sliver, plank
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Jun 28, 2009 10:34 PM EDT |
DotGnu anyone? Which one was it we were pulling from our eye this time Richard? |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 29, 2009 3:27 AM EDT |
Your point? RMS says we need C# support so people can move their existing apps to Free Software. He just advocates not writing new FOSS software on top of C#. |
| r_a_trip Jun 29, 2009 5:33 AM EDT |
RMS says we need C# support so people can move their existing apps to Free Software. I assume this means porting Windows Dot.NET apps to Mono or Portable.NET. It still doesn't make sense. RMS claims that Portable.NET and Mono are extremely risky (MS is predatory). So what good would porting a Dot.NET app do? It would only bring an app from a "safe" but closed platform, to an open source one with the danger of rendering the port unusable/undistributable, should MS choose to ever play the patent card. If we are to believe RMS, using "free" Dot.NET will render all code leveraging it useless in the future. So why bother? Woulnd't a C# to Java translating/porting app be better? At least Java is relatively safe. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 29, 2009 5:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:It still doesn't make sense. RMS probably thinks that running a closed source OS is a greater risk than gettting sued over using Mono to run your Windows app. Quoting:Woulnd't a C# to Java translating/porting app be better? Such an app would still need to deal with the possibly patented parts of .Net. So it makes little to no difference. The point of C# on Linux (according to RMS) is to run existing Windows/.NET apps virtually unmodified on a free OS. Doing a full-blown port of the entire application to a different language just sucks up development time. |
| keithcu Jun 29, 2009 11:04 AM EDT |
RMS is fearful that there will be a lawsuit over Mono. However, he has no way of analyzing the actual likelihood. In order to do that, he would need to know what people inside MS actually think. Like maybe they like Mono? Or maybe they don't. As he doesn't know, his opinion here is pretty worthless. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 29, 2009 11:13 AM EDT |
Quoting:However, he has no way of analyzing the actual likelihood. Likelihood does not matter. MS may like Mono today but not tomorrow. What matters is if they can sue over it at all (and have a legal leg to stand on). And RMS can certainly investigate that. Plenty of lawyers at FSF :-) |
| tuxchick Jun 29, 2009 11:47 AM EDT |
Whatever the legal risks are, what's keeping this issue inflamed is the forcing of Mono into distro defaults over the many objections of users. A very Microsoftian-tactic because it bypasses community, and relies on a few key participants to make it happen. The reasons given by Canonical and Debian spokespeople are weak and weaselly. Canonical says "because Mono apps are best of breed." The excuse for Debian is "well it's not really part of the base install, because that doesn't include X or graphical environments." Split those hairs a little finer, why don't they-- when you install Gnome you get Mono. This Gnome spokesman must have taken lessons from Washington DC insiders: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25967/1154/ Quoting: Funny how no matter who you talk to, the actual people responsible for the decision to include Mono are always off in the vague elsewhere. |
| Libervis Jun 29, 2009 12:52 PM EDT |
Nobody is forcing anything because you can choose not to use those distros. They are not listening to the community, perhaps, or at least the most vocal parts of the community, but that's hardly the same as "forcing" people. But that was indeed vague, which is weird to me because I really don't see a response to Mono related criticisms as that hard to do, even if the result was dismissal. |
| tuxchick Jun 29, 2009 1:00 PM EDT |
Libervis, I've never been a fan of 'take my business elsewhere' except as a last resort. It's not a first resort because you run out of resorts pretty fast. Yes, thankfully it is an option if Debian, Ubuntu, and Gnome continue to bull ahead. I would prefer that they behave like actual community projects and listen to users. |
| krisum Jun 29, 2009 4:37 PM EDT |
So how much of an effort is creating a desktop meta-package that doesn't depend on mono? So many distributions, so many *buntus, and yet those most uncomfortable with mono and demanding its removal have yet to come up with a decent alternative distro or *buntu flavor that excludes mono (or if there is one already then let everyone opposing mono in ubuntu/debian be led to those options). |
| bigg Jun 29, 2009 4:44 PM EDT |
I'm a Slackware user and have used Debian and Arch in the past as well, so normally these debates about default installation choices are not a big deal to me. I basically build my own distros for the most part. The difference is that Ubuntu is the king in terms of newbie popularity. It's cool to say, "I've used Ubuntu" in non-Linux circles. The Ubuntu defaults do matter, a lot. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 29, 2009 6:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:yet those most uncomfortable with mono and demanding its removal have yet to come up with a decent alternative distro I'm pretty sure that gNewSense doesn't include Mono :-) |
| gus3 Jun 29, 2009 7:36 PM EDT |
@Sander: The key term there is "decent." |
| krisum Jun 30, 2009 12:41 AM EDT |
Quoting: I'm pretty sure that gNewSense doesn't include Mono :-)Any reference? The description of gNewSense does not mention anything about mono and since mono is part of ubuntu's free section it will normally not be excluded. Besides, as gus3 has mentioned, it is unlikely that all those wanting mono's removal really want GLX and all other non-free stuff removed like in gNewSense. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 30, 2009 3:05 AM EDT |
@krisum: GLX is free, though your drivers may not be. Also, you may be surprised how well gNewSense runs. You should try it out. Even if just to see what works and doesn't work with a totally free and blob-less system. Regarding Mono, it is included in gNewSense but not installed by default. Just like RMS advocates. See http://osdir.com/ml/linux.distributions.gnewsense.user/2007-... |
| krisum Jun 30, 2009 5:03 AM EDT |
Quoting: GLX is free, though your drivers may not be.Last I saw, gNewSense excluded GLX due to problems with its license. It still seems to be the case (see http://www.gnewsense.org/index.php?n=FAQ.FAQ#toc3) unless the situation has changed recently and the FAQ is outdated. Quoting: Regarding Mono, it is included in gNewSense but not installed by default.I fail to see how this makes any difference as long as it is in the free section of the repos. edit: looks like GLX has recently been relicensed under a free license |
| azerthoth Jun 30, 2009 10:39 AM EDT |
