Comments

• Doug

  2009-01-06 11:28:51

  "one of the attributes of the agreement we made with Novell is that the intellectual property associated with [MONO] is available to Novell customers.” Bob Muglia
  
  Well there you have it, MICROS~1 claims ownership of MONO, clear and simple, in'it .. :]

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 12:52:41

  Google's android is all about turning Java into Dalvik actually, it's a different non-Java bytecode :D
  
  Interesting that Mono already bests dalvik, here's hoping to some good competition between the two in 2009...

• Myfraudsoft

  2009-01-06 12:53:57

  Well, call me a Lunix hater, but I just don't see what could possibly go wrong with shoving slow, overbloated and legally dubious Monkey crap in Android phones.

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 12:55:27

  Slow and overbloated? Methinks you haven't read the article :D

• Myfraudsoft

  2009-01-06 13:14:56

  quote: "Slow and overbloated?" So, at least you admit it is not legally safe.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-06 13:19:42

  According to the benchmarks, Mono uses less memory and less cpu to run.
  
  As far as legality, you wouldn't have to use Windows.Forms, ADO.NET or ASP.NET (which are the only parts I'm aware of that are even under scrutiny at this point).
  
  Also, the guy doing the port noted that one idea could be to have .class files be converted into CIL rather than dalvik bytecodes. So effectively, you'd still be coding in Java, just that you'd use a better VM (well, to be fair, the G1 currently uses an interpreter and not a JIT).

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 13:42:16

  @Myfraudsoft: no, I just didn't mention it.
  
  @Dan: that's what IKVM does.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-06 13:59:28

  I meant it was suggested that bytecode conversion could be done at compile-time rather than on-demand. IKVM does the conversion on-demand afaik, correct?

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-06 14:01:25

  It should also be noted that neither Miguel (nor his team) nor Microsoft were involved in getting Mono in the G1, it was all done by an independent party in his spare time.
  
  No doubt Miguel is excited just as anyone would be to see their baby used in something cool like that.

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 14:07:59

  @Dan: ikvm is used to do run-time conversion, but you can also call ikvmc to do a static conversion into .net like Android do with dx/dalvik.
  
  I think it's also interesting to note that google went the non-Java Java route because of Sun's licensing.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 14:59:44

  Two negatives don't make a positive.

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 15:05:22

  Two new free software virtual machines. I'm not seeing any negatives.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 15:08:07

  My point was that ignoring control issues and legal issues around Mono cannot be justified by slinging mud at Sun/java.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-06 15:19:55

  AlexH: ah, thanks, I didn't know about ikvmc
  
  Roy: what legal issues around Mono? The ECMA/ISO portions are as safe as anything else.
  
  Also, if the Mono VM is legally unsafe, it's very likely that other VMs are as well.

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 15:58:53

  @Roy: they're not ignored, they don't exist. If you want to believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden, that's up to you.
  
  I'm just pointing out that Dalvik isn't really Java, so bringing Mono to Android is hardly an attack on Java - particularly since neither JavaME nor the ARM JIT are free software.

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 16:14:21

  Sorry, that should be "JavaME on the ARM JIT is".

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 17:37:32

  Roy: what legal issues around Mono? The ECMA/ISO portions are as safe as anything else.

  
  
  We've been through this many times before. It does not assure anything.

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 17:45:22

  It's good enough for the legal experts at the distros.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 17:49:14

  Not quite. It's cattle effect.

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 17:55:30

  It's not a cattle effect. They're smarter than that, and know more about the law than anyone here.

• Shane Coyle

  2009-01-06 17:56:09

  How 'bout gNewSense? Last I had used it, I think the 2.1 deltah release at the time had included Mono/Tomboy. Once I had commented here on it, somewhere... and, the gNewSense folks are pretty thorough in weeding out non-free software, good enough to get the FSF seal of approval.
  
  I think that Mono 2, with its inclusion of Winforms and some other non-standardized aspects of .net, has crossed into territory only safe for Novell and their paying customers. IANAL, AFAIK, YMMV, ETC
  
  As was said before, the Android platform wouldn't require those particular unsafe features, so I'm guessing it's kinda safe there...

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 18:02:02

  @Shane: I would agree with you about XAML potentially; not Winforms though - for one thing, Wine would be in exactly the same trouble.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 18:06:40

  Applications are not 'developed in Wine'. It's another debate we've already had.

• Shane Coyle

  2009-01-06 18:13:21

  Who assumes Wine is safe? But, I get your point. ;^ )
  
  Basically, my point is that after the deal, the Mono folks consciously have decided to go beyond the features which are standardized and have a patent non-aggression promise or whatever ya want to call it.
  
