Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

LinuxWorld: Business, Business and More Business 345

Posted by michael from the no-match-for-the-power-of-the-dark-side dept.
Clarkson University wins a server from IBM. Sun is bringing embedded Linux to its UltraSparc IIe processors. Wired has an overview of LinuxWorld, talking about how it's all business and the joy is gone; and so does Internet.com; and so does Newsforge, which also has a story about LinuxWorld in Paris. The Register has a lengthy interview with Miguel de Icaza, in which he notes "Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET".
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LinuxWorld: Business, Business and More Business More

LinuxWorld: Business, Business and More Business

Comments Filter:
  • Hey,

    I thought that's what everyone wanted? To be taken serious as opposed to hey look at the nice kids playing with Linux?

    What's wrong with this?

    • Re:Linux turning into Business..no fun anymore... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jbeamon ( 208826 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:18PM (#2938592)
      What's wrong with this is that we're intermingling Open Source and vehemently Closed Source ideologies. This isn't making us a serious contender; this is making us a white flag waving wannabe. Yes, we want intercompatibility, but not because we've adopted our foundation from a company known for changing public standards and republishing them into a monopoly environment with every year's mandatory upgrades.

      Microsoft's .Net initiative, not to be confused with the ".net" top level domain, is still bound to a company with a long and thriving history of imposing itself on everything it touches. I don't trust their HTML, let alone their XML, let alone their fill-in-the-blank that's supposed to be "open" and "cross-platform". I'd rather work in an environment where my desktop won't just be 'poof' expensive, closed source, and reporting home to a monopoly every time I open a web page or a file manager. Microsoft's "beautiful security model" has landed them more exploits and holes than a block of swiss cheese with telnet, plus an FBI warning. No thanks. Not for me. Not in a million years. No offense intended, but I don't see what's "right" about this.
      • here goes moderators, get your -1 trolls ready.

        Which frigging way do you want it? I never once mentioned that part of the article. I was referring to this...

        FROM THE DAMNED ARTICLE:

        "Be careful what you wish for," programmer Mickey Haines said. "Five years ago, we all wished that Linux would be accepted by the business world. Our wish was granted. But the payback is a plague of pink-faced guys in shiny blue suits. The expo is all about brains and business now, not art and heart like it used to be."

        Well, guess what. Business IS exactly that. It isn't about fun. It's about Business. If it was supposed to be fun, they would call it that.

        I am sick to death of people screaming how little respect the "real world/business world" gives the various flavors. Well, here's your respect. Oh, you don't like it? Well, you ASKED FOR IT DIDN'T YOU????

        And no, Jbeamon, this isn't directed at you. It's everyone with the elitest attitude...10 years from now I can see people saying yeah, Linux used to be cool, then "THE MAN" took it over and now it isn't.
    • I thought that's what everyone wanted? To be taken serious as opposed to hey look at the nice kids playing with Linux?

      I'm with you. I don't understand why Linux getting into the business world is a bad thing. I have to assume it is because there are still too many people that want Linux to remain the domain of geekdom. Personally, I look forward to Linux picking up steam and getting seriously entrenched in the business world. It will make it easier for me to bring in more tools that work on Linux - "Hey, we already have the system, I just have to download the source and build it." I've been getting so much resistance to putting in Linux based anything, that I can't see Linux getting serious as a bad thing.

      RagManX
    • I thought that's what everyone wanted? To be taken serious...

      I don't think so. Linus's book isn't called "Just to be Taken Seriously".

      Today, most Linux developers are volunteers. They hack linux for the love of coding, or for recognition, or whatever. It's a hobby, and that's what makes it great, IMHO. When you have IBM/HP/etc. stepping in and saying "hey, stop coding that MP3 player, we need you to work on this database backend"...well, I just don't see that going over well with most hobbyist Linux developers. Which probably means that more and more linux devs will be doing it as their job, not as their hobby. Which is going to make Linux a lot less fun. :(

      • Re:Linux turning into Business..no fun anymore... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Wildcat J ( 552122 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:59PM (#2938810)
        When you have IBM/HP/etc. stepping in and saying "hey, stop coding that MP3 player, we need you to work on this database backend"...well, I just don't see that going over well with most hobbyist Linux developers.
        I don't think that's the case at all. Just because big companies are using and contributing to Linux doesn't magically take Linux away from the hobbyist coders. I really doubt that IBM, HP, et al. are going to tell anyone except their employees what to do. There is no reason that people developing for Linux for a hobby, and people developing for Linux as a job, have to be mutually exclusive. I think that's kind of the point--that everyone can contribute.

        I agree with previous posters, though, that there's a resistance from Linux backers to allow "big business" to become involved in Linux for fear that their exclusive club won't be so exclusive anymore. What they fail to notice is that some companies (I won't name them due to my personal bias) are making some solid contributions to the Linux community, without co-opting it. Not every company is building a giant space laser to take over the world, you know ;-)

  • KDE declared the winner due to Gnome scandal. (Score:4, Funny)

    by TheViffer ( 128272 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:05PM (#2938520)
    "I'd like to see Gnome applications written in .NET in version 4.0 - no, version 3.0. But Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET," he told us. "A lot of people just see .NET as a fantastic upgrade for the development platform from Microsoft.

    If this was US politics, a candidate has just stated he supports a communistic form of governement and cant wait till he gets it installed.

    Interesting concept though, using .NET. But it will be a cold day in hell before Billy and the boys would do anything (even for profit) for an open source project that uses the GNU licence for many of its parts.
    • Does anyone else think that old Miguel is looking for financial support from Microsoft. Follow the beast and it will eventually repay you?

    • Re:KDE declared the winner due to Gnome scandal. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "But it will be a cold day in hell before Billy and the boys would do anything (even for profit) for an open source project that uses the GNU licence for many of its parts."

      The point is, it doesn't matter what Billy and friends do. All that was needed was a standard, and MS had the clout to push that through. But to make it workable, they had to submit it to a standards organization.

      So as long as you stick to what is standardized (and since Mono is a completely free implementation of the CLR standard) MS has absolutely no control over you.

      Now if you fall into the trap of wanting to make IIS.NET web services on your Linux box, then microsoft owns you. But writing GNOME apps against GTK+ using CLR gives MS no power over you at all.
    • I wish Mr. Icaza would have looked at companies that followed MS promises to "keep the standards open" and then they embraced and extended those standards.. Kereberos - rings a bell? Sure, they added some of their stuff which was allowed to extend, and now it's a PITA to talk to other kerberos servers...

      Go ahead Ximian, compete with MS. I've seen it before and I've got this feeling that Ximian won't win here..