So while everyone is doing chicken little with mono ... what if they (various distros defaulting with mono) were to ship DotGnu instead? http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/ |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 30, 2009 5:26 PM EDT |
If they shipped with DotGnu then half my objections would go away. The other half would remain. The objections that would go away are the legal ones. The main difference between DotGnu and Mono is that DotGnu only implements the ECMA spec. Mono also implements the parts of .Net that are not in the spec and that is the part where a patent trap could lie dormant. The objections that would remain are the technical ones. It's yet another big, heavy, resource hungry framework and it doesn't add anything to the frameworks we already have. It isn't significantly better in any way. I don't want to drag in 100 MB of dependencies just for a 150 KB app. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 30, 2009 5:34 PM EDT |
I agree with Sander that DotGnu is less dangerous than Mono due to sticking only to the spec rather than trying to go past that into areas where the patent minefield fears may not be completely unfounded. On the other hand though, DotGnu is a lot less useful as far as being a crutch to wean people off of MS platform dependence because of the omissions. Frankly, if Microsoft was REALLY serious about cooperating with Open Source/Free Software they'd release the spec for all the rest of .NET and offer the patents royalty free at least to free software. "RAND" terms which is all that ECMA apparently requires just isn't enough to be practical. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 30, 2009 6:02 PM EDT |
RAND isn't. RAND means "Reasonable and non-discriminatory" but in a world where FOSS is the main competition, asking for a license fee isn't non-discriminatory. We don't have to get rid of RAND. We just have to update "non-discriminatory" to 21st century terms. |
| azerthoth Jul 01, 2009 10:10 AM EDT |
See now thats the part I find humorous, can you tell me one thing that the mono folks have that the dotgnu folks dont? Thats right boys and girls, a team dedicated to making sure that they stay patent free, but no one ever mentions that part. Yet somehow, the project w/o that oversight is more acceptable ... puhlease |
| softwarejanitor Jul 01, 2009 1:42 PM EDT |
@azerthoth Tell me why you think that the DotGnu people need to have a separate team to avoid patents? Just because the Mono people do? The Mono people are purposely straying into potentially mine-laden territory, so having a dedicated mine-sweeping team might make sense for them. Maybe the DotGnu people can handle it without having to organize that way. Do you have any reason to believe that DotGnu is infringing any patents that Mono has avoided due to this supposed more oversight? |
| justintime Jul 01, 2009 2:19 PM EDT |
The objections that would go away are the legal ones. The main difference between DotGnu and Mono is that DotGnu only implements the ECMA spec. Mono also implements the parts of .Net that are not in the spec and that is the part where a patent trap could lie dormant. You're not only misinformed, but also disingenuous. DotGNU also implements Windows.Forms, see here: http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/pnet.html With Mono, at least, Windows.Forms and the other non-ECMA portions are split from the core ECMA components. The core does not depend on any non-ECMA code. Thus, your argument that non-ECMA portions of Mono are somehow entwined with the core is disingenuous (or, I suppose, just poorly informed). The objections that would remain are the technical ones. It's yet another big, heavy, resource hungry framework and it doesn't add anything to the frameworks we already have. It isn't significantly better in any way. I don't want to drag in 100 MB of dependencies just for a 150 KB app. Also misinformed. The core Mono runtime + BCL is only ~8 MB, which you might note is smaller than Python. Even if you include all of the Mono developer tools, Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, the mod_mono Apache module, it's still under the "100 MB" you claim. It's closer to 50 MB. |
| justintime Jul 01, 2009 2:26 PM EDT |
softwarejanitor: your logic is weak. You argue that DotGNU is safe because it sticks to only ECMA, yet that isn't true at all (see my previous comment). You also argue that the RAND terms for the ECMA specs aren't enough for Mono to be acceptable, yet it's enough for DotGNU to be acceptable? Huh? Your logic does not compute. If it's good enough for one, it's good enough for the other. |
| justintime Jul 01, 2009 2:29 PM EDT |
tuxchick: I would prefer that they behave like actual community projects and listen to users. How do you know the people complaining about Mono aren't just a vocal minority? What makes you so sure that they are the majority? You can't make everyone happy, all you can do is try and make the majority happy. As far as I can tell, that's exactly what the distributions are doing. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 01, 2009 2:55 PM EDT |
@justintime No, RAND is not acceptable for free software. I merely said that ECMA was a weak standards entity in part because it allows standards to be tainted by Patents which require RAND. And I didn't say that DotGnu was perfect, just less imperfect in certain ways than Mono. I do believe that DotGnu being an FSF project its much more likely to be truly free than Mono which is largely sponsored by Microsoft partner Novell. Turning your logic around, one would suspect that Mono supporters are a vocal minority. The majority probably aren't very vocal and don't care that much except that they don't want to run the risk of getting sued. So I'd think that the interests of keeping the majority happy would be best served by the distros in keeping Mono out of the required, out of the default and making sure its only an option for those that want it and understand or don't care about the risk. |
| tuxchick Jul 01, 2009 3:07 PM EDT |
justintime, you're twisting the argument back into the miry debatable argument swamp, and avoiding the one question that can easily be answered: Should Mono be opt-in or opt-out? The reasons for opt-in are much more compelling than the reasons for opt-out. I wondered when yet another pro-Mono seagull would fly in and drop a cargo of tangents. |
| justintime Jul 01, 2009 3:13 PM EDT |
