GNU is not in favour of using the Microsoft API. That would be Novell.

http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/pnet.html -> “DotGNU Portable.NET is focused on compatibility with the ECMA-334 and ECMA-335 specifications for C# and CLI, and with Microsoft’s commercial CLI implementation. Our main goal is to make it easy to write portable application programs which work well both on DotGNU Portable.NET and on Microsoft’s .NET platform. “

There is actually a much larger list in there and it includes C.J. Collier, a Microsoft consultant who always hangs out in our IRC channel. It’s suspicious.

*blink* *blink*

What are you implying? I’ve already told you directly why I am on “our IRC channel.” Are you suggesting that I was not entirely truthful? What is it that you “suspect?”

As I’ve told you, I’m intrigued by many of your articles, and that I appreciate your skeptical watchdog efforts. I think there’s a better way to solve the problems you have noted than to boycott Novell or call Microsoft’s CEO sophomoric names. We have agreed to disagree on these points. So long as we can do so respectfully, I’m interested in idling on the channel in hopes of providing insight and in order to bring questions up with you.

Back on track though, I believe MS got a fairly decent shock from their attacks on Linux rebounding to some degree. With the help from sites like this and many others, even YouTube and such, their patent threats and other things haven’t gone unnoticed and I believe it has done them a lot more harm than good, and I hope they think that, and I hope it makes them not want to try it again. I think that the outrage that formed after, say, they announced Linux was “violating” 2xx patents or whatever would have just been the beginning, and they would have followed with a lot more FUD about patents specifically, if it wasn’t for the campaigns that followed, pushing back and wanting the truth and specifics from them. With everyone’s help, MS will continue to get slapped every time they step out of line, and that media attention won’t be favorable for them. Right now they don’t even want it to be *mentioned* that there are alternatives to their operating system, much less that there are ones that are actually pretty decent now. Like with their current ad campaign, they want everyone to think that they equal “PC”, and that’s all there is.

You can’t be a bully of information any longer in this day and age. The Internet can be a great tool for revealing lies and finding truth, but MS is just going to have to learn that the hard way.

…Roy mentioned and for us not to get distracted with patents and miss other attacks…

There are other equally important issues and I did write about some of them. There is actually a danger of forgetting about anything but patents and assuming that all those other things needn’t be addressed or resolved. Some authors convince themselves that patents are not an issue (because typically, they argue, other things “equally bad”), but this only addresses one among several issues, including the issue of control.

First, Microsoft’s extensive and very successful use of EEE in the past has *not* involved patents. As important as I think patents are, it’s a bit of a distractor. Their EEE arsenal is very extensive.

But to get back to your specific quote, I would not volunteer for such an experiment to show how hurtful something can be if the problem were not to be resolved. ["Here, sip this poison.. it will motivate you to discover the antidote."] I think courts and legislators would look for a defendant that had taken active steps to avoid problems instead of diving right in knowing the threats were there.

This is one reason why, as Roy just mentioned, patent FUD is such a threat. It puts the recipient in a position where they are more pressured to address the problem (eg, to pay the boogeyman to go away if this option could be carried out quickly and without too much pain). You’d think though that Microsoft would need to go further and detail the patents in public, but they like to tackle “partners” in an environment that is controlled and heavily favors Microsoft in order to maximize the odds these will sign up for the show ahead of time. When you tackle groups or individuals in isolation, you can more readily find and exploit the weaknesses of that group. Most groups are not perfectly up to date on all topics so can be manipulated more easily within a private atmosphere. [That is the opposite of how we work in the community. We share info and allow the missing gaps to be filled in by anyone so that the end product is as strong as the whole.]

This patent *FUD* is a dangerous attack because its result can be devastating without any apparent aggressive action being undertaken. Those being attacked are more likely to relax and not see the subversion taking place. [I am sure there are many working their own "subversions" all the time, but I am addressing Microsoft specifically because of Microsoft's track record of "destruction and conquest" at a large scale and because it's what I am most familiar with.]

We recently ran a 2-part post (links below) about the dangers of Mono on grounds of SCO-like FUD. Intimidation can be more effective a deterrent than a lawsuit and it lasts longer, if not indefinitely. To show that Mono works like .NET is similar to showing that Linux is ‘like’ UNIX.

___
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/09/19/why-not-mono-car-analogy/
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/09/20/mono-java-dotnet-analysis/

However I also wanted to add that with Microsoft patenting everything under the sun, like the page-up page-down keys, EVERYTHING I’m sure uses some of “their” junk patents, someway, somehow, at some point. So, really, you could also argue that the junk patents that Mono uses are also equally ignorable to a degree, but since they are specific to the “.NET/Mono” software *name*, they are probably riskier to use than, say, page-up page-down which all software uses practically. In other words, on the spectrum from least likely to be attacked by patent lawsuits to most likely, using Mono would be on the most likely end, while page-up page-down is on the even more ridiculous end of the spectrum, even though they are of course ALL ridiculous.

