified! :-) - though I do realize Microsoft want to own the servers, services and everyone's data. I never saw the value in Mono; way back when it was announced, I first thought: "Miguel, you fool. You've now given Microsoft justification for their latest take-over-the-world scheme". Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"

Welcome to IWETHEY!