softwarejanitor: You have no facts to back up your claim that DotGNU is any safer than Mono, though. All you have is a "feeling". You'll have to do better than that to convince most people, especially since DotGNU isn't much of an option compared to Mono if you actually want to write .NET code. As far as RAND, if there is a non-zero fee to license the patents, I will agree with you 100%. However, there is nothing stating that Microsoft charges any fee to license the patents covering the ECMA portions of the spec. If there are, then DotGNU is in no better position than Mono. As far as which group is larger, pro vs anti, I think the fact that many distros include Mono by default (including Fedora, which still includes F-Spot in the default install of F12) speaks volumes as to which group these distros feel is larger. We can argue all day which is larger, but the fact is neither of us have any numbers; all we can do is look at the trends (and those suggest Mono applications are popular enough to warrant including them by default). |
| gus3 Jul 01, 2009 3:19 PM EDT |
mysql> UPDATE users SET users.ms_shill=TRUE WHERE users.username="justintime"; Query OK, 1 row affected (0.42 sec) Rows matched: 1 Changed: 1 Warnings: 0 mysql> |
| gus3 Jul 01, 2009 3:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:there is nothing stating that Microsoft charges any fee to license the patents covering the ECMA portions of the spec.Neither is there anything from Microsoft stating that Microsoft won't charge a fee. Signed agreement w/ ECMA? That's trivial to escape; just ask most of Microsoft's ex-partners. (How do you think they became ex-partners?) |
| justintime Jul 01, 2009 3:51 PM EDT |
Wow, the best you guys can do is ad hominem attacks? Grats? I bring facts to the table as opposed to misinformation and I'm labeled as a Microsoft Shill. No wonder you guys aren't getting your way in the "great Mono war". The intelligent people making the decisions obviously see through your tactics. tuxchick: Should Mono be opt-in vs opt-out? I think you are missing the forest for the trees. If you actually take a step back, you'll notice that it isn't at all about whether Mono itself should be opt-in vs opt-out. It's about the applications. Should Tomboy, F-Spot, Banshee, etc be opt-in or opt-out? That is the real question, and it has an obvious answer: clearly distros think that their users prefer these applications to the alternatives. Just like they feel that their users generally prefer Tracker instead of Beagle[1], GEdit instead of gvim, XChat instead of IrcII, and so on down the line. That doesn't mean that *all* of their users prefer the same applications, it just means that the distros feel that the majority of their users prefer the applications that make it into the default. If none of the default applications they shipped depended on Mono, then Mono wouldn't be in the default install. 1. Did you notice that Tracker is a C program and Beagle is Mono-based? There's no conspiracy to include Mono, distros are just choosing the most popular software. |
| gus3 Jul 01, 2009 5:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:Should Mono be opt-in vs opt-out? I think you are missing the forest for the trees. If you actually take a step back, you'll notice that it isn't at all about whether Mono itself should be opt-in vs opt-out. It's about the applications.No, it's about guarantees of Freedom, from both legal threats and outright extortion. If it really were just "about the applications," then we wouldn't care how shackled we were under Microsoft or Apple, would we? We'd just keep shelling out the dough, month by month (to the AV vendors), year by year (to tech support), and every time a new major version comes out. But, looking at your own tactics of accusation and distraction, I'll still conclude you are a shill. Too bad for you that we in FOSS-land are far more concerned about our Freedom than most of our counterparts in the Windows world. |
| justintime Jul 01, 2009 5:19 PM EDT |
Mono is Free Software, it guarantees your freedom as much as any other piece of Free Software. I fail to see how using Mono shackles you to Microsoft. If anything, it frees you from them. My arguments are backed by facts. Your arguments have been backed by name-calling and provably false information. If that makes me a shill, then so be it. |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2009 5:30 PM EDT |
> Wow, the best you guys can do is ad hominem attacks? Oh, we can do much better than that, and have. However, you haven't done anything to deserve that yet. > Should Tomboy, F-Spot, Banshee, etc be opt-in or opt-out? Opt-in, as they require Mono, since you ask. Fortunately, Slackware contains none of the above. |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2009 5:36 PM EDT |
> My arguments are backed by facts. Fact: .Net is a patented Microsoft product. Fact: Mono is a reimplementation of .Net. Fact: Microsoft can be trusted as far as I can throw their main office. What else do I need to know to not want anything to do with Mono, and why is that so hard to understand? You like Mono? Fine. Use it. Don't force it on other people. |
| hkwint Jul 01, 2009 5:53 PM EDT |
The desktop versions of Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, openSuse, Slackware, DesktopBSD et all. are not supposed to be 'opt-in'. One of their objectives is to collect a list of reasonable choices of which apps the user probably wants. As a result they provide by default a set of software providing that apps. For the user, it takes some of the burden away of finding out about applications, choosing which applications you want and installing them. It provides software for most tasks 'out of the box'. It offers a 'platform' - such as Ubuntu 9.10 or so - which comes with the advantage lots of users have the same setup and that makes it easier to fix bugs, develop and test software etc. I think if you want a distro with opt-in, you shouldn't use any of the above distro's in the first place, because it's not their 'distribution / collection' model. Offering choice has never been their goal in first place. I just looked at Debian's social contract, and it doesn't say _anything_ about 'choice' (the word is not even _in_ the contract!). I'd say figure out a way to distribute 'Ubuntu N', a stripped-down opt-in version where the user chooses. Because the comfort 'opt-out' / a standard platform offers is an essential part of Ubuntu (and others, but especially Ubuntu), the main reason why Ubuntu is easy to use and support and as a result the main reason why the majority of Ubuntu-users use Ubuntu. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 01, 2009 5:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:DotGNU also implements Windows.Forms DotGnu does not implement ADO.NET or ASP.NET. Mono does. You can run the Mono variants of those two on DotGnu if you want :-) |
| justintime Jul 01, 2009 5:56 PM EDT |