      For the sake of GNOME - I hope I'll be wrong.
  • Wired has an overview of LinuxWorld, talking about how it's all business and the joy is gone

    Too bad it can't be both ways. Often times, as mass popularity increases (in this case business adoption), enjoyment level decreases. Probably because you now have people involved who don't see things even close to the same way you do.

    By the way, E*Trade moves to Linux servers [com.com]
  • Just what exactly is the soul going for these days, Mr. Icaza?

    It's clearly a buyer's market.

  • Change (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ScumBiker ( 64143 )
    "click" That's the sound of Gnome being deleted. After reading the Register [theregister.co.uk] article, I'm almost convinced that Miguel is on the evil empires payroll. Hello KDE!

    On the other hand, he does say it's a cool environment and I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot more about programming than I do. So, I take back the "click". Hell, I don't know what to think. I do know I don't ever want to donate to M$ again!

  • I'm sorry, but someone throw some cold water on me.

    GNOME 3.0 could perhaps be using APIs by the traditionally evil folks at Microsoft? Now, see if you have as much trouble imagining this as I do -- a long-haired, super-smart, (sexy, even) traditional Linux user who has used GNOME for years now embracing a Microsoft-ish manipulation of his GUI. Ever more far-fetched would be SUN Microsystems, who hate Microsoft more than all of us do, ditching their CDE GUI for GNOME, which in turn gets hooked into Microsoft .NET.

    I'm skeptical, but it'll sure be fun to see how this all plays out.

  • .NET Gnome? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Miguel sounds out of his mind. Despite .NET being an rather open standard, it was created by the biggest, baddest, and meanest software company in the world. You cannot get around the fact that Microsoft owns .NET. When you endorse .NET, you endorse Microsoft. I, for one, will not just forget the years of horrible software and put my trust in a shady development platform based on central Microsoft databases.

    I really like Gnome, and I don't want it to be tied-in to a major Microsoft project.

  • The only way to win is not to play (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:12PM (#2938569) Homepage Journal

    If you play
    Society's Rules
    Then you become
    Society's Fools....
    Devo, Society's Fools


    Porting Gnome to .Net is playing Microsoft's game. The problem is that the first rule of Microsoft's game is "Microsoft wins".

    I love the idea of a common runtime environment that supports C++, Java, Perl, Python, etc., runs on all platforms, etc. etc. etc., but I DON'T want that platform in any way controlled by Microsoft (or by Sun, or RedHat, or me!) If any one entity controls the platform, that one entity has entirely too much power - we've simply traded one monopolist for another.

    Now, if Miquel wishes to create such an environment under GPL, with no patents held by any organization, then I'm all for it - that way no one organization can embrace and extend the spec. But .Net is neither under GPL nor is it patent unencumbered - the owners can change the rules as they see fit. The fact that the owners are Microsoft is only minimally relevant - Sun, Apple, SGI, RedHat, or IBM could also force the issue.

    • Beating MS to the punch (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DG ( 989 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:19PM (#2938600) Homepage Journal
      I think - I THINK - that Miquel's goal is to out-Microsoft Microsoft, by beating MS to the punch on .NET.

      If you can make .NET as widespread as HTTP _before_ MS can get a signifigant foothold, then you have a certain element of control over the Beast From Redmond.

      But that's a really dangerous game to be playing, methinks.

      Miquel scares me sometimes.

      DG

      http://streetmodified.org/books.html
      • How could MS be beaten to the punch? They already admit that Mono is roughly a year behind .NET's release schedule.

        Not to mention,if you read the article, Miquel's got nothing but love for much of the windows-esque API. UNIX-ish API's will be emulated.

        To me, it sounds like they've found something that meets their goals more efficiently, and they're running with it. Sounds like a consession to me.

        -Michael
        • While I agree that it may not be so much fun using the Windows style .net API, it must be noted that you probably won't have to. I'm sure that someone here in the Unix world will embrace and extend .net to include some Unix style API changes - new classes specific to Unix. Maybe if our APIs rock, people in the Windows world will add them too (provided that developers in Windows will be able to add those new classes to their .net compilier, etc).

          I think that having developers on Unix learn an API that will be usable on Linux AND Windows will be EXTREMELY powerful. Not only does the free software world benifit from wider app support, but Linux programers, who love Linux, will also have an easier time programming in Windows at work when need be. Not only that, but programmers will be able to write applications in pretty much any language, on any platform, and expect them to work pretty much anywhere. As long as application developers don't build in platform specific code on purpose, this should be a realistic goal.

          The only real risk, I think, is that our apps will run on Windows, but Windows apps won't run on Linux, thus making Windows stronger. However, that still is promoting free software - our free applications can still excell, on Windows or on Linux.
      • Well, according to what he said in the article, there's no way he will be beating Microsoft to the punch:
        We wondered if they could keep up with Microsoft? "It's a little early to say. Right now we have 900 classes out of 3500 classes so we're not keeping up at this point. As Alan Cox likes to say, free software is always late!

        "When Microsoft ships 1.0 we're not going to be shipping Mono1.0 for at least a year. So we're late. If they make changes to the API we'll try and track it down.

      • But he already said in the interview that they're probably going to be about a year behind Microsoft in the release of Mono, so the idea of beating Microsoft to the punch is not going to happen.

        I feel like one of the Bishops in the Church of Linux has told us to embrace the Fallen Angel himself. Sorry, but if you can't beat `em, work on someone's team that CAN.

    • I love the idea of a common runtime environment that supports C++, Java, Perl, Python, etc., runs on all platforms, etc. etc. etc., but I DON'T want that platform in any way controlled by Microsoft (or by Sun, or RedHat, or me!) If any one entity controls the platform, that one entity has entirely too much power - we've simply traded one monopolist for another.

      Considering that C# and the CLI are ECMA standards [slashdot.org] exactly how does Microsoft control the Mono platform? However Java is very much still entirely controlled by Sun which hasn't stopped a vibrant Free Software community to grow around Java [sourceforge.net]? So even if C# and the CLI were completely controlled by MSFT (which they aren't) there is no reason why Free Software cannot benefit from it. Now, if Miquel wishes to create such an environment under GPL, with no patents held by any organization, then I'm all for it - that way no one organization can embrace and extend the spec.

      According to miguel [slashdot.org] the Mono runtime is released under the LGPL, the compiler is released under the GPL, and the class libraries are released under the X11 license..

      From where I sit that is all FREE SOFTWARE unless you are one of those GPL zealots that believes that if it isn't GPL it isn't Free Software even though we all know that Apache, BSD, Kerberos, BIND, etc aren't GPL.

      • Re:More Mono Trolling, Don't You Folks Get Tired? (Score:5, Informative)

        by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:56PM (#2938795) Homepage Journal
        Answer the following questions, truthfully:

        1) If Microsoft changes the spec for C# or CLI, can ECMA deny the changes?
        1a) If they can deny the changes, can Microsoft still call C# "C#"?

