Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
A New Direction for GNOME

By pwhysall in News
Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 12:08:45 PM EST
Tags: Software (all tags)
Software

GNOME founder and Ximian employee Miguel de Icaza has been discussing the direction he'd like to see GNOME take in an interview with The Register.

Fairly standard bluesky, "here's the the roadmap as I see it" stuff. He talks about GNOME versions 3 and 4, so we're looking well into the future.

Oh, and one more thing. He wants GNOME 3 to be based on .NET.


There are a couple of points that fall out of this interview. Firstly, de Icaza doesn't have the same god-like power over GNOME that Linus does over the kernel. He's influential, sure. But the real "leader" of GNOME is surely Havoc Pennington.

Secondly, I think that if de Icaza (and by extension, Ximian) do go forward with this, GNOME will fork. There will be a Mono version, and a Bonobo version. This will happen regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, because some people are violently opposed to using technology that is in any way associated with or emanates from Microsoft.

The problem (for the Bonobo-based GNOME people) is that Ximian are really, really good at developing GNOME apps that people actually want. There isn't a mail, contacts and calendar program on Linux (or any other operating system, IMHO) to match Evolution. Only StarOffice and OpenOffice hold a candle to Gnumeric. The Ximian Setup Tools are showing severe signs of having been designed for actual normal people to use. Red Carpet is a dependency-solving, channel-based, distro-independent system updater and software installer that actual normal people have a hope in hell of using.

With Miguel driving Mono-based GNOME development, it's highly unlikely that these applications will continue to be developed on Bonobo come GNOME 3.0. Sure, they're GPLed, so you can do the work yourself, but porting from one component architecture to another is a lot of work, and even assuming you could find enough people to do it, you'd always be some number of versions behind. Of course, Ximian could opt to use Mono to generate Bonobo components, and the Ximian Mono-based applications will still be able to talk to Bonobo applications, but I'm guessing (uneducatedly, admittedly) that Mono-generated Bonobo components are going to be less efficiently than straight Bonobo ones. Performance is going to be a big issue.

The question in my mind is, "does it matter if GNOME is based on Mono?", which in turn really begs the question, "What does Mono bring to the party that only Mono can provide?".

If Mono provides new capabilities that are going to be required to build the next generation of net-enabled, secure desktop applications, then there are two options. Build these capabilities into new versions of Bonobo, or go with Mono. All this is, of course, assuming that we want to build these types of applications on GNOME. You can be sure that Ximian are going to, though. What I'm most concerned about is the possibility of Ximian becoming the de-facto GNOME standard, with the actual GNOME Foundation being regarded as something of an anachronism while Ximian do all the cool beans.

No one company should be in a position to dictate the GNOME development direction, be it Ximian, Sun or HP. That's what I'm really bothered about, rather than the component architecture.

One of the things that attracted me to GNOME rather than KDE in the first place some two and a half years ago was that the development process was truly Free; it could never be taken hostage by this company or that changing this or that licence agreement. I don't want to see that situation change, even with a company as cool and as seemingly proficient as Ximian.

There's also a very cynical part of my brain that is whispering in my ear that the whole Mono project is the first plank in a strategy by Ximian to take control of the GNOME project. In the future according to Miguel, whoever controls Mono will control GNOME. And that, perhaps, is Ximian's goal.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o GNOME
o Miguel de Icaza
o interview
o The Register
o .NET
o kernel
o Havoc Pennington
o Ximian
o Mono
o Bonobo
o Microsoft
o Evolution
o StarOffice
o OpenOffice
o Gnumeric
o Ximian Setup Tools
o Red Carpet
o Also by pwhysall


Display: Sort:
A New Direction for GNOME | 58 comments (58 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Weargh! (3.58 / 12) (#1)
by gromgull on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 07:59:49 AM EST

What is this ? A k5 article that, gasp, is original? It is not MLP! It is based on the register but it goes beyond the original article. ARGH! The world wont stand till tomorrow.

+fp.
--
If I had my way I'd have all of you shot

*blush* (3.00 / 3) (#2)
by pwhysall on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 08:06:41 AM EST

Why thank you :)

I rated you 5 by way of thanks.
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
[ Parent ]

It does happen! (none / 0) (#73)
by rusty on Mon Feb 04, 2002 at 05:24:13 AM EST

A couple times a month, at least. If you pay close attention.

My theory on this is remarkably similar to the Law of Boring 24-Hour News Networks: Interesting things just don't happen that often.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Bonobo will stay (4.37 / 8) (#3)
by Drone X on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 08:23:49 AM EST

In the TheRegister article Miguel does not speak of the demise of Bonobo by Mono, in fact he has in the past said Bonobo will be integrated into Mono.

I refuse to believe Nautilus/Evolution/Gnumeric/etc. are going to be rewritten in C#, that's just impossible. What may happen is that we'll see a mix of C and C# components in Evolution and other parts of the GNOME desktop.

I'm also unsure why you believe Ximian has or will get a control over the GNOME desktop. The volunteers working on GNOME, Sun, Mandrake, Red Hat et al are not going to let that happen.

Heck, Ximian won't even have much control over Mono because it would lose a lot of its value if they became incompatible with MS's .NET. That plus the fact that Mono is AFAIK largely developed by volunteers -- the maintainers file seems to support this. Those non-Ximian maintainers don't have an interest in letting Ximian use Mono as a tool for GNOME-domination.

Monkey sense

Application Leverage (4.50 / 2) (#4)
by pwhysall on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 08:49:42 AM EST

Firstly, Nautilus is not a Ximian product. Evolution is 100% Ximian, and Gnumeric is a sponsored project.

The reason that GNOME (despite being (allegedly) ugly, (allegedly) slow, and (allegedly) technologically inferior to KDE) still manages to make itself the desktop of choice on the distro of choice (Red Hat Linux) is because of the strong application support, some details of which I give in the story.

This hand will only be strengthened when OpenOffice moves to a GTK+ interface, because then OpenOffice will nestle right in with your other GNOME applications. Look and feel is important. Given that Sun have jumped aboard the GNOME bus, I would also make the tentative prediction that OpenOffice will eventually be a GNOME application.

KDE might be strong now, but unless heavyweight application support arrives soon, we might look back on the end of 2001 as the high point of KDE's time on the desktop.

Control of core technologies like Mono (via the considerable but not absolute influence of Miguel de Icaza) and core applications of Evolution means that Ximian has a disproportionate influence on the direction of GNOME development.