You can argue on either side as to if it’s good or bad to make the average computer user wise to software legalities, but ultimately I think awareness of how screwed over users are will help put an end to stupid legalities, rather than just trying to ignore them.

I removed Mono from my computer though, only thing that was using it was Tomboy and F-Spot, neither of which I use any way. =P

On the technical side though, are there any features of Mono that haven’t already been covered by any OSS? Does Java cover them all? What about other languages that aren’t so CPU-intensive? Java is great in that it’s cross-platform and all, but it’s also a virtual machine and as such a bit on the slow side. I have no idea how bloated the .NET/Mono systems are in comparison though.

Just trying to make sure open source is ahead is all. ^^ It’s not a crime to admit improvements are needed. Constructive criticism is what keeps software healthy.

>> MS on Trial Bristol may yet appeal after its loss against Microsoft (as of Friday, it hadn’t come to a decision on this), but as the case stands it serves as an awful warning for companies doing business with Microsoft. A nice little business took it into an alliance with Microsoft, then it got sucked in deeper, and then the carrots started to disappear, replaced by the stick. For Bristol, and for small developers in general, it’s a depressing tale. Since its formation in 1991 Bristol has produced Wind/U, a set of libraries and utilities which allow software developers to implement their Windows applications on Unix, OpenVMS and S/390 platforms. This was originally an independent initiative, but after various Microsoft approaches Bristol signed a deal with the company in 1994. This licensed Bristol Windows source code under the Windows Interface Source Environment (WISE) programme. The hook The good news for Bristol and its customers was that by having access to source Bristol could improve the performance and compatibility of Wind/U. The bad news, as it transpired, was that it made the company dependent on continuing access to the source code. This access was vulnerable to changes in pricing, restrictions on the code Microsoft was willing to give out, and changes in Microsoft policy.

Moral: trying to embrace and extend Microsoft’s protocols or gain interop is an uphill battle and likely a losing game for a commercial outfit.

The wiser move is to use established Linux/FOSS APIs/protocols. The wiser move is to fight the monopolies so as to maximize your investments in Linux. The Wiser move is to keep mono neutered: don’t use it and contribute to a competing technology.

BTW, again note Microsoft’s embrace and extend of existing images: “WISE”. They have done same with “share”, “trustworthy” and “open” among others (also, “windows” and “xp”).

Was it wise? Are they sharing? Is it trustworthy? Is it open? [yeah, that is why ISO got so happy when boycottnovell shed light on some hidden "open" docs]

The idea is to embrace a simple word with positive connotations and already well established within the minds of their target audience, in particular, when what Microsoft offers is the opposite or an “extension” and in order to dominate the related existing competing uses or conversations.

This is a part of marketing and others do it, too. Microsoft is just particularly good at it.

See also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four for related topics.

Were you assuming all of these articles were by people excited about mono?

They considered it important enough to cover, ushering a self-fulfilling prophecy in this way. It was the same with Hyper-V at 0% market share. VMWare and Microsoft are the only ones to bombard journalists. It’s part of The Slog.

A space above broke the full link. Here it is correctly:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/18/analysis_how_ms_used/

…

Two other important points:

Gains in dotnet hurt a number of commercial players that help Linux/FOSS. Examples include: Sun, the established Java ecosystem, and same wrt PHP, Python, Perl, and other competing technologies. [The port of these languages to dotnet are embrace/extended ports.]

You can also read about the parrot vm at http://www.parrot.org/

Gains in opensuse/Novell (ie, gains to the degree Novell can leverage them maximally), hurt all other distros to some extent.

Particularly hurt in the commercial space are Red Hat. Red Hat represents many contributions, but, more importantly, they represent a particular business model and set of principles beneficial to the community and not shared by Novell.

The first thing to say is that I was being partly facetious. I was recognizing Microsoft’s great desire to have mono/dotnet spread among FOSS groups and software. Thus, if they aren’t paying you to show off mono, perhaps you are short-changing yourself by not asking for lots of mula to match the buyer demand. [What might have happened if people did not get paid much was that they fell for the old "the competition will beat you to it and you will be left out" line. Microsoft did not amass all that money by paying for what they could get for cheap.]

The second point was that mono “obviously” would not make the rounds in the FOSS news world unless someone was paying or because of something bad because of the threat it poses to FOSS in general.

Microsoft advertizes heavily on Linux sites.

Also, I do not agree that many people are excited about mono.

Were you assuming all of these articles were by people excited about mono?

Assuming mono has technical merits that impress or you can’t get elsewhere, here is one argument about how there are more important things than technical merit if you are building for the long haul and want to keep costs under control: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-10-06-023-35-OS-SW-LL-0047 .

And don’t forget this: a subset of the community can fork mono and then maintain or even improve the “technical merits”. The point would be to diverge from the details of MSdotnet.