        2) Are C# and the CLI completely free of patents?

        If the answer to 1) is false, then at any time MS can change the spec on what C# is, and leave Miquel to play catch-up.
        If 1) is true and 1a) is true, again MS controls the table.
        If 2) is false (it is, by the way...) then at any time MS can jerk Miquel up short and deny everybody the right to use the code without paying them a royalty (think Unisys and LZW).

        I assure you, I am neither a troll nor an idiot - rather I am a person who can see beyond "that's cool" and ask myself what the downsides are.

        • You make the common mistake (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Carnage4Life ( 106069 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:38PM (#2939049) Homepage Journal
          Both your questions are irrelevant. The first set of questions about whether Microsoft can change the C# and CLI spec is irrelevant because already a lot of stuff in .NET is not in the C# or CLI specification. Miguel has stated that creating a compatible implementation of .NET is not his goal [microsoft.com] yet people keep assuming it is. The CLI and C# are good technologies that fix some of the mistakes that Sun made with Java (and made some new ones) but somehow assuming that implementing the development platform now means that Ximian will have to mirror the .NET development environment when MSFT probably has twice or thrice the number of programmers working on .NET fulltime versus Mono's five fulltime and about fifty volunteer employees.

          Quite frankly, I don't ever expect Mono to be a port of the .NET framework to Linux. Instead I assume it will be a successful port of C# and the Common Language Infrastructure which is good enough for me.

          As for your second set of questions, I somehow doubt that MSFT can hand over their technology to a standards body yet still threaten to sue anyone who implements it. However, IANAL and stranger things have happened.
          • And make some new mistakes indeed.

            For me the "showstopper" for C# is the lack of checked exceptions. I predict this will kill C# software reliability. I fear many people don't understand in time what a fatal mistake this is. Otherwise, I might have liked it.

          • Ximian is already on life support (Score:5, Interesting)

            by SerpentMage ( 13390 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @05:12PM (#2939241)
            Microsoft is playing the favourites game again. First MS gives the rights to MFC to Bristol (where is Bristol today? Notice also that Bristol did not get the rights for COM?), then COM and MFC to Mainsoft (where is Mainsoft today? Notice that Mainsoft does not have the rights for .NET?), and now finally Ximian is the "annointed one".

            This is a Microsoft play through and through. And it surprises me that Michel is that STUPID to fall for it. I think the reason is because MS seriously sweet talks into into Michel's ear. And most likely the Ximian team went through various scenarios and thought, "Hey this is a win win situation." But the reality is that it is not a win win situation. Microsoft will string along Michel until they do not need him and Ximian anymore. And then there will be a new annointed one.

            What disappoints me is that Michel thinks he can outfox Microsoft. Bigger people have tried and have their problems. Michel is a small fry and when Bristol or Mainsoft or Software AG tried to get more action MS stopped them dead in their tracks. Standards mean squat to Microsoft. How many people does Microsoft have on the standard bodies and how many does Ximian? Get my point folks!!! Sorry for being so harsh, but after having talked and written about Microsoft for a decade (switched to Open Source) I am amazed that people still fall for this tatic.
            • Not quite. Microsoft isnt giving anyone anything, they're submitting a standard to a standards body. Ximian and others want to implement the good parts of that standard, to increase development speed and portability (and probably slow down executable speed (there's a reason all those 'lets make desktop apps in java' initiatives went boom)).

              The point of it is that even if (well, rather when, in my opinion) Microsoft starts corrupting the standard it doesnt really matter because the point isnt really interoperability with MS, it is getting another useful development platform that isnt as tied to languages as the ones we have now.

              Think of it this way; the entire world is coding in assembler. Along comes the evil empire and says 'hey, we've made up this C thing'. We can build a C compiler too, and use it for what it's worth. Sure enough, the Evil Empire went along and built incompatible API's outside their C reference which made the portability idea useless, but the language and the associated standards would still be a good thing.

              Of course, I dont think Miguel is even near critical enough of MS, and heck, the whole .NET thing might actually only be a plot to trick the rest of the world to waste resources trying to implement something that wont work in practice, and when everyone is all worn out and tired, along they come and reveal what they've *really* been working on meanwhile... MS BOB 2.0.
      • Considering that C# and the CLI are ECMA standards exactly how does Microsoft control the Mono platform?

        DOM, LDAP, HTML, Kerberos, IMAP, WebDAV, HTTP, ...

        What do these things have in common? They are all industry standards that Microsoft decided they didn't feel like being compatible with. Many would even say that Microsoft saw opportunity to leverage a monopoly by breaking standards compatibility.

        Putting aside patent issues, your point that Mono is not controlled by Microsoft directly is clearly true. But do not put "Microsoft" and "standards" in the same sentence and expect to be taken seriously.
        • DOM, LDAP, HTML, Kerberos, IMAP, WebDAV, HTTP, ... What do these things have in common? They are all industry standards that Microsoft decided they didn't feel like being compatible with.

          So what ? Is that a reason not to use DOM, LDAP, Kerberos, IMAP, and HTTP ? Who cares what Microsoft do with them ?

  • Vote: Miguel de Icaza for Troll of the Week (Score:5, Funny)

    by PeterClark ( 324270 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:16PM (#2938583) Journal
    Thought: maybe Miguel was just getting bored at LinuxWorld and decided to throw out this little hand granade into the crowd to liven things up a bit? He definitely has my vote for Troll of the Week!


    :Peter

  • That's the great thing about open source! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by macemoneta ( 154740 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:20PM (#2938606) Homepage
    You can use it for business and have fun with it! It's two! Two operating systems in one!

    Seriously, back in the good old days (circa 1980) IBM's VM/370 OS was "available source", and we used to play with and modify it. Some of those modifications even got picked up by IBM. We also used it for business (the customer of those modifications).

    There's (obviously) nothing to stop businesses from exploiting the benefits provided by those that play with the OS.

    And, as long as there's source, there's nothing to stop people from continuing to play.

  • ... was the one who sucked up to Windows (at least in terms of the mandate of its GUI design.)

    Take that!

    Well, this ain't a troll, cause I'm not going to rm -rf /gnome .. but it will certainly be interesting to see where both the [gnome/kde] users, and the $$ go in light of this somewhat unlikely endorsement.

    BTW, I'm a programmer, so I shouldn't find it hard to figure out what .NET is, and whether its what its touted to be. Can anyone give me a good place to start (not for the non-tech, but for the C/C++/Unix programmer) to see what it is, how it works, yadda, yadda? I have a dim notion of what it is, but I'm interested to get my hands on some 1's and 0's, to actually see the thing.

