This guy is like a zombie
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Grishnakh May 17, 2011 12:54 PM EDT |
He keeps coming back from the dead to inflict his disease on the rest of us. |
| azerthoth May 17, 2011 4:48 PM EDT |
or you can choose not to use it, or any distro that forces you to use it. |
| tracyanne May 17, 2011 6:03 PM EDT |
Good for him, I hope he makes a success of this venture. |
| Ridcully May 17, 2011 6:04 PM EDT |
Terry Pratchett in his diskworld series put it another way (although he was talking about education at the time): ".......it's like having a certain type of communicable disease: it eventually makes the equipment useless for what was originally intended and you have the urge to pass it on........" I think/hope we are watching the dying throes of Mono.....However, what WILL be important to my mind is: where will Miguel get his funding to continue Mono development ? "By their purse strings ye shall know them" seems a good place to start and if they happen to lead (however circuitously) towards Redmond, it all falls into place, doesn't it ? |
| dinotrac May 17, 2011 6:59 PM EDT |
For the life of me, I can't imagine why a sane and intelligent person would wish death on Mono. It's a freakin' software tool! It's not going to come and kidnap your children, declare war on noplaceistan, or sweep plague and pestilence across the continents. You don't have to use it. What kind of a twisted mind gets all bunched up simply because something exists? |
| Ridcully May 17, 2011 7:30 PM EDT |
Fair enough Dinotrac, if it were that simple. If Mono was just FOSS software and under the GPL, I'd say go for it. The problem is, as I understand it, that Microsoft holds patents over parts of it. This aspect has been explored again and again and again, and there have been countless debates; but the one thing that comes out of it all is that while Microsoft holds those patents, they can "lower the boom" and cause considerable damage at some future time when enough people depend on Mono based software. Currently this isn't the case, but given the rapidity with which Linux is being taken up by the enterprise sector, within 5 years it should be. Agreed, this is just my perspective, but one put in place after very considerable reading of article after article on the topic. Here is just one such from 2010: http://techrights.org/2010/08/09/mono-patent-fights-risk/ It has sufficient info for you to find more. I seem to recall that PJ of Groklaw has several articles or comments on Mono (negative as far as I can remember) and its patent risks. So my take is that Miguel can keep Mono, I wouldn't want to go there or use it or depend on it. It appears to be tainted and the term "caveat emptor" applies. |
| dinotrac May 17, 2011 7:51 PM EDT |
@Ridcully - It IS that simple. And where do you get your information? What patents does Microsoft hold over mono? I'm not aware of any. Are you simply falling for FUD, or do you know something? And -- even if it were true (And I don't believe it's true any more than I believed that SCO owns Linux), so what? Who's making you use it? |
| Ridcully May 17, 2011 8:00 PM EDT |
@ Dinotrac.......I really do beg to disagree on this matter. Here is the statement (dated July 2009) from the Free Software Foundation detailing the patent traps held by Microsoft which are C# libraries not contained in the ECMA standards: http://techrights.org/2009/07/17/fsf-vs-microsoft-community-... You will find all the problems laid out for you. Even the Foundation states that the only way forward is for Microsoft to "grant the public an irrevocable patent license for all of its patents that Mono actually exercises." To my current knowledge this has not happened. If you can show it has, then I would of course, retire gracefully and repentantly from the field and acknowledge you are correct; but given the article I quoted in my post above, I don't think Microsoft has "opened those patents". |
| dinotrac May 17, 2011 10:19 PM EDT |
@ridcully - I am aware of the FSF's position, but read your own link. THEY DON'T KNOW OF ANY PATENTS EITHER!! The claim that IF there is a patent trap...etc. I am tired of baseless scare tactics, and --- even if you were to take the FSF position as well-informed gospel, it still begs the question: so what? |
| flufferbeer May 17, 2011 11:18 PM EDT |
@Ridcully, Yeah, I'm with you here. Just saw Groklaw's September 29, 2009 withering review of Jason Perlow's misguided rant against RMS. At that time, RMS came right out and spoke his mind (justifiably!) to call de Icaza a "traitor" for RUNNING to join the Board of Directors of Micro$uck$ own interoperability ploy; that old CodePlex Foundation. No, Ridcully, Miguel the Mono leopard sure ain't changing his M$-tainted spots so quickly! 2c |
| Ridcully May 18, 2011 12:14 AM EDT |
@Dinotrac......."They don't know of any patents either." Here is the last paragraph of that Free Software Foundation article at: http://techrights.org/2009/07/17/fsf-vs-microsoft-community-... Quoting:Until that happens, free software developers still should not write software that depends on Mono. C# implementations can still be attacked by Microsoft’s patents: the Community Promise is designed to give the company several outs if it wants them. We don’t want to see developers’ hard work lost to the community if we lose the ability to use Mono, and until we eliminate software patents altogether, using another language is the best way to prevent that from happening. I think it is plain enough. Whether they detail them or not, the FSF believes that the Microsoft patents are there and the general tenor of the entire article suggests the FSF, on balance, believes that Microsoft will use them if necessary. As regards your "So what ?", I think this is an even more dangerous position to take. In my second post on this thread I noted the idea that 5 years down the track, Mono based software may become very unpleasant indeed. This was because I had just finished reading this article: http://www.networkcomputing.com/virtualization/survey-half-o... It makes the remarkable prediction based on surveys that more than half of enterprise software utilised by the business world will be open source software because: ".....customers have overcome their reluctance towards using open source, such as concerns about licenses, and are embracing its virtues, such as flexibility, lower cost and avoiding vendor lock-in....." This threat to Microsoft's income will be real and I personally have little doubt that the Redmond boardroom will explore any tactic it can to minimise net drop in income because by that stage, the snow-ball effect will have locked in and the move to FOSS in the business world will accelerate. If firms using FOSS software have made the mistake of including and utilizing Mono based software and Microsoft still hasn't given a general "absolution" for such software, then those patents (which the FSF assumes exist) will definitely be used to attack FOSS. If I was managing a business, I should not like such a situation to threaten my operations. And such negative results could seriously threaten further business uptake of FOSS. Now that's how I see it. You may say this is FUD or scare tactics, but I personally think that this is a situation in which it is far better to play safe than flirt with a Microsoft question of "Will he, or won't he ?" From past knowledge, if Microsoft's profitability is threatened, the question really becomes: "Will he or will he ?" |
