Solve real business challenges on Google Cloud and run workloads for free. For Slashdot users: Get $300 in free credits to fully explore Google Cloud. Get started for free today.
Posted
by
chrisd
from the what's-a-nice-coder-like-you-doing-in-a-place-like-this dept.
twigman writes "MSDN has an interview with Ximian CTO Miguel de Icaza about Mono and past Ximian projects. It's a surprisingly objective discussion, definitely worth a read." Of course we're not surprised Miguel is objective...
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
No one was banned from any DotGNU lists. A few times in the early days of the project, the lists were put into moderation mode when discussion got inappropriately heated or off topic. Martin claimed that having this moderation imposed constitued banning, but that simply isn't the case. It's unfortunate that Martin felt rejected by the need for moderation, but we didn't intend it as such.
I even personally had some of my posts rejected during one of the moderation periods.
Bradley M. Kuhn, member of the DotGNU Steering Committee
They are abandoning their GNU values because they are now involved in proprietary software (original poster indicated the particular proprietary product they sell).
GNU is about accepting the fact that source code is nothing more than information. This has been gone over ad nauseum. Any, and I mean any god dammit, attempt to restrict access to source code is evil according to GNU Values. Ximian is now evil. That they are now working with the Devil then should come as no surprise.
Actually, it isn't possible to work with MS without selling your soul. By working with Microsoft you are explicitly telling the world that their licenses and policies and practicies should not be a reason to avoid doing business with MS. They are just another company and we need to be pragmatic about our values -- that's the message Ximian and you are sending.
I think Stallman would give you a pretty harsh answer to your issue about more collaboration with MS.
The MS APIs have been reasonably consistent since Windows 3. A new OS or library only adds functions, doesn't revise old ones. You should be able to compile Win 3.x code on XP with little problem should you so wish.
(Windows) and the fastest-growing OS platform (Linux) will use more or less the same standard for Internet-wide authentication.
If you read the Mono FAQ, you will see that it really has nothing to do with "Internet-wide authentication". The Liberty Alliance could easily write.Net and/or Mono classes so developers could handle authentication through the Liberty Alliance system instead of Passport.
From the Mono FAQ: Question 18: If you implement.NET, will I depend on Microsoft Passport to run my software?
No. The.NET Framework is a runtime infrastructure and collection of class libraries. Passport may be required to access certain web services written for that framework, but only if the programmer chooses Passport as the authentication mechanism.
I'll admit that some of the things Microsoft does are "scary", but the.Net development platform actually seems to have some good ideas in it. It is just too bad that MS and Sun couldn't play nice in the past. Then we would just be seeing improvements to the Java standard instead of a whole new platform.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Thursday December 13, 2001 @11:52AM (#2699039)
"I think a Linux desktop environment and services platform based on C#/CLR will be so much better, more efficient, and more robust than the current systems based on plain C or C++."
C# is in no way more efficient then C++ compiled to machine code (in.net you can also compile it to CLR byte code, but then why use C++). C#'s big benifits are that it is theoretically cross platform (by cross platform I mean it will run on all platforms with a CLR), a hell of a lot faster then Java, and a newer, less kludgy language then C++.
If you want a blazing fast.net service that can handle the most number of concurrent connections, write it in C++. If you want the service to run on multiple platforms write it in C# (or be masochistic and write in C++ and compile to byte code). That being said, the new managed C++ in.net blows ass.
No one was banned from DotGNU lists (Score:5, Informative)
No one was banned from any DotGNU lists. A few times in the early days of the project, the lists were put into moderation mode when discussion got inappropriately heated or off topic. Martin claimed that having this moderation imposed constitued banning, but that simply isn't the case. It's unfortunate that Martin felt rejected by the need for moderation, but we didn't intend it as such.
I even personally had some of my posts rejected during one of the moderation periods.
Bradley M. Kuhn, member of the DotGNU Steering Committee
Re:desperate times, desperate measures? (Score:2, Informative)
GNU is about accepting the fact that source code is nothing more than information. This has been gone over ad nauseum. Any, and I mean any god dammit, attempt to restrict access to source code is evil according to GNU Values. Ximian is now evil. That they are now working with the Devil then should come as no surprise.
Actually, it isn't possible to work with MS without selling your soul. By working with Microsoft you are explicitly telling the world that their licenses and policies and practicies should not be a reason to avoid doing business with MS. They are just another company and we need to be pragmatic about our values -- that's the message Ximian and you are sending.
I think Stallman would give you a pretty harsh answer to your issue about more collaboration with MS.
Re:He's M$ Employee ??? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Miguel is the smart fellow (Score:2, Informative)
If you read the Mono FAQ, you will see that it really has nothing to do with "Internet-wide authentication". The Liberty Alliance could easily write .Net and/or Mono classes so developers could handle authentication through the Liberty Alliance system instead of Passport.
From the Mono FAQ: .NET, will I depend on Microsoft Passport to run my software?
Question 18: If you implement
No. The .NET Framework is a runtime infrastructure and collection of class libraries. Passport may be required to access certain web services written for that framework, but only if the programmer chooses Passport as the authentication mechanism.
I'll admit that some of the things Microsoft does are "scary", but the .Net development platform actually seems to have some good ideas in it. It is just too bad that MS and Sun couldn't play nice in the past. Then we would just be seeing improvements to the Java standard instead of a whole new platform.
Re:We could have had a working Mono two years ago. (Score:2, Informative)
C# is in no way more efficient then C++ compiled to machine code (in
If you want a blazing fast