  • IANALWA, but this can't be all bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msouth ( 10321 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:37PM (#2938698) Homepage Journal
    I am not a linux world attendee, so I have not experienced the letdown that these people are describing, but it reminds me of people lamenting the loss of the "cool" internet when it was just a bunch of random people putting up sites, before mass commercialization came in and "ruined everything".

    I say the same thing to this as I do to that. There are still plenty of cool sites put up by random people. You still have to look for them just like you used to have to in the early days. YOU DON"T HAVE TO DO WHAT THE MASSES DO. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH THEIR TV SHOWS OR LISTEN TO THEIR MUSIC.

    Getting depressed about what the masses do with a new concept is silly and counterproductive. All that does is shows how much you are buying into what Madison Avenue is trying to sell. You get irked because some knockoff is getting all the attention. Well, why do you care who all the masses are being told to pay attention to? Why are you letting them tell YOU what to pay attention to?

    Britney Spears does not annoy me--that may be because I never see her or hear her music. If I want to hear edgy, innovative, gutsy music I know where to look--off the beaten track. Lamenting the fact that it isn't on the radio is a waste of a lament.

    Enterprise stuff may be getting all the industry/press/expo attention right now, but that doesn't stop a single GPL/open source product from getting done, nor should it have any bearing on our passion for the freedom, quality, and community of open source/free software.

    Personally, I am thrilled to see people there to make money. And an important part of that is just the "to see people there" part. With this economy we should totally expect that a lot of the fun, innovative, exciting, and cutting edge stuff would be gone. A lot of that was funded by the pre-bubble-burst wild-eyed investment community. The fact that ANYBODY showed up this year is wonderful. And if IBM and HP are not only there, but completely bullish on linux's future, well, I'm ecstatic. It's a huge victory for us that they are there at all, and that they are as enthusiastic as they seem to be.

    Linux in the enterprise might not be what excites you about Linux, but it is still an exciting possibility.

    These may well be the people that create your next Linux using job--I say we welcome them with hearty handshakes and reciprocal enthusiasm.

  • New Proposed Icon (Score:4, Funny)

    by HeavensTrash ( 175514 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:42PM (#2938723)
    I've created a new Slashdot Icon for Gnome that I'd like to propose. It can be seen at the following location:

    http://www.geocities.com/heavenstrash/gnomeicon. jp g

  • A few random points: (Score:5, Informative)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:46PM (#2938750) Journal
    I spent a couple of days working in the KDE booth, way in the back with the rest of the non-profits. Personally, I had a great time -- it's the first computer event I've attended (except for 'Geek Pride Day' back when Andover.net was flush with cash) so I'm probably a lot less jaded than most.

    I also got to experience the feel of the old days, having brought my TiBook for a demo system. There were quite a few Apples in evidence, and I proabbly spent more time talking PPC Linux than I did KDE. The PowerPC Linux crowd continues to have all the community feeling that Linux as a whole lost when the gold rush started. Curiously, the Apple guys who stopped by the booth seemed completely uninterested as all the Linux guys drooled over the TiBook.

    • The Linux on PS2 demo was gorgeous. The Linux on Dreamcast demo (way in the back, with the .orgs) was given by one of the hackers and had hardcore authenticity. And they gave me a boot CD, elimiating the problem of burning the crazy Sega format.
    • I think the iPlanet demo was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek satire of cultists, the humor of which was lost on the attendees.
    • I spoke with a number of indivduals known for their inflammatory viewpoints. I won't mention names, since I insisted on speaking off the record with them, but they walked up to the booth and launched right into their monomaniacal rants. I'd have thought they'd be better rounded in real life.
    • I got to thank David Korn for answering my question in his Slashdot interview. He was really nice, down to earth and an excellent teacher.
    • On the whole, the level of social grace was higher than I had expected, but there was still a large population of weirdos. Mind you, it's not like I normally associate with supermodels - compared to scientists it's a weird bunch.
    • Oh, and this Mono thing? You know how everyone's always complaining about duplication of effort from KDE and GNOME? It sounds like Miguel wants to take GNOME into a direction that KDE won't be touching, so I suppose that's good. As long as X-chat and grip keep working.
    • > Curiously, the Apple guys who stopped by the booth seemed completely
      > uninterested as all the Linux guys drooled over the TiBook.

      Probably because there's nothing in the PPC Linux world that's all
      that interesting to Apple; whereas, the TiBook is a magnificent piece
      of kit that everybody drools over, even Windows users.

      Peace,
      (jfb)
  • IIRC, he threw a hissyfit over GMONE referring to Staroffice instead of a free alternative. I'd imagine he'd be ready to have Miguel lynched over this - getting into bed with the worst of the colsed source companies.

    Doesn't he have some serious pull with the GNOME people?
    • From the NewsForge story [newsforge.com]:

      "Bradley Kuhn, v.p. of the Free Software Foundation, said he was there as an ambassador to preach freedom as in speech. Richard Stallman, always true to his principles, would not be attending LWCE, said Kuhn, because Stallman doesn't patronize events that don't use the term 'GNU/Linux.'"

      - Robin

  • Don't forget Oracle will run/dev on Linux (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WillSeattle ( 239206 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @03:59PM (#2938808) Homepage
    I saw this in the Business Wire - apparently Oracle will be ditching Unix to run on Linux, and will then do versions for the different OS as well.

    But their main servers will all be Linux.

    As to those who gripe about "darned business Linux" stuff - what's stopping you from doing your own Open Source projects? We never paid attention to Windows - you don't have to pay attention to Business glomming on to Linux either.

    -
  • He's sucking up to the very same buzzsaw that M$FT has been ripping everyone with, all along.

    "He also had praise for the new Microsoft security model.."

    Based upon what?

    "..dismissed the notion that Redmond was employing embrace and extend to its web services protocols.."

    Oh, yeah, right. M$FT has certainly changed it's tune...

    "..and put the message that the community should get over its beef with The Beast."

    uh.. well... Maybe he's willing to "get over it"

    It's plain he's intent on hopping into bed with Unca Bill: you can see that by the brown tones on Icaza's nose...

    t_t_b


    • The Mono FAQ points out that GNU started out as a project to take the best operating system of the time, and clone it. That's what he's doing with Mono, and .NET.

      I dunno what drugs he's on either, but Miguel is under the impression that Windows is the best operating system out there, period. Since no other OS is as "user friendly" as Windows, in order for open source to Succeed we must clone Windows in every way.

  • Thank God the grown-ups are now in charge (Score:2, Troll)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The "joy" is gone? Not hardly. The joy has arrived. Now it's time for Linux to get down to business.