jdixon: I'll agree with your first 2 facts. The third is opinion, not a fact. However, none of those facts prove that Mono will be sued to kingdom come. and why is that so hard to understand? I do understand. I just don't understand why some people are trying to force Mono out when there are alternative distros that they can use. If they are upset thinking that people are trying to force Mono in, why can't they understand that other people will be upset if you force Mono out? Not everyone who uses Linux feels that Mono is any less safe than any other piece of software. Don't assume that your opinion on what should (or should not) be in Ubuntu's default install matters more than anyone elses (this mostly goes for the people other than JDixon who seems to be a Live-and-let-Live kind of guy). That's all I'm saying. Clearly Canonical have their opinion and you have yours. Since it's their distro, they get to decide what goes in. If that includes Mono, then you have to respect their choice (especially since I doubt anyone here complaining contributes anything at all) and either continue using Ubuntu despite your disagreement, or else move to another distro like jdixon has. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 01, 2009 5:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:especially since I doubt anyone here complaining contributes anything at all Excuse me? Perhaps you should start Googling our names... |
| justintime Jul 01, 2009 6:01 PM EDT |
hkwint: couldn't have said it better myself. Sander: The way Ubuntu packages Mono, ADO.NET and ASP.NET aren't installed by default (nor is Windows.Forms). Just an FYI. But you *can* install them if you want ;-) |
| justintime Jul 01, 2009 6:03 PM EDT |
Sander: do you contribute to Ubuntu? That's what I meant, and afaict, my statement remains true. Either way, your vote only counts once. Same as my vote. Same as everyone else who contributes to Ubuntu. If your choice doesn't "win" the election, you have to respect it. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 01, 2009 6:36 PM EDT |
Quoting:Sander: do you contribute to Ubuntu? Yes. I contribute to a lot of different projects. Ubuntu is one of them. |
| tuxchick Jul 01, 2009 6:53 PM EDT |
Wow, straight from the halls of Redmond. I don't think Justintime missed a single talking point. It is not just "Canonical's distro", Canonical makes more noise than almost anyone about "community". We don't have to respect choices made via a corrupt process. Making Mono opt-in is not "forcing it out." And then you drag in the very tired old "if you're not a $important-contributor you don't count" canard. I think not being a shill is good enough. Here is a fun little nugget, where even Debian people are sounding as tricksy as any Microsoft spokesperson: http://www.h-online.com/open/Debian-Mono-is-not-in-our-defau... Quoting: "Gnome-desktop does not contain Tomboy or Mono while the gnome meta-package, for everything GNOME, has had a dependency on Tomboy and Mono added. According to Schmehl, this "everything GNOME" meta-package is not the most popular GNOME package, with Debian users preferring gnome-desktop and gnome-core." Man, that is some mighty fine hair-splitting, and it implies that the Mono folks have succeeded in making it an integral part of Gnome. Justintime, if you don't want to be called a shill don't talk like one. Have you read Bradley Kuhn's opinion? It's on the front page of LXer now. He is an actual lawyer. Red Hat/Fedora's lawyers also fear the legal risks of Mono. Opt-in is a simple solution that gives everyone what they want-- despite your energetic sophistries, or rather because of them, I am finally convinced that the real goal is to force Mono firmly into Gnome, and ultimately into all of Linux. |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2009 8:12 PM EDT |
> Slackware, ...not supposed to be 'opt-in'. The installer in Slackware allows you to select each and every package you want to install, and only those packages, and the screen where you can choose to do this is the default (thought I believe the default selection is to install everything). I would say that's as close to opt-in as you can get and still provide a working distro. > The third is opinion, not a fact. Only to the extent that it's an interpretation of the historical evidence. I find it difficult to believe that any reasonable person who examines the historical record would disagree with the conclusion that Microsoft cannot be trusted. > Don't assume that your opinion on what should (or should not) be in Ubuntu's default install matters more than anyone elses... As you noted, I don't. In fact, mine counts for considerably less, since I'm not even an Ubuntu user. I can however easily see that an opt-in approach still meets the needs of those who need or want Mono, while not causing any problems for those who don't want it or don't care. In my opinion, the converse (opt-out) is not true. |
| hkwint Jul 01, 2009 8:34 PM EDT |
OK, sorry to all ya slackers, should have left that one out. I start to become older too, and at 25, well, you see, memory just like my hair starts to degrade and such; even though installing Slackware was only 6 years ago (or was it 7? Don't remember...) OK, I could argue if Slackware easily enables you to choose which logger and cron you want (dunno, same memory corruption), but that's off topic. If it works out of the box and you can choose, well, more power to Patrick. What probably would be more interesting, is the question: If some people want Mono out of popular distro's, is there a way to do it and at the same time keep the people who want it (or apps dependent on it) happy? I have a feeling this issue could be resolved without Ubuntu-users having to pick every package manually, like the choice freaks (such as me?) do. But I don't contribute to Ubuntu, so even if I have a solution, I'm not sure anyone would be interested. I like the idea of Ubuntu N though (Maybe "Stereo" would be more appealing than 'N'). |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 01, 2009 8:49 PM EDT |
Quoting: ...Mono folks have succeeded in making it an integral part of Gnome.I am uncertain that the power to sway the Gnome group is due to Mono, however, OOXML was actively supported by the Gnumeric faction when this was a live issue. So this predisposition towards unfree* is not necessarily a new characteristic for Gnome. [Sorry folks serious, this time.] Which is one reason I was dismayed by the bad reception KDE 4 has received upon its release, just when I was considering the possibility of a switch. Txt. * Or perhaps in the case of Mono, the better term is potentially unsafe despite its new licensing. |
| hkwint Jul 01, 2009 8:55 PM EDT |
Hmm, looking back at that whole OOXML / Gnome thing, one might ask what all the debate was about. I wonder if that will be how we look at the Mono debate in 2012 or so. |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2009 8:59 PM EDT |
