On Jul 23, 7:55 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Does Mono hurt Microsoft?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Here are some ways Mono helps Microsoft:
> |
> | * Spreads Microsoft standards
> | * Spreads Microsoft mindshare
> | * Increases FLOSS dependency on Microsoft
> | * Good PR value for Microsoft
> | * Mono apologists are often obliged to defend Microsoft
> | * Mono evangelists are often obliged to be Microsoft evangelists
> | * Divides, distracts and delays the community
> | * Makes it easier for FLOSS developers to develop on Windows
> | * Provides some nice FLOSS applications for Windows
> | * Provides developer tools
> | * Helps in Microsoft’s fight against Flash
> | * Helps in Microsoft’s fight against Java
> | * Decreases effort in general for non-Microsoft tools
> `----
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/22/does-mono-hurt-microsoft/
>
> Spitting in the wind – Mono 180?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Which side is right? Again, we won’t until it’s put to the test. Will it be
> | put to the test? I’m skeptical, why? Because I listened to the wonderful
> | audio presentations from SELF, heard the tactics MS has used, listened to
> | RMS, listened to the proponents of Mono, read the groklaw articles and
> | thought some more for myself.
> |
> | The cost of waging a war on patents is more than any one company wants to
> | bear. We have the open innovation network to help out there, but consider the
> | TomTom case. Notice that out of the 7 or 9 patents at stake, only three
> | related to Linux. Is TomTom going to go to bat for those 3 patents if the
> | other 4 or 6 infringe? No, they are going to have to find a settling point.
> | Since right off the bat a company is facing 8 to 10 million US dollars to
> | fight a patent suite, it makes more sense financially to settle, especially
> | when there is the possibility that you may be found guilty. This does not
> | mean that the Linux patents were legitimate, but sprinkle a few illegitimate
> | patents in with more genuinely infringing patents and you’d be a fool to step
> | up to the plate. Even more, TomTom was facing an injunction, which they could
> | not suffer for the length a trial would take.
> `----
>
> http://www.thelinuxlink.net/myblog/?p=238
>
> Recent:
>
> Novell Promotes Mono in GNOME?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In a comment on another post, Chris Halse Rogers raised an interesting and
> | challenging question: “What evidence is there that Novell, the company, is
> | promoting adoption of Mono into GNOME?”
> |
> | Here’s where I attempt to answer that question!
> | The easy part
> |
> | It’s always more effective to knock out the easy stuff first. So let’s
> | establish that the premise is at least reasonable. Here are some facts. Facts
> | are a nice way to start:
> |
> | 1. Mono is a Novell project.
> | 2. Novell is on the GNOME Foundation’s Advisory Board.
> | 3. Mono is lead at Novell by the founder of GNOME, Miguel de Icaza.
> | 4. Mr. de Icaza has said in the past, “Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET“
> | 5. Mr. de Icaza claims to be “in charge of Novell’s Linux Desktop
> | Strategy” along with Nat Friedman.
> `----
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/15/novell-promotes-mono-in-gnome/
>
> One thing nobody told you about Mono
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The first meme being directed to Richard Stallman for citing ‘eMacs virgins’
> | in a speech and the other one only gods knows whom.
> |
> | While the latter is just is yet another generalist campaign (like the
> | infamous “hey, even double click is patented!”) the first is a frontal attack
> | to Richard Stallman as a person: knives coming out all of a sudden.
> |
> | Even the Canonical CTO blogged about it.
> |
> | While the video isn’t available yet, I have big doubts there is something
> | even remotely offensive in such Stallman talk. It’s very easy to take
> | feminism as an excuse, as many people (not just girls) will jump in
> | no-matter-what without even knowing what it’s being talked about.
> `----
>
> http://www.stefanoforenza.com/one-thing-nobody-told-you-about-mono/
>
> Mono: Why is Debian resorting to spin?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Mouette, it may be recalled, is the developer who had posted what were
> | considered sexist posts to the Debian project mailing list meant for
> | important announcements for developers.