| skelband May 18, 2011 3:18 AM EDT |
There are plenty of examples of this happening already. Oracle and Android are a prime example. Microsoft does have a bit of form in this area with FAT (and TomTom IIRC) I agree that Microsoft will come out fighting with its patent army if it is backed to the wall and Mono is a prime attack surface. |
| dinotrac May 18, 2011 5:46 AM EDT |
@ridcully -- And yet you don't refute my point: As it stands, nobody knows about a single Microsoft patent that affects mono. That's a pretty interesting thing, too, because patents aren't secret. They are public records. You are free to worry about the possibilities, as is anybody else, or any business. That's reasonable and rational. Can't blame you for that. But why give a rat's posterior portions about the project's existence? That's petty and stupid. Period. |
| tuxchick May 18, 2011 5:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:patents aren't secret. They are public records. Well, sort of-- there are millions of the darned things, they're written vaguely and verbosely, and you have to know which ones to look for. If the patent holder doesn't give you a list it is possible to find them on your own. But not probable. Especially when the patent holder's interests are served by not disclosing them. |
| Ridcully May 18, 2011 6:58 AM EDT |
For Dinotrac........I thought I had answered your point in my last post which quoted the FSF as believing that the patents are there. Unless you are an expert in patent law (and I am not), it can be very hard to pinpoint actual patents involved - PJ's Groklaw has addressed that problem again and again together with the court cases that result. Additionally, Microsoft deliberately obfuscates its patent holdings for FUD reasons and keeps them that way until either forced to reveal them or it ultimately uses them in a court case (eg. TomTom) ~ Microsoft prefers to let the "unwashed Linux users" squirm because it produces collateral damage. Tuxchick has illustrated that point rather well. With respect to the Mono project, in one sense you are absolutely right......why give a tinker's curse for whether it succeeds or not ? For those who are aware of the situation, it doesn't matter a damn. They either steer totally clear of Mono based software and protect themselves that way.......or they accept the possibility that they may be in trouble further down the track and run with it anyhow. It's their choice and I fully agree with that option, although I think it is risky; nevertheless such experienced Linux users go into it with eyes open. But for those who are not Linux savvy, and in particular here I am thinking of those who are picking it all up at the moment (or perhaps 3 years into the future when all this shouting has died away) and who have no background in this matter. It is quite possible that they may run with Mono-based software and be completely unaware of its potential risks. And in big business, that is something that they may not wish to do. I guess it is really a matter of playing the odds; but as far as the FSF is concerned, Mono remains software that is potentially suspect and their advice is to steer clear of it. Whether those patents are clearly defined or not is irrelevant; the fact remains that a major Linux body believes that they are present on the basis of evidence it has. As the FSF indicates, all Microsoft has to do is "open the code" and they (Microsoft) have known that for some time.....If there are no patents there, Microsoft gains by being seen as generous and open. It is very revealing that Microsoft has not done so and you must ask yourself why. The company knows these discussions and debates are taking place and the tensions that are produced. A mischief maker enjoys making mischief and seeing contra-opinions flourish. Why reveal your weapon if you can do just as much damage by keeping quiet ? (Edited: a classic example of Microsoft being forced to reveal its codes is SAMBA - not patents certainly, but it went all the way to the European Commission before Microsoft was legally forced to give way and illustrates perfectly how Microsoft prefers to hide its assets rather than reveal them.) In that sense, I personally believe that Miguel is doing Linux a disservice by continuing with the Mono project. Because I am more inclined to back the FSF's judgement of the situation and consequently believe Mono has the potential to damage Linux in the future, I take the view that the Mono project is better ended. That's my take on the matter, but it's mine and not necessarily anybody else's. |
| dinotrac May 18, 2011 8:19 AM EDT |
Ridcully - You don't have to be that much of a patent expert to search out claims. Besides -- there are plenty of patent experts available, including those who were legal advisers to the Novell team and helped them develop their patent-protection policy. I have no doubt that Microsoft's implementation of .Net is full of code that incorporates Microsoft patents. If mono used that code, I'm sure that would be true as well. But they don't. ALL software is subject to patent attack. There is nothing about mono that is special and no reason to believe that it infringes any Microsoft patents. You cannot compare the Samba info (which was trade secret) to patents, which are public record. As to obfuscating a patent, just how, exactly, do you do that? A patent has to meet a number of specific requirements and be approved by patent examiners. Maybe Microsoft snuck that by the Patent Examiners when they were operating the remote controlled airliners that provided cover for the hidden explosives that actually took down the Twin Towers back in 2001. |
| JaseP May 18, 2011 8:40 AM EDT |
Quoting: In that sense, I personally believe that Miguel is doing Linux a disservice by continuing with the Mono project. He's chasing the money. I can't fault him for that. Everyone has to provide for their family. I don't think that anything Mono has contributed to the Linux computing environment has made itself so indispensable that it can't be excised if necessary. |
| dinotrac May 18, 2011 8:43 AM EDT |
@JaseP - What you said. Goodness. I wasn't aware that Miguel had some special obligation to Linux, anyway. Mono isn't even part of Linux. |
| Ridcully May 18, 2011 9:04 AM EDT |