> If some people want Mono out of popular distro's, is there a way to do it and at the same time keep the people who want it (or apps dependent on it) happy? Ah, there's the rub. If the apps you consider to be the best ones require Mono, and you want to include them by default, you have to include Mono. Asking the user yet another question (do you want Mono based apps or non-Mono based apps) is not a good solution, especially for a distribution trying to be newbie friendly. So, you either have to include those apps and Mono, or you have to exclude those apps and go with others which you don't think are as good but are still adequate. It becomes a judgment call. My argument would be that including Mono is enough of a risk or will alienate enough users that it's worth going with the non-Mono apps. Especially since no one has argued that the non-Mono apps aren't adequate. However, in my experience, most people (and especially newbies) are a lot more willing to install new apps and try them out then they are willing to uninstall default applications and libraries. So including Mono inconveniences those who don't or might not want it a lot more than not including it but having it in the repos inconveniences those who do. |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2009 9:01 PM EDT |
> I like the idea of Ubuntu N though... Ubuntu no Mono. The installer could default to Japanese. :) |
| krisum Jul 01, 2009 9:54 PM EDT |
@sander
Quoting: DotGnu does not implement ADO.NET or ASP.NET. Mono does. You can run the Mono variants of those two on DotGnu if you want :-)That's only because they lack the resources to do so. People have been spreading misinformation that DotGnu only implements ECMA specifications while it does not with its stated goal of "In addition, we want to make sure that many application programs which were written for Microsoft's .NET platform (with no consideration for portability) will work well with DotGNU on many operating systems". This has been pointed to many times in the past too, but somehow people simply keep on coming up with the same misinformation. @jdixon Quoting: Fact: .Net is a patented Microsoft product.No, we have been over this many times. So far not a single MS patent has been shown that applies to mono (apart from some overly generalized ones that can apply to all kinds of jited VM based languages e.g. java, python) anymore than a patent has been shown to apply to linux kernel as MS claims. |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2009 10:03 PM EDT |
> So far not a single MS patent has been shown that applies to mono Did I say Mono was a patented Microsoft product? |
| krisum Jul 01, 2009 10:15 PM EDT |
Quoting: Did I say Mono was a patented Microsoft product?No you said that .NET was a patented MS product. So probably you could back it up with MS patents that apply exclusively to .NET and consequently to mono which is a reimplementation of .NET in your own words. |
| dinotrac Jul 01, 2009 10:25 PM EDT |
Krisum -- Even then you have to be careful. Patents that apply to .NET might or not apply to other implementations, depending on the details. |
| tuxchick Jul 01, 2009 10:27 PM EDT |
What difference does DotGnu make in this discussion anyway? They're not trying to force themselves into user's hands the way the Mono folks are. The tactics of the pro-Mono crowd tell the story most plainly: scorn, dismissive attitudes, diversionary arguments that address everything under the sun except the subject at hand, refusal to give any credence to legitimate concerns, the whole 'my way or the highway' attitude-- those all speak loud and clear. As far as legal risks and why Mono presents special hazards that other FOSS projects don't, I most patiently once again refer readers to an actual legal opinion by an actual lawyer: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/122485/index.html |
| krisum Jul 01, 2009 10:43 PM EDT |
Quoting: What difference does DotGnu make in this discussion anyway?Its because some have been claiming that DotGnu is "pure" while mono is not. Quoting: The tactics of the pro-Mono crowd tell the story most plainly: scorn, dismissive attitudes, diversionary arguments that address everything under the sun except the subject at hand, refusal to give any credence to legitimate concernsActually the same can be said of the "anti-mono" crowd by bringing in tangents like "C# has no technical merits", "mono is very bad yet we are okay if it is not included as part of default applications" etc. Quoting: As far as legal risks and why Mono presents special hazards that other FOSS projects don't, I most patiently once again refer readers to an actual legal opinion by an actual lawyer:Ya, he says that favor python, C etc over java, C# since former are less likely to be attacked. Also says that developers should not be in fear of software patents since there likely are US patents that apply to all software. Btw, he also says that oracle can still attack java implementations even after having released its implementation under a free license. |
| jdixon Jul 02, 2009 9:16 AM EDT |
> No you said that .NET was a patented MS product. Exactly. > So probably you could back it up with MS patents that apply exclusively to .NET I'm willing to take Microsoft's word that those patents exist. You may not be, but that's up to you. And whether they apply exclusive to .Net or not is immaterial to the discussion. > ...and consequently to mono which is a reimplementation of .NET in your own words. I have no idea if they apply to Mono or not. But what I think makes no difference. It's what Microsoft thinks that matters. It's Microsoft I don't trust, not Mono. |
| krisum Jul 02, 2009 10:21 AM EDT |
Quoting: And whether they apply exclusive to .Net or not is immaterial to the discussion.Its not, because if they can apply to whole lot of software other than mono (e.g. MS patents that can apply to all kinds of VMs/languages) then, firstly such patents are unlikely to stand scrutiny, and secondly this singling out of mono will not make sense for those. Quoting: It's what Microsoft thinks that matters. It's Microsoft I don't trust, not Mono.So please do mention the patents that Mono infringes as per MS. The point is that Ubuntu/Fedora/Debian/... don't include software that is known to infringe on patents e.g. MP3 software, and if similar situation (i.e. MS makes a specific patent infringement claim on it) arises for Mono then it would be excluded too. So long as that situation does not arise all this fear mongering in that regard is nothing more than hot air. Even so by your logic linux development should be closed since MS thinks it infringes on its patents. |
| dinotrac Jul 02, 2009 10:39 AM EDT |
krisum - You need to pace yourself, buddy. Microsoft and patents have achieved magic talisman status. Reason goes out the door when facing magic talismans. Reminds me of a report on "Gay Day" at Disneyworld in the early hysterical days of the AIDS epidemic. One father actually asked, "What if one of my kids get bit by a mosquito that just bit somebody with AIDS? Never mind that mosquitos have never been identified as an AIDS transmission vector, the car that the guy hopped into to drive the family home was definitely a risk factor for death and horrible injuries. People don't weigh risk well. Easier to be all afeared over some unidentified patents that supposedly exist and that might be valid and that might be impossible to invent around. Oh -- and that don't apply to anything but mono. Fairy tales can come true, it can happen to you, if you're not that smart... |