    The children had their run; now that all the IPO money has been frittered away, it is time to pay the bills.
    HP, Compaq, Sun, CA, Oracle, IBM, and friends are serioius about Linux and they are taking no prisoners.
    Linux is gaining momentum where it counts: with the grown-ups.

  • I understand from what I've read over at Wired [wired.com] that many an old attendee of Linuxworld are dissapointed with the new business-sponsored Linuxworld.

    I've read comments on it 'not being fun' any more. I've also seen comments here stating that the Opensource-ness of Linux is being attacked by the close-sourced monsters. I was wondering if that comment was referring to just the spastic comment aout including .NET into GNOME or the fact that IBM, HP, Compaq and other major hardware vendors are embracing Linux?

    I think IBM doesn't sit up all day thinking of somehow 'stealing' linux for themselves. They see it as a viable, important alternative to the closed and controlled Microsoft, and probably even Intel regime. They see the gartner charts that show with current trends that Intel servers running MS OSes are going to account for 85% of the money spent on IT infrastructure in the server market.

    The reason I think they're even against Intel is that all of their big-ticket-lots-o-press-with-linux in it adds are about the zSeries or the iSeries products. There is hardly a mention about Linux running on Intel based systems (xSeries).

    I think IBM sees Linux as a way to sell more of their 'big iron' high margin systems and to not have to continue to fight the idiots at Dell who try to commodotize the server market when they see the server market as more than just a commodity...

    Just My $0.02. I may be wrong.
  • "OK there are two security models in place - one is the Windows NTN security model; which is actually a pretty - [pauses] - You've seen security holes in Microsoft products - buffer overflows - they're not problems in the security architecture - that happens with Unix too.

    OK: old argument, old news... UNIX blah blah blah security blah blah blah happens to everybody blah blah blah...

    Yeah, right.

    Sounds like a typical M$FT apologist, don't he?

    "...They happen to be really bad at managing their bugs, and not providing fixes on time, but that's another issue..."

    Wait!

    Stop right there, Miguel, that's the whole f*cking point!

    You can't just blow off the single biggest issue there is with M$FT "security" just because you're sucking up to them...

    ...or well, maybe *you* can!

    Security is a marketing issue to M$FT -- not a security issue, despite Unca Bill's recent homily.

    Until M$FT demonstrates in a consistent manner, over an extended period of time that they're doing *anything* differently, anyone with an ounce of integrity wouldn't be sucking up to The Beast® this way...

    Like someone already said, at least there's still KDE...

    t_t_b

    • I think Miguel was dismissive of Microsoft's security problems because he won't be affected by them. Buffer overflows are implementation problems, and the Mono project is doing a completely independent implementation of .NET. Microsoft's design is sound, they just tend to write shitty code.

      I'll put it another way. Who cares if Windows is built like a screen door? One of the big selling points of .NET (and therefore Mono) is that I can run the same web services on my secure *nix box that my neigbor runs on his virus-laden Windows box. So long as the security model is sound (and it looks like it is), then I can run Miguel's stable and secure Mono instead of the crap coming out of Redmond.

      Remember, Microsoft has used some really good ideas in the past (OLE, the registry, microkernel architecture, Active Directory). It's just that their actual implementation of those ideas has been truly awful. Miguel is getting around that by writing his own code.

  • Miguel can't be serious (Score:3, Interesting)

    by I_redwolf ( 51890 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:29PM (#2938969) Homepage Journal
    Miguel? Do you have any idea of what type of fire you are playing with? Seriously, what you plan on doing is taking a large chunk of gnome users and kindly giving them to Microsoft in their battle to control EVERYTHING there is to control. Listen, if this came of it's own because of need then I would have no problem with it. Especially if it came from the free software movement or other companies/monopolists who weren't convicted of abusing said monopoly. The problem I DO have is that simply this may make things easier in short term but in long term horrible for the industry. The infrastructure of what we call the internet today (application wise) is built with many different, compilers, archs and setups; it works and it might not be efficient but it allows for choice. What .NET plans to do is basically eliminate choice in the long run.

    Can't you see that Microsoft isn't doing this to be nice, they aren't even doing this for web services. They are doing this to own the whole goddamn thing. The internet, what developers develop in, how things operate.. EVERYTHING!! And you are gonna sit there and honestly interview with someone on some bullshit about how this is good for you/us/me/developers because it makes things easier and that Gnome 4.0 will support this. This is Microsoft getting out of the OS business and into a much larger market. If they become the standard (standard meaning widely used) this will set off World War 3.. Everyone trying to break ties with Microsoft will again have no choice but to follow a standard they created and will no doubt make proprietary extensions too breaking said standard submitted to the ECMA when their standard+extensions becomes standard (widely used) you are fucking OWNED.

    I hope this doesn't happen because if it does, you'll be known as the fucking typhoid mary in the free software movement.

    "MS = .NET taking over the world, using dumbasses and tiny amounts of cash in retrospect as pawns and they are too blind to see me coming.. man I'm good"
    • Miguel? Do you have any idea of what type of fire you are playing with? Seriously, what you plan on doing is taking a large chunk of gnome users and kindly giving them to Microsoft in their battle to control EVERYTHING there is to control.

      On what basis do you make this claim ? Since when did Microsoft own ECMA ?

      IMO, the fact that Microsoft wrote it is largely irrelevant. If it's standardised, and it's useful, there's no reason not to use it. The worst that Microsoft can do is sabotage compaibility by adding a lot of their own extensions, but then again, so what ????? We can write our own extensions too, and the platform will continue to be useful in its own right. We can continue to support the standard subset of .NET. The standard .NET platform will contain at least as much functionality as ANSI/ISO C/C++, so it will continue to be quite useful for writing portable software, even if Microsoft develop their own APIs. A lot of slashdot posters seem to be more concerned about some sort of anti-Microsoft juhad than they are about developing good software.

      • On what basis do you make this claim? Since when did Microsoft own ECMA?

        Have you been living under a rock for the past decade? When has microsoft ever played fair with standards? ummmmm never? So what they submitted to a standards body.. how is that going to prevent them from playing unfairly??

        1. Submit standard
        2. Screw standard add our own shit
        3. Lock everyone else out
        4. MONO(.NET) == JAVA for linux

        What have you acheived in the long run? I can understand using mono for .net stuff (interoperability of course).. When I first heard of the project I had no qualms with it.. I knew that it'd also be behind if Microsoft made changes and if they made extensions that it'd be the samba/ntfs/etc/etc/etc game all over. I have no problem with people spending time doing absolutely what I feel to believe is dumb stuff.. Sometimes it'll help me down the line, sometimes it's just dumb stuff but adding dumb stuff to gnome which I've programmed for, used and debug is not acceptable. I'm with anyone who wants to fork gnome at that point.
        • Have you been living under a rock for the past decade? When has microsoft ever played fair with standards?