For Dinotrac......absolutely no offence intended here, but it is amazing how the English language can be interpreted in so many ways and each is correct. Okay, by "obfuscation", I was not referring to the setting up of the patent itself, but how Microsoft often handles the fact that it holds "unknown patents".....it suggests things through a fog of FUD by using Ballmer speak or similar - "We hold patents" he will say, but never lists them - it's quite deliberate blurring of the details. I'm sure you've got the idea. SCO started out the same way as I recall. Umm......I live in Australia, not the USA where these patents are held; and in any event, I'm out in the countryside, 170km from the capital of Brisbane.....Internet search ? Well, perhaps, but I wouldn't know how or where to begin so I am afraid your suggestion is impractical from my perspective. I agree with you in that I am also sure that .Net is full of Microsoft patents, but the FSF fingered the C# libraries and while not all Mono based software uses those particular libraries, enough does to make it a threat. And again, Dinotrac, you are absolutely correct re Samba and Mono with respect to a basic comparison of what was being actioned. They are completely different and no argument from me; except for the point I was trying to make which is that Microsoft was like the proverbial Scrooge who fights to the last inch NOT to open his purse and not allow any information out that could help Samba. Or at least that's what I implied in my post above. In the same way, Microsoft is making darn sure that these "patents" are not disclosed. It can do just as much damage. @JaseP, spot on I think re chasing the money. And that's fundamental to the point I made in my first post on this thread. I'd sure like to know where his funding comes from if he manages to get it and set the Mono project up. Your take on the "excising of the software" is also valid in my book and of course that would be done and pretty quickly. My only misgiving is that a lot of "damage to business perceptions" can be done in the meantime by a firm which threatens to use patents that can hurt the software packages of business. And that after all, is always Microsoft's intention: lock them back onto Redmond software. It's why I believe that it is better not to take any steps down the Mono path ~ it has the risk of future damage to how Linux is perceived in the wider business community. But hey, that's just me. |
| dinotrac May 18, 2011 9:36 AM EDT |
@Ridcully - There's marketspeak and swagger (which was all the SCO thing ever was) and there's reality. Balmer can talk all he wants. Doesn't make it so. Did you know that US patent law prevents you from collecting damages for infringement unless you publicly disclose which patents apply to a product? When I hear talk of "secret patents" -- a non-sequitor to begin with given the public record nature of patents -- I have to laugh. That's generally the talk of somebody who -- even if he thinks he's got a fistful of relevant patents -- isn't sure he can make them stick. He wants people to sign agreements from fear of his legal resources. He doesn't want to got to war with the likes of IBM, Google, or Oracle. As to C# libraries, there is no such thing as "the C# libraries". There are, at minimum, three implementations: Microsoft's, mono's, and dotgnu's. Microsoft having patents that affect its implementation has no meaning with regard to other implementations unless they also incorporate the patented method(s). |
| KernelShepard May 18, 2011 10:07 AM EDT |
From http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Dec-09.html #comment-112257759 (PS. LXer's linkification seems to be broken, be sure to add the #comment id to the url manually) Miguel de Icaza wrote:Patents are a real problem for the software industry, so there is no possible way to ever claim that Mono will be safe from a patent lawsuit from Microsoft or someone else. Emphasis added by me. The emboldened text is so very true and it is very hypocritical of people like Ridcully to so staunchly argue that Mono infringes patents (without proof) while simultaniously calling the same argument FUD when Microsoft (or someone else) makes the same exact argument about any other piece of Free Software. I just find that sad and pathetic. Ridcully wrote:and while not all Mono based software uses those particular libraries, enough does to make it a threat. Rubbish accusation. Ridcully wrote:Well, perhaps, but I wouldn't know how or where to begin so I am afraid your suggestion is impractical from my perspective. You might start with http://patents.google.com Laziness is no excuse for FUDing a project. |
| JaseP May 18, 2011 10:34 AM EDT |
Quoting: It's why I believe that it is better not to take any steps down the Mono path ~ it has the risk of future damage to how Linux is perceived in the wider business community. But hey, that's just me. I'm kinda the choir here... I won't even permit an Xbox in my house, and have only one machine that boots Windoze... just for setup utilities for hardware that needs it. When ReactOS can run on that machine & do that job, I'll have no M$ machines (although, maybe a Kinect, attached to the primary HTPC). I personally do not use mono (so far as I know), at least not intentionally. So, I half agree. But M$ has also committed code, & if they have, likely some of the license terms preclude using patents as a weapon. Even if they don't, M$ can be said to have "unclean hands," if they commit code to interoperability and later try to assert IP rights. Part of the whole "unclean hands" thing is why I think the Oracle v. Google suit is crap... But, hey,... I'm not a member of the patent bar. I just don't see Mono as the IP landmine that others do. I also believe that M$ will evolve away from their current business model, albeit very slowly & with a ton of missteps (unlike Google, which seems to be very calculated in their plans). |
| KernelShepard May 18, 2011 10:40 AM EDT |
@JaseP You bring up a good point about "Unclean Hands". |
| gus3 May 18, 2011 11:28 AM EDT |
As the law in the United States is set up today, it is impossible to know for certain that you are abiding by it, 100% of the time, every day of the week. A corollary to that, is that it is impossible to know that you are not violating anyone else's patents, 100% of the time, every day of the week. The only thing to know for certain, is that you are breaking the law, violating someone else's patents, committing whatever transgression. Any list from Microsoft, of patents supposedly related to Mono is, by definition, as untrustworthy as any other legal information from Microsoft. To paraphrase a common annotation from Wikipedia, "This list is incomplete; Microsoft may feel free to expand it." And Microsoft likes it that way. |
| dinotrac May 18, 2011 11:45 AM EDT |
@gus3 - One important thing to remember -- If Microsoft ever wishes to enforce its patents, a trustworthy list will have to appear. You are not liable for infringing a patent that isn't disclosed, at least not in the US. And -- the fact that patents are public documents is not sufficient disclosure. That's why you see all those things with "patent pending" and a list of patent numbers on them. |
| gus3 May 18, 2011 11:55 AM EDT |
If Microsoft wished to enforce its patents, it could do so one... patent... at... a... time... with no end in sight to the litigation, until the accused finally cave. So no, there will never be a trustworthy, comprehensive list of patents concerning the subject at hand. Edit 3:38pm EDT: As for putting the list of patents(both current and pending) on a product, what good will that do for a product I have no intention of using, or even downloading? It's like the click-wrap licenses, where you can't see what the terms are until you've opened the box, and can no longer return it. |
| Ridcully May 18, 2011 5:54 PM EDT |