Novell’s “Interop” Fantasy:

“Interop” with MSdotnet, where it would really count, is a pipe dream. Microsoft controls what code ships and updates their customers’ systems. They are not beholden to produce bug-free and standards-based dotnet code. They are not beholden to limit themselves to the standard without adding undocumented lock-in. Surely they won’t limit themselves and yield ground if they don’t have to. They are not going to give away key items crucial to keeping their monopolies in place. They are also not going to give up the revenue generator that is their hidden source code as it’s secrets change over time. They are not going to give up their option to change the rules or their option not to renew your NDA contract terms after they are up or not to increase the fees, perhaps beyond the breaking point. [See http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/18/analysis_h ow_ms_used/ ]

Gifting Linux to Microsoft While Saving Microsoft Lots of Money:

By avoiding dotnet or perhaps to a lesser degree by forking mono significantly, we lessen patent issues and the ability of Microsoft to EEE and to leverage their existing huge investments in dotnet. Additionally, in the case of a fork, we test Microsoft’s behavior to forks and to code being develop in areas where they have many patents. Better now then later. Better to learn now than later when we could have much more to lose and to recode.

Microsoft already made the huge investments. Giving them extra bang for the buck spent is the exact opposite of what the FOSS community should want. I’m still waiting for Microsoft to open up their core platforms essentially completely. Until that happens, their monopolies, the dollars they spent to fight real FOSS and Linux, etc, all hurt FOSS and open platforms. To fight such a strong, established, and committed enemy of software openness and transparency and of user and developer freedom, you want to see *devalued* the assets where they have put their dollars. Don’t help grow mind share in dotnet or the dotnet ecosystem.

Here is a comment titled “It’s so obvious”: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-10-06-023-35-OS-SW-LL-0052 .
>> Mono will just improve the situation for Microsoft by making porting Linux applications to Windows a no-brainer.

To which I would add that …

(a) “FOSS” on Windows/Vista is not FOSS any more than HTML running on Internet E is FOSS: in both cases the “open source” completely depends on the lower closed source software layer to function.

(b) Microsoft can more easily and subtly sabotage FOSS running on Windows/Vista than they can closed source apps running there. And sabotage (as well as pre-design of “special” API) will happen as the season dictates a beneficial risk/reward ratio for Microsoft.

(c) Apps ported to Windows grow the value of Windows. This more so the better these apps are. Generally, there will be more and better Windows apps if there are more and better dotnet apps. The more FOSS ports there are to Windows, the more Microsoft can keep their monopolies entrenched by keeping up with Linux/FOSS. Most users won’t bother to go through the hoops and over the hurdles if they can get most of what they want right where they are.

(d) Exclusivity gives extra value to a platform. There will be more and better **exclusive** Windows apps if there are more and better mono apps BECAUSE Microsoft can more easily embrace and extend open source mono apps to incorporate into their integrated software. They study the code but hide their extra lock-in sauces (thus saving on perhaps 90%+ of the work required). dotnet is where Microsoft has an advantage over everyone else. They have invested the most in dotnet. They control the direction of dotnet.

(e) Novell is contracted to work for Microsoft. Giving copyrights to Novell or helping improve software and systems key to their business (eg, opensuse), will be helping Microsoft. Microsoft has a better chance of getting the source code you give Novell but with a special proprietary license instead of the GPL. [Such an automatic pact may already be in place.]

Here is another comment titled “On tactics and the nature of Free Software”: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-10-06-023-35-OS-SW-LL-0048

Saturday Novell:

Let me say something positive for Novell. Assuming dotnet becomes well-established and the greater Linux FOSS community and Linux commercial players have already suffered, then Novell might be sitting pretty. They can play the lock-in game against Microsoft, essentially through a fork/extension of dotnet. Of course, the best lock-in is closed source. Novell has shown they love and likely prefer closed source (Netware). Not to mention that Novell may even fold or be bought out by Microsoft.

..Some Saturday .. oh, no wonder .. it’s Sunday!

http://computerworlduk.com/COMMUNITY/BLOGS/index.cfm?blogid=14&entryid=1380

“But the end-result, which depends on Microsoft’s work, is something that encourages developers to write *yet more* code that uses Microsoft’s approach. In benighted countries where software can be patented, this means that any patents that Microsoft has in the .NET framework are like to apply to any code developed with Mono. Like an infectious disease, the intellectual monopoly is spread wider.”

[...]

“This is what makes Mono so dangerous: developers that use this framework are, in fact, helping to disperse the poison of Microsoft’s intellectual monopolies across the free software ecosystem. I’m sure that’s not the aim of the Mono developers, who doubtless have the best of intentions, but sadly it is the inevitable result. And that is why developers and users need to be warned off Mono in a way that is not necessary for Samba.“

Secondly, RMS’s view is that while it is fine to provide free implementations of proprietary software, we shouldn’t really depend upon these things if there is already an existing equivalent. In this link, says it’s better to stay away from C# as well as Mono because they may be dangerous to us.

This is consistent to RMS’s objection in your link: Mono is fine as long as we don’t depend on it. Migrating the whole Gnome platform to run on top of Mono means that Gnome will come to depend upon Mono.

When a number of tech blogs write about a few non participating members leaving an ISO committee in norway you find it normal ????

False. For starters, Steve Pepper quit in protest.