  IMO, if you use Mono with non-standardized features, you had better be either A) Novell or B) a Novell 'customer' or perhaps C) a MS customer, since they usually grant you a patent license to use what you buy.
  
  Which always made me think, if Windows came preinstalled and licensed on my machine and I didn't return it - do I have rights to the MS patent licenses involved, if they were valid?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 18:18:40

  IANAL, but I suspect a Windows licence does is not a licence to use clones, just as a 'promise' to use or implement OOXML is not applicable once one deviates from ECMA MOOX.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 18:23:53

  FWIW, Shane called Mono a "officially a [patent] minefield" in 2006, well before I started covering this topic.
  
  Not much has changed since then (not for the better anyway) and Mono critique predates the Novell/Microsoft deal (there are several examples I'm aware of).

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 18:34:05

  @Shane: you're wrong about the Mono folks "have a patent non-aggression promise"; they have no such thing. The situation with Mono didn't change with the MS deal.

• Baby In The Bath Water

  2009-01-06 18:38:02

  And not one of the critiques has been able to prove (despite all the effort to do so) that Mono (ECMA/ISO portions) is any less safe than any other piece of software.
  
  Note: this comment was posted from Novell's headquarters.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 18:39:06

  http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono

• Shane Coyle

  2009-01-06 18:40:15

  I wondered about OOO, too (pre LGPL3). Even more so because you had the Sun agreement prior to the Novell agreement which seemed to indicate that if you become a big contributor to OOO, you should expect a visit and check from Redmond.
  
  Essentially, I look at Mono as a 'baited field' for MS to hunt on, or like playing stickball in front of the meanest old guy's house on the block - technically OK, but probably not advisable.
  
  Umm, as far as the patent non-aggression promise, there is one that MS had to give to all as part of standardization, covering all parts they submitted - no?
  
  After that, any non-standardized parts would require a license - only Novell and their paying customers receive that as part of the MS-Novell deal.
  
  Whether they were emboldened by the MS deal or not, the inclusion of these features has occurred since. Perhaps I implied too strongly the relationship between those events, but I believe they are related.

• Shane Coyle

  2009-01-06 18:43:03

  Oh, and hunting over a baited field is not OK - sorry if I implied that too. Gosh, my English is awful...

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 18:43:50

  @Roy: that link is now well out of date. One obvious issue raised, locking out Red Hat, has actually gone completely the other way.
  
  @Shane: ah, right, yeah - in terms of the standardisation, of course there is a blanket grant there. There could be other patents that Mono runs into, but of course that's true of any software, and being based on the .net framework doesn't put it at any special risk.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 18:44:29

  I worry that Microsoft will foster Mono just to make .NET more prevalent (starve the competition) and then hit Mono over the head with a cluebat.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 18:45:59

  ..being based on the .net framework doesn’t put it at any special risk.

  
  
  Not the project, its dependency.

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 18:50:29

  Doesn't change. In fact, anything using Mono is almost certainly not at risk of any of the same patents that Mono would be. That's the same for any framework.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 18:53:03

  From the news:
  
  "Companies also can use their patent portfolios to disrupt competitors and gain revenue from companies that want to use their patented technologies. Microsoft, for example, has made claims that it holds patents for technologies in Linux, which open-source proponents viewed as a tactic to discourage people from using open-source software."
  
  http://mis-asia.com/news/articles/survey-microsoft-has-strongest-patent-portfolio
  
  So Microsoft can use the Mono card to intimidate companies. Also new:
  
  http://www.ag-ip-news.com/GetArticle.asp?Art_ID=6655&lang=en

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 18:56:03

  Notice that they don't single out Mono at all.
  
  The "Mono == .net == MS patents!" meme is so naive and dull. It shows a basic lack of how patents work.
  
  For example: why did Sun enter a cross-licensing scheme with MS to cover Java?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 18:59:05

  It's not about Sun.

• AlexH

  2009-01-06 19:00:58

  Yes, it is, and it's about every other industry player who spends vast amounts of time and money patenting stuff.
  
  You think you're "safe" because you think you're avoiding one player's patents by not using some specific software. You're not. You're not avoiding anyone else's patents, and you're also not avoiding Microsoft's patents: you're just avoiding a piece of software.
  
  And you sell this like a snake-oil salesmen to people thinking that it makes them safe.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 19:11:10

  Yes, it is, and it’s about every other industry player who spends vast amounts of time and money patenting stuff.

  
  
  Sun is not Microsoft.
  
  http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2008/dec/24/capra-free-software/
  
  "I thought immediately of Microsoft’s presence at OSCON this year and the launch of their campaign to pretend they haven’t spent the last ten years trying destroy all of Free Software and Open Source."
  