> |
> | (Mono is an open source implementation of parts of Microsoft's .NET
> | development environment; many sections of the FOSS community fear that Mono
> | may prove to be a patent trap down the line as .NET is totally Microsoft
> | technology. Recent statements have done little to dispel this impression.)
> |
> | I asked the Debian leader Steve McIntyre a few queries about the Mono change
> | and he, as always, sent back straightforward replies. McIntyre, I may add,
> | has always been open and upfront in dealing with iTWire.
> |
> | But after Free Software Foundation chief Richard Stallman called the Debian
> | move risky - he based the statement on the inference that a decision on
> | including Mono in the Debian default install had already been taken - Debian
> | spokesman Alexander Reichle-Schmehl decided that the project had to speak up
> | and did so by trying to explain things through a post on his blog.
> `----
>
> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26291/1090/
>
> The Mono Firefight
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Well there are issues around Mono, including patents. This means that some
> | people, myself included now refuse to use it. Those that are pro-mono don't
> | seem to understand exactly why everyone isn't shouting hosannas over their
> | projects. Indeed one of them classified Tomboy as 'An Exciting Program',
> | which stunned me. Tomboy? Exciting? I didn't think so.
> `----
>
> http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/2009/07/mono-firefight.html
>
> Microsoft Mono move means exactly nothing
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | When Britain was the superpower of the world, there was one tactic which its
> | officials used, with great success, to manage its colonies - divide and rule.
> `----
>
> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26224/1090/
>
> Google vs. Microsoft – A study in contrasts
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/14/google-vs-microsoft-a-study-in-contra...
>
> SFLC Podcast on Mono
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/14/sflc-podcast-on-mono/
>
> Patented Languages
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Bradley and Karen discuss the community debate regarding C# and Mono, and its
> | inclusion in GNU/Linux distributions.
> `----
>
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2009/jul/07/0x11/
>
> Monomania affecting Ubuntu users far and wide?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | How on earth could a 19th century detective know about the long running saga
> | of a rather large and bloated software stack designed, it seems, simply to
> | drive a wedge into the FOSS community and act as a trojan horse for our most
> | [ahem] loved convicted monopolist?
> `----
>
> http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/07/14/monomania-affecting-ubuntu...
>
> Who’s that knocking at my door?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Many mono apologists like to portray critics as fanatics, aggressively
> | opposed to anything Microsoft-related
> `----
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/02/whos-that-knocking-at-my-door/
>
> Some other sane views on RMS
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | So now that we have Stallman painted with the “sexist” brush, I see some
> | people casting glances to the “Death Threat Crazy” and “Nazi” brushes.
> |
> | Let me clear: I wasn’t at the conference, and I don’t know exactly what
> | Stallman said. It is possible he made an inappropriate remark. Some
> | reasonable people say it was a joke gone bad; stuff like that happens.But,
> | even if it were an honest-to-good malicious sexist remark (unlikely
> | considering Stallman has a long record of supporting women’s rights in his
> | writings and interviews), the character assassination has been totally
> | disproportionate to the event. He may indeed need a word of correction from a
> | trusted friend or even a letter of concern from a respected group. What he
> | doesn’t need or deserve is a pack of snarling jackals lumping him in with
> | lunatics making death threats and freaking Nazis. (Assuming the death threat
> | thing is legit, I haven’t looked it up. I know I got a lot of death threats
> | from owning peeps in Quake, so that junk can be serious business.)
> `----
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/13/some-other-sane-views-on-rms/
>
> There. Fixed that for you.
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/13/there-fixed-that-for-you/
>
> In the Shadows of .Net
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Back in 2006, we put our trust in Mono because we refused, or perhaps
> | disliked, to vilify a project solely because it emulated something created at
> | Microsoft. While Open Source backers generally dislike Microsoft technology,
> | with Mono they had another argument that being a clone it could be affected
> | by a number of patents that Microsoft holds related to the .Net framework.
> | This point often comes up in debates about the “safety” of the Mono project,
> | the defense of Mono being that large parts of the .Net specification are an
> | open, published ECMA standard. I sided with the Mono supporters then,
> | downplaying the risk of patents from Microsoft. But then in November,
> | Microsoft and Novell announced their Patent Agreement, which guarantees
> | patent protection exclusively for users of Novell Linux. The Mono project is
> | largely supported by Novell, and such an agreement is disastrous for a
> | community project like Mono. At this point, the fence-sitters in the Open
> | Source community largely crossed over to the anti-Mono camp. Perhaps, they
> | were justified in doing so. I could no longer defend Mono, and my belief in
> | the framework getting wider acceptance has diminished significantly since
> | then.
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | It is entirely possible that Mono can suddenly gain acceptance if Microsoft
> | decides to relinquish patent claims regarding the .Net framework. If it
> | happens, .Net and Mono could well become an powerful challenger to the
> | dominance of Java. This is very unlikely, Microsoft’s current strategy seems
> | to be relying strongly on patents and IP to ward off the looming threat from
> | Linux.
> |
> | For now, we decided to look beyond Mono and C#.
> `----
>
> http://blog.agilehead.com/content/from-c-on-mono-to-clojure-on-the-jvm/
>
> C#, see submarine
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | A similar kind of encumbrance would be if MIT (or Xorg) could retroactively
> | re-license the X11 libraries to something proprietary (note: they cannot),
> | thereby removing the platform upon which all Free Software X11 applications
> | are built; it would be a risk, and given the importance of Free Software, a
> | risk where the expected value of a manifestation is huge.
> |
> | This isn’t to say there’s not other submarines in the water. We don’t know.
> | Maybe we should. The known submarine should be treated with caution. And the
> | side of caution is to treat C# as a non-Free platform to be avoided.
> `----
>
> http://blogs.fsfe.org/adridg/?p=157
>
> Are Microsoft's Promises For Ever?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Now, is it just me, or does Microsoft conspicuously fail to answer its own
> | question? The question was: does it apply to all versions *including* future
> | revision? And Microsoft's answer is about *existing* versions: so doesn't
> | that mean it could simply not apply the promise to a future version? Isn't
> | this the same problem as with the Open Specification Promise? Just asking.
> `----
>
> http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-microsofts-promises-for...
>
> And the knives come out
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | I told you the knives would come out for Stallman.
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | The sad thing is, much of the damage is already done. Stallman is facing a
> | concerted attack on his character and competence and stands little chance of
> | coming through it unscathed. Such is the penalty for daring to critize Mono.
> | This garbage is already all over Planet Gnome, Planet Debian, Monologue and
> | spreading.
> `----
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/12/and-the-knives-come-out/
>
> Boycott Novell is Back!
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | If I had to list my concerns around the Promise I would come up with a
> | slightly different list:
> |
> | 1. Standard bits alone are not enough to deliver killer apps. We have
> | several Microsoft emails about limiting the usefulness of what was
> | standardized, so we know they at least discussed this internally.
> | 2. The Community Promise has that restriction that the Open Specification
> | Promise does not. By not extending the Promise to partial implementations,
> | it could “lock out” alternative implementations of the standard. Limited
> | sub-sets of languages are a common practice in the industry for
> | specialized purposes.
> | 3. The Community Promise will constantly be misrepresented as covering the
> | whole of mono – giving a false veneer of security over the non-covered
> | bits (which end up to be the “juicy parts”)
> | 4. The Community Promise only applies to the current version. This could
> | be used by Microsoft to “freeze out” competing implementations. Just
> | update the standard, but not the promise.
> `----
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/09/boycott-novell-is-back/
>
> Criticism where it is due
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Consider that we know for a fact that F-Spot and Banshee, at least, use
> | non-ECMA covered parts of mono. Maybe they will be re-written soon. That’s
> | great. But at the time of the announcement and currently, they were and are
> | not covered by the standard, and so not covered by the agreement.
> `----
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/10/criticism-where-it-is-due/
>
> Windows developers on mono
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | There are many such internal documents that clearly show Microsoft
> | understands exactly what standardizing parts of .NET means, and how to keep
> | that offering in control and inferior to .NET. If Mono is not “chasing” .NET,
> | then it fails to meet Windows developers expectations. If Mono
> | is “chasing” .NET, then it both runs the risk of anti-competitive tactics on
> | the non-standard parts, and is undertaking a task not likely to succeed.