I guess I should also point out that I run Ximian GNOME as my (pretty, fast, technologically spiffy) desktop, I love it to bits, and I really, really don't want to have a reason to stop loving it.
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
[ Parent ]

Re: Application Leverage (3.50 / 2) (#5)
by Drone X on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 09:10:38 AM EST

Firstly, Nautilus is not a Ximian product. Evolution is 100% Ximian, and Gnumeric is a sponsored project.
I never claimed Nautilus or Gnumeric were Ximian products. I know exactly what they are. I listed them because they are core GNOME applications and thus GNOME will never be based on Mono without having these applications use Mono. (Yes, Windows too will not be based on the .NET runtime.)
The reason that GNOME (despite being (allegedly) ugly, (allegedly) slow, and (allegedly) technologically inferior to KDE) still manages to make itself the desktop of choice on the distro of choice (Red Hat Linux) is because of the strong application support, some details of which I give in the story.
Dare I say troll? I too can claim KDE is ugly, slow and technologically inferior. I can claim that KDE only exists because SuSE and Mandrake distro support.
A two paragraph-length KDE Vs. GNOME rant skipped.
Control of core technologies like Mono (via the considerable but not absolute influence of Miguel de Icaza) and core applications of Evolution means that Ximian has a disproportionate influence on the direction of GNOME development.
How do they control Mono? As I said in my previous post: they need to keep Mono compatible with what MS does or it will lose _a_lot_ of its value.

I don't understand how you call Evolution a "core application", it's not even part of GNOME! Sure, it will probably be part of GNOME some day but they'll have to make it conform to the HIG, use gconf, etc.

Fact is that if Evolution, Red Carpet and Mono use a different button ordering as GNOME 2 or if they don't use gconf, they will feel as alien on GNOME desktop as they do on KDE.

Monkey sense
[ Parent ]

Why C#? (3.00 / 4) (#9)
by brunes69 on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 12:38:53 PM EST

I refuse to believe Nautilus/Evolution/Gnumeric/etc. are going to be rewritten in C#, that's just impossible.

Just because the product is to be moved to .NET does not in any way mean it needs to be written in C#. The .NET framework can work with any language at all, provided that language has a compiler capable of producing the CIL runtime. Think of it like Java; if you wrote a C compiler that produced correct Java bytecodes, that program could be run in any JRE. The same goes with .NET. It would probably take alot less effort to add onto GCC to produce CIL code than it would be to re-write all the GNOME applications, and I think this is probably the plan.



---There is no Spoon---
[ Parent ]
Because (3.00 / 3) (#10)
by Drone X on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 01:03:20 PM EST

at the Mono project they happen to be working on a C# compiler

If C-code is compiled for the CIL, can it use the classlibrary provided by Mono? To allow for this you're going to need an object-system like GObject in glib. If you'd want to take advantage of the garbage collecter in the runtime you'll need even more ugly hacks.

No, it's probably more likely that they're going to wrap GNOME API's such as Gtk+ (which they seem to be already doing), GNOME-VFS, Bonobo bindings, etc. I just don't see any advantages to recompiling to the CLI.

Monkey sense
[ Parent ]

I don't want distributed applications (2.66 / 9) (#6)
by drquick on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 09:39:18 AM EST

.NET or Mono:: are both implementations of a system that aims at makeing the user dependant of application services on the internet. Commercially this will bind us in a way similar to Microsoft's previous licence schemes.

I'd prefer to have Bonobo stay and Gnome fork, if it has to! I hope the Gnome foundation is strong enough to say no.

The net gave me mono... (3.71 / 7) (#8)
by miah on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 12:02:54 PM EST

.NET or Mono:: are both implementations of a system that aims at makeing the user dependant of application services on the internet.

Not as I understand it. As I see it, they just make it really easy for a developer to make them that way. I would much prefer that someone make a competing .NET clone to keep MS on the up and up and not allow them to close everyone out.

The mono project can easily be summed up here nand almost all of the core Gnome technologies can be defined here. Try not to confuse the MS marketing blitz that smears the issue of this all to hell. .NET is an 'initiative' (whatever the hell that means) where MS is going to offer services based on .NET and there will be API support for you (the developer) to add your own. One of the reasons that MS made it sooooo big is the fact that they almost always are giving away cool technology to their developers. They certainly didn't make it big by making a stable operating system that is easy to configure for whatever task the user needs, Linus did!

One of the cooler tech's that will come out of .NET will be language interoperation. This means that I can write an extension to say Gnumeric in perl, my buddy can write a different one in Python and some guy in Indonesia can write one in C and they will all be able to talk over the same API. I'm sure there will be work to make a GCC C# compiler in the very near future. GCC is great in the way that it is just a framework that you can bolt your compiler to.

Now I don't disagree with you that this is scary as all hell. But change in scary sometimes, but I think it will be cool. Don't worry too much about someone 'taking' over a major project. Ximian has been a real shot in the arm to Gnome and has gotten the desktop polished (well, I really like it). And, if for some reason they do something that locks you in there has always been KDE and you can go back to using FVWM and Motif again...


Religion is not the opiate of the masses. It is the biker grade crystal meth of the masses.
SLAVEWAGE
[ Parent ]
I like the API ideas (3.50 / 2) (#41)
by sunyata on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 08:53:37 PM EST

But one thing I do not get is how is MS using this 'initiative' to have a grubby little hand in these 'services' being offered.

I read somewhere recently that the banks are starting to get wind that good ol MS is planning on grabbing profit from places where banks aleady do when it comes to online transactions. And that they are not happy about it.

Also, so does .NET mean a shift in how the internet actually works on protocol level? Is this the dreaded shift in API dominance we have feared MS would pull one day?

I do like some things MS does, I wish they were not the blatent criminals that they are, cos I would use their stuff more, but I just cant stand the idea, that I might feel like looking at Reese Witherspoons boobies one day, and be at a job interview two years later and have the person interviewing me say: " so whats with this celeb fetish?, and how about all those times you went to goatse.cx?"

I was tricked into going there!!

But will .NET be a necessity for 90% of the web users once it goes full force?

I dunno..

[ Parent ]
Surprise? (3.66 / 9) (#7)
by blues is dead on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 10:40:08 AM EST

Am I missing something? Why would this not be obvious? Or does the recent license change to another Free license prod people to reexamine Ximian's intentions?

RMS' thoughts are interesting on the license change. He agrees, though is disappointed that Mono may have made unnecessary concessions.

Even Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and author of the GPL agrees, for the most part. "It is a good idea to use a license more lax than the GPL for the class libraries," Stallman says. "There are strategic reasons why it is advantageous, for the long-term overall progress towards Free Software, to make it possible to use free C# class libraries for any program that could run with Microsoft's C# class libraries."

Stallman believes that the Lesser GPL would have been a better choice for the libraries, because "using the X11 license makes a major unnecessary concession: It allows non-free versions of the libraries themselves." He says that using the LGPL would allow linking to non-free programs, but would preserve the free status of the library itself.



The Linux Zelots need to calm down (3.60 / 15) (#11)
by hardburn on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 01:14:36 PM EST

OK, I know just about every GNU/Linux user who moved in from a Windows OS hates Microsoft to some degree, and Microsoft has not given us very many reasons to begin likeing them anytime soon. Such users are often stuck in a "Zelot" stage where they are violently opposed to anything with Microsoft's name on it.

(Note here that I am not counting the many people who came to GNU/Linux with a background in 0ld sk00l Unix systems, who are usually much calmer.)

When a Zelot calms down a bit (though some never will), he turns into an "Enlightened User". You start realizeing that, while Microsoft is still bad, you are perfectly welcome to ignore them and get on with your life. And Microsoft does make a few good products (their hardware division is great, with the possible exception of the X-Box; I don't think I'll ever buy a non-Microsoft joystick again).

Now we have .NET. It's hyped a lot, for sure. Some say it is ripped off of Java. However, there is something the Zelots are missing: So far, Microsoft has been more open about .NET than Sun ever has been with Java. If they keep this up, and if I can use a .NET-enabled Gnome without using any non-free software, I don't see any reason why we can't use it.


----
while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


APIs (2.66 / 3) (#14)
by mold on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 03:02:51 PM EST

Bravah, I'm glad someone finally said it.

However, it isn't .NET that that copies Java, it is C#. .NET is the APIs and such, and is supposed to be language independent.

PS -- I love Microsoft's hardware. And the Xbox is no exception. I have three, and I haven't had any problems with any of them.

---
Beware of peanuts! There's a 0.00001% peanut fatality rate in the USA alone! You could be next!
[ Parent ]
Anagrams (4.00 / 4) (#17)
by zephc on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 03:45:30 PM EST

Java is to C# as .NET is to...

J2EE (more or less) =]

That's basically what .NET wants to be, services that tie you into subscriptions, except J2EE is focused towards server solutions ingeneral, rather than MS's eventual goal of constant relicensing of their software by end users.

This is why I use a mac... more of the traditional "each computer is an island" concept, where I'm the king of my own island =]

[ Parent ]
*ugh* (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by zephc on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 04:05:33 PM EST

I really must get more sleep...
s/Anagrams/Analogies

[ Parent ]
Um... (4.00 / 1) (#31)
by DeadBaby on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 07:18:11 PM EST

That's not what .NET is though. Download the .NET SDK from MSDN, it's huge but if you read some documentation you'll understand the concepts behind it far better. The only thing that's even slightly subscription based is passport and it's not required for a .NET app -- at all.

You can pick up a copy of VS.NET, develop regular C/C++ applications using .NET and you'll never be paying anyone a subscription.

If you mean Microsoft wants to get into the web services market... that's true but again... a totally portable app in C# using .NET doesn't have to even pretend to be a web service.

In the end, developers are going to use .NET however they see fit even if Microsoft has some grand plan, which is highly doubtful.


"Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us." - Carl Sagan
[ Parent ]
That's not even a bad thing... (3.33 / 3) (#29)
by DeadBaby on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 07:13:48 PM EST

I don't understand why copying Java in this case is bad. First of all, as you said... the only area Microsoft cloned Java was with C#, the actual .NET library itself can be used the same way any other API can - you can use .NET and not necessary use C#. That being said...

What's the problem? Sun has been making promises Java hasn't been able to deliver on. It has found a nice niche with servlets but Java applications themselves are as far away now as they were 5 years ago. You can point to various Java UI libraries but they're simply not good enough, maybe someday. If Microsoft can implement Sun's promises with their software in a fraction of the time with real results I think that's capitalism at work. You can say Sun is a nice cuddley company that loves you and Microsoft isn't, and that makes Java better but that's pure BS. Sun is as blood thirsty as anyone else.

I think everyone whose used Java really likes it, the language itself is very nice but there always seems to be a precise list of reasons a developer can give you as to why he's still using win32/c/++ instead of rolling out their new product with Java, a nice JIT compiler and Swing.

There's definitely a reason that Java hasn't caught developers attention in the market Microsoft is trying to target with .NET/C# (desktop -- services) If Sun had managed Java a little better they could have been quite successful. To use a beautiful capitalist term, Microsoft is going to eat Sun's lunch.

"Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us." - Carl Sagan
[ Parent ]
FUD Alert (3.75 / 4) (#15)
by bleach on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 03:24:56 PM EST

>So far, Microsoft has been more open about .NET than Sun ever has been with Java.

This is the common FUD spread by Microsoft regarding the Java standard, but you forgot one important thing... the truth.

The truth is.. Sun can't protect an open standard. If Java was a totally open standard then Microsoft could "embrace and extend" Java into the ground and destroy it. Sun isn't stupid.

The truth is, Sun makes every step possible to keep Java as standard as possible and documents it VERY VERY VERY well. Go to http://java.sun.com/docs/books and see for yourself. Scroll down, look at the bottom. THAT is the standard.

Sun also goes to great pains to receive feedback from the community and industry. In fact a lot of the EJB and J2EE standards were dictated by application server companies. Check out http://developer.java.sun and you can give sun feedback on what you want in java.

#define CODE "\270\105\000\000\303";
int (*foo)();main(){foo=CODE;printf("I like to %d\n",foo());}
[ Parent ]
Mono (3.00 / 1) (#19)
by mold on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 04:22:15 PM EST

The fact that Microsoft allows compatible competition such as Mono, without getting upset and sueing, as Sun did, leads me to believe that Microsoft is more open...

By the way, what is your problem with MS? Are you an ex-employee that was laid off or something?

---
Beware of peanuts! There's a 0.00001% peanut fatality rate in the USA alone! You could be next!
[ Parent ]
Crack Pipe? (4.50 / 2) (#22)
by bleach on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 04:39:26 PM EST

The only person sun sued over Java was Microsoft.. that is because Microsoft's implementation of java was not even close to being compatable with Sun's java. In fact, Microsoft went through great pains to make imcompatabilities.

There are other providers of Java... there are over 20 J2EE application server providers.. There are many JVMs (IBM makes the best JVM, and they haven't been sued).
#define CODE "\270\105\000\000\303";
int (*foo)();main(){foo=CODE;printf("I like to %d\n",foo());}
[ Parent ]
Microsoft (3.50 / 2) (#24)
by mold on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 05:49:43 PM EST

The only problem with Microsoft's implementation was that it had Windows only libraries. There was, for a while, a bug that 100% compatible code wouldn't compile and remain cross-platform compatible, but they did fix that. And if people want to write single-OS compatible code, in my opinion, they should be allowed to, if that OS has features that others don't... Unless of course, you're advocating that everyone should follow a minimalist standard. All though that has advantages, technology would never advance.

---
Beware of peanuts! There's a 0.00001% peanut fatality rate in the USA alone! You could be next!
[ Parent ]
I don't get it. (3.00 / 2) (#28)
by bleach on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 06:57:57 PM EST

Why do people that no nothing about java continue to speak about java? :) If people want to write system dependent java code they can with the JNI (Java Native Interface). Even tho it is pointless for 95% of the applications out there. If every vendor was allowed to add system specific libraries with their JVMs.. than Java would no longer be a standard.. which brings us back to our origional point. If a vendor wants to make a JVM which fits the standard.. they can.

Technology won't advance till software companies make more software in platform independent ways. That does not have to be minimalist either. I don't care if people use Java, perl, tcl, lisp, or any other platform indepent language. But whatever language it is, the standard needs to be bullet proof. Java is not perfect, but it is the best so far and will be bullet proof in the near future.

Untill you can walk into a store and buy applications you can run on any operating system, or computer.. there will be no true advancement.
#define CODE "\270\105\000\000\303";
int (*foo)();main(){foo=CODE;printf("I like to %d\n",foo());}
[ Parent ]
For one thing.... (2.00 / 1) (#44)
by mold on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 09:21:53 PM EST

I'm a professional java programmer, and I'm sure I know more about it than you ;-)

Now that I've gotten the personal blast out of the way, as long as you support the original standard, and you add extentions, that the programmers can choose to use or not, you're fine, as well as having the possibility of increasing the standard, if your extentions become popular enough. That's why, for languages such as PHP, and Perl, you have repositories of code.

You, my friend, seem to be advocating that new libraries should never be written, because then you've gone against a standard. That, is complete, and utter, idiocy.

---
Beware of peanuts! There's a 0.00001% peanut fatality rate in the USA alone! You could be next!
[ Parent ]
(hopefully) not a zealot, but... (4.66 / 3) (#27)
by ethereal on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 06:48:06 PM EST

When a Zelot calms down a bit (though some never will), he turns into an "Enlightened User". You start realizeing that, while Microsoft is still bad, you are perfectly welcome to ignore them and get on with your life.

With all due respect, although some of the zealotry does probably spring from elitism due to mastering a new Linux environment, I don't think that's the main source of it. The real reason is that, having escaped momentarily from things Microsoft, they just keep coming back for you. Microsoft is not something you can ignore - their goals are to control the entire world of computing, which by definition involves shutting out all other alternatives. None of this is a surprise at this point; it is all entirely documented in various trial proceedings over the last few years.

Microsoft folk in your company are relentless evangelizers, many of them (but not all, so don't jump all over me for saying y'all can't code) because they couldn't learn to ever work in another environment again. Microsoft is very good at encouraging this sort of dependent relationship from its developers. It is because of this that you can't just turn your back on Microsoft - you have to oppose it at every turn where there is a good reason to, in order to make sure that you're not going to be sucked into it by management fiat next week. It's happened to me; it could happen to you.

So, knee-jerk opposition to Microsoft: bad. Ignoring them because you hope they'll go away: worse. Considered criticism of Microsoftening within your place of work, coupled with complete description of alternatives: probably the best you can hope for.

As far as Mono goes, I'll believe that it works when I see it. And I'm not referring to the technology itself at all. I'll believe that it works if it survives for a couple years without actions by Microsoft to embrace, extend, or alter the .NET standard to break or marginalize Mono. There is no reason at the moment to trust Microsoft's standardization efforts; I'll have to see some proof that they really can provide a platform that isn't just a sucking-into-Microsoft-products experience before I'll feel comfortable using it. And no, just submitting it to ECMA doesn't count for anything yet - the proof is in what Microsoft does with .Net over the next few years.

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
[ Parent ]

Folks, there's nothing to worry about. (4.54 / 11) (#12)
by skeezix on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 01:26:16 PM EST

Firstly, there is no leader of GNOME like with the Linux kernel. It's not Havoc, it's not Miguel. Although those two individuals and many others provide very valuable leadership and direction, the real decisions are made by a community. The GNOME foundation also provides leadership and direction.

Mono is going to provide us another way to develop applications. The jury is still out on this one, though. There is no hidden conspiracy. If, in a couple of years, when Mono has matured, you want to develop your application using .NET, then you'll have that option. If you don't, you don't have to. When Miguel says that GNOME 4 should be based on .NET all he's saying is that he personally thinks .NET is a superior way of developing applications and solves many problems. But rest assured that a whole community will base their decisions about GNOME's future on many factors and will arrive at the decision that best benefits the community of users and developers.

who rules the standards of .NET? (4.00 / 1) (#25)
by svampa on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 06:14:19 PM EST

That's an important point, we have problems with HTML, even when there is an organization, w3, that writes standards. I don't want to imagine what will be the nightnamre if MS is the owner of standards.



[ Parent ]
Why the FUD? (3.61 / 13) (#13)
by MK77 on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 02:37:05 PM EST

.NET is a very, very nice platform for application development. I've been using Microsoft's Beta 2 SDK and now the final release of the SDK, and I'm very, very impressed. It's got the performance to write serious graphics applications, which is what I'm interested in, and Java didn't. (Think pointer-level access when you absolutely need it and a faster GUI library than swing). It's got the high level language features that make serious application development a pleasure, and C++ didn't.

Given all this, I think it's absolutely wonderful that the Mono project is progressing as quickly as it is. I don't want to have to choose between giving up developing for Linux and giving up the luxury of the .NET platform. That's why I've contributed a small about of code to the Mono project, and I plan to contribute more as time allows.

Mono is an important project, and if Gnome adopts it, all the better for Gnome.


--
Mmm... rageahol

Cat FUD (3.75 / 4) (#20)
by zephc on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 04:24:24 PM EST

> .NET is a very, very nice platform for application development.

Java isnt to bad either... great netowrking APIs etc

> It's got the performance to write serious graphics applications, which is what I'm interested in, and Java didn't. (Think pointer-level access when you absolutely need it and a faster GUI library than swing).

Sure, its easy to do that when most (all?) your GUI libs are wrappers for system-level GUI functionality. I'm sure the runtime is pretty slick too, which helps

> (Think pointer-level access when you absolutely need it and a faster GUI library than swing)

Pointer math is (should be) unnecessary with normal userland apps... at least its all sandboxed and you can't just spread MS CLR virii around =] Java does references implicitly, and (i think) you use the .clone() member function (inherited from Object class) to duplicate an object.

> It's got the high level language features that make serious application development a pleasure, and C++ didn't.

And java is is chopped liver? =]

> Given all this, I think it's absolutely wonderful that the Mono project is progressing as quickly as it is.

I see it as a way to increase mindshare, and, maybe get more OS converts, to the point where they could disconnect from MS, and leave it dead in the water. Say, if 90% of the users moved to the Linux-based, non-MS-controlled, .NET client called GNOME, and GNOME just abandons MS and forks .NET =] we can all dream...

I'm sticking with my Mac ;)

(the Subject to this post is a Far Side joke, by the way)

[ Parent ]
well ... (3.50 / 2) (#50)
by Kalani on Sun Feb 03, 2002 at 12:53:31 AM EST

Pointer math is (should be) unnecessary with normal userland apps

The example given was graphical applications, and especially in that context you need direct memory access. Huge per-pixel operations (drawing the Mandelbrot set, custom rasterization, prototyping your own T&L model, etc) require direct memory access because doing bounds checks and including the overhead of creating/destroying the stack frame for each pixel introduces a big (needless) performance hit.

-----
"I [think] that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement; in the end the machinery will be revealed and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the checker board."
--Richard Feynman
[ Parent ]
Java's almost as good (none / 0) (#82)
by MK77 on Mon Feb 04, 2002 at 04:55:33 PM EST

Java isnt to bad either... great netowrking APIs etc

Yep, Java's pretty nice. However, as I said above, the lack of a really good and fast GUI toolkit and the lack of pointer access when I want it make it unsuitable for me needs. For other projects, I'm sure it's great.

Pointer math is (should be) unnecessary with normal userland apps...

I'm mostly talking about the situation where I have a couple of image which I'm representing as an array of bytes. Say I want to composite one image on top of another, blending according to the alpha channel of the top image. I'm going to have to step through each element of three arrays, four elements for every pixel in the image, and I'm probably going to incur a compare to memroy and conditional branch for each of those 3 * 4 * columns * rows array accesses. That sucks, and kills my performance. In C#, I can get a pointer to the byte array, and use it directly with the bounds checking. Nice.

One could make an argument that a good Java compiler or runtime should be able to figure out that I'm staying within the bounds of my image and optimize away the bounds checking. Unfortunately, I've found that when I'm writing a method which has all three arrays passed in such that it isn't obvious when looking at only the local code for that method that I am necessarily staying within my array bounds, I always get the overhead of bounds checking. This seems to be the case with gcj and kaffe, anyway. You can get around this limitation by writing C code to be called through JNI, but this seems less than ideal.

One other performance issue which I neglected to mention in my other post is the ability to allocate objects on the stack rather than the heap. This is important when I have lots of very small, short lived objects allocated in quick succession. Think 3D vectors, where I just want 3 floats or doubles for a few computations. With C#, I can optionally put these on the stack so that I don't incur the alloc/free overhead. This is nice for speed. With Java, I have to either allocate my vectors on the heap, or pass around float as individual parameters, which is yucky.


--
Mmm... rageahol
[ Parent ]

Don't forget morals. (1.92 / 14) (#16)
by bleach on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 03:33:32 PM EST

Lets just say Microsoft's .NET was SUPERIOR to everything out there... Let us also assume that all Microsoft products were superior also. Even if this was true.. Microsoft is a group of CRIMINALS. They break the law. When my daughter gets old enough to understand this I will explain to her that Microsoft is bad because breaking the law is wrong.

If the neighbor down the street has a really nice TV.. you can't go hang out and watch his nice TV if he is a murderer! If you aide Microsoft you are aiding a criminal.

I really don't want to be a troll here, but all I Can say is.. beat the rush, hate Gnome now. :)
#define CODE "\270\105\000\000\303";
int (*foo)();main(){foo=CODE;printf("I like to %d\n",foo());}
You seppos sure do think funny.. (1.66 / 6) (#33)
by enterfornone on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 07:56:34 PM EST

It's OK for your government to slaughter thousands of foreigners... yet using MS products is equivilent to hanging around murderers?

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
War and peace (2.83 / 6) (#38)
by pooka regent on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 08:32:46 PM EST

The only foreigners we're slaughtering are those connected with the murderers who flew planes into our government buildings. If we did nothing, they would continue killng us by this or other means until we all were dead. Our government is not out to kill innocents; why would it be sending food supplies to those innocents if it was?

Or maybe you want more of the peace that we got during the last presidential administration (terrorists blow something up, people die, the president swears they'll be caught and punished, nothing is done, repeat). If that's the case, you're condemning us all to suicide, wanting us all to be sitting on our hands just waiting to be killed by foreign psychopaths who hate all Americans indiscriminately (whereas we have a government which is only after the Afghans associated with the Taliban, as opposed to all of them indiscriminately).

As long as there are stupid, violent people who want to kill other people, there will be wars, and there will be no end of said people. That being said, those of us who are not so must defend ourselves from them, and show them that we are not going to just lie down and die when they want us to. Not counterattacking a psychopathic enemy who has attacked and will not stop attacking until it has destroyed you is not peace; as long as any enemy of us non-psychopaths still has power and is willing to go to war with anyone, there is no peace.

If you want to commit suicide by burying your head in the sand until you're killed, do so. Just don't try to make everyone else in this country and/or the world do so with you; you're only helping choreograph death if you do.

[ Parent ]
Civilians are always the biggest victims [OT] (none / 0) (#40)
by Trepalium on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 08:39:30 PM EST

This is heavily off topic, but in any conflict, it is always the civillian population that takes the biggest hit. Regardless of if the American government is only trying to take out those involved in the bombing, they end up killing a lot of innocent bystanders in the process. The aim of any terrorist attack isn't to kill as many people as possible, but rather to inspire fear in people and try to effect a change in them or their government. It's simply a form of extortion (albeit a rather bloody form).

[ Parent ]
Whatever (2.37 / 8) (#45)
by bleach on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 10:07:44 PM EST

You know, I am really tired of you people trying to tell us Americans how to handle people who attack us. If those stupid Taliban people spent their time building irrigation ditches and planting crops instead of running jets into our buildings they would be alive today and living a good life, instead of looking down the barrel of our guns.

Truth is, you are just jealous.
#define CODE "\270\105\000\000\303";
int (*foo)();main(){foo=CODE;printf("I like to %d\n",foo());}
[ Parent ]
it's pretty clear . . . (2.07 / 13) (#21)
by stealthysquid on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 04:29:46 PM EST

that miguel now works for microsoft. direct deposit or old fashioned paper checks i wonder?

If you're going to post conspiracy theories... (4.00 / 1) (#83)
by nstenz on Mon Feb 04, 2002 at 09:17:59 PM EST

...then obviously you should post that he's getting paid in cold, hard cash. =)

[ Parent ]
Terminology belies the truth? (3.50 / 6) (#23)
by merkri on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 05:41:36 PM EST

Look: I'll easily admit Microsoft can make decent products.

However, I also believe they've seriously messed up the tech industry in a big way, and I'm pissed as hell.

I find C#, CLR, etc. very appealing. It seems really wonderful.

However, I don't trust it. Call me a zealot or what you will, I don't care. I still don't trust it. I don't trust MS, and I don't trust C#.

One of the things that pisses me off is that people keep referring to .NET when they really mean C# and the CLR. Maybe they do mean .NET. That scares me.

As long as I go to the bookstore and every book I see about the "standardized" C# makes reference to proprietary Windows stuff, as long as C# and the CLR is referred to by the PR-marketing phrase ".NET", I'll be reluctant to get involved with C#.

Mono is a big step forward in this way. I applaud them for doing something toward making C# and the CLR truly standardized. It's great. But the whole attitude, mindset has got to change for me to be convinced. A standardized, platform-independent paradigm or language has to be referred to and discussed as such.

As long as de Icaza uses ".NET" and other Windows-lingo, I'll be skeptical. Such phraseology just convinces me that C# really isn't separate from Windows, and makes me wonder if de Icaza isn't just being pulled over [paid?] in a big way by MS.

Don't say that something is MS-independent, and then talk about it in a way that makes it clear it's not.

Just typical for him (4.60 / 5) (#36)
by Trepalium on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 08:27:27 PM EST

Before this .NET stuff, he was raving about Microsoft COM architecture, which is what he wanted to clone with Bonobo.

Making Gnome use CLR isn't exactly a bad idea, but using all of the .NET infrastructure seems like a bad idea to me. There's a great deal of MSWindowsisms in the .NET API, that could probably be emulated reasonably in posix-style OS's, will still cause problems with interoperability. From the simple differences in directory separators to the case sensitivity in the file system -- these are things the average Windows developer would take for granted.

If having Gnome based on .NET simply means it uses CLR for it's executables, that's one thing, if having Gnome based on .NET means all it's native APIs are simply Microsoft's .NET APIs, I think that's a bad thing (it leaves Gnome in the eternal "one-step-behind-Microsoft" position).

[ Parent ]

So What? (2.16 / 6) (#26)
by tapir on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 06:38:38 PM EST

If Gnome forks/dies/becomes a Windows-only thing, we'll still have KDE. KDE's a bit better than Gnome anyway...

Tell that... (4.33 / 3) (#32)
by DeadBaby on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 07:40:42 PM EST

To a person you're trying to talk into buying 1,000 workstations running GNOME apps.

"Oh, don't worry... if this free project stops you can call me back and pay my people $10k and we'll move you over to KDE, just retrain your users -- redevelop your GNOME software for KDE and you'll be set. Should only cost you about $100k"


"Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us." - Carl Sagan
[ Parent ]
Its all X11 anyway... (4.00 / 3) (#37)
by grrussel on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 08:31:22 PM EST

Train them? It'd go like this.

Click on the button with the gear wheel instead of the one with the foot. All your menus of applications are where they were. Just keep using your applications as normal.

Free development stops? If it works, it works. And KDE / GNOME are configurable enough to emulate each other faithfully, keystroke for keystroke, icon for icon, pixel for pixel.

KDE can run GNOME applications. So your GNOME applications are not obsoleted.

GNOME can run KDE applications. So any transition can be phased in gradually, one application at a time.

The similarity between them means running a mixture would not be that disconcerting.

[ Parent ]

Planned obselescence is back! (none / 0) (#92)
by andrewm on Thu Feb 07, 2002 at 09:40:12 PM EST

"Oh, don't worry... if this free project stops you can call me back and pay my people $10k and we'll move you over to KDE, just retrain your users -- redevelop your GNOME software for KDE and you'll be set. Should only cost you about $100k"
"Your windows <whatever> license is due to run out at the end of the year? It's not supported any more? Don't worry! Just buy a license for the new version, install it, upgrade your application software as necessary (we'll have new versions ready for 'purchase' by the time you're upgrading), and retrain your users on the new UserFriendlyForRealThisTimeWePromise(TM) interface. No problems! Btw, remember to buy a license for every copy you'll be using."

Or, to put it another way, it doesn't matter what you do, something's going to go wrong eventually. :)

(Btw, a free project can't just stop - at worst, all the people working on it can decide to stop, but it's still available if more people want to work on it. If you just want a bug fix for win 3.x, you're out of luck though. Not that I'ld actually suggest anyone use that, of course, but there are strange people out there who still use it. :)

[ Parent ]

the future (3.42 / 7) (#30)
by voltron on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 07:13:52 PM EST

some comments here are displaying a distinct lack of clue. i'll attribute it to the ms=knee jerk association that we are all ostensibly supposed to have. there is a high level of closed mindedness and ignorance about what mono/.net/c#/etc actually are. strangely, it seems to be acceptable for this story, although i doubt that such ignorance and rejection of new ideas would be accepted in a story on palestine, afghanistan, or civil liberties.

back to gnome. what will happen is this: mono will become feature complete to the point where it will become a valid platform for developing gnome apps on unix/linux. at this stage, if writing apps for .net is easier/faster/cheaper/better, it will become the de facto standard. that's how it always is. why people think this is any different is beyond me.

as an afterthought, no one actively involved in GNOME devel would make a strong claim that gnome is controlled by any compnay/person. we do have the gnome foundation.

KDE was never non free. (3.00 / 10) (#34)
by grrussel on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 08:20:17 PM EST

One of the things that attracted me to GNOME rather than KDE in the first place some two and a half years ago was that the development process was truly Free; it could never be taken hostage by this company or that changing this or that licence agreement. I don't want to see that situation change, even with a company as cool and as seemingly proficient as Ximian.

KDE has always been free. It has always been licensed under the GPL and LGPL.

Qt was and is a commercial library. It is also now "libre software". Even in its earliest days, before GNOME began, it was source available freeware usable with open source programs. You couldn't distribute changes to it, but since its object oriented, modifying its behaviour is not difficult.

KDE could never be taken over by a company. Were TrollTech ( the owners of Qt copyright ) to change license, it could not apply retroactively. The old version would still be available. It would not be dead, either. Qt is modular enough to extend _easily_. Much of KDE libraries are extensions to Qt functionality.

GNOME was unnecessary and essentially a political move by GNU.

And so ends my 1st k5 post.

All a matter of licensing Qt. (4.33 / 6) (#39)
by Trepalium on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 08:33:28 PM EST

Guess it's time for a history lession, then... The reason they started the Gnome project was because of the fact that in the KDE 1.x days, the Qt library was "non-free" according to the pilosophy of the FSF. The license was inherently "incompatible" with the GPL, and related licenses, which means it should not be linked with GPLed code without explicit permission from the author. Thus, they started the Gnome project, based on The Gimp's toolkit. When TrollTech released the 2.0 version of the Qt library, they made it a dual license, both their own license and also GPLed.

[ Parent ]
But I like Gnome more than KDE 8^( (2.33 / 3) (#56)
by Sl0w h4nD on Sun Feb 03, 2002 at 04:29:59 AM EST

I don't mind using KDE and I'm sure glad it's there, but I like Gnome and GTK apps. I'm not even a proponent of C, but I love Scheme and Lisp. So I guess if Gnome was a useless copy of KDE and Mono is a similarly questionable copy of .NET, then I'm alright with Mono.

[ Parent ]
Smells a little funny... (2.75 / 8) (#35)
by Gorgon5 on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 08:25:17 PM EST

A few months ago I remember thinking to myself that it was a little odd that M$ had posted on their MSDN site an interview with Miguel....(Especially since he's likely not a M$ Certified Developer.......yet.....so what would he know about anything as far as they're concerned???)

Hell, I was surprised they hadn't sued him for ripping them off. (Evolution is closer to Outlook than "Lindows" is to "Windows") Instead, there they were, on Microsoft's own website, giving free publicity to Gnome and linux! Surely someone had cracked, surely some poor MDSN editorial manager was walking the streets of Seattle handing out resumes the very next day.

Nobody seemed to notice the weirdness of this interview at the time.

It does not seem so weird anymore.

Mind you, there is nothing necessarily wrong with this idea, but is sure does seem fishy. Most hardcore coding types I've talked to (even the M$-Certified ones) have described dotNET as a nightmare for anything bigger than an Address Book...



Right... (1.40 / 5) (#48)
by Scrag on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 11:02:30 PM EST

First off, half the developers at Microsoft don't even have MS certifications. I can't really see where you're trying to go with that. I don't understand the rest of you're post either. Microsoft is paying Miguel to... promote Linux? convert people to Windows? Please enlighten me.

Also, I would really like to know who you have talked to that says coding for dotNET is a nightmare. After using dotNET, coding in anything else seems like a nightmare.

"I'm... responsible for... many atrocities" - rusty
[ Parent ]
Fishy? (3.66 / 3) (#49)
by Kalani on Sun Feb 03, 2002 at 12:41:43 AM EST

How's this for fishy (taken from the mini-bio of the man who interviewd Miguel for MSDN)?

Dare Obasanjo is a senior at the Georgia Institute of Technology working towards his Bachelor of Science degree in computer science. He spends his free time posting to online forums like Slashdot, Kuro5hin and Advogato, as well as writing various articles on programming and software. He has interned for various companies including Radiant Systems, i2 Technologies and Microsoft, and is currently debating the merits of a graduate degree but will most likely end up in Redmond when his time at GA Tech is over.

There are traitors among us! :)

Really though, the interview highlights the fact that "dotGNU" isn't incredibly far along and is only being implemented piecewise. It's clear (even explicitly stated) from the interview that the dotGNU implementation will be inferior to .NET, at least for the foreseeable future.

Miguel also mentions that dotGNU is unoptimized and intentionally handicapped so as to avoid any potential patent violations that might invalidate the whole project.

As for .NET being a development nightmare, I personally would disagree with that. From my brief experience with it, I already can tell you that C# is great for easily developing network-aware applications. My last network-aware application in C++ used a separate thread to accumulate bytes coming in over the network, parse them out into individual lines, add those lines to a "command queue" associated with the object that created the accumulation thread, and pulse a Windows event handle to signal that a new command was read, in case another thread wanted to wait for some reason. This also, of course, involved a critical section to protect access to the "command queue" and another event handle to allow the owner object to let the accumulator thread know when to shut down. Although I understand how it works perfectly, the next guy who comes to this company probably won't (I'm still a college student and am working at a small-time company because it afford me some flexibility as far as actual time at work goes). C# (in addition to Java and other high-level programming frameworks) removes a lot of that complexity for people who aren't interested or who don't need such fine-grained control.

Anyway ... I hope this long meandering post was useful to somebody.

-----
"I [think] that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement; in the end the machinery will be revealed and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the checker board."
--Richard Feynman
[ Parent ]
Marketing ploy (3.66 / 3) (#58)
by Secret Coward on Sun Feb 03, 2002 at 05:46:06 AM EST

A few months ago I remember thinking to myself that it was a little odd that M$ had posted on their MSDN site an interview with Miguel

You have to remember, Microsoft is a marketing company. They wish to stave off criticism before the critics attack.

In the mid-nineties, Microsoft ported Internet Explorer to the Mac so people couldn't claim it was a Windows only browser. This was so important that they withheld the Mac version of Office until Apple agreed to make IE their default browser. When NT came out, they had versions for the Alpha and PowerPC processor, so that IT managers would adopt NT.

Today, the Mac version of Internet Explorer frequently crashes the whole operating system (I haven't tried it on OS X); and they no longer make Alpha and PowerPC versions of Windows.

Microsoft's goal is to brag that .NET is an open, cross-platform standard. Once .NET takes off, you can rest assured that Microsoft will stab Miguel in the back, just like they do with all of their partners.

[ Parent ]

Strategy (4.36 / 11) (#42)
by dennis on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 09:03:19 PM EST

I'm not saying Mono isn't a worthwhile project, but emulating Microsoft is a losing strategy. You will always be behind, since Microsoft naturally will keep introducing new stuff, which you'll then have to copy. So Linux will always seem relatively primitive to people who compare the two.

The way to leap ahead is to make something so innovative that people look at Linux and say "Wow - Windows doesn't do anything like that!"

Here's an example, unrelated to .Net: Hans Reiser is working on a high-performance filesystem which acts as a relational database...and a hierarchical database...and a keyword-based system. They're all special cases of his generalized structure. Integrate that with your desktop, and the Microsoft and Mac desktops will look like antiques.

This is a good thing! (3.55 / 9) (#47)
by spcmanspiff on Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 10:35:22 PM EST

First, let me preface this by saying that I'm neither an expert in .NET/Mono or other technical architectures mentioned by the author, so others may have more informative things to say than me... but what I do know makes me think that this article is a mostly misinformed knee-jerkism.

So... what exactly is Mono? Looking at their web page, I see that it is a linux implementation of a subset of .NET:

  • A cross-platform, cross-language runtime environment. (Although the only compiler the Mono project is providing is a C# compiler, Microsoft seems to have VB, C++, Haskell, and many many more compilers for this bytecode).
  • A standardized library API.

    What's wrong with this? Nothing, as far as I can see. It speeds up development (Miguel's stated motivation for moving to Mono) something fierce. By the way, it has nothing to do with replacing/outdating Bonobo. As a matter of fact, I imagine that the Mono people are writing the runtime such that any classes written for th Mono platfore are automatically exposed as Bonobo components, and vice versa. It would be stupid not to; this is the exact thing MS has done with COM AFAIK.

    Further, I see some great side benefits for the future. One of the biggest obstacles to linux-on-the-desktop is the huge application base in Windows -- not only things like Word but tons and tons of in-house custom things in VB or what-have-you.

    Microsoft is pushing its new .NET development tools pretty damn hard... and in the future, assuming that all these apps stick to the standard API, they could be transferred to Mono without even a recompile.

    Also, an organization could ease its way into linux, trying out Gnome applications on their desktops piecemeal before dropping Windows altogether.

    From what I see, Microsoft has done the smart thing technically by abandoning their crufty APIs, adopting open standards (Microsoft has turned over the runtime environment and the standard API to an independent standards body, for those who didn't know) and putting together a toolchain that makes cross-platform (or single-platform) application development a cinch.

    They did the stupid thing business-wise: The ugly, closed API helped put their apps on top and made it impossible to translate them to any other platform. (How long has the WINE project been going?) This translated into tons of cash for MS. Now they're dumping it. The assumption, as far as I can tell, is that MS is banking on the whole '.NET' service-based revenue model coming along with adoption of their technology ... if that doesn't take off, then they've shot themselves in the foot: The most popular way to develop software for Windows also happens to be very cross-platform and based on standards that are out of MS's control anymore. Oops.

    Anyway, that's what I hope the Mono project can bring. From the looks of the infighting here, I kinda doubt it... and it wouldn't surprise me either if MS had a few cards up their sleeves.



  • I dont think I understand... (2.87 / 8) (#53)
    by sunyata on Sun Feb 03, 2002 at 01:32:54 AM EST

    "Oh that is a very interesting question! The I/O model is based on the Win32 model - we have to emulate the behaviour - and it turns out that behaviour is extremely nice. We went and implemented that.

    "They have a beautiful security system and we're emulating the whole security infrastructure."

    Yeah.. I dont understand Miguel. He seems smart as a whip, for sure. Yet, he seems to always have some new API idea, each better than the last. Nothing seems to get finished, he moves on to the next thing.

    And man, he sure does gush all the time about Microsoft. I mean why bother with Linux is Microsoft is so damn great and so smart?

    GNOME (2.57 / 7) (#59)
    by Mutant on Sun Feb 03, 2002 at 08:17:30 AM EST

    Concider me Joe user. If Gnome goes the route of DOT NET I'll dump it in a heart beat. Go to Ximian's site. Their "desktop" is a D/L of over 300M. And the much touted Evolution is over 16M. Like I said, I'm just Joe user and you will not find this bloated Microsoftesque ware on any machine of mine. Even David only had to kill One Giant. Give me a break!
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (from The Red Lily, 1894 -Anatole France )
    What's Wrong with Mono? (3.50 / 2) (#67)
    by tlhf on Sun Feb 03, 2002 at 05:50:46 PM EST

    An open letter to those who would dump Gnome if it is written on .Net.

    Why?

    I have heard the reason that if it is implemented on a 'java-clone', then it may as well be implemented in Java. While I accept that Java is now a solid, quick system, there are no actual advantages over the system we have now. The reasons for using .Net is language independence, and a security model where individual objects can be given different security levels. I've heard some say, although not on Kuro5hin, that Java is more open. This is simply untrue. They are both proprietry, and they both have open implementations, albeit Mono's is unfinished. Some have said that Microsoft would be able to change the APIs, leaving Gnome high and dry. Although I don't think Microsoft would be that bothered (it would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water, it would damage .Net far, far more than the Open Source movement - there's still KDE), I suppose it could happen. But, it wouldn't effect Mono, as it is an implementation. In fact, Mono have even addressed this issue on it's FAQ.
    Question 28: Do you fear that Microsoft will change the spec and render Mono useless?

    No. Microsoft proved with the CLI and the C# language that it was possible to create a powerful foundation for many languages to interoperate. We will always have that.

    Even if changes happened in the platform which were undocumented, the existing platform would a value on its own.
    Another criticism of the project is that Mono will be unsecure. This is simply FUD. There is no reason for Mono to be anyless secure than any of the open Java implementations. I have been left with the sour feeling that many of those who are against the basing of Gnome on Mono, or any sort of open .Net implementation, are doing so just because it's cool, or it's what their peers believe. I would love to be proved otherwise.

    tlhf
    xxx
    And he waits for the mojo-masacre :)

    Here's why I think it's fishy... (4.00 / 2) (#75)
    by seb on Mon Feb 04, 2002 at 07:28:35 AM EST

    ...I don't have any opinion about Mono or .NET, and I'm willing to take Miguel's praise for it as a superior development platform at face value. But is it really *so* superior that Ximian can justify spending maybe 2 years developing it before they can start using it properly?

    If they're interested in getting products out of the door quickly, surely there are better ways than making your own implementation of a brand new platform specification as a precondition. I'm suspect there must be a much more ambitious strategy underlining this about which Miguel is not giving a single clue. I wonder why not.

    A New Direction for GNOME | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!