  […]
  
  "Microsoft is unique among proprietary software companies: they are the only ones who have actively tried to kill Open Source and Free Software. It’s not often someone wants to be your friend after trying to kill you for ten years, but such change is cause for suspicion. "

• Shane Coyle

  2009-01-06 19:12:32

  Precisely, these big software companies are creating a cartel using spurious software patents to create an impossible barrier to entering the industry.
  
  As we all know, No non-trivial software is free from patent concerns - and these cross-licensing deals are making sure that any new startup will either pay everyone in the cartel a royalty or choke on the paperwork or cost of researching prior art and / or obtaining every possible license (something that MS says takes too much time and paperwork, and they have a large legal team I'd guess).
  
  And, still, no one is safe from trolls.
  
  Software patents are invalid to begin with, and are stifling innovation to boot, the exact opposite of the point of patents to begin with.

• Baby In The Bath Water

  2009-01-06 19:13:26

  AlexH is right. If Microsoft have valid patents on VMs, then they could attack JVM, Parrot, LLVM, etc. Not just Mono.
  
  There's nothing special about the Mono VM that would make it more susceptible to attacks from Microsoft than any other VM.
  
  Note: this comment was posted from Novell's headquarters.

• Shane Coyle

  2009-01-06 19:19:35

  Isn't there a Bill "Pearly" Gates quote re:state street I believe that he talks about his fear that Microsoft could be one of those little guys locked out by the big patent players?
  
  It was what spurred their patent push, if I recall correctly...

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 19:25:14

  “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."

• Baby In The Bath Water

  2009-01-06 19:38:25

  I don't think anyone here is arguing that patents don't suck. The fact that patents cover everything under the sun only further illustrates that avoiding Mono out of patent fears is foolish.
  
  Note: this comment was posted from Novell's headquarters.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 19:40:29

  Sun won't use them aggressively against F/OSS.

• Baby In The Bath Water

  2009-01-06 19:44:09

  So what? It won't matter if the patents aren't owned by Sun. Just because you stick with the JVM or Java doesn't mean you are any safer from patents than w/ Mono. If Microsoft (or someone else) owns patents on VMs, then you aren't safe no matter what VM you use.
  
  Note: this comment was posted from Novell's headquarters.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 20:00:36

  Why focus on VMs when there is something that's more of a blatant "ripoff"? Just having a patent or suing is not enough without a solid case. Mono makes that case.
  
  See explanations in this guest post:
  
  http://boycottnovell.com/2008/09/19/why-not-mono-car-analogy/ http://boycottnovell.com/2008/09/20/mono-java-dotnet-analysis/

• Baby In The Bath Water

  2009-01-06 20:03:42

  No, you are just naive about how patent lawsuits work.
  
  Note: this comment was posted from Novell's headquarters.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 20:10:26

  Not really. I follow this topic closely and write about it too.

• Gentoo User (and proud of it)

  2009-01-06 20:13:15

  Sun won’t use them aggressively against F/OSS ... See explanations in this guest post

  
  
  Maybe I'm the first to mention this to you, but those explanations are nothing more than "I think Microsoft is evil, therefore you shouldn't use Mono" padded with lots of blabber.
  
  And they don't even remotely explain why the Java situation is any different, other than the fact that the author doesn't like Microsoft.
  
  If that is indeed the reason, then fine. Just don't pretend there are incredibly compelling reasons that differentiate Java from Mono vis-a-vis patents, other than simple dislike of Microsoft.
  
  How's that Wikipedia thing going, by the way? :)
  
  Note: comment arrived from a witch hunter that does not even use GNU/Linux.

• saulgoode

  2009-01-06 20:19:12

  Umm, as far as the patent non-aggression promise, there is one that MS had to give to all as part of standardization, covering all parts they submitted - no?

  
  
  

  @Shane: ah, right, yeah - in terms of the standardisation, of course there is a blanket grant there. There could be other patents that Mono runs into, but of course that’s true of any software, and being based on the .net framework doesn’t put it at any special risk.

  
  
  There is no "blanket grant" covering patents in the ECMA standard.

• Pil Lars

  2009-01-06 22:19:21

  AlexH,
  
  XAML and Silverlight are now both released under the Open Specification Promise:
  
  http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

• Baby In The Bath Water

  2009-01-06 22:28:21

  Not really. I follow this topic closely and write about it too.

  
  
  I'm sorry, but anonymous comments on Slashdot or LinuxToday do not count.
  
  Note: this comment was posted from Novell's headquarters.