@KernelShepard........Hey......give me a break !! I don't mind debating or discussing and thoroughly enjoy it, but I most definitely DO mind when statements begin to be personal. And I believe that is the line you just crossed. First: You will note I have said I am NOT a patent expert; nor am I a software engineer. I would have NO earthly possibility in understanding vaguely written and wide spreading patents and how they apply to specific software; I simply don't have the background to do it: Quoting:Rubbish accusation. This is definitely not laziness, I simply know my limitations and without a legal background in patents I wouldn't dare dip my toes into that pool. In this case you are being extremely unfair and you appear to be assuming that everybody has talents equal to yours ? Yes ? Second: I have no respect whatsoever for posts which (even by inference) offer a personal attack. No-one on this thread has infringed on that aspect and while Dinotrac and I have debated, it's been interesting, opened new doors and given me much to think about - he certainly hasn't attacked me, just my arguments and that's fair and exactly what should happen. Quoting:The emboldened text is so very true and it is very hypocritical of people like Ridcully to so staunchly argue that Mono infringes patents (without proof) while simultaniously calling the same argument FUD when Microsoft (or someone else) makes the same exact argument about any other piece of Free Software. My arguments are based on information I have gathered from the web and you will note that my principal references are the FSF itself. I am merely quoting their comments and since they make sense to me, I have put them forward - I fail to see how that makes me a hypocrite. Additionally, since the FSF article is presently my principal source for almost everything I have said, are you now directly implying that the FSF is hypocritical and promoting FUD ?? If so, you're a braver man than I am Gunga Din. Third: A short sharp one line retort isn't worth the bother of writing it when it is simply purely dismissive and has no backup proof, and remember, my proof is all on the web in articles by the FSF and Groklaw for starters. Quoting: This may be a rubbish accusation to you, but I have seen it stated often enough on various sites that have discussed the Mono problem extensively - including Groklaw, and let us say that I am prepared to take that statement seriously when it appears on a site with the reputation of Groklaw. Again, you are being very, very unfair and dismissive. |
| skelband May 18, 2011 6:08 PM EDT |
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-984052.html |
| KernelShepard May 18, 2011 6:26 PM EDT |
@Ridcully How else do you expect me to respond to a rubbish claim that is so lacking in specifics? There are no specific points for me to rebut other than saying "you are wrong". I also did not make any personal attacks. I said your argument was hypocritical and it is. Claiming that Mono is unsafe as if the rules somehow apply differently to it than any other piece of software is employing a double standard. If you decide to take that as a personal insult, well, that is your prerogative and I can't stop you. |
| Ridcully May 18, 2011 7:10 PM EDT |
@KernelShepard....... 1. Let me repeat, slowly......my reference is the Free Software Foundation and its articles and comments on Mono and its dangers. Rebut them if you wish, especially their summation, but attacking my arguments does not make their fundamental findings any less valid. I am sure they will have sufficient specific points to satisfy even your needs. 2. No one has said the rules apply differently to Mono......the problem is that the same patent rules do apply to Mono and as the FSF has stated, they consider them so real that they cannot recommend use of Mono or development of Mono based software. I think that's succinct enough and it is pretty much all I have ever said apart from my personal opinion/belief that I don't think the Mono path is a good one to take. 3. When a person on these pages uses the words hypocrite, sad and pathetic in association with another person or their arguments, the impact is very negative indeed whether intentional or not. The question of my prerogative is irrelevant: there are such things as tact, diplomacy and courtesy. I'd very gently suggest you might like to consider that. In any event, you and I have reached an impasse and I don't think there is any benefit in continuing. If I was to make any serious suggestion to you about Mono, it would be to look deeply into what the FSF has found concerning Mono and see for yourself. I cannot believe that the corroborative comments on the dangers of Mono that come from both the FSF and Groklaw should be ignored and that you can just dismiss them as "wrong". PJ in particular had huge input on this aspect as I recall. Also, try a google search on the phrase "groklaw and mono" - it will be revealing. By the way, as a disclaimer, I have no commercial or development interest in any software production so my comments are strictly those of "disinterested person" with no axe to grind. |
| KernelShepard May 18, 2011 10:33 PM EDT |
@Ridcully I've had lawyers look at it and they have said "Mono is as safe as safe gets in the software industry". You aren't going to get better guarantees for any other piece of software being written these days. The FSF know this. Their position is an anti-Microsoft political statement more than anything based on reality. Just like their Windows7Sins, DefectiveByDesign, anti-Apple, etc campaigns. There is some truth to all of them, but there is also a hell of a lot of fear mongering and blowing things out of proportion. It's not cool when Microsoft spreads FUD and it's not cool when the FSF does it. The FSF used to be able to claim the moral high ground. It's sad that they no longer can. You want to know what I find ironic about their attacks against Mono? There's a hell of a lot of other GNU software out there that depends on libxml2 which copied Microsoft's .NET XML parser API verbatim and the FSF uses the XML API and XSLT as part of their attacks against Mono. What makes it even MORE ironic to me is that the Microsoft Community Promise covers Mono (due to it being a full implementation of the ECMA 334 and 335 specifications), but since the other GNU software depending on libxml2 and libxslt are not implementations of .NET, they aren't covered. Oh, and if you think you're safe with KDE because KDE doesn't use libxml2, I got some bad news for you there too. Qt based their XML parser API off libxml2's copy of .NET. "Oops". Are you going to go and badmouth every other piece of Free Software that does any XML parsing or XML manipulation via XSLT? Are you going to hope that KDE dies? After all, they might infringe on patents (the very same patents that the FSF is FUDing Mono with). You say you have no axe to grind, yet you make a statement "I hope we are watching the dying throes of Mono"...? That sounds like axe grinding to me. |
| jdixon May 18, 2011 11:01 PM EDT |
You know, every time I read Dino's reasonable comments about Mono, I then wind up reading the comments of the Mono supporters, and my attitude goes from "live and let live" to "live and let die". Mono supporters have done more to drive me away from Mono than Microsoft's reputation and past actions have done. And I trust Microsoft as far as could throw their Redmond campus. |
| dinotrac May 18, 2011 11:08 PM EDT |
@gus3 - It doesn't matter whether you buy a product or not. If a patent holder wishes to enforce the patent, he/she/it must publish that information. That's the reason you see ti stamped/printed on products, and on the packaging/documentation of products that are not amenable to stamping/printing. As to Microsoft choosing to enforce patents one at a time, sure. So what? They can also run through a wad of cash in the process...and...if their efforts are seen as abusive, they could be on the hook for both parties' legal fees and more. It's fun, I suppose, to construct a litany of wacky strategies, but, in the real world, somebody's got to turn a profit. |