| jdixon Jul 02, 2009 11:00 AM EDT |
> Its not, If the patents apply to .Net, then they're applicable to my comments, whether they apply to anything else or not. > So please do mention the patents that Mono infringes as per MS. Why don't you ask Microsoft? They're the ones claiming the .Net patents exist, not me. I'm simply accepting their word. And, yet again, where did I say Mono infringes any patents? If you want to disagree with me, that's fine, but there's no point in disagreeing with something I didn't say. My comments were very simple to parse: .Net is a patented Microsoft product. Mono is a reimplementation of .Net. Microsoft cannot be trusted (my initial statement of this was more colorful). > Reason goes out the door when facing magic talismans. Reason goes out the door when facing the unreasonable, Dino. I don't consider Microsoft reasonable. |
| justintime Jul 02, 2009 11:33 AM EDT |
"The tactics of the pro-Mono crowd tell the story most plainly: scorn, dismissive attitudes, diversionary arguments that address everything under the sun except the subject at hand, refusal to give any credence to legitimate concerns" Take a good hard look in the mirror, tuxchick. You, yourself, are guilty of everything you accuse the pro-Mono crowd of and more. What's your excuse? |
| azerthoth Jul 02, 2009 11:57 AM EDT |
Then there is the anti mono crowd, who when pushed for solid facts to back up their position can not come up with a single one other than a really definite maybe. To be honest its nearly impossible to prove a negative, which gives the anti mono folks a real advantage in the discussion. All they have to do is keep fobbing off views and opinions (although never a patent number). This leaves the pro mono folks asking where the facts are. Like SCO and its Linux code accusation, the opinions get alot of mileage because they just keep getting repeated over and over again, yet when rubber meets the road there is nothing there. Folks, I am neither pro or anti mono. Give me a solid fact and I'll believe you. Give me a patent number, regardless of if it will withstand Bilski. Give me something more solid than he said, she said, and I'll believe you. Short of that, I would ask this of you, why would you disbelieve MS on 265 patents and believe them on this? |
| jdixon Jul 02, 2009 12:15 PM EDT |
> when pushed for solid facts to back up their position can not come up with a single one other than a really definite maybe. Azerthoth, when given Microsoft's actions in the past, how many facts do you need to want to avoid things tied to them whenever possible? Samba is, unfortunately, a necessity for most folks. Mono isn't. The list of reasons to have Mono are summed up above: Tomboy, F-spot, and Banshee. That's the best reason the pro-Mono folks can come up with for including it by default in a distro. Given that it's Microsoft were talking about here, that's not good enough for me. Other people are free to disagree, which is fine, and I have no problem with them choosing to use Mono. But making it part of a default installation doesn't strike me as a wise thing to do. |
| dinotrac Jul 02, 2009 12:37 PM EDT |
>.Net is a patented Microsoft product. I have to take exception to that statement. You don't patent products. Products may incorporate patented technology, but patents apply inventions that are reduced to practice, and patent claims provide the specifics of the covered technology. .Net may well take advantage of technology that is encompassed in claims contained within Microsoft patents. That doesn't mean that Mono infringes any patents any more than it means Oracle doesn't. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 02, 2009 1:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:Give me a patent number, regardless of if it will withstand Bilski. US Pat.App. 20030028685: "Application program interface for network software platform" EDIT: This is a patent application. I'm trying to coax the horrible uspto website into giving me it's patent number. That patent covers the CLR, the core of .Net. The part that was submitted to ECMA and is available under a royalty-free RAND license. My question: What are the RAND terms? I have been unable to find those. I found this PDF[1], but all that PDF says is that they will provide anyone a license under "reasonable terms". What are those terms? What Microsoft may find reasonable does not have to be reasonable to us. Microsoft has a history of crafting terms in such a way as to be incompatible with the GPL. [1] [url=http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma PATENT/ECMA-334 & 335/2001ga-123 & 2002ga-003.pdf]http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST...[/url] |
| theboomboomcars Jul 02, 2009 1:11 PM EDT |
I will add this to the conversation. F-Spot really isn't very good. It seems to me that copying files from my SD card to my hard drive shouldn't max out my processor. |
| jdixon Jul 02, 2009 2:20 PM EDT |
> I have to take exception to that statement. I'm not surprised. You are, of course, correct; and my statement is a laypersons approximation of the legal realities of the situation. |
| dinotrac Jul 02, 2009 3:14 PM EDT |
Sander -- I've lost the patent number, but I did manage to find a 2005 patent that appears to be the end result of multiple patent applications and vastly whittled-down claims. For example - the patent application you found listed 32 separate claims (or something like that -- don't have it up now), but the patent at the far end of the process has only 9. BTW -- That patent was granted in a far different environment: 2005, and prior to Bilski. Don't have it up now, but some of those claims have got to be pretty damned narrow not to conflict with things like Java, IBM common (runtime? I forget) technology that was used on the AS/400, and RPC. IOW -- hard to believe that any of those claims are impervious to being invented around. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 02, 2009 3:43 PM EDT |
Dino, any chance you can fish out the patent number? Microsoft has over 11K patents in the USPTO database (not counting those assigned to MS subsidiaries) so it's a bit hard to track down. |
| tracyanne Jul 02, 2009 5:20 PM EDT |
Ubuntu position staement on Mono https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2009...Quoting:The Ubuntu Project takes patent issues seriously, and the Ubuntu Technical Board is the governance body that handles allegations of patent infringement. The Ubuntu Technical Board strives to engage with rights holder openly in terms of the code that we ship. If a rights holder claims a patent infringement applies to said code, the Technical Board will commit to a review of the claim. I'd say it's time to give it a rest. Anyone who doesn't want Mono in their distribution can either remove it or vote with their feet, and go to another distribution. |
