[NBLUG/talk] Mono

[Jon Shiring]

If you see Mono as an attempt to create a compiler for a new language, I
can't believe people would really want to avoid supporting a new
language in Linux simply because MS created it.  Are we going to limit
ourselves to Perl and C for the next 50 years of computing because we
refuse to be open to new languages that have legit uses?

The patent issue is absurd, because it implies that MS couldn't use
patents to stop other projects.  MS probably has patents that could
cover evolution, mozilla, gnomemeeting, and many many other apps.  Heck,
mplayer forces you to violate copyrights to play some formats and nobody
jabs it as not worthwhile.  Patents shouldn't be an excuse not to create
any sort of project, because to fear patent violation would mean
stopping almost all open source application development.  MS actually
has a good track record in terms of actually using patents as a
defensive tactic.

As for changing the protocol, who is to say that compatibility is a
must-have?  Is language-independent programming, less platform
dependence, and a better-designed set of system libraries a bad thing? 
Even if it was incompatible with .net it would still be a win.  But
given the rate at which the windows APIs change, I suspect it'll be even
easier than keeping Wine up to date.  MS is all about client
compatibility, they don't screw around with changing APIs very often
(file-formats, yes, but if the APIs are stable, tracking file format
changes is managable).

I'm not saying that .net is "better" than C applications or anything of
the sort, I'm saying that when we find ourselves refusing to support new
technologies, don't expect to keep programmers flocking to write Linux
applications.

Jon
Programmer, S2 Games

On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 06:57, ME wrote:
> I agree with Alan on his reasons, but I dont agree that it is ridiculous.
> 
> MS has a history of changing protocols and formats for existing software
> as alternative projects provide supports to use MS protocols/formats. MS
> word is a great example of this. As the file format for ".doc" files are
> discovered by opensource coders, MS changes the ".doc" format and releases
> a new copy of MS word. This is what they have done, this is what they will
> do.
> 
> However, I do not see an attempt to dev an opensource .net as ridiculous.
> As the coders build their own understanding of .net, they may come up with
> security weaknesses in the .net made by MS.
> 
> Since MS has put so many different things under the name ".net" weaknesses
> found in even a few areas tarnish the whole name. (Attempt to locate
> multiple eggs in the same basket to make entry into the market of .net
> clones too costly?)
> 
> Of course, I am first to agree that their project to duplicate .net is
> ultimately doomed to failure while MS is in control of the protocol,
> format, and specifications.
> 
> Though it was not a ".net" failure (more of a web coder failure) there was
> a hole discovered recently in the passport portion of .net and
> authentication. It seems that MS had a web page for resetting passwords
> that would allow you to reset any user's passport password with a properly
> (improperly?) formatted submission from a form. It seems that MS is/was
> willing to trust the client to verify the client was who they said they
> were. (Not entirely true, but it sounds better than saying the coder of
> the password reset page from MS just botched the job.)