| Ridcully May 19, 2011 12:14 AM EDT |
@ KernelShepard.....I was terminating this set of comments, however your last post has me somewhat irritated and needs a response since it attempts to create a mischievous untruth:Quoting: You say you have no axe to grind, yet you make a statement "I hope we are watching the dying throes of Mono"...? That sounds like axe grinding to me. This is very deliberate misinterpretation and you cannot argue it isn't because you have taken my comment completely out of context. So that you fully understand, here it is again: Quoting:By the way, as a disclaimer, I have no commercial or development interest in any software production so my comments are strictly those of "disinterested person" with no axe to grind. It is a disclaimer and the text states that fact - I am sure you are familiar with the concept. I was simply saying that I am not employed by any software firm/organisation/project so that my statements are personal and not biased due to my employment so that I have no "axe to grind" for my employer - in point of fact, I am retired....I don't think I can be any more blunt. To couple my disclaimer with something else that is totally irrelevant to the disclaimer is rather an unpleasant way of trying to score points. And I then must ask myself if anything else you have written is equally suspect. Please stick to the truth and don't try to invent things that aren't correct at all. |
| KernelShepard May 19, 2011 6:54 AM EDT |
@Ridcully I fail to see how it is purposeful misinterpretation on my part. Those were your exact words. Having made a disclaimer that is so obviously untrue moments before does not indemnify you. You are just back-peddling. Let me ask you this, if someone said to you, "I have nothing against Joey, but I want to kill him!", what would you believe? Would you believe that he has nothing against Joey? Or would you believe he wants to kill him? The second part of that statement contradicts the first half, just like your "I hope Mono is in its death throws" statement contradicts your "disclaimer" statement. Some people might conclude that the "but I want to kill him" bit is just joking/playful, but if the rest of the context is attacking Joey, then it's pretty difficult to assume it was meant in a joking/playful way. Don't you agree? You claim I am purposely misinterpreting your statement but you've given me no reason to believe you meant anything other than what I interpreted your statement to mean. |
| Ridcully May 19, 2011 7:31 AM EDT |
@KernelShepard.....Oh for heavens sake, it is your privilege to misinterpret and misuse as much as you like in order to justify your mischief, but I wish you would take it somewhere else. You have been told what was intended and it's perfectly plain as far as I am concerned. This is now a futile exercise and this response terminates any further input to you on my part. My apologies to the remainder of the LXer group on this thread for the way this has diverged into a very petty squabble, but it is ending now. |
| ComputerBob May 19, 2011 8:52 AM EDT |
Thanks to both Ridcully and KernelShepard for your reasoned discussion, which I found very educational re: Mono. Like others, I'm sure, my sense of support repeatedly teetered back and forth between your disparate positions. Likewise, thanks to Ridcully for ending it after it devolved into being tiresome, repetitive and personal. |
| TxtEdMacs May 19, 2011 8:58 AM EDT |
KS, [Serious] Search on just 'death throws', the first time it appears in this thread is in yours for the 19th. So your quote is inaccurate. I remember the statement that a comment spoke of killing or letting Mono die, however, I do not think it was written by Ridcully. That 's why your posts are being read as personal attacks. I was tempted to write a screed where I showed you asked for details, but instead provided none in your attacks. However, I tend to avoid those I perceive as being too touchy. [/Serious] YBT |
| KernelShepard May 19, 2011 9:13 AM EDT |
@TxtEdMacsRidcully wrote:I think/hope we are watching the dying throes of Mono Posted May 17, 2011. It was in Ridcully's very first post in this thread. I didn't pull this claim out of my proverbial ;-) |
| TxtEdMacs May 19, 2011 9:14 AM EDT |
KS, I found the quote and it was written by Ridcully, I just thought he was more interested in learning the financial backer than lusting for Mono's death. Quoting:I think/hope we are watching the dying throes of Mono... I have had private communications with Ridcully and my perception that this person is not the vicious scoundrel you seem to wish him to be. Txt. P.S. Sorry for the delay, both Ubuntu and now Mint have loss of functionality in my mouse at odd moments, I was nearly forced to make a hard reboot to get back here. Somehow, I got to quit selection. |
| KernelShepard May 19, 2011 9:34 AM EDT |
@TxtTxtEdMacs wrote:I have had private communications with Ridcully and my perception that this person is not the vicious scoundrel you seem to wish him to be. I don't wish him to be a vicious scoundrel at all. I'm just sick and tired of people employing double standards when it comes to Mono. Why the "I hope Mono dies"-type comments? I don't particularly care for a lot of Free Software out there but I don't go around trying to destroy it or praying it dies, I simply use something else. From the bitching and moaning from the anti-Mono crowd, you'd think they were being forced to use Mono. Reality-check: they aren't. If they don't want to use it, don't. It really is that simple. Then you have the people who spread FUD about Mono while simultaneously decrying people who FUD the projects they like. This kind of hypocrisy just rubs me the wrong way. FUD is FUD, people. It doesn't matter who it comes from. |
| flufferbeer May 19, 2011 12:19 PM EDT |
Ever hear of this? 1. Each and every one of we Mono supporters and Mono opponents hold that this next point is true. 2. Point 1 is PATENTLY false. :) -fb |
| hkwint May 19, 2011 12:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:From the bitching and moaning from the anti-Mono crowd, you'd think they were being forced to use Mono. It's because of Microsoft: .NET was designed to make people depend on it. But it failed. People weren't forced to use crippled IE6-HTML. People weren't forced to use .doc, .xls and .ppt files. People weren't forced to use Youtube for popular internet video's, nor to optimize their website for Google. Dell isn't forced to only put chips with the x86 (32 or 64 bit) arch in their desktops. You know what, in fact people in rich countries aren't forced to use a toilet. I think by now, any Mono-fanboy ought to know the problem is not with Mono, but with .NET being pushed by Microsoft. If Mono wasn't some implementation of Microsoft's .NET, I'm pretty sure both I, Ridcully and the FSF - and the other half of Linux users which don't like it - would have nothing against it. Moreover, I'm pretty sure we would like the inventive technology which enables to use different languages on a common runtime. In fact, I do like the technology - even though I know little about it. But it's not about the technology. It's not about Mono. It's not about Moonlight, or about Miguel. It's not about it infringing on stupid patents or not. It's about the design of .NET: It was designed to make the Internet dependent upon, for all I can tell. Just like OOXML. It failed, thanks to Android (probably: Java), iOS and RIM: Nobody in their sane minds today would write something that only runs well on Microsoft platforms. Because iPhone / Android people would start to complain; and Microsoft is not that important in the mobile world. So therefore both .NET and Mono aren't very important in today's mobile world, and therefore we're not forced to use it. Of course, Microsoft is sad it failed in making people 'dependent on .NET without forcing them'. Because that was the way the MS-evangelism team designed it. So they bought Nokia to give their failing platform another "push in the back", and to get rid of Nokia's corporate backing of both Qt (a direct competitor) - and to a lesser degree (I suppose) KDE. Because after all it seemed Nokia was trying to bring 'KOffice light' to their phones. That threat is out of the way now for Microsoft. I think both .NET and Mono are great. On their own. But read the "Evangelism is war" documents, written by Microsoft (easy to find using Google, probably on Roy's site which you probably don't like, but it's available if you want). What does it say? _Any_ technology Microsoft pushes, is meant to make people dependent on Microsoft - and Windows. Because Windows will always offer better and earlier support for Microsoft platforms like .NET, platforms like .NET _effectively_ (though not theoretically!) make people dependent on Windows. They cause lock-in. Of course, there's a 'subtlety' you miss: Being dependent upon something is not the same as being forced. In the very same way you and I are not forced to use a toilet, but from my personal experience I can tell you from time to time I depend on it. Just like our public / commercial broadcasting companies (in my country) are pushing me to use Silverlight. With Moonlight, most of the times, their websites simply doesn't work and video doesn't start. I'm not forced to use Silverlight. I'm not forced to use Mono. But if I want to view those episodes, I pretty much depend on it; which means an effective try to lock me in to Windows. Unless I disguise my browser as an iPad. So there you have it: I don't care if the court or Microsoft thinks Mono infringes on human-unreadable in lawyer-garbled language written patents or not. I don't care if it's the best invention since sliced bread. All I care, is Microsoft evangelism-team designed it to lock me in to Windows. And eventually make me pay for the use of it; and if I don't use Windows, they'll look for other ways to make me pay for it. Just like they did with FAT. And if they promised me not to sue me, I don't trust them; because the technology was designed to eventually make me pay for it. If they really intended not to use their patents, they would put it in an OIN-like defense pool. Or sell it to a non-profit, which only uses them to defend Microsoft and others if they are sued. But they didn't. So, if a person is pointing a knife at me and promising me not to use it while offering a cookie, I'd rather walk away. Of course, I don't want to be dependent on them and their cookies. Especially not if their cookies were designed to make me dependent on their cookie-jar. Of course, they could try to hand over the recipe for the cookie to one of their competitors - and secretly or openly pay their competitor to try and make me take the cookie and make me dependent on the 'disguised' jar. But anyone sane in their mind, would remember the knife and walk away. Which means I understand you're tired of people like me measuring with two measures. By know I hope you know why people like me do: Suppose somebody acts like a drug dealer, making people dependent on their stuff, and later making them pay for it. That somebody has been aggressive in the past, and he points a knife at you while promising not to use it. At the same time, his neighbour doesn't own a knife at all and is not acting like a drug dealer; then only insane people would judge them by the same standards. If both offer a cookie - even if the drug dealer does it by proxy - sure I take one while leaving the other. And that choice doesn't have to do _anything_ with said cookie. |
| Koriel May 19, 2011 1:58 PM EDT |
Well said @hkwint. You pretty much summed up my view of things related to Mono and MS far better than I ever could myself. |
| azerthoth May 19, 2011 2:18 PM EDT |
Your logic requires a presupposition, much like the man who cries fire in a crowded theater, the crowd has to believe that there is a fire before they actually have a panic reaction. You presuppose that the knife actually exists, even though the guy has been run through a metal detector over and over again and no one has found it. |
| skelband May 19, 2011 3:34 PM EDT |
@azertoth: The parallel with Java and Oracle/Android is where I think a lot of the fear comes from. Actually, the situation is very similar, although Sun did declare that they have appropriate patents on the outset. I think the fear over Mono/.Net comes from our experience of regularly getting shafted by the big companies on issues like this. Sure, Microsoft may or may not have any relevant patents that pertain to .Net-related technologies but we have seen all too often that implementations that try to use the technology in a way that competes directly with its originator find themselves feeling the patent heat. I have no doubt in my mind that, from the thousands of patents that Microsoft holds, they could find some woolly, obscure patent that they could try and apply to Mono or some other .Net derivative. The real danger is that this is a Microsoft technology designed to provide tie-in to other Microsoft products. The garden is rosy while we all play ball. But, like in the TomTom case, they can turn nasty just like the best of them. If ever Mono became the "preferred" .Net platform, I don't think Microsoft would be as cuddly to Mono as it is at the moment. |
| Ridcully May 19, 2011 6:46 PM EDT |
Thankyou ComputerBob, TxtEdMacs and Flufferbeer - I became somewhat exasperated - feel much better after a good night's sleep. Hkwint, I hadn't thought of things in quite the way you put them, but I thoroughly enjoyed your superb analysis and again my thanks. As I have said before, one of the greatest things about LXer is that you can learn more and get seriously considered responses that help you reach better decisions. Skelband, your brief and concise comment just above pretty much sums up my entire attitude to Mono and .Net and I thank you for such a simple and neat way of putting it. :-) As you imply, when Linux succeeds more and more in becoming widely accepted at enterprise and desktop levels (and I am supremely confident it will), the big proprietary companies are going to be more and more threatened as regards their cash flows and I suspect the patent wars will begin in earnest. We ain't seen nuthin' yet......unless someone finally gets a grip on sanity in either Congress or the Courts and moves to remove the legality of patents on pure software. |
| dinotrac May 19, 2011 7:19 PM EDT |