| azerthoth Jul 02, 2009 5:31 PM EDT |
Gentoo comes monoless, not sure if your stuck with it if you put Gnome in as thats something I never intentionally put on my systems. And thank you Sander, I'll spend some time on it this weekend and see if I can come up with it. |
| jdixon Jul 02, 2009 5:41 PM EDT |
> Short of that, I would ask this of you, why would you disbelieve MS on 265 patents and believe them on this? I don't disbelieve Microsoft on 265 patents. Please note that Microsoft never came flat out and said Linux DID infringe those patents, only that it might. While the number is suspect, I'm sure Linux does possibly infringe on at least a few Microsoft patents. .Net is Microsoft's creation. If anyone would know about the patents which apply to it, they would. |
| tracyanne Jul 02, 2009 6:01 PM EDT |
The Ubuntu Technical Board has received no claims of infringement against the Mono stack, and is not aware of any such claims having been received by other similar projects. |
| azerthoth Jul 02, 2009 6:12 PM EDT |
JD, I dont mean to be rude, so please dont take it that way, but your doing wonders for proving the if/then/maybe argument. Your dropping bombs without facts and asking people to prove that something that doesnt exist doesnt actually exist. I'm not rejecting your opinions, I'm rejecting the requirement to prove a negative. Sander has dropped a lead, and hopefully dino or someone else can or will follow up more conclusively. I'll be looking at it too, and maybe just maybe something will be found that can be used as an honest fact. At this point though I have seen no facts to support or deny either side. Just supposition and accusation from the against team. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 02, 2009 6:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:Please note that Microsoft never came flat out and said Linux DID infringe those patents, only that it might. That can be enough. Just look at the TomTom case. Microsoft sued with a set of patents that had much prior art and were probably invalid in a post-Bliski world. TomTom folded. I think that *if* Microsoft ever sues anyone over .Net patents then they will try it in a similar way. They will sue a company that (1) does not have software as a core business, (2) ships Linux embedded in some physical product and (3) is not tied to any of the big Linux distributors. (1) This gives a much higher chance that the company will settle instead of fight. TomTom makes money selling hardware and subscriptions to updates. Software is just a catalyst. (2) This makes a lawsuit much more threatning because MS can move to stop distribution of the product and thereby directly threaten the revenue of the defendant. The threat of having to migrate your internal network servers is not nearly as big as the threat of stopping distribution of your products. (3) The big Linux vendors like Red Hat and Canonical all give indemnification to their customers. If Microsoft attacks a vendor who ships an Ubuntu-based product then Canonical would step in and fight. MS does not want to fight. They want to threaten and then quickly settle. The most likely targets are hardware companies that rolled their own embedded Linux for in their products. |
| tracyanne Jul 02, 2009 6:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:The most likely targets are hardware companies that rolled their own embedded Linux for in their products. That sounds like a sound low risk strategy to me. |
| jdixon Jul 02, 2009 8:01 PM EDT |
> Your dropping bombs without facts... What bombs? I've tried to make my position clear. I have no desire to use Mono. I think including Mono by default is a bad idea. I use a distribution which doesn't include Mono, and won't install it if Patrick does decide to include it. I don't care if anyone else chooses to use Mono or not, and I don't particularly care if any distro other than Slackware includes it, even if I do think it's a bad idea. If other people want to do stupid things, it's not my place to stop them. I may, however, choose to warn them they're being stupid, if I think there's any chance it will do some good. My facts comment above was in response to justintime's comment of "My arguments are backed by facts". It's one thing to choose to use Mono. It quite another to dismiss those who choose not to as not having valid reasons for their position. Given their past history, distrust of Microsoft is a perfectly valid reason not to use Mono. > ...and asking people to prove that something that doesnt exist doesnt actually exist. I've done nothing of he kind. I haven't asked anyone to prove anything to me. My question to you was sincere. How many facts do you need to wish to avoid things tied to Microsoft? The ones I've gotten over the years have been more than enough for me. I don't need any more. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 02, 2009 8:04 PM EDT |
@jdixon I agree completely with your last comment... |
| jdixon Jul 02, 2009 8:12 PM EDT |
> That can be enough. Yes it can. You're assessment of their strategy sounds dead on. It's also a sound strategy, assuming your ethics will allow it. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 02, 2009 8:15 PM EDT |
@jdixon What wouldn't Microsoft's ethics allow? Seriously, I just don't know what they wouldn't do. |
| jdixon Jul 02, 2009 8:27 PM EDT |
> What wouldn't Microsoft's ethics allow? That's sort of the point. :) |
| hkwint Jul 02, 2009 9:03 PM EDT |
Quoting:Dino, any chance you can fish out the patent number? 1) My name is Hans, not Dino. 2) Here you are: 1 7,555,757 Application program interface for network software platform 2 7,546,602 Application program interface for network software platform 3 7,165,239 Application program interface for network software platform 4 7,017,162 Application program interface for network software platform 5 7,013,469 Application program interface for network software platform 6 6,920,461 Application program interface for network software platform Searching for AN/Microsoft AND TTL/(Common AND Language) is also fun by the way, also lists some nice patents that 'may' apply to Mono. |
| hkwint Jul 02, 2009 9:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:My question: What are the RAND terms? I have been unable to find those. ECMA's policy is, they don't specify. Quoting:However, Ecma does not: Taken from ECMA-presentation; [url=http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:VFa1IjFm7dAJ:www.ecma-international.org/activities/Office%20Open%20XML%20Format/Istvan%20Sebestyen%20presentation.ppt "Conduct patent searches for patents used in standards"&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=be&client=firefox-a]http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:VFa1IjFm7dAJ:www.ecma-i...[/url] |
| dinotrac Jul 02, 2009 11:14 PM EDT |