• Roy Bixler

  2009-01-06 22:37:50

  No one has really refuted this:
  
  http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono
  
  The scenario outlined there sounds very plausible to me, especially when I hear about Microsoft's marketing plans in Asia, which are first to encourage or go easy on illegal copying, get people used to Windows and then crack down and start generating revenue. What is to stop Microsoft from launching a patent suit against Red Hat et al (a la Rambus) once Mono and Microsoft APIs make a significant part of the software?

• Baby In The Bath Water

  2009-01-06 22:38:49

  Just notified via my twitter feed:
  
  http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jan-06.html
  
  A Wii game using Mono hit the shelves. There is also talk of another big game coming out soon, altho the name of the game is not mentioned. Apparently Miguel mentioned it at PDC though.
  
  I guess these game developers must be absolutely terrified of patent lawsuits.
  
  Note: this comment was posted from Novell's headquarters.

• Baby In The Bath Water

  2009-01-06 22:49:09

  Roy Bixler: it hasn't been substantiated either. Innocent until proven guilty.
  
  Note: this comment was posted from Novell's headquarters.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-06 22:55:44

  Pil Lars,
  
  That's irrelevant as there is no Silverlight for GNU/Linux and the ripoff of it comes with Mono on its coattails.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 00:22:19

  I thought we'd been over this, Roy. Moonlight is the official Silverlight for Linux.

• Pil Lars

  2009-01-07 00:23:00

  There is Moonlight that implements the XAML spec for SIlverlight.
  
  My point was addressed at AlexH, as he was wondering about XAML. XAML has now been placed under OSP (it is more general than Silverlight).
  
  But you do not write software, so you might not have understood that part.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 00:27:03

  Moonlight is the official Silverlight for Linux.

  
  
  This is false. There is no "Silverlight for Linux". Let alone "official"...
  
  

  But you do not write software, so you might not have understood that part.

  
  
  I'm referring to Mono+extensions, not XAML.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 00:40:38

  If anyone actually bothers to read the linkbacks that Roy provides, the comments in them disprove the articles.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 00:47:50

  If it's not official, then what's this about?
  
  http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/sep07/09-04silverlightpr.mspx

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 00:58:54

  Searching the page for "for Linux" gives nothing. Likewise for "official".
  
  Novell is just Microsoft's way out of more antitrust and a way of spreading its APIs, codecs, and patents.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 01:02:40

  My point was that Microsoft is backing the development of Moonlight and they will be providing download links for Moonlight on silverlight.net. They are also providing the codecs and patent indemnification for those codecs.
  
  If Moonlight isn't officially blessed by Microsoft, then why are they doing all that?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 01:26:52

  I've already answered that question.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 02:38:45

  Your answer doesn't contradict what I've said - in fact, it arguably backs my statement ;)

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 03:06:06

  Please read this comment again.

• neighborlee

  2009-01-07 03:51:31

  You forget that moonlight is not accepted into either debian or fedora, both of whom are foss champions to our communities.
  
  Spin here all day if you wish, but it wont change that very inconvenient fact for you.
  
  Your comment about the mono encumbererd engine is ridiculous, as clearly the engine isn't for the foss community.
  
  Everyone in the linux community is starting to see the truth in that mono is only safe for Novel customers, is from a non trustworthy company just like silverlight is, wont be accepted anytime soon by champions of said community and to come here and try to spin it another way speaks volumnes about whom you profess to champion. I guess the same group that was behind the corruption of ISO, OOXML ( irrelevant now ) and of course how dare we forget that, - 'linux is a cancer". Good for you for taking the high ground and looking out for your neighbors ;)
  
  cheers nl

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 03:53:22

  Yea, you searched for the string "for linux" which isn't there. However, it does mention "linux".
  
  

  Microsoft Delivers Silverlight 1.0, Extends Support to Linux

  
  
  They wouldn't support Moonlight if they didn't bless it.
  
  This is why you have lost so much respect, Roy, you never admit when you're wrong.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 03:53:59

  neighborlee: wrong, they have accepted Moonlight into Debian and Ubuntu.

• neighborlee

  2009-01-07 04:18:28

  He is not wrong about the fact that only windows and mac users seem to currently have 'support' in the form of a direct download for for their systems. OF course M$ knows that their chance of getting this into debian and fedora out of the box is next to nadda.
  
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=501190 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=484121
  
  No answer yet about legal risk afaict, but since you seem to know all about this maybe you can provide a link, that would be great.
  
  cheers nl

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 08:43:21

  I saw that, Dan, but it's not the same thing. It sure doesn't make it "Silverlight for Linux" because it's not . It's Moonlight and it's far behind Silverlight.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 13:16:29

  I'm not saying it isn't behind Silverlight. The point is that Microsoft supports Moonlight. Therefor it is officially blessed by Microsoft.
  