@hans - You sum the most important part of the whole discussion quite succinctly: Quoting:But it failed. Microsoft has failed royally at the goals it set back in the 80s and pursued fiendishly in the 90s (and beyond). You could even argue that it was justifiable to steer far wide of anything Microsoft right on up until 2004, when Firefox rescued the Mozilla project from its own stupidity. But today's Microsoft is a stumbling giant, a sure first round loser if there such a thing as Dancing with the Giant Corporate Stars. Microsoft can't survive as the Devil Incarnate. They simply don't have the reach to do that anymore. They can scare a lot of people, but they can't scare IBM, Google, Apple, Oracle and a number of other high-tech heavies. In today's world, be happy. The only foot at which Microsoft can take aim by screwing with mono is its own. |
| krisum May 20, 2011 3:50 AM EDT |
@hans I think your own arguments make it clear that there is no way that Mono is going to help MS develop a monopoly in any way. OTOH Mono's primary target is non-MS platforms so it would be a grave problem for MS if that were the case. What I see is that the way Mono can be used is primarily to advantage of non-MS platforms. My company, for example, offers a product on Linux, Windows, Solaris etc. However, benchmarks published show clearly an edge to Linux in all respects. Mono enables .NET platform users to easily switch to Linux since performance is the most important criteria for the product. |
| tracyanne May 20, 2011 4:13 AM EDT |
Quoting:Mono enables .NET platform users to easily switch to Linux.... Yes krisum, it does indeed. |
| hkwint May 20, 2011 8:18 AM EDT |
Az: You want some logic, I give you some. Supposed: Metaldetector M. If it detects metal, then A. If: 1) Given M 2) M --> A 3) M --> -A then 1,2,3 4) RAA --> -M What does this say? The metaldetector in line 1 _cannot_ exist. First, in line 2 it does find metal. But at the same time, in line 3, it doesn't. Reductio ad absurdum tells us as a result from 1,2 and 3 the metal detector from 1 cannot exist; because something cannot lead to conflicting results. Propose instead of a metal detector, a 'patent test' M done by the court. And suppose not considering "finding metal", but infringing (A) or not infringing (-A) on some patent. Then, via RAA we conclude such test doesn't exist. So, your logic requires a presupposition: A metaldetector or patent test, that logically speaking, _cannot_ and doesn't exist. Look at Microsoft and the MP3 patents. First some court judged they were valid and MS had to pay $1Billion (A), then some other (presumably higher) judge decided they were not valid (-A). So, somebody passes a metaldetector which logically cannot exist and then you conclude you're safe! It's beyond me, why would Ridcully, I or any other volunteer be a good metal detector? As even the court where people studied law, are specialized and authorized to decide in such cases, is a joke of a metaldetector. That's also the supposition Dinotrac is making: "The info is open, so anyone can find out if some part of code infringes on the patent or not". Well, if the court can't decide consistently, then what makes you think anybody else can? And if you can't trust the court to be persistent, then why would you trust patent lawyers you consulted about this issue? After all, it's totally void of _any_ meaning whether any lawyer deems certain code infringes on certain patents. Just as it's partly void whether a 'lower' court decides if something infringe on certain patents or not. In fact, it doesn't matter at all if some code infringes on some patent or not, it only matters if the highest court consulted deems so. And then, we take the God among the metaldetectors, the supposed 'uber-'metaldetector that is the supreme court, and they say: "Well, metal may be detected by "lower" metal detectors, but there are some requirements and it doesn't go without saying." A pretty shitty metal detector if you ask me; because from a metaldetector, you want it to _do_ beep or _do not_ beep (keep its mouth shut). Therefore, I don't rely on such imaginary unreliable detectors which don't exist in real world. I'd rather trust my gut-feeling. Because when it comes to software patents, a monkey banging on a random binary keyboard (which only has an A and -A) is just as trustworthy and predictable as any lawyer or lower court. krisum: I understand your opinion, but Microsofts evangelism team disagrees with you. Did you read the docs I mentioned? If not, you should consult them: Because in the docs, it's Microsoft explaining to you why they think you are wrong, so you don't have to believe me. But I'll try anyway: Like already mentioned, Mono doesn't enable .NET users to easily switch to Linux. Because Windows will always offer more complete, more up to date and better .NET support than Mono does. Silverlight does support newer versions before Moonlight does. And Linux users are left with something that doesn't work on the sites they want to visit. Therefore, like I already tried to explain, theoretically you're right. But in practice, once starting with .NET (or Silverlgiht) you're locked in to Windows. Of course, "locked in" is not the best way to put it, maybe it would be better to consider it as two opposing magnetic poles: The closer you come, the harder it becomes to leave; even while not theoretically locked in. A bit like: A black hole is a lock in since you cannot escape; theoretically our Sun isn't a lock-in, but if you walk on its surface, I think I can tell you, it becomes pretty hard to escape from its gravity. Because after all, if .NET wasn't devised to lock you in to Windows, then Microsoft would develop .NET both for Linux and Windows and those two versions would be released at the very same second, just like with Flash nowadays. If it were truly cross platform, then Microsoft themselves would make it cross platform. Just like Trolltech and later Nokia tried with Qt. Of course, it's not a very strong lock-in like with .doc in the old days. Because - like I explained - Microsoft isn't that important anymore, they're forced to use open standards. You see: If Windows was the only game in town, then .NET wouldn't support Linux, and .NET wouldn't be an open standard so Mono wouldn't exist either. But Windows isn't the only game in town. Microsoft has to use weaker tactics to lock people in. If .NET also worked on iOS, Android, ChromeOS, QNX and WebOS; and both ARM, MIPS and x86, Microsoft just might succeed in making the internet dependent on it. So, therefore Microsoft failed; and therefore (by using or-elimination this time) we can conclude than no matter if Mono infringes or doesn't infringe on patents; it's not that important because Microsoft already realized .NET will not conquer desktops / mobile gadgets and the internet. If Mono is judged to infringe on patents, .NET doesn't become more profitable, and if it doesn't, .NET doesn't become more profitable either. Because the result is the same, it's not worth the hassle for Microsoft. I can understand those using .NET / Mono like it, are very sick of this discussions - because after all no judge decided Mono infringes on any patent - and it's true; it may enable people to switch to Linux. Like said: If it wasn't designed to 'gravitate' me into Windows and eventually suck money out of my wallet in one way or another, I'd use it. And if Microsoft admits it failed (which it partially did), I may use it too. But at this moment, rather not. |