>Searching for AN/Microsoft AND TTL/(Common AND Language) is also fun by the way, also lists some nice patents that 'may' apply to Mono. Seems that mono is LESS likely to infringe patents than other projects because they have access to Novell's legal team (one that have fared pretty well against Microsoft, btw) and they have a specific patent policy WRT to the non ECMA components of .NET : Quoting: Mono's strategy for dealing with any potential issues that might arise with ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms is: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless. As to the ECMA components, Jim Miller, one of the inventors, had this to say: Quoting: But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis for this purpose. |
| krisum Jul 02, 2009 11:43 PM EDT |
@jdixon
Quoting: And, yet again, where did I say Mono infringes any patents?Really don't see your point here. If the facts are being presented with nothing to deduce then they are irrelevant to the discussion. If you do not mean to imply that Mono infringes on any patents then there is nothing to discuss here. As such this: Quoting: It's what Microsoft thinks that matters. It's Microsoft I don't trust, not Mono.has little bearing on the matter since there is nothing you have to present w.r.t what MS thinks about mono presumably about patents. And as mentioned MS thinks a lot more about linux kernel in this regard than mono as far as evidence goes. |
| gus3 Jul 03, 2009 12:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:MS thinks a lot more about linux kernel in this regard than mono as far as evidence goes.My algebra teacher told us, in talking about common denominators and adding fractions, that "you can't compare apples and oranges unless you call them both fruits." Meaning that we couldn't compare/contrast the different terms before establishing the common ground between them. In the case of the statement above, the common ground is Microsoft. The uncommon ground is that Microsoft's position w.r.t. Linux is reactive, while their silent complicity concerning Mono is proactive. That is to say, they cannot hinder the development of the Linux kernel, but they can compromise the freedom of Free Software through the introduction of Mono into the common desktop environments that run on top of Linux. The Linux kernel is beyond their control, but the "Linux desktop" is something they can influence, even if only in a negative manner. (I'm tired, so if what I said above makes no sense, I apologize.) |
| jdixon Jul 03, 2009 12:37 AM EDT |
> Really don't see your point here. Then I can't help you any. As I said above, if I think there's any chance it will do some good. In this case it obviously won't. > If you do not mean to imply that Mono infringes on any patents then there is nothing to discuss here. Whether I think it infringes any patents doesn't matter. I'm not the one with standing to sue. It's what Microsoft thinks that matters. |
| jdixon Jul 03, 2009 12:40 AM EDT |
> I'm tired, so if what I said above makes no sense Well, it made sense to me, but what do I know. :) |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 03, 2009 2:00 AM EDT |
Thanks for those patent numbers Hans. With regard to the RAND terms, that means Microsoft has to define the terms. |
| krisum Jul 03, 2009 2:41 AM EDT |
Quoting: That is to say, they cannot hinder the development of the Linux kernel, but they can compromise the freedom of Free Software through the introduction of Mono into the common desktop environments that run on top of Linux.Why so? Surely if MS thinks it has a decent chance of hindering the linux kernel by patent infringement suits then it will surely do so. @jdixon Quoting: Whether I think it infringes any patents doesn't matter. I'm not the one with standing to sue. It's what Microsoft thinks that matters.Repetition will hardly clarify your point. Somehow I think you are being intentionally vague here. |
| hkwint Jul 03, 2009 6:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:Seems that mono is LESS likely to infringe patents than other projects because they have access to Novell's legal team Why would Novell care? Novell users will not be sued by Microsoft anyway, no matter if and how much Novell software 'makes use of' Microsoft patents. |
| theboomboomcars Jul 03, 2009 9:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:Whether I think it infringes any patents doesn't matter. I'm not the one with standing to sue. It's what Microsoft thinks that matters. If I am understanding what jdixon has been saying is that only Microsoft can decide whether or not to sue. jdixon - If I misunderstand your position I apologize for misrepresenting it. The problem with mono is that there is doubt about the legality and since MS is the one holding the cards there are many people who won't play the game. In the past MS has changed the rules in the middle of a game, we don't know if they still play that way or not, but since past actions are the only predictor we have of future actions, there are a great number of people who stay clear when MS is at the table. I cannot say whether or not the fear is justified, all I know is that F-Spot is not as good as the photo manager it replaced in gnome. I like being able to use my computer how I want to use it and not how MS thinks I should, so when MS has to act on it's threats life will get better because we will then know what is what. |
| azerthoth Jul 03, 2009 10:32 AM EDT |
Hans, thanks for those numbers, now to see if I can track down an actual patent. |
| jdixon Jul 03, 2009 11:11 AM EDT |
> Somehow I think you are being intentionally vague here. As I already said, I can't help you. Whether it's vagueness or not is in the eye of the beholder, I assume. > ...what jdixon has been saying is that only Microsoft can decide whether or not to sue. Yes. > ...and since MS is the one holding the cards there are many people who won't play the game. In the past MS has changed the rules in the middle of a game, we don't know if they still play that way or not, but since past actions are the only predictor we have of future actions, there are a great number of people who stay clear when MS is at the table. Thanks. I was beginning to think I might be typing in a foreign language from the way some folks were reacting. |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2009 3:01 PM EDT |
Hans -- Novell would be stupid not to car, far stupider than they've shown any inclination to be, which, admittedly, is saying a lot. Novell was in business before the Microsoft deal and hopes to be in business after it. The mono team is part of Novell, and Novell's reputation (not to mention future options) will be damaged if they turn their backs on the promise they've made in the Mono policies. |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 03, 2009 4:07 PM EDT |
RE: Novell Never assume malice where stupidity will suffice. YBT |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!