EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

09.19.08

Guest Post: Why Not Mono – Part I

Posted in Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 8:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Those who work at Novell and also sympathise with Microsoft sometimes say so. Those who work at Novell and dislike Microsoft (or Windows) would put their job at risk by criticising Novell’s big partner and new source of revenue. The same goes for .NET — and by association Mono — so we expect no public outburst or resentment towards this direction coming from inside Novell.

It is important to understand why Mono is dangerous. Mono is Novell and Novell is growing closer and closer to Microsoft as time goes by. As a reader points out, “we really don’t know, what is happening behind closed doors, but there is nothing good to be expected.”

The same reader has prepared a short document, which he thought might be useful for people as they try to give a clearer picture why exactly it is different comparing DotNET vs. Mono than DotNET vs any other technology.

“Like the Google comic, sometimes a picture says more than words and sticks in the minds better,” he wrote. So here goes:


Why .NET to Mono related to Patents is a different thing than e.g. .Net and Python…

Mono car analogy

DotNet gets you there, like doing a simple mathematical operation like 1+1 = 2 Mono does it in the same way, emulating DotNET as closely as possible. So MS could argue that Mono does not only resemble its “original” a great deal, It basically incorporates the same internals.

Let’s say that DotNET has a diesel as motor, so does Mono.

“Demanding royalties on so-called IP, knowing its competitor uses a derived model with the same internals to make it “tick”.”Generally, every car uses a some kind of motor. But it would be very much more likely to be successful to sue for a company. Demanding royalties on so-called IP, knowing its competitor uses a derived model with the same internals to make it “tick”.

E.g. if DotNet uses a special hybrid-motor, it would be more likely for MS to make its case in the public opinion (which is crucial for the moral acceptance if MS decides to sue) sound “legit”, than if it would try to sue “Python”, which also uses the “4-wheel-technology”, has a motor and brings you from a to b (e.g. also arrives at the conclusion that 1+1 = 2), but ultimately shares this with any vehicle and would make it much harder for MS to attack while not being viewed as an “SCO-like”-attack.

Then the risk of Python itself (as the inventor of the Python-model) suing other “car-makers” based on their Python-technology is infinitely smaller compared due to its open-source-nature as opposed to MS as the DotNET-car-maker regarding its Mono-Clone…

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

11 Comments

  1. aeshna23 said,

    September 19, 2008 at 8:26 am

    Gravatar

    I don’t like the illustration at all! DotNet and Mono are represented by antique cars, but Python is represented by a child’s toy. While I hate the internal combustion engine, the message I get from the illustration is Python is a toy and DotNet and Mono are real tools.

    How using a propeller plane for Python?

  2. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 19, 2008 at 8:31 am

    Gravatar

    Yes, well, I didn’t make the illustration.

  3. AlexH said,

    September 19, 2008 at 8:38 am

    Gravatar

    Amusing that the illustration was chosen to probably give the opposite impression (old car versus race car).

    I don’t think this article particularly makes the case Mono and DotNet are similar internally; that seems to be a pretty big assumption.

  4. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 19, 2008 at 8:59 am

    Gravatar

    I was pretty disappointed in this article – yesterday you claimed someone had done “in-depth research” on Mono and that you would post it today. I can only presume you meant this… but I don’t see any “in depth” research at all. This article is severely lacking in any sort of research at all.

  5. mike said,

    September 19, 2008 at 6:00 pm

    Gravatar

    “(e.g. also arrives at the conclusion that 1+2 = 2),”

    teehee … about what I personally think of Python ;-)

    Not a very good argument in this article, simplified to the point of not being meaningful at all.

    Particularly since both are software, and the only `engine’ they both use is the same (modern at that) cpu.

  6. Jose_X said,

    September 19, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    Gravatar

    >> I don’t think this article particularly makes the case Mono and DotNet are similar internally; that seems to be a pretty big assumption.

    Don’t they follow the same set of specs, more or less? No one claimed the cars were built by the same people. The point is that they have the same internal interfaces. There may be variations in the parts but the interfacing sections and tolerances must match in many cases. This is land open to patent grabs.