          Do Microsoft own ECMA, or don't they ? The standard is not controlled by them. Whether or not they wish to make an implementation that supports their own standard is a seperate issue. Much like ANSI/ISO standards for C and C++ are quite useful, even though Microsoft haven't done a fantastic job at supporting the C++ standard.

          1. Submit standard

          Exactly. It's a standard. It has a life independent of MS.

          2. Screw standard add our own shit

          So ? They can also add their own C and C++ libraries, and extensions. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't use C and C++. In fact in the case of C and C++, they do worse -- not only do they add their own stuff, they do not support the standard properly either. At least in the case of .NET, there's a pretty good chance that their implementation will support the standard.

          3. Lock everyone else out

          How will they do this ? People who don't want to use Microsoft extensions will target the standard, or modularise their code so that the platform specific components are isolated; in much the same way as C and C++ programmers do today. However, I suspect that the standard components will have more functionality than the ISO/ANSI C and C++ standard libraries.

          I can understand using mono for .net stuff (interoperability of course)..

          IMO, this is not a reason to use mono. Because if the goal of developing mono is interoperability with Microsoft, then we are vulnerable to exactly the kinds of sabotage you speak of. On the other hand, if Mono is primarily their to serve as a platform in its own right, it really doesn't matter a great deal what Microsoft do.

          I have no problem with people spending time doing absolutely what I feel to believe is dumb stuff..

          Well I suppose this is what it boils down to -- whether or not you feel that this is really "dumb stuff". I don't feel it is "dumb stuff" at all. And I think Miguel is smart enough to realise that GNOME is not going to progress rapidly if everyone is stuck using C as an object oriented GUI programming language.

  • What was so great that three of them won the contest? It's not on the press release, the COSI site, nor on IBM's winners list.

  • Difference between JVM and .NET (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pergamon ( 4359 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @04:51PM (#2939137) Homepage
    To those giving MS praise for coming up with .NET (including Miguel): Face it, there isn't a significant difference between CLR-type functionality and the JVM. Getting the JVM was a much bigger step than going from JVM -> CLR. In MS's defense, though, since it's an incremental and obivous step, WHOEVER had made that step would be embracing and extending the innovation of the JVM work at Sun (and the efforts to bring other languages to the JVM).

    I'll leave the discussion of Java (the language) vs C# out of this.

    The real difference is that with Java/JVM, when MS deviated from the spec (de facto, governed by Sun) Sun was able to get them to stop. Sun put the smack down on MS for trying to make MS-specific changes to MS's implementation of Java. This would have resulted in people developing for MS-Java thinking they were developing for Java, and then having issues when trying to get their code to "run anywhere" besides MS OSs.

    With CLR/.NET there's no one to sue Microsoft when they go and take what is touted as being an open spec and change their implementation of it. That will lead to .NET software that people will think can run on any .NET platform that actually only runs on MS's .NET. Sure, it's an ECMA standard, but that doesn't keep MS from introducting their own "extensions" to it which lock users into MS.NET while still giving the illusion of not being MS-specific.

    Or am I wrong? Is there any legal way to punish MS for the type of mischief they tried with Java/JVM and that I predict they will try with CLR/.NET?
    • With CLR/.NET there's no one to sue Microsoft when they go and take what is touted as being an open spec and change their implementation of it.

      Nor should there be. Just as no-one can sue the GNU project for not making g++ ANSI compliant. The important thing about standards is that it provides a target for developers. I can write ANSI-C++ code, as opposed to just writing code that works with a given implementation. Learning which quirks the different implementations have is some work, but at least I can start with a standard target.

      That will lead to .NET software that people will think can run on any .NET platform that actually only runs on MS's .NET.

      The worst that could happen is it could lead to one-platform binaries.

      Sure, it's an ECMA standard, but that doesn't keep MS from introducting their own "extensions" to it which lock users into MS.NET while still giving the illusion of not being MS-specific.

      Standards are supposed to codify existing practice. You can't write useful software if you insist on everything to go through a standardisation process. The standard is not MS specific, but extensions may be. There also may be other extensions, that are specific to UNIX or Linux, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. The real benefit of having a standard is that there is some well-defined notion of what is "standard" and what is an "extension".

      • "The worst that could happen is it could lead to one-platform binaries"

        All of that makes sense except it totally defeats the purpose of .NET and Mono..

        Explain to me the point of Mono again, plugin and run on diff systems is it?? Interoperability?? Ahh ok..
        • If people actually went to the Mono website and read some things about it they can see that *THE MONO TEAM DOESN'T CARE IF MICROSOFT FOLLOWS THE SPEC*

          C#, the CLR, and the Class Libraries *could* solve some of the problems that Miguel saw Gnome was having. Since it could solve some of these problems they are implementing the ECMA spec. If MS doesn't follow the spec, great. If they do follow the spec, great. This *does not effect Mono at all*. The project is not looking for interoperability. If they get it, it's a great benefit, but the primary goal is to solve problems that they personally have.
        • All of that makes sense except it totally defeats the purpose of .NET and Mono.

          Depends on what your purpose is.

          Explain to me the point of Mono again,

          To provide a common runtime/object model that's usable by several different programming languages. It's got very little to do with "interoperability". The standard provides for a limited amount of interoperability. In particular, you have a certain common core functionality that is interoperable.

      • Nor should there be.

        Very true. I didn't intend to imply that there *should* be a way to make companies adhere to software standards (that is another discussion), but rather that in the MS/JVM case, there *was* a way to keep them from destandardizing a de facto standard.

        However, it is important to note that MS is a monopoly, and the actions of a monopoly must be very carefully watched. What *should* be done is to make sure they don't use their position as a monopoly to extend or enfore their control. At a minimum they must be held to a higher standard, since the normal rules of competition aren't in effect. That is where legal techniques should be used when possible.

        The worst that could happen is it could lead to one-platform binaries.

        I agree, but I see the "worst" adjective there not only as a boundary but as a degree. To quote MS, the intent of .NET is "to enable software developers to quickly build and deploy powerful, interoperable XML Web services." If the binaries only run on one platform, it isn't very interoperable. If the "WWW/Internet" becomes ".NET software", they're just one step away from ignoring all Internet communication standards and just having an MS-only web. That would be the worst thing that could happen to the WWW and possibly to the entire Internet.

        The real benefit of having a standard is that there is some well-defined notion of what is "standard" and what is an "extension".

        In Java, there is a mechanism for making platform-specific extensions and the programmers must consiously use them, making the resulting lack of platform interoperability obvious. What MS tried to do with Java was change the behaviour of the "standard" JVM. In that way, it may have been impossible for the developer to know they were using such extensions until they tried to run it using a non MS-JVM.

  • Perhaps "Student" isn't the proper description... As far as I knew he was running Clarkson's tech crew for a while when I arrived my freshman year (6 years ago)
  • Miguel is either making a huge mistake, or he's a genius.

    When the whole .NET buzzword bingo started, I spent some time digging around for some information on it, and what I came up with was very impressive. I compared what Microsoft are proposing, with the developments going on in the open source community, and the thing that struck me was the synergy and scale of .NET. If it was coming from any other company apart from Microsoft, then I think we'd all be throwing a party.

    But we all know that MS plays dirty. Other posters have given examples already. Which makes me question whether Miguel is being utterly naive in thinking that Microsoft won't screw the Mono project.

    The technical side of .NET is appealing, and maybe Mono is what the community needs to get a development environment (by which I mean API, runtime etc) to rival MS. If we get compatibility with .NET as a byproduct of this, then I'd consider it a bonus. If GNOME is ported to Mono, along with GTK, what else could be? Maybe Mozilla, Jabber, Apache and who knows what? If MS intentionally break compatability with Mono, then we'd have two similar architectures with a whole bundle of applications. It may actually help push Linux on the desktop - especially if the modifications MS make are subtle enough to break Mono, but not most applications. Perhaps third party developers would find fixing the problem worthwhile if it means they get a few million more users.

    Which leads me to think that maybe there is a hint of genius in Miguel's actions. A paraphrase of a quote describing genius stated that 'A clever person is someone who comes up with an idea that makes you think "I could have thought of that". A genius is someone who comes up with an idea that makes you think "I would never have thought of that!"'

    Time will tell I guess.
    • But we all know that MS plays dirty. Other posters have given examples already. Which makes me question whether Miguel is being utterly naive in thinking that Microsoft won't screw the Mono project.

      They might want to screw the mono project, but they can't. The worst they could do is provide proprietary extensions. This would partially sabotage Windows compatibility, but it would not stop Mono from being useful in its own right. The key point here is that the platform is going to be useful in its own right, it's not just a Microsoft emulator.

      If GNOME is ported to Mono, along with GTK, what else could be? Maybe Mozilla, Jabber, Apache and who knows what? If MS intentionally break compatability with Mono, then we'd have two similar architectures with a whole bundle of applications.

      I strongly agree with this sentiment. Microsoft can extend it, but then, so can we (-; and we could make it work to our advantage. I haven't been a great fan of GNOME, but I think Miguel's new vision is a winner.

  • "With .NET once an API is published it's available to all programming languages at the same time."

    With comments like these, Miguel has really lost it. Perhaps he never had it to begin with.

    He appears to have this entirely fantastical idea that when Mono reaches 1.0, we will be able to just plug in the existing C, C++, Perl, etc code bases into it and, WAMMO!, instant cross language, cross platform code. I can understand his frustration with updating Gnome language bindings. However, I think his mind has snapped from doing that kind of work.

    He has bought into the central .NET MYTH: that you can just willy-nilly plug in existing languages in the CLR nirvana. He has become one of those .NET fan boys who show up touting that .NET supports over twenty programming languages.

    Note to Miguel: the cross languages promises of .NET are a pile of large stinking COW dookey!

    Programmers don't like half assed solutions to problems. And that is just what Perl, Python and name-your-favorite-language are inside the world of .NET. What are the hard realities:

    (1) Languages evolve. The .NET support for the .NET versions of languages do not. Programmers don't want to work with 80 percent of the features of their chosen language simply because the .NET version of the language doesn't support it. They also don't want to deal with compatibility problems arising with FunctionA() acts differently when run under the C++.NET as opposed to the native C++ environment.

    (2) The Common Type System and Common Class Libraries of the .NET universe impose straight jackets on languages that no programmers will want to deal with. Programmers don't want to be confined to using a limited set of types and classes just so their program can function in the CLR. Should I even mention the compatibility problems that existing code will have within the .NET sandbox?

  • Elitist whiners. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by U6H! ( 549238 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @06:53PM (#2939737)
    It seems some people yearn for the days when they where the only ones using linux. They are as bad as M$ trying to put themselves on a pedestal by sabotaging other peoples attempt to step out of ignorance.

    Business is good. A "mixing of open source and close source ideologies" ends up making a very competitive and successfull candidate. It's not that one or the other is necessarily bad, but that extremes of either become self defeating. Sure RedHat has certain proprietary secrets which they use to make a profit. So what. They also make linux very accessable and allow more people to discover the 'joy' of linux. These heady idealist who scream down with all things proprietary are nothing more than neo-hippy-nihilist-posers who need to think before they parrot. Part of what makes linux and open source such an inspiring concept is that it makes information accessable to the people, and thusly empowers them to some extent. Successfull business' that push open source solutions manage to put the empowering project in more hands, and helps to fuel the ongoing development and exploration in the community. I think it's very symbiotic. The real bitch I think these people have is that money no longer falls out of the trees. Such is the state of the economy. Many of us are finding we have to work for a living. For some of us, this is no revelation. Some of us even find joy in our work.

  • RMS Attendance (Score:2, Interesting)

    by warrior ( 15708 )
    The newsforge comment on RMS' attendance habits is just plain false. RMS was at LWCE in San Jose in the fall of '99, and there was no "GNU" prefix attached. He was really tearing up the dance floor at the /. /Andover party :)

    Mike

  • If Sun wants to have people use the Sparc chip in embedded systems like network routers, then they should make some hardware available to do just that. I suggest starting with a small box not larger than the old lunchbox machines (e.g. IPC, IPX, LX, etc) and preferrably smaller, with the following features:

    • UltraSparc CPU
    • 2 DIMM or DDR slots, at least 2GB capacity
    • SVGA style video, 1MB min video buffer (4MB better)
    • PS/2 or USB style keyboard and mouse
    • Integrated IDE based thin CDROM
    • separate EIDE HD connection (and space in box for it)
    • proper active ventilation for a HD
    • dual or trio 10/100 ethernet (so it can be a firewall)
    • dual serial (console capable as usual)
    • dual USB (not counting for keyboard/mouse)
    • dual FireWire
    • integrated ISDN modem
    • integrated SDSL/ADSL modem
    • integrated Cable modem
    • parallel port

    If they sell that beast w/o HD, w/o RAM, but with a 1 GHz CPU, for say $500, I'd bet it will sell fast. Oh, and if IBM does the same but with a PPC-64 CPU at 1 GHz, I'd bet that would sell fast, too.