  That's all I'm saying.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 13:26:54

  "[Moonlight] officially blessed by Microsoft" != "the official Silverlight for Linux."

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 14:07:56

  It doesn't really matter whether it's "officially blessed" or "the official version".
  
  What matters is a. getting clarity on its legal status, and if free, b. getting it complete.
  
  At the moment, there is no free system with tools available to create content. Locking the free desktop out of content creation is holding it back.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 14:20:58

  It doesn’t really matter whether it’s “officially blessed” or “the official version”.

  
  
  Semantics matter because Microsoft is fooling people, leading them to believing that there is "Silverlight for Linux." (there isn't)
  
  

  What matters is a. getting clarity on its legal status, and if free, b. getting it complete.

  
  
  And getting Mono?
  
  

  At the moment, there is no free system with tools available to create content. Locking the free desktop out of content creation is holding it back.

  
  
  That's not true. There are many tools that create content, even using standards.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 14:23:06

  Point to these many tools then, please. Something which, at a minimum, can be used to warp some text in a circle in an animated fashion perhaps, or similar.
  
  Flash is capable of doing it, SVG+SMIL similarly so. Where are the free tools outputting content in these formats?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 14:27:04

  Point to these many tools then, please. Something which, at a minimum, can be used to warp some text in a circle in an animated fashion perhaps, or similar.

  
  
  What for?

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 14:30:06

  For the purpose of showing that they're not completely trivial and noddy tools which will never be finished.
  
  Seriously. I don't care if they're not Adobe CreativeSuite or whatever, but please, point me at a single usable free content creation tool which supports one of these standards and can do more than draw rectangles and circles.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 14:35:11

  My question was, what is it that you want to achieve?
  
  Here is a demonstration of what can be achieved with HTML and JavaScript.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 14:37:34

  I know full well what can be achieved by the players, be they browsers or plugins. That's not the point.
  
  You are talking about "many tools to create content". Where are they? Show me some of them.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 14:41:36

  http://www.openlaszlo.org/showcase

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 14:48:28

  Laszlo is a compiler and toolset. It's not content creation tool; by that yardstick Emacs and vim count as well.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 15:03:20

  Being not 'to your taste' does not make it any less of an advanced content creation tool.
  
  There is a lot you can use to achieve good stuff with real standards.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 15:07:27

  I didn't say it wasn't to my taste; I said it wasn't a content creation tool, which it isn't. The link that you cite even lists it under "Programming toolkits"! Laszlo is very good at what it does, but it doesn't create content Roy, sorry.
  
  Your link does contain a list of content creation apps: like GIMP, Inkscape, NVu, Kino, etc. etc. The thing is, none of them output the content we're talking about.
  
  Strange that you talked about so many content creation apps yet all you can name is a single programmer's toolkit. I guess PHP's SWF module counts as content creation too now?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 15:12:45

  You define it as only a GUI? That would be the Microsoft|Apple mindset.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 15:15:18

  No, that would be the mindset of someone trying to draw stuff on screen. Being able to see what you're doing is, y'know, quite helpful.
  
  Of course, if you think people can create good animations and interaction by defining it manually in XML files or something, that speaks volumes.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 15:24:12

  Had Microsoft implemented -- property -- SVG, then maybe better tools would be created to encourage this. Moonlight and Novell are not helping.
  
  — quote —

  The Competition

  
  
  "It is both rewarding and scary to look at the current competitive landscape. We can all feel some sense of vindication in the fact that the internet did not cause the immediate death of Office and that so far no one is running Java applets that do the “right 20%” of Office-yet. We can take a moment to gloat, though only a moment as we still have traditional competitors and competition at the LORG level is still there though not as directly...
  
  "We must not lose sight of the fact that our biggest competitor continues to be our existing products and the inertia they have. The cost and pain of upgrading still overwhelms any sense of benefit we seem to be able to communicate to customers.."
  
  http://boycottnovell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/px09637.pdf

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 15:29:39

  Still waiting for these "many apps", Roy...
  
  (Microsoft and SVG have nothing to do with it; anyone wanting to create such an app would target Flash, which has the largest install base by miles).

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 15:32:41

  There are Web editors for GNU/Linux that are graphical. Flash is binary creation tool, not a content creation tool.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 15:36:12

  So show me a graphical web editor that can do animation then.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 15:38:45

  GIMP+NVU.
  
  What do you want animations for anyway? Are you designing greeting cards? use video