What is Digg?11 Comments
- Darkhacker, on 10/06/2008, -1/+4I disagree. At the end of the day, Microsoft still controls .NET and its APIs. Even if DotGNU is somehow "more clean" than Mono from a patent stance, it would still be a shadow to .NET; always playing catchup. Then you have framework specific issues like WPF, or functions that are designed to perform Windows specific tasks.
I see Mono in the same way I see Wine. A way to easily port apps that were originally designed for Windows, but not something that native Linux developers should be using. In fact, Miguel is ***** crazy if he thinks Gnome developers should flock to Mono as he has been suggesting. - shethinkmefunny, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3That's kind of my point though. .NET is becoming the new defacto API for Windows apps, and a lot of especially new GNU/Linux users don't want to give up apps they're already familiar with. If Win32 gets phased out and .NET is what apps are written in, people will still want to run their Windows apps, at least until they find good or better Free alternatives. I don't believe dotGNU should be a primary focus of the free software community, but compatibility is important for GNU/Linux adoption. It'll be a different story when major software vendors treat GNU/Linux as an equal with Windows, and release native, feature equivilent versions of their apps for the "big three"
- YodaJones, on 10/06/2008, -4/+6***** Mono and ***** moonlight.
- einfeldt, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1Microsoft is a very large and well funded opponent which has legions of supporters among both buyers and sellers of equipment and hardware in the desktop world. IMHO, we need to oppose them on all fronts. I have spoken with Miguel de Icaza on several occasions, and I have interviewed him for the Digital Tipping Point film. Based on my interactions with him, I believe that Miguel is very committed to Richard Stallman's principles of code freedom. He believes that it is necessary to commoditize Microsoft's products and build bridges from the Microsoft world to the world of Free Open Source Software. If vendors and buyers don't have a convenient way to leave MicrosoftLand, they will be stuck there.
Take, for example, OpenOffice.org. I know there are lots of differences between Mono and Moonlight, but there are some similarities. 1) they are Free Software; 2) they are bridges that allow users to leave MicrosoftLand. I believe that Mono can actually have the effect of blunting reliance on .Net, as it provides those who conclude (whether rightly or incorrectly) that they must use .Net. If we are to take market share from Microsoft and weaken them, some members of our community will need to undertake the unpleasant task of working in close proximity to them, as Novell is doing with its unsavory deal with Microsoft. My conservative father, when he heard of the Novell - Microsoft deal, said that the Free Software Movement must be getting very strong if it can force Microsoft to do a deal with a company that is clearly aimed at taking business away from Microsoft. Let's not forget that Microsoft almost killed Novell by causing the collapse of NetWare. Now, Novell would very much like to return the favor.
Unfortunately, it is true that bridges work in both directions, so yes, Mono and Moonlight also allow Microsoft greater influence on the world of Free Software. But we are dealing with a fierce competitor in Microsoft, and one that is dedicated to the extermination of Free Software. From his very beginnings as a software businessman, Bill Gates has fought tooth and nail against Free Software, as in his famous 1976 letter to the HomeBrew computing world, in which he insisted that people pay for software, and that they have no rights to the source code.
I appeal to the Free Software world to be more tolerant of disagreements in our world. The strength of a democracy can be measured by how it treats its quirky members, and while I find it odd and disturbing that my friend Miguel would call OOXML a "super standard", I am in little position to criticize him, as he has contributed massively to the world with GNOME and Ximian. He has done many things that I would not have done, such as working on Mono, rather than working on important Free Software projects like Gnash. But rather than attack Miguel, IMHO, it would be better to direct energy to supporting crucial projects like Gnash than criticizing Miguel.
At the same time, I appreciate my friend Roy Schestowitz's efforts at voicing his dismay over Novell's deal with Microsoft, and Miguel's work on Mono. Roy is an important voice in our community insisting on Free Software, Free standards, and Free networks. Ironically, if we are going to fragment the monopolist of Redmond's control over the desktop market, it will require coordinated efforts of people who disagree, sometimes vehemently. Both Roy and Miguel are incredible assets to our community, and I am grateful to them both for their work, even if I occasionally disagree with them.
Christian Einfeldt,
Producer, The Digital Tipping Point. - YodaJones, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2Nice words. It is too bad that the open source community does not have the vision to lead in many areas of computing and development and instead must follow the works of proprietary software development companies and build bridges to them instead of innovating and having them build bridges to the open source world.
- Spr0k3t, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1You got it all wrong Darkhacker... Miguel is just plain ***** crazy. Right up there with Greg Kroah-Hartman.
- TheWindBlows, on 10/06/2008, -2/+1This article says a lot. What the free software foundation is finally deciding trying to hack compatibility is no longer worth it and its just a road block. Instead the time should be invested in creating an unbeatable format of their own.
- anylo, on 10/06/2008, -3/+2Maybe I'm becoming an old linux user but I think that author has a quite narrow point of view. It would be nice to see Linux Hater's reply/rant to this one.
- rotyyu, on 10/06/2008, -1/+0Great...
- umbrellainabin, on 10/05/2008, -3/+1oh well
- shethinkmefunny, on 10/06/2008, -4/+1.NET is going to become more and more important, there's no avoiding this. If dotGNU can clean-room reverse engineer .NET, the Free software community will have nothing to worry about. The problem with Mono is it's assisted by MS. It's dirty, so to speak, with MS's imaginary property and their patent indemnity which will last only as long as it's convenient for Microsoft.
In a perfect world where ponies ***** rainbows and the masses are passionate about freedom it would make sense to "lose interest" in .NET and just move on. Since we live in the less perfect real world, ignoring .NET isn't a luxury we can afford.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is