    And what about when you find that the MSdotnet car doesn’t follow the spec quite right or adds something, then mono has to follow (as per their marching orders in order to “maintain” interop). These deviations from the blueprints aren’t covered in any Covenant I don’t think.

    >> Particularly since both are software, and the only ‘engine’ they both use is the same (modern at that) cpu.

    In the analogy, every part of the car (all material hardware) is likened to software. The actual car components are like the dotnet software component implementations. Each car follows the same set of blueprints. This corresponds to the MSdotnet and mono following the same interface specs. The implementation designs could be similar in various areas but might not be. Designs will tend to be similar a lot more often if the interfaces being followed are the same. I think both the designs and the interfaces can end up in patents.

    I think the patent grabs are overstepping constitutional boundaries and have other problems. I don’t pay too much attention to the subtleties of patents and patent law, so I don’t want to go further.

  7. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 19, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    Gravatar

    AlexH, there’s more explanation about this coming tomorrow.

  8. AlexH said,

    September 20, 2008 at 3:39 am

    Gravatar

    @Jose:

    Don’t they follow the same set of specs, more or less?

    To be clear, they process the same format data. But saying that means they work internally the same is a big stretch: gcc and LLVM, for example, compile the same code to the same object format. Internally, they work entirely differently.

    As I said before, Mono itself has a JIT runtime and a non-JIT runtime: those two systems alone work entirely differently.

  9. Balzac said,

    September 22, 2008 at 10:12 am

    Gravatar

    I agree with the writing but M$ products should be represented by an ugly car. Maybe an Edsel would be more appropriate.

  10. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 22, 2008 at 10:28 am

    Gravatar

    I’ll definitely do that if I produce an image in the future. This picture is not mine however.

  11. Jose_X said,

    November 23, 2008 at 9:22 pm

    Gravatar

    >> To be clear, they process the same format data. But saying that means they work internally the same is a big stretch: gcc and LLVM, for example, compile the same code to the same object format. Internally, they work entirely differently.

    From what I know about Java, there are many interfaces which depend on other interfaces very precisely (the spec is not perfect in separating implementation from standard so my memory might be mixing the two some). Also, I’m talking about the whole stack.

    Even if you were only talking about some core component equivalent to a JVM, I think that can include many many structural aspects that many people would not think twice about patenting around.

    There is Bilski, so we shall see.

What Else is New


  1. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) Has the Full Support of Techrights

    Our support for the FSF is strong enough that we want to occasionally suggest improvements; there are growing frictions designed to isolate the FSF and cause self-restraint/censorship



  2. Why We Support Phoronix (Whereas Some Others Do Not)

    Some people try to characterise Michael Larabel as the 'bad boy' of Linux even though Michael is probably the hardest working Linux journalist out there



  3. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: The Simplest Ways that AI will Change Computing

    "AI is already used to help kill people. We should be cautious, and know that the best rules we come up with (like no doing magic outside the school grounds) won't be followed all the time."



  4. Links 20/8/2019: DragonFlyBSD Developing DSynth

    Links for the day



  5. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: Narcissism in The Community

    "Narcissists are drawn to intelligent people. They take great pleasure in attacking, controlling and defeating intelligent people because it makes them feel smarter and more important."



  6. Breaking the Law Has Become the Norm at the European Patent Office

    The European Patent Office’s ongoing practice of destroying critics/whistleblowers and crushing unions, judges, examiners etc. — as well as threats and bribery of the media — ultimately mean a perpetual state of lawlessness that, if it prevails, will let patent trolls raid the European economy and stall innovation



  7. Links 20/8/2019: KMyMoney 5.0.6, Kdenlive 19.08

    Links for the day



  8. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: Free Software in Education

    "If everyone learns to code, then everyone gains some understanding of how to code in other languages."



  9. Links 19/8/2019: Another Linux 5.3 RC, OpenSUSE's Richard Brown Steps Down, Slackware Creates Patreon Page, Qt 6 Initiated

    Links for the day



  10. Speaking Truth to Monopolies (or How to Write Guest Posts in Techrights)

    We need to have more articles tackling the passage of all power — especially when it comes to software — to few large monopolies that disregard human rights or actively participate in their abolishment in the digital realm



  11. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: Free as in Speech

    "While a new breed of so-called anarchists campaign against expression that even the state allows, people are also foolishly overplaying the relevance of the state to free speech issues -- as if it's not a freedom issue when a project is increasingly thought-policed, because the thought-policing isn't on a state level."