> `----
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/11/windows-developers-on-mono/
>
> Debian plans draw sharp warning from GNU guru
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | As the Debian project releases a second update of its Debian GNU/Linux 5.0
> | ("Lenny") distribution, a controversy has broken out over the next
> | version, "Squeeze." GNU guru Richard Stallman has warned that by including a
> | Mono-based note-taking application called Tomboy, Debian runs the risk of
> | Microsoft litigation over C# patents.
> `----
>
> http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4526886823.html
>
> Is Mono Free Software?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The question then becomes: Do you think that the licensing of the software,
> | when combined with the patent assurances Microsoft has given are sufficient
> | to meet all the requirements of the Four Freedoms? Of the Debian Free
> | Software Guidelines?
> |
> | Think on that in great detail and see what answer you come up with – think on
> | it first trusting Microsoft to do the “right” thing, and once again assuming
> | Microsoft will do the “wrong” thing. Can software be conditionally Free,
> | depending on the intention of Microsoft? It is a sort of Schrödinger’s
> | Freedom – how Free the software is depends on how Microsoft decides to act!
> |
> | Perhaps you think that the assurances of the ECMA/ISO standard and the
> | Community Promise are sufficient when combined with the licensing terms to
> | consider Mono Free Software. I do not think that is an unreasonable
> | conclusion. Now, read Microsoft’s Moonlight Covenant, and see if you get the
> | same answer about Moonlight.
> `----
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/20/is-mono-free-software/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkpoCVMACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6HEwCfWcvxrJRvF4psPc+zqLUqa+ZI
> EmoAn2+p2mm/LbAL+ygj/D3gM9mzATOP
> =EAPM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I actually think that mono is quite good, I can't say 'very good'
because even now after so much time the documentation for mono is,
well sorry but the only word that works is, crap.
What ever you try to do you come to a function that seems to be the
one needed for what you are doing and the docs will say 'Artical not
yet written'. are we meant to guess the arguments to these. For those
near to the .NET implementation you can get your answer, but not all
do this.
But the idea of mono is still good. I also think that mono c# on the
linux commandline is good too, as a scripting language.
As for it's main use, in web app development, mono and .NET do have an
advantage over php and all of the others except Perl-cgi.
An example.
You have an index.php, you are using ajax for good response and it
seems fine. Database, controls all behave like a proper app.
But you have an item that needs to respond with the results of code
that is not ran until it is called, it is not part of the pre-process
when the page was first loaded, i.e it was not part of the orriginal
page.
You might use code to generate some control's click response depending
on whether this is a first load or a postback or choices in a
postback.
clickResponse.php
<?php
if(thisOption)
{
//we need to run thisOption.php
//but we have no way now of passing this through
//the pre-processor without setting a flag or include
//then loading the page again
}
else
{
//we need to run thisOtherPage.php
//but can not for the same reasons
//without making it a part of the page
//at load time
}
?>
In php you are stuffed, because it will not pass that code through the
pre-processor. In CGI you can do this, also .NET and mono will do
that.
In the last few actual apps that I have done the preferred route of
php-ajax has taken me to a brick wall. My option is then to go for,
page reloads which a lot of sites do, those where some options give
you a moment of blank page before loading the same page again with the
new code involved.
Another option is to make sure that all code is involved at page load,
but now you have unnecessarily slow page loads. Php is a fast process,
but that plus the web speeds make it obvious with some pages that you
are definately not sat in front of a real application.
You can of cause use CGI instead, Perl-cgi is excellent, but not all
customers will allow you to leave their chosen paths, php or .NET.
Java also does not have this problem.
This may seem an insignificant part of the net as a whole. It is also
an area you can 'work around'. But sit anyone in front of the same
application written in -
Java
.Net
mono
php-ajax
Perl-cgi
Then I am afraid that php comes at the bottom of the list. It should
be near the top, because all that it needs is a way to pass a file
that was chosen at run time through the php engine without having to
go to cgi. I know there are security issues with that, but every one
else has worked them out, why not php.
|
|