    Now if they added a 2nd CPU, ultra fast 3D graphical video, and joystick controls, and sold it for $300 ... uh, no ... I am not going to share this excellent weed with you :-)

  • Pogojesus (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Graymalkin ( 13732 ) on Friday February 01, 2002 @10:01PM (#2940475)
    Why is it so easy to hate members of the "Linux community"? Is it because they are the whiniest bunch of computer users ever? Is it because they kick and scream like the children they are when they don't get their way? Is it because they are just fucking stupid? I don't really know which one to pick. Two years ago Linux geeks were complaining about not getting corporate support. Now they are complaining about actually having corporate support. Now when somebody suggests they have a method to interact with the rest of the world they kick and scream because the great satan was the one who came up with the buzz words. What the fuck?

    Miguel de Icaza wanting to add real functionality to Linux is not a damning offence. Half the fucking posts on this thread seem to think Miguel is off his rocker or Bill Gates' bitch or something. That is just fucking retarded. He's a damn good programmer who knows Linux is way behind the times when it comes to interacting with the real business world. Stateful RPC methods need to hit the road. They don't fit into topologies where you have multiple servers behind a single address that are all processing requests for the sake up upping your throughput. Stuff like the LVSP isn't going to work with FTP or rsh connections though works well with HTTP. XML based RPC (or any stateless RPC method) are much more efficient in modern networks because I don't need to fuck with my external network configuration to add capacity. SOAP and the whole .NET system is based around stateless XML based RPC methods. This is a GOOD THING for interoperability. As long as you conform to the SOAP your program can talk with another program not matter what sort of machine it is running on or where it is running. A common runtime for languages isn't so bad either. You can write a program on any architecture and run it on any other architecture that has a compliant runtime environment and bytecode translator. Don't use the CLR if you wahnt to preserve certain functionality for a given language. It would be cool though to be able to write apps for GNOME that would run on any OS and architecture that has the CLR compliant GNOME libraries. No recompiling required. A house that does all C/C++ development doesn't need to learn Java in order to write a program they can sell to just about anybody running just about any computer. Just because the idea proposed by microsoft doesn't make it evil. In fact I'd say Miguel is doing the GNU thing by writing a free implimentation of non-free software. This is what the whole GNU crap is about. Slashdotters seem too fucking stupid to understand this point.

    • Re:Pogojesus (Score:2, Insightful)

      by I_redwolf ( 51890 )
      I think you're too fucking stupid to see the bigger picture. This has absolutely nothing to do with the technology. THE API is sound, it's a great idea and I support the design. I DO NOT support Microsoft, EVER, they've fucked too many people over period and I forsee this to be just a waste of time. Microsoft WILL extend this API for their own needs and lock out everyone else once they have what they feel to be enough market share. At that point all of what you said above goes into the fucking garbage. This is NOT a company that wants inteoprability thats why .NET/C# was thought up in the first place. So they could do whatever they want and answer to no one. Don't people learn from the past, hasn't anyone learned that no matter how nice Microsoft is or seems to be they want this whole internet thing in their back pocket? Slashdotters may be stupid, but they aren't blind to history. Microsoft will take this .NET thing, leave Ximian as the company offering their opensource part of the deal, steal market-share (mono will still behind) and once they've got enough.. It's over.. So mono will become what java is now in it's most basic form.

      You can get fucked if you want to.. I've seen a long list of companies that have been fucked by microsoft and will not wait in line for my turn.
      • So your point is...what? Microsoft is evil and they are going to come to my house sodomize me? How exactly is Mono supporting Microsoft? Mono is an open implimentation of a closed source project. This is the original fucking intend of the GNU project. Are you retarded? None of your comments about Microsoft even pertain to the subject of Miguel de Icaza supporting the use of an ECMA standard. Actually from the gist of your retarded spouting I think you've got some issues with unconventional sex. I think you need to admit to the world that you're a pillow biter. You're only going to keep this projection nonsense up which doesn't do anything but make you look like a complete idiot. Take your anti-Microsoft zealotry as well as your discomfort with your sexual leanings and go tell someone who gives a fuck.
  • This would be a great time for the people at odds with microsoft to think about the future.

    Linux needs something other than Microsoft/Gnome.

    Java won't cut it, being held tightly by Sun (who is going to use Gnome anyway).

    So, what the heck is the alternative? KDE (with the licensing issues?)

    The last guy I worked with from Ximian had a severe fetish for python, so maybe they can do something?
  • Miguel's comments completely shocked me like when Luke Skywalker got his hand chopped off in "The Empire Strikes Back".

    I have no idea about the "technical" pros and cons of .NET, what the future of it holds or whether it is a true "sell-out" to MS, but I can say by embracing the ".NET" name alone Miguel just did a boatload for MS PR.

    Average Joe now thinks that MS=.NET and Miguel just said that Gnome=.NET. Sun said they'll use Gnome2 and obviosly Linux uses Gnome, thus indirectly Sun and Linux now support .NET, which again indirectly says that they all support MS.

    Next he said that Ximian will lag 1 year behind MS, thus MS is superior and the "leader" in the technology. Now most high-level managers have the technical knowlege of "the average Joe" and to them Miguel just validated that .NET is "the future" and that Microsoft will be "the leader". Is it sound business to use products that lag behind by 1 year? Of course not. They'll all choose MS because now they think .NET is the future to everything, there is no alternative and that MS is the leader of it.

    This is so sad. The game's over. MS wins if they pull this off -- it doesn't matter what is technically superior -- if MS wins the PR battle they can make monkey dung and people will flock to buy it. Case and point: OS/2 versus Windows 3.0.

    MS just got one of the "leaders" of Open-Source to fully endorse their technology (and thus indirectly thier products). I'm glad I got my class B CDL so that I can drive busses when MS owns the technological world.

  • Remember that the GNU Object Model Environment was formed, and it's ultimate final goal still is, to provide a whole heap of things for the FSF's GNU project. Obviously, a GUI infrastructure; a component architecture, GUI applications and other such niceties also fall within it's domain.

    When Stallman decided that he wanted a free operating system, and started up the whole GNU thing, he decided to clone one of the most popular hacking environments at the time: Unix. Remember that every working Unix was proprietary at the time. Now, it's up to GNOME to provide GNU with a whole bunch of "modern" features, so why not work off of .NET?

    .NET is a lot more centrally controlled than Unix was, so I agree that there's a serious danger of GNOME being burnt horribly. But if they're willing to take that risk, and think they can surmount it, I don't think "We can't use .NET! We're all turning into Microsofties! Linux rules!" on it's own is a valid argument.

    And if it doesn't work, there's always KDE. (Just think, as KDE and GNOME branch out further from each other in their goals and approach to things, they might start to get different enough that comparisons can be entirely free of religious arguments! :)

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close