RMS Asks Miguel to Explain Himself

phaze3000 writes "RMS, responding to questions from the audience at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil last week, has asked Miguel de Icaza to explain himself to the Free software community about comments made last week that Gnome should be based on .NET in the future. More details at Brazillian site Hotbits and in The Register." I find this amusing.

Re:News?

I'm fairly suprised. If the free version of .NET is licensed as free software, who gives a damn?

Yes, but he didn't say that GNOME would be based on MONO technology. He said it would be based on ".NET" technology. While we all know that it would have to be MONO to run on Linux, his statement becomes an extremely powerful marketing tool for Microsoft. As such, RMS would rightly be opposed to such a statement.

Re:RMS needs to be hit with a cluebat

that's the point. Miguel can speak for Ximian and say "I plan to base Ximian Gnome 4.0 on .NET and hope other Gnome developers will follow suit) but he can't declare what path Gnome will take.

While its true that many key Gnome developers do happen to work for Ximian, not all do. Also, there has been financial support for the Gnome Foundation from other companies and individuals.

Also, by using the GPL on their code they relinquished the right to withdraw it. By accepting the contributions of others (not employed by Ximian) they have agreed to the terms of the GPL and can't just steal other people's code, however insignificant they feel those contributions to be. They can request permission from those other contributors or extract the "tainted" GPL code, or all Gnome developers may choose to develop on the Microsoft.NET framework, but it's not a pronouncement Miguel should make without even discussing it with the community.

The "Gnome" trademark may be owned by the FSF, as well, which complicates things.

Re:RMS needs to be hit with a cluebat

Okay, for the sake of the arguement, suppose that .NET's architecture is the technically the best way for Gnome to go. There is still the 'poison pill' issue to think about. Will using Microsoft's technology this way give Microsoft any kind of legal, technical, or competitive power of the Gnome project? Will it allow Microsoft to shut down the Gnome project or marginalize/cripple Gnome in some other sneaky way if they decide Gnome is a problem for them?

Keep in mind that Microsoft has unheard-of amounts of money and lawyers to throw at the problem, and that they have demonstrated time and again that they have no scruples about doing whatever it takes to eliminate their competition.

If I was Miguel, I would tread very, very carefully when considering the adoption of Microsoft's "Open" APIs...

Can't sell part of your soul to the devil

I am sorry, but I must respecfully disagree. I am not a "Microsoft hater" - I have been using their products for 18 years, and I continue to use them when to do so makes busines sense. But neither am I blind to Microsoft's actions. Nor do I think Microsoft's actions are in my best interests. Nor can Microsoft's actions be in my best interests as long as Microsoft is a joint stock corporation.

What is in my best interests is to have multiple, robust, "genetically isolated" choices for the critical technology my business needs to use. "Cross-pollinating" two of those choices so that they are no longer separate is not a good idea.

And have we already forgotten Microsoft's attempt to ban non-IE browsers from "their" web? Although I often do not agree with RMS' more extreme positions, I think he understands quite well that you can't be a little bit pregnant, nor can you sell a fraction of your soul to the devil.

sPh

Reality check for RMS

I think this is the crucial moment for RMS where he either becomes more flexible or risk alienating the remaining few developers who still rally around him and his ideas. I mean for crying out loud the Ximian team is not even suggesting using non free code. They just want to base the next version on a spec that also has a nonfree implementation. There is no reason why there needs to be even a single line of non-free code in the Ximian implementation of dotNET.

The man is getting old and it shows.

Actually, the opposite is true

I think this is the crucial moment for RMS where he either becomes more flexible or risk alienating the remaining few developers who still rally around him and his ideas.

I believe you've got it backwards.

Keep in mind the number of GPL evangelists in the world. Not many, hey? Certainly not enough, and definitely none with the power that Microsoft's PR department has.

We should be thankful that there's a guy out there who risks mockery on a regular basis in order to try to ensure some balance. His role isn't to represent the average coder, it's to give us an extreme point of view opposite of what's normally given out there in the world of software -- corporate corporate corporate.

The man is getting old and it shows.

Look, if you don't like him, tune him out. But don't underestimate his importance. He gives us balance where the Microsoft monopoly would like us to believe it's their right to bleed us dry of every penny we've got. You might as well criticize the Yin Yang symbol for not being all gray.

Re:Reality check for RMS

I hope they don't go the .NET direction. I haven't gotten to read the hotbits column yet because it's Slashdoted aleady, but I see several problems with his statement.
First I think his statement was more political than technical. I think he see the money that is possible through the .NET framework. You can charge just about everybody to develop it. Microsoft is charging developers fees to develop on .NET. Why you Ximian be different? Look at the place Ximian will be in it GNome 4.0 does tie into .NET. They will be the ones that control code because they control the only NON-Microsoft version of .NET. The stand to make big bucks off this if they pull it off.
I don't see how buying into Microsoft's vision of .NET as the future will help Linux on the Desktop. We will be playing even more of a catchup game. Look at the companies that have had to rely on Microsoft releasing key information for the products of these companies to work on Windows. Microsoft has a history of withholding key information until they have the edge by already having a product out that supports there "standard".
I think Miguel has become a follower--especially of Microsoft. I think he has lost his forward vision. I think he should step back from all leadership positions he has on Gnome (if any) and let others take over. His statements in the interview smell of someone buying into marketing hype because they lost their independant thought and no longer truely see a goal.

With that said, the is one thing I like about the .NET framework. The ability of all the compilers in Visual Studio to compile/translated down to a common language before compiling. That could definately be use to build APIs for multiple languages at once! It would need to be well thought out, but I think that would be a good goal to aim for in the long run. If I remember correctly, Borland C++ Builder compiled into a Pascal derivative first. There are a lot of possibilities with this design of compilers.

Re:Reality check for RMS

Whether or not 'a few developers still rally around him', he does stand for his principals over material gain, which is more than just about anyone can say these days.

If RMS 'alienates' developers because he sees the 'killer app' that will put undoubtly make Microsoft's interests a more powerful force behind future technology and information legislation than social and governmental (although the Bush administration is less of a government, and more of a door greaser for the Microsofts of the world) interests, good for him. Developers that abandon his 'radical' prinicipals will undoubtly find themselves on the wrong side of a swing that history prooves has already swung to far. The guy spends his time looking furthur, knowing more, rather than protecting his own interests. Those developers who are 'alienated' by his views are only thinking about their own interests, given the Vegas numbers on MS's chances with .NET entrenching their monopoly. What do you think the chances are of proponants of .NET seeing as some sort of salvation for the human condition?

Incidentally, I'm of the opinion that in the past few years, this has become less about 'business' per se, and more of a religion. MS is a church for market pricing (a state enforced system, very evident under the Bush administration, natch). RMS is a church for decentralized social pricing (which is to say that nothing is 'free', but that the cost/worth of software simply gets entwined with social values under his system, as goods and services were before the 16th and 17th century .. in which people only make, distribute, fix, document software for the sole purpose of bettering their society or community).

makes you wonder...

KDE probably isn't looking so bad to RMS right now.....

Re:makes you wonder...

Yeah, and vi isn't looking so bad to Miguel right now...

This is turning into a Monty Python skit...

MIGUEL: ... and this is the sample of GNOME 3.0 I made using Mono, and this is my picture of the GNU Inquisition.

HAVOC: I didn't expect the GNU Inquisition.

MIGUEL: Neither did I.

*door blasts open*

RMS: NOOOOOOOOObody expects the GNU Inquisition! Confess! Confess! Confess!

blah, don't have my funny legs on today...

Re:This is turning into a Monty Python skit...

I suppose next your going to tell us that amongst your weapons are fear, suprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to Linus.

Re:Why must Miguel explain himself to RMS?

Did you read the article? RMS was asked about how he felt about Miguel's moving Gnome to .NET, he reponding saying he(RMS) found that hard to belive, anf if it was true he asked Migual to explain the move to the free software community. Thats all.
And gnome is not Miguels.

disclaimer-- I have recieved a very nasty email from Ximian basically telling me where to put, afer I emailed them looking for how I could contribute to the project, so I pretty much hate those guys. Ilike Gnome, I just think they're assholes.

Miguel's response

Miguel has now responded. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-devel-list/20 02-February/msg00042.html

Re:Why must Miguel explain himself to RMS?

Its Miguel's company, and in the free market he's free to make whatever strategic decisions he likes.

Ximian is Miguel's company - Gnome is not.

If RMS doesn't like it, he can either make an equity investment in Ximian, or he can shut his cake hole.

1. One need not have an investment to comment or have an opinion on a subject.
2. The "G" in Gnome stands for GNU, which RMS very much does have a legitimate interest in.

This man is becoming increasingly irritating, a modern day Rasputin (in looks as well as deeds).

I'm sorry - when did a dresscode get implimented? Please submit an 8x10 glossy of yourself for us to comment upon before you make another such clueless posting.

I think it's funny too!

Because it's part of the GNU (or was) Gee, here and I thought GNU was about freedom, not an RMS autocracy? Silly me. I guess it was that attempt to clone Unix that distracted me...

Seriously, folks. RMS gets blindsided in a Q&A and makes the best of the situation "Uh, I hope what you are saying is not true, if it is, I'd like Miguel to explain rather than listen to your hearsay". Yawn Yawn, wait for the 11:00 roundup.

--Charlie

Improving usablility

This is a *little* disconcerting for some, but I applaud Miguel's willingness to embrace the technologies he feels are best, regardless of the political fallout. Given the amount of XML stuff in Ximian Gnome / Nautilus etc, it only seems natural to move towards more RPC based standards. The fact that one of them is being developed by Microsoft should not IMHO be an obstacle to progress. Now if they would just fix the fonts! ; )

Re:Improving usablility

This is a *little* disconcerting for some, but I applaud Miguel's willingness to embrace the technologies he feels are best, regardless of the political fallout.

Then you're a useless applauding moron. There are more than "political fallout" issues at stake here. It's senseless to "applaud" one dimension of a decision that can have such multi-dimensional consequences.

I agree with RMS - Miguel, you got some 'splainin' to do.

Poor Miguel

I think people have misunderstood Miguel. What he has done here is to use MS as an R&D dept. MS spent millions researching .NET and built a comprehensive set of tools. GNU (and the rest of us) can benefit from this research, they can take the best ideas from .NET and implement them in MONO. This is a GoodThing.

There could be a problem if MS shifts the spec or extends the spec. At that point if Miguel decides to chase MS he loses. If he decides to "fork" .NET and stick with the standards he wins because .NET will become fragmented.

I think Miguel knows what he is doing. I say give him a chance if history is any indicator he will kick ass.

In essence .NET and C# are full of ideas borrowed from JAVA, DELPHI, DCOM etc. Why not pull an MS here and embrace your enemies. Take their ideas and run with them!

Re:Poor Miguel

Of course they will extend it. I'm sure they're not presumptuous enough to thing that it's 'finished' after the first release.

On the other hand it would be short-sighted of them to make v2 incompatible with v1 for no other reason than it would piss off their loyal developer following immensely. They'll add new features, but I'm pretty sure that old .NET assemblies will still run on the new system. Microsoft has been very careful to continue their binary compatibility up the operating system line (DOS apps ran on win31/win9x, most dos/win31 apps run on NT/2K/XP, etc...) They would lose far more than they could possibly gain by changing this.

Re:Poor Miguel

Very few DOS apps ran correctly on win95. Many win95 apps didn't run on Win98. Microsoft changed their Word format between Office 95 and Office 98 (or 2000, whatever) in a gratuitous manner which prevented old office from reading new office documents. Microsoft repeatedly changed the Win32 spec in trivial ways to introduce incompatibilities with OS/2's Win32 implementation. Visual basic programmers have face repeated forward and backward compatibility problems (some noted VB book authors even quit recommending VB because of this).

Microsoft has no qualms about pissing off their (locked-in) developer community. They've repeatedly broke compatibility in every possible way. Why anyone trusts Microsoft, I'll never know. Microsoft's history (the real history, not Bill Gate's rewritten version) should scare anyone away. I'm guessing that you're either extremely young, extrememly naive, extremely forgetful, or paid by Microsoft (the last one was a joke).

-Paul Komarek

Re:Poor Miguel

well I was paid by Microsoft. I worked in the Visual C++ & Visual J++ teams for some time. I know 1st hand the length that the libraries and SDK teams went to to balance updates to the API and compatibility with existing code.

Very few DOS apps ran correctly? Bullshit. Before win95 shipped, the win95 QA team went to Egghead and bought a copy of every title on the shelves and either made sure that they ran or informed the authors of the bad assumptions they had made in their code and how to patch them. Sometimes the application was directly patched at runtime by the OS. For example some applications would make use of undocumented behavior (like the burgermaster table in win13) that wasn't available on the new system.

No "if" about it

There could be a problem if MS shifts the spec or extends the spec. At that point if Miguel decides to chase MS he loses. If he decides to "fork" .NET and stick with the standards he wins because .NET will become fragmented.

No one who's been paying attention has any doubt whether MS will extend the standard. All they have to do is require a (patented) process to access a single part of the system.

Remember, .NET requires interaction with a server somewhere. If the service you're trying to use is a Microsoft one, that server will be inside Microsoft. Now, if Gnome can't use that service, why would anyone choose to use it.

With Microsoft being the defacto standard, Gnome needs a compelling reason for people to switch. Aiming for where Microsoft was two months ago doesn't provide that. More importantly, if Miguel were to attempt to fork .NET what exactly would be the incentive to stick with his version? Forks are always resolved by market share. Guess who's got it.

Oi the irony...

Now wouldn't it be funny if GNOME started basing itself heavily on Microsoft's architecture? I mean if I recall my history, KDE came into existence but it was based on the closed QT libraries. So then the GNOME project was founded to be a more free software purist environment. Now it seems that things are getting reversed now that you can get an open version of QT.

he ALREADY explained himself - RTF article, RMS!

quote:

"What's important to keep in mind is that you do not actually use the Windows API in .NET - you use the .NET API - the classes [sic.] they have defined."

hello, what exactly needs further explanation? its brilliant.

"Freedom"

You're Free to do whatever you want in GNU land, as long as it's exactly what RMS wants you to do.

Miguel's vision is better than RMS's

It would be very, very unfortunate if this debate just focused on the politics of Mono following Microsoft Dotnet. Miguel might be misguided in this aspect, but his strategic vision of what is critical for the future growth of Linux-the-platform is far more attuned to current trends than anything RMS, ER or LT have articulated.

He realizes that without a VM and the cross-(hardware)-platform capabilities it gives, Linux apps are going to be very hard to distribute in future. Normal consumers simply aren't going to run C compilers, yet the Linux "architecture" takes absolutely no account of this.

By the way, it is customary for the 'strategic VM' debate to be ignored in /. - of 27 postings on this topic (see my user info), only one was ever moderated up, and that was promptly moderated down again ('overrated'). Draw your own conclusions!

Did you start computing in 1999?

Windows, at present, only supports a single platform. Because of this they have no cross platform instalation issues. You must be thinking of some other operating system.

Rewind the clock. The AIM alliance (Apple, IBM, Motorola) are cranking out faster PPC chips, the Alpha research project is bearing fruit, and Intel can't get the Pentium to move. They start playing tricks like they did at the end of the 486 era with faster processors then busses, but they can't really get the speed up.

Intel looks like a dead end.

Microsoft's NT project looks like it will divorce them from Intel. Their NTVDM, based on an old OS/2 VDM (IBM's later version was better) can emulate the entire 286 instruction set, so you can run DOS apps inside of it. They develop NT on a non-Intel architecture (rumored to be MIPS) to avoid any Intel specific shortcuts.

NT 3.51 supports the MIPS (there was a project with several companies to build a desktop PC on the MIPS line, NT was the OS, and Intel pulled tech specs for their stuff from everyone involved ).

NT 3.51 supports the PPC. They are scared of Taligent Pink, the Apple/IBM project to build two OSes on the same core system. PC Users would run OS/2, Apple users their Macs, run the same applications with the different environments.

NT 3.51 supports the Alpha. The Alpha looks like it is going to be awesome and could carry Microsoft into the server rooms. It looks like a screamer. The AlphaPC, the cheap version of the chip, looks like a great processor. NT 3.51 and the AlphaPC could turn Microsoft into a workstation player and compete in the engineering space.

Intel is still moving chips cheaply (in the $400-$1000 range) so they are involved.

Microsoft has another project, Chicago AKA Windows 4.0 AKA Windows 93, released as Windows 95. It brings the Win32 API to the lowend world. Get your apps moved to Win32 from Win16, and you can move to Windows NT (but not OS/2). Stick to Win32s and IBM can still fight on with OS/2.

At that point in history, there was no Microsoft monopoly.

What happened?

Intel gets the Pentium Pro to perform well on 32-bit operations (though the 16-bit code in Win95 made it a dog there) and announces the Pentium II, a PPro without the expensive on-chip cache. Quad-PPros do okay as workgroup servers. The MIPS PC initiative dies out (taking one of the top graphics card makers with it, who couldn't compete without Intel's PCI specs early... and Vesa Local Bus wasn't keeping up).

IBM refuses to ship PPC computers (to run Windows NT) until they have OS/2 running there. Well, the OS/2 port couldn't make it. Sure their were dozens of machines build in Boca Raton, FL, they rocked. The PPC 620 was promissed with the 486 core integrated. Wow, OS/2 on a PPC with your old DOS/Win apps running on the 486 core? Never shipped...

NT drops to just the Alpha and x86. With no support for the other ports, Microsoft lets the development tools for non-x86 lapse. Visual Studio RISC was usually at least 1 rev back.

Alpha support drops out later.

Microsoft is now stuck with x86.

Itanium/IA-64 is on the way. Microsoft needs a 64-bit system to carry them up the food chain, and the Alpha is dead.

AMD's x86-64 is on the way, and while there is no official plans for Microsoft to support it, I'm sure that they will.

Microsoft is back to pushing cross platform.

J++ didn't get them there. The CLR may.

The CLR is part of .NET. The XML services are another part. The tech is separate (though plays nicely together), but all part of .NET.

Microsoft HATES sharing their monopoly with Intel. Intel may be the junior partner, but they are there. Microsoft needs to increase its leverage. The CLR makes Intel a junior partner... VERY junior.

They can talk to IBM about PPCs, or AMD about x86-64.

Microsoft certainly has cross-hardware issues. Because of them, they are only on 1 platform.

NT is extremely portable.

x86 assembly code is not.

Alex

Re:Did you start computing in 1999?

Thank you for such a detail chroncle but since I worked for IBM I've heard a different version than yours. (and since I worked for IBM I may be biased, be warned. ^_^)

It was not IBM refused to ship PPC with NT, it's Microsoft who refused to developed NT on PPC. In fact DOS/Win32 running on 486 core wasn't so bad at that time, may be due to some architectural difficulties Microsoft did not port their NT to PPC.(you are right NT is portable and asm is not, but PPC's asm is open enough for them, at least as far as I know)

NT can run on Alpha. I'm not sure whether NT5(aka W2K) can run on Alpha, but previous versions can. It's Microsoft who left Alpha, not vice versa. :)

OS/2 lost to Windows mainly due to the fact that Windows do not allow OS/2 ship with many Win32 components - that almost drove OS/2 out of Win-compatibility business. In fact IBM did strike back by releasing 'OS/2 for Windows' version, but lost is lost.

Microsoft then further extended their monopolization by penalizing PC vendors if their line of products ship with OS other than Windows. That's what you've been hearing in the trial.

We, at that time, always wondered "Can they do that?", but hell, IBM did that during 70's(in other market) so why couldn't they! Now we know it's illegal, heh, oh well. :)

but it's too late.

In conclusion, Microsoft chose the path of monopolization. Your post sounds like Microsoft was forced to do so, may be I'm wrong. :)

Not just RMS but Sun as well

Given that Sun has publically stated they are going to move to using Gnome as their desktop (not that i believe it given their last support of the OpenStep UI) -- I believe they would have some serious issues with this as well

Its no secret the position Sun takes as it relates to Microsoft

This may be hard to take...

But .NET is actually a pretty well thought out and designed plan. If you take off the blinders and look at it, .NET really makes sense.

What should open source do? Should it push forward a political agenda, or strive to provide people with the best possible products? Personally I could care less about RMS' agenda. To me open source is about options, and I applaud Miguel for working to provide people another option.

You tell 'im, RMS!

I mean, how dare the guy develop useful open-source products and tools using a modern, cohesive framework that's en route to becoming an ECMA standard? All open-source programmers should stick to cryptic/buggy libraries or stop making open source projects. Because just because you're open source doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, right?
Microsoft, after all, was the one who designed their own implementation of this framework and they're a big monopoly that makes products that people want and use so no one in the open source world should work with them.
Also, Bill Gates has a nose so Miguel should cut his off right now to spite him. That'll show 'em all!

.NET: The power of Java, and Free Speech too

Yesterday, I was sitting at a Microsoft Windows workstation researching something on physics, when I came accross a Webpage with an embedded Java applet. I was dumbstruck; what a fabulous idea! From what I can gather, Java applets are quite prevalent in education circles and other applications where user input can be taken to produce a visual representation of the result.
.NET and C# are basically a reimplementation of Java. Sure, they add new features like cross-language support, and finer grained security context. These mean respectively that I could call a perl function from a python script inline. The latter means I could create software that has extensible input and output filters for program data, where the filters are trusted to convert data but never write it to disk.
So, why then do I think .NET is the best thing for GNOME? It's really very simple: The Java runtime environment is non-free. Certainly, Free Software Java interpreters like Kaffee came a long way when they were actively under development, but what was really missing was a complete set of class libraries.
Ximian Mono is writing a complete cross platform development and code exceution platform which includes a complete set [go-mono.com] of class libraries, and a JIT [ximian.com] (Just in Time) interpeter for .NET bytecode that allows the code, once compiled, to be run at almost native speeds.
Finally, .NET is an open standard; Java is not. It's been submitted to the ECMA [microsoft.com] which means that you, I and Miguel are free to make an open implementation of it, explicitly. Sure, some may worry that Microsoft have subversive motives in doing so, but the fact remains that they've released a technology that's at least as good as, if not better than Java.
I don't know about you, but I want to see the day when I'm doing research and I hit a page with an interactive demonstration written in .NET and I can view it in Mozilla, or in Konqueror, without having to install Sun or IBM's proprietary Java runtime. It's all about the technology, only in this case it makes sense not only to pragmatists but Free Software enthusiasts too. In fact I bet that most of the anti-Mono trolls are the very ones that have those proprietary Java runtimes installed on their systems.

Re:.NET: The power of Java, and Free Speech too

If you don't like the proprietary java runtimes, there's nothing stopping you using an open-source one (kaffe), or coding another one yourself. You just won't be allowed use the Java trademark if you don't pass a load of strict compliance tests. Hint: This is very similar to the situation with Mesa/OpenGL or Linux/POSIX...

Java is a standard, and it is pretty much as open as postscript or pdf. The standards publishing body for Java is Sun, and for ps/pdf, Adobe. Note the presence of an open-source implementation of postscript, cunningly called "ghostscript"...

You can download extensive java specifications from Sun - and not just a nearly-useless core yet-another-c-family-language and some system libraries specification like MS's for-show C#/CLR ECMA submission, with java, in addition to the VM and language, there's full and voluminous specifications for all those add-on java packages like Java3D, JAXP and whatnot - MS makes a point of NOT standardising the .net equivalents.

They are all downloadable documents. Sun can't reach onto your harddrive and mutate them once you've downloaded them. Sure, they could release a new version of the spec, but the hypothetical version you coded could still be fully compliant with the old spec.

This is in marked contrast to MS, which doesn't even bother fully specifying most of it's APIs, in fact, is reknowned for such behaviour.

There are multiple independent implementations of Java and its very extensive addon libraries (like the J2EE environment).

So, which would you prefer - a mature de-facto standard with multiple competing, yet interoperable, implementations, or an "official" standard with no finished implementations from a company that's well known for breaking compatibility whenever it suits? Given that MS will still contorl the only full implementation of .net for the near term, I predict a situation similar to Netscape and the HTML spec, back when Netscape was the only major web browser - they'll just embrace/extend it whenever they want...

Sure the standard has ECMA's rubber stamp on it - but what matters for implementation is freely available specifications, not the rubber stamp... Witness the popularity of R5RS scheme, or internet RFCs or I'm-not-officialy-opengl-but-who-cares Mesa.

Anyway, when I last checked, C# didn't even have mandatory-checked exceptions. That alone is enough to reomve it from consideration for a large swathe of corporate development mixed-ability team projects....

The permssions security model of any modern JVM is pretty damn fine-grained, more than enough for my needs. Don't confuse it with the primitive sandbox of early java.

What I really hate (and this is a general remark, not accusing the parent post or anything), is people who judge Java by Microsoft's antiquated and incomplete implementation of it. For god's sake, install the Sun Java2 1.3.1 or 1.4 JRE, don't judge Java's by MS's (presumably deliberately) shitty implementation.

Personally, I'll just keep on using Lisp for my development work, but there's millions of corporate drones who'll be told to use either Java/JVM or C#/CLR.

Quite right too

Pinning GNOME to .NET sounds like a braindead idea to me anyway. Perpetually playing catch-up and being involved in an arms race with MS. If you have any knowledge of the history of computing then you'll know the sands of .NET will continually shift.

Just look at the lineage :

dde, ole, ole2, com, dcom, dcom + mts, soap, .NET

J++ & Active Directory probably fit in there somewhere too.

Pinning your business model to any of these technological donkeys is an expensive move.

to paraphrase :
The MSDN treadmill moves pretty fast, if you don't look around once in a while, you might just miss out!

Everybody has a duty to question, I'm glad RMS has done it so publicly because if it was me that asked then I doubt we'd see any discussion on /. about it!

Why is this a bad idea?

Yes, we hate MS. We really hate MS. MS is bad, mmkay? Now that that's out of the way...

.NET is new, its untested, its unproven, but the simple fact is, it's a very promising platform. Yes, MS built it, because they have the resources to. Why not use it? .NET is coming, lets not dilute ourselves about that. MS owns the desktop, and if they want .NET, odds are, good or bad, .NET is making it into peoples homes. So our choices are simple, we can ignore .NET, do our own thing (bonobo, watever) and stay a fringe group (dont kid yourselves, were a fringe group) of radical non-windows folks. Or, we can do the smart thing, offer full .NET compatibility. If we do that, and manage to keep up with MS's API changes and whatnot, when MS phases in .NET as the only type of app out there, we're ready, and we've got a real shot at the desktop. Want to run office? Go ahead, we can install it from your MS CD with no problems (no WINE, no emu, native). I, for one, can't wait for .NET on linux. I'll be coding my web services in VS.NET while still hacking perl in my bash console.

Slashdot keeps talking about how we need to make linux so easy that my grandma can use it, here's our chance. We copy .NET, and let MS develop the software. Seems very logical to me, I dont understand what the problem is. Yeah, we're imitating 'the beast'. So what? Immitate now, dominate later. If linux is to make it to the desktop, it needs to catch up to windows, and this is the quickest, most painless way I see of doing this.

Yes, I'm biased, I contribute ALOT to the Mono project, but I honestly believe that without something that gives native compatibility with windows apps, linux will stay on the server, and my grandma will keep shelling out for new versions of windows.

And one more thought, MS isn't trying to kill mono. Has it crossed anyones mind that this is our chance to get MS to help kill themselves? They want .NET on linux, it gives .NET more market penetration, but then again, once .NET is on linux, who needs windows?

Yes, this is a rant, and I'm sorry for any grammar/spelling errors. But, before you mod me down into oblivion, seriously think about this. This really is a good thing(tm), and is the best bet of linux getting into mainstream desktop land.

Hot Buttons and Productive Discourse

Oh great, RMS, MS, .NET, Gnome, can we get more /. hot-button things into there?

1. RMS is a person; try to avoid ad-hominem attacks and instead focus on his acts & ideas
2. Miguel de Icaza also deserves the same respect
3. MS is a business - it is not inherently evil nor has Bill Gates been conclusively identified as Cthulu-Jr
4. MS puts out lots of ideas & products. Just like with any other ideas they can be used for good or ill, or as intended by MS or not
5. RMS through the GNU licenses does have an interest in how & where they are applied (to ensure compliance.) It is reasonable to anticipate possible conflicts and resolve them early

Or this can all degenerate into a bunch of folks screaming how they don't like whatever

Mono

Read Miguel's clarification [gnome.org] of what he meant by GNOME taking advantage of Mono.

Mono has a lot of technical merit, don't shoot it down only because it's based on .net. It just might deliver what CORBA only promised, language independent component reuse. I know I wouldn't mind mixing for example Kylix generated GUI frontends with Java/C# running the logic in the background, transparently (and natively!). I surely hope that by the time we reach GNOME 4 (and we're talking 2-4 years from now here) we're not still writing GUI applications in C, as is the state with most GNOME apps now.

Remeber that Mono isn't .net, it's not controlled by Microsoft, it's a reimplementation of the .net class libraries while also bringing in a C# compiler as a bonus (Believe me, there are plenty of worse languages to code in). The Mono libraries are Open Source (Same license as Xfree86, and I don't hear anyone bitching about the license of that particular piece of software) and will probably help bring a lot of new neat Open Source applications, giving especially GUI programs a boost.

oh come on

The GNOME project had the opportunity to go with a better toolkit than Gtk+ and they blew it. Everyone said writing a GUI in C with #defines to pretend you have object support was a lame attempt at a good C++ gui library. There are plenty of alternatives to Qt now and Qt is available under the GPL anyways, so if you dont like writing GUI applications in C and you're not fond of basing your future on a brand spanking new language and a completely unstarted class library toolkit, then there's plenty of space on the other team.

Explain to me...

...why RMS is as mistaken as a lot of posters here claim.

• MPI and PVM are already open, accepted standards, and virtually all distributed architectures use one of these. They already exist, there are already applications there, and they've had a good time to mature.
  
• COSM is an open standard by which distributed applications can be developed. It exists, it's developing at a decent pace, and although it's not "mature", the development team are very familiar with this problem. (It's an off-shoot of distributed.net! How much experience do you need!)
  
• MOSIX is an open standard, and now exists in both kernel and user-land versions. The UL-version would allow MOSIX to be ported to virtually any OS, with minimal fuss, I suspect. MOSIX pre-dates .NET, and is already in the field. .NET is only barely out of the vaporware stage.
  
• SE-Linux is an open standard, uses the existing LSM (Linux Security Mechanism?) patch and offers far greater security for distributed applications than .NET ever will.
  

Given this plethora of PRE-EXISTING software that is open, mature (or at least written by people who know the problem-space damn well), and standard, WHY would anyone want to port GNOME to .NET?????

Whether you like RMS or not, the point is that he is very right to question the validity of using .NET technology in GNOME. You don't imagine MS would actually LET Linux systems communicate with Windows systems, via .NET, do you??? The day they don't rig their own protocols, to deny service to "the unwashed masses", is the day I might believe Bil Gates got a humanity transfusion.

But whether it's possible or not doesn't matter. Miguel's complaint was there was no realistic alternative. I've listed several. Now, I expect (as a GNOME user) a damn good reason why I shouldn't just pick up the GNOME sources and fork the hell out of the tree, to make them OPENLY networkable.

I don't like code-forks, when they're not necessary. It's a lot of hastle to maintain them, keep things in sync, etc, but I don't cater to fools, either.

And Microsoft must be laughing really hard...

I stuck to Gnome initially, coz KDE was based on closed source QT. Then QT opens itself, and Gnome moved to Bono and eventually to .Net. And I switched to KDE, so that I won't get myself stuck in some proprietory architecture.

Some /. posted here that MS might be on something really good (if .Net is that good). If that's the case, good for them. But it's a proprietory architecture. And I think it's a lost cause to base a whole entire open source platform on some proprietory architecture which you have to play catch-up all the time, and which you have to reverse engineer to know how it works (correct me if I'm wrong here). How many companies have been trying to make their apps work with the proprietory format of MS Word and get burned?

You may not like RMS, but as far as I know, he is one of the few who stick to his lines over the years.

MS must be laughing really hard now for causing a little political turmoil among OSSers. At the end of the day, MS is still the winner.

double standards

If anyone's smoking crack here, it's RMS.

How is this situation any different from free software projects using Sun's Java technologies? Isn't this just two sides of the same coin?

On one side you have Gnome [ximian.com] intending to use Mono [go-mono.com], a cross-platform language [www.ecma.ch] and runtime environment [www.ecma.ch] based on open standards,
and on the other you have projects such as Apache's [apache.org] Jakarta [apache.org] using Java [sun.com], a cross-platform language and runtime envionment based on almost open standards.

I don't recall seeing RMS bitching too heavily about Sun's absolute control of the Java language and runtime.what it was that RMS didn't like about it. I wouldn't be surprised if he's just being reactionary for the sake of it.

SAMBA, Wine, Reality Check

The article points out that it should be OK for the free software community to implement MS API's like SMB (SAMBA) and Windows itself (Wine) because they are already established standards, but it should not be alright to implement .NET because it is only an emerging standard not yet heavily adopted by many.

I disagree with this conclusion. Why wait. If you wait until .NET is popular and widespread before starting a compatable project, then it will already be too late and you will be eternally playing catch-up. Think how much more accepted Linux might have been if it was also able run Windows applications well from the get-go.

Here are the two possibilities:

1 - .NET becomes very popular and widely deployed as Microsoft wishes it to be. In this case Linux and other OSS will benefit from already having a .NET implementation (Mono) in place. No need to spend two or three years to play catch-up while OSS loses market share to MS.

2. - .NET is a bust and never becomes popular or widely deployed. Microsoft loses big time (since they are hanging their future on it), and OSS (mainly just Ximian) loses a gamble by having wasted some development resources. Big deal. And mainly just Ximian would have lost anything, the rest of the OSS community will have lost very little.

These two alternatives seem better than the third possibility, which is that .NET and C# become widely deployed and OSS operating systems are caught with their pants down, not being able to host any .NET related services or applications.

Re:WTF is .NET anyway?

.NET is a framework. In short, it simplifies development. It makes programming with SOAP, COM+, etc. a lot easier. You're not limited to one language, you can use Python or Perl or C# or VB and plenty more languages to create .NET applications.

"and it is going to have on one great big server: all the data about me that the CIA(or any advertising agency) could ever want"

That's passport, it's a .NET service but I don't think it'll take off because it's kinda complicated for administrators to set it up, you have to get permission to use it, etc.

That's MS marketing at work, .NET is not that amazing. Well actually it can be amazing if Broadband and Wireless internet connection became mainstream but that's not gonna happen soon.

This says it all...

So if you didn't see this one coming, you simply haven't been paying attention.

It looks like Stallman just didn't realize this was the plan. Perhaps he also doesn't realize .NET refers more to the Java-like language and runtime being implemented by the mono project than the privacy-trashing hailstorm system Microsoft is trying to wed it to.

As for myself, I'm a "free as in speech," copyleft, "do what's best for the free software community" kind of guy, and I don't see a problem with moving Mono to .NET, if it works. (AWT and Swing gave me a bad taste with Java, so I'm a little suspicious of .NET, but still optimistic.) Of course, I've known since the beginning of the mono project that this was the plan. Because that's been said openly at every opportunity.

I do wish Ximian could find it in their hearts to copyleft everything, though. (No library licenses, proprietary Outlook extenders, etc.) And I know, that makes me evil and heartless.

RMS hating or MS hating? Tough choice.

I think a lot of /. folks are letting their RMS disillusionments take control. I personally would definitely NOT like to see the Free software world start using Microsoft-invented, Microsoft-owned, Microsoft-patented technology if it can be helped.

This is like turning Gnome into a Windows app. Sure, .NET sounds cool from a technology point of view but you should know by now that technology doesn't live in a vacuum. As soon as anything based on .NET becomes a threat to Microsoft, they will cripple it, through technological or legal means.

The Free software community should stand firm and develop and use open technologies, and not even pay lip service to .NET.

I agree with the view taken by Nick Peterly (or whatever his name, I can't remember right now) that Miguel has been baited by Microsoft .NET and this will just give Microsoft a way to try and subvert Free software. Maybe that's not what MS was thinking at the outset, and not what Miguel is thinking, but it will be possible and we shouldn't allow MS that kind of power.

I for one will lump anything that uses .NET in with Microsoft products, even if it's "open source". Why take the chance? I'm surprised that so many /. folks are calling .NET "progress" or "a standard". It's just a Microsoft technology.

It won't work anyway...

Consider several things...

• Microsoft has not submitted the entire CLR class library to ECMA -- and the monster in Redmond has made it clear that they want to license the non-ECMA classes commercially.
• Most Windows applications (even those for .NET) rely on API calls. Perhaps MonoGnome can incorporate Wine?
• Microsoft does nothing that is not in its own best interests -- rather typical, really, of monopolistic entities. Miguel is likely to end up in the belly of the beast, like so many "partners" of the past.
• Assuming MONO supports Visual Basic.NET, will it also include the "compability layer" required for legacy VB code?
• If Miguel philosophically violates the spirit of GNU and Gnome, developers will flee his ship. One of the great glories of free software is the ability to rebel without bloodshed. If you don't like the way Miguel is running things, create a new desktop or work on a different project. Free software may not be timely, but it sure is liberating.

I'm not sure there's much here to worry about -- other than making damned sure that free code doesn't somehow become proprietary through various license follies. On that issue, people like RMS have my heartfelt thanks for their vigilance.

One API to rule them all

<rough_paraphrasing>
"Lo, I am Miguel the many-coloured!"
To which RMS the grey replied,
"You have been staring into the Lidless API for too long. You tried to wrestle control of the Dot away from Him, but the Dot still points to Redmond."
"To oppose Bill is impossible! If you are not with us, then... Die!"
</rough_paraphrasing>

Re:it's not so bad

We're all jumping to conclusions trying to speculate what, exactly, did Miguel mean. There are SO MANY different paths that Mono / GNOME / .NET can take.

RMS simply asked the question, "please explain a little better, Miguel". He didn't flame him, and he didn't take an ideological stance, however the ./ RMS-haters went nuts and 'interpreted' his words, too.

Let's all sit back and listen carefully and only start the flame wars AFTER we get the whole story from both sides.

.NET

Well...

Firstly, 99.9% of the people arguing about .NET don't actually know what .NET is.

Secondly...we have 2 choices when it comes to making linux popular.

1) Not Invented Here - Do our own thing, ignore what everyone else is doing, and make an incompatable system yet try to make it superior. Developers will have to learn this system saparately than others.

2) As .NET IS a publicly available standard, and is very well documented, the API, VM's, etc, are fully documented. We can concentrate on implementing those into the linux world, and give developers a very easy way to develop apps for our platform as well.

In other words, regardless of MS history, if the .NET specification fits the needs we have, why on earth not use it?

What does GNOME stand for?

GNOME is the GNU NETWORK OBJECT MODEL ENVIRONMENT and "GNOME is part of the GNU project".

What is GNU? The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. The GNU system is licensed with the GPL and the LGPL for libraries.

Who heads GNU and founded GNU? Richard M. Stallman.

Now, I'd say that gives Richard M. Stallman all the right in the world to inquire of Miguel Icaza where he intends to go with GNOME. So enough with the inane RMS remarks - if you don't want freedom then go be a slave.

I have said before that I wasn't confident in the meandering course that GNOME was taking. Where is GNOME's basic THEME... what is it's guiding light? One minute GNOME is the White Knight of Freedom and then the next GNOME is going commercial with the Ximian moniker and talking about being based on .NET - the Next Big Microsoft Plan to Take Over the Internet?

I dunno, I was initially and still am in support of GNOME pending further developments. I hope they do The Right Thing(tm).

.NET and Mono: What is standard and what is not

Well, I decided that, instead of perpetuating the /. tradition of shooting out of my ass without doing my own research, I'd see for myself which parts of .NET API's were in the ECMA standard, which parts were not, and how much of it Mono is implementing. So, after downloading the ECMA documentation [microsoft.com], I compared it to Microsoft's .NET Framework SDK docs [microsoft.com] and Mono Class Status [go-mono.com] page. Here is what I found:

1. The ECMA standard includes a total of 249 types (classes, interfaces, etc.) as the standard library. .NET Framework SDK has approximately 3500 classes defined according to Mono Project, and they claim they have implemented or currently implementing 900 of them. Their status page shows 540 classes as work-in-progress, though that might be out of date.
2. There are missing classes, interfaces and even methods and properties from the ECMA standard. For example, out of the 120+ types in the System namespace, only 100 of them makes it into the standard. Of the 100 or so methods in the String class, more than 20 of them are not in the standard, including a few constructors. This doesn't seem to be an exception, most (but not all) of the classes have missing members. The SDK documentation doesn't give any special notice about members or types missing from the ECMA standard. I am assuming Mono is implementing the full Framework SDK versions of these libraries.
3. The ECMA standard libraries define a feature set that is somewhat larger than the C runtime library, the most noticable additions being the network and XML processing libraries. There is a lot of stuff left out, both additional libraries and functionality inside existing libraries (as outlined above).

After this, it is kind of easy to reach to the conclusion that the ECMA standard has major deficiencies, that there is no way (apart from custom tool support) to tell if the code you are writing conforms to that standard and that Microsoft is most likely just paying lip service to the standards process, at least as far as the core .NET API's go. Java and Sun do a much more complete job of defining and sticking to specifications if the ECMA work is any sign.

Personally, I don't plan to touch .NET API's to develop open source software after this. My opinion is that Mono would be much better off if they develop their own cross-platform class libraries instead of using .NET API's. There is nothing preventing them from using CLI VM and multiple language support with their own class libraries. They are already writing everything from scratch, they might as well use their own design rather than playing catch-up to proprietary Microsoft API's.

I don't see why it should be upsetting, except...

I mean, really, he wants to implement .NET on Linux? Great! He wants to build a whole GUI framework out of it? Knock yourself out! People are feeling threatened? Did Wine threaten them? No, let Miguel do his thing, more the merrier, yadda yadda.

On the other hand, he did make some statements about .NET's technical "superiority." That's open for debate. I'd love to see how that one goes.

I've been thinking a lot about Microsoft, though, and how they could ever hope to fight against free software in the long run... I mean in addition to marketing and sales efforts. They could try to influence key players and/or figureheads, but that's risky and unreliable... they could use lawsuits. Non-fantastically-wealthy individuals, after all, are nothing but roadkill in American civil court...

Hey... Hmm...

Wouldn't it be interesting, if Microsoft were to play a game with Miguel - to lure him, his co-developers, and his users, by following Microsoft's (often implicit) standards, into treading over a set of Microsoft patents, or a EULA/UCITA-backed reverse-engineering lawsuit? To wait say, 2 years, or 3, and then when Gnome is installed in millions of places and Sun and Dell are prepackaging it, etc., and there are a lot of juicy targets in the crosshairs, all of a sudden, bust down the door and start serving papers?

Please, reassure me. Tell me why I'm wrong about this. Any part of .NET that's not ECMA (and maybe some that are) is still Microsoft's house... and doesn't that detail about how little of .NET has actually gone to committee keep coming up?

Re:I'd love...

I'm not sure Miguel *CAN* tell RMS to fuck off. Doesn't RMS hold the trademark on "GNU"?