| dinotrac May 20, 2011 8:55 AM EDT |
Hans - Your logic is kaflooey with regard to courts and you know it. The case you are describing requires two different metal detectors, one with refined capability. Kind of telling, too, that the upper court rejected the patents! In the United States, lower courts are bound to interpret the precedent of higher courts and apply them to situations as they arise. When applied to new situations, there is the risk of error. The higher court's reversal is a good thing, not evidence of some imagined randomness. Higher courts are, in fact, more likely (not guaranteed) to reach the right conclusion than lower courts for several reasons: 1. They tend to be a panel of judges, more minds, more reasoning capacity 2. There are no juries of lay people involved 3. More authority to interpret the law. That said, nothing in live is guaranteed to come out right every time and patents are like anything else. What your logic fails to do is provide any basis for viewing mono differently from other pieces of software. if anything, a much stronger case can be made in mono's favor -- the developers have always been keenly aware of the patent problem and (unlike most free software projects) actually implement processes and procedures to protect against it. As to Microsoft admitting that it failed: Seriously? Did I miss the change from Lxer to couples therapy? |
| hkwint May 20, 2011 1:21 PM EDT |
As told: Patents don't matter the most; there are things more important. If I can't update some GNU-tool anymore because it infringes on some patent, then so be it. I'll shed a tear and move on with life. It's the intent when the software /technology was designed. Mono was designed to sidestep patents, but the technology on which it relies was designed to make me dependent on Microsoft - somehow. Whether or not via patents. |
| dinotrac May 20, 2011 2:47 PM EDT |
@hans -- Yup. Personally, I wouldn't choose mono as a development platform, but that doesn't mean I mind those who do. I presume those who develop on mono probably wouldn't be using linux if it weren't available, or simply like .Net and C#. Either way is fine with me. |
| Ridcully May 20, 2011 6:04 PM EDT |
@dinotrac.....I pretty much said precisely the same thing way, way back in this thread. Their choice (and they go into it with their eyes open), but it's not mine. I certainly wouldn't try to prevent them using Mono, but I reserve the right to indicate that I think it's................ "unwise" (?) There - that can't offend anybody, surely ? |
| tracyanne May 20, 2011 6:13 PM EDT |
@Krisum, yes thanks to Mono I am no longer depenent on Microsoft or Windows to program, and deploy software , I can do all of that on Linux without having to abandon knowledge I have gained over the years. |
| hkwint May 20, 2011 6:40 PM EDT |
TA: Great to hear I'm wrong! I still wonder how long .NET will remain relevant in the future. Sure, on the desktop it will; but I wonder about the mobile space. I think .NET was designed in first place to enable developers to use the language they're already familiar with. Not related to .NET, but a while ago I tried MSH. But it was so different from Bash, I decided not to use it - as I already knew it was going to take me too much time. At the same time, lately I have been trying to write some VBA-scripts; but I find the language really hard. So I settled for a little AutoIT, but I can't get the VB scripts to behave like I want. Those skills are pretty useless on Linux (VB maybe not, but Solidworks VBA is!); so it would be great if on both I could use the same language. For example, AutoIT for Linux would sound great. |
| fewt May 21, 2011 7:39 AM EDT |
Microsoft owns so many patents that to be perfectly safe one should not use any alternative distribution, or Mac OS. Seriously. At some point you have to accept the risk that Microsoft (or any other company) could do this to any interface in the kernel, desktop, package, ISO design, any component of the stack. This is why RedHat and other companies have built patent portfolios of their own to defend against such attacks. Fortunately, there are no cases of Microsoft exerting their patent portfolio in this regard (though others have). FSF's campaign against Mono is nothing more than fear mongering. They are trying to kill Mono using the same Fear Uncertainty and Doubt tactics that they chastise Microsoft for using. The only reason for this is that the FSF consists of people that hate Microsoft, and hate proprietary software. |
| Ridcully May 21, 2011 7:54 AM EDT |
@fewt.....just a couple of things......and I am startled by your post........ 1.So, by your first sentence's logic, we should all be using Windows and only Windows in order to be safe from law suits; and 2. The FSF is an organisation (my interpretation of your text) that resorts to any FUD tactics whatsoever to kill Mono.........I really am curious: DO you have any direct evidence of this "hatred group within FSF" ? Unless of course, your post is a deliberate flame-bait and designed to throw petrol on the coals. |
| fewt May 21, 2011 8:05 AM EDT |
1. Yes, which is as silly and ridiculous as the FSF proclamation that no-one should use mono. 2. http://en.windows7sins.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mono_(software) #NPOV:_Free_Software_Foundation.27s_warnings Of course what I said is "flame bait", it's not status quo. You shouldn't be startled by my post, my opinion about the FSF's FUD campaigns is no secret. |
| Ridcully May 21, 2011 8:40 AM EDT |
That's it...........I'm out of this entirely..........And it's goodnight from me, and it's goodnight from him..... |
| gus3 May 21, 2011 2:47 PM EDT |
Good night. |
| tuxchick May 21, 2011 3:47 PM EDT |
This undead thread is a zombie! |
| tracyanne May 21, 2011 7:03 PM EDT |
That's because of the Rupture. |
| tuxchick May 21, 2011 7:53 PM EDT |
People are making Rapture jokes like there's no tomorrow. |
| tracyanne May 21, 2011 9:45 PM EDT |
Well it's tomorrow here. You notice I said it with a Kiwi accent. I did notice less cars on the road this morning though. |
| Koriel May 22, 2011 3:51 AM EDT |
I hear Family Radio is a non-prophet organisation |
| fewt May 22, 2011 7:03 AM EDT |
HELLO, Are there any other survivors out there? All I have is a baseball bat, and a pickup truck. I don't know how long I can hold them off..... |
| dinotrac May 22, 2011 7:25 AM EDT |
Did anybody actually buy tickets for this Rap Tour? |
| caitlyn May 22, 2011 11:50 AM EDT |
OMG! I find myself agreeing with Dinotrac throughout the thread. Maybe the world did end yesterday after all. :) |
| dinotrac May 22, 2011 3:03 PM EDT |
@caitlyn -- Nah. Having seen the light, the darkness is gone and the world seems like a new and wonderful place. |
| TxtEdMacs May 22, 2011 4:04 PM EDT |
dino, Be truthful, you are now in rapture because the surgery performed on the 21st cured your rupture. Case Closed, YBT |
| dinotrac May 22, 2011 4:32 PM EDT |
@txt - Had my wife take a picture of me feeling so good --- a no-rupture rapture capture picture. |
| hkwint May 23, 2011 9:12 AM EDT |
Caitlyn: Hey, don't feel bad, it can happen to the best of us! I have been through that pain as well, though not recently. Still scarred however. |
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!