  12. Toxic Culture at Microsoft

    Racism, intolerance, sexism and bullying are rampant at Microsoft; but Microsoft would rather deflect/divert/sidetrack to Google and so-called 'GAFA'



  13. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: Introduction

    "The FSF isn't just threatened, it will hit a large iceberg in the future that changes it permanently."



  14. Linux Journal and Linux.com Should Have Been Kept Going

    There's apparently no good explanation for the effective shutdown of Linux Journal and Linux.com; London Trust Media Holdings (LTMH), owner of Linux Journal, saw numbers improving and the Linux Foundation, steward of Linux.com, is loaded with money



  15. 2019 Microsoft Glossary

    How Microsoft internally interprets words that it is saying to the public and to the press



  16. 2019 Surveillance Glossary

    Distortion of technical and nontechnical terms in this day and age of '1984'



  17. Openwashing Report: It's Getting Worse, Fast. Everything is Apparently 'Open' Now Even Though It's Actually Proprietary.

    The latest examples (this past week's) of openwashing in the media, ranging from 5G to surveillance



  18. GitHub is a Dagger Inside Free/Open Source Software (FOSS); This is Why Microsoft Bought It

    A year later it seems pretty evident that Microsoft doesn’t like FOSS but is merely trying to control it, e.g. by buying millions of FOSS projects/repositories at the platform level (the above is what the Linux Foundation‘s Jim Zemlin said to Microsoft at their event while antitrust regulators were still assessing the proposed takeover)



  19. Microsoft Grows Within and Eats You From the Inside

    Microsoft entryism and other subversive tactics continue to threaten and sometimes successfully undermine the competition; Microsoft is nowadays doing that to core projects in the Free/Open Source software world



  20. Links 18/8/2019: New KNOPPIX and Emmabuntus Released

    Links for the day



  21. Links 17/8/2019: Unigine 2.9 and Git 2.23

    Links for the day



  22. Computer-Generated Patent Applications Show That Patents and Innovations Are Very Different Things

    The 'cheapening' of the concept of 'inventor' (or 'invention') undermines the whole foundation/basis of the patent system and deep inside patent law firms know it



  23. Concerns About IBM's Commitment to OpenSource.com After the Fall of Linux.com and Linux Journal

    The Web site OpenSource.com is over two decades old; in its current form it's about a decade old and it contains plenty of good articles, but will IBM think so too and, if so, will investment in the site carry on?



  24. Electronic Frontier Foundation Makes a Mistake by Giving Award to Microsoft Surveillance Person

    At age 30 (almost) the Electronic Frontier Foundation still campaigns for privacy; so why does it grant awards to enemies of privacy?



  25. Caturdays and Sundays at Techrights Will Get Busier

    Our plan to spend the weekends writing more articles about Software Freedom; it seems like a high-priority issue



  26. Why Techrights Doesn't Do Social Control Media

    Being managed and censored by platform owners (sometimes their shareholders) isn’t an alluring proposition when a site challenges conformist norms and the status quo; Techrights belongs in a platform of its own



  27. Patent Prosecution Highways and Examination Highways Are Dooming the EPO

    Speed is not a measure of quality; but today's EPO is just trying to get as much money as possible, as fast as possible (before the whole thing implodes)



  28. Software Patents Won't Come Back Just Because They're (Re)Framed/Branded as "HEY HI" (AI)

    The pattern we've been observing in recent years is, patent applicants and law firms simply rewrite applications to make these seem patent-eligible on the surface (owing to deliberate deception) and patent offices facilitate these loopholes in order to fake 'growth'



  29. IP Kat Pays the Price for Being a Megaphone of Team UPC

    The typical or the usual suspects speak out about the so-called 'prospects' (with delusions of inevitability) of the Unified Patent Court Agreement, neglecting to account for their own longterm credibility



  30. Links 17/8/2019: Wine 4.14 is Out, Debian Celebrates 26 years

    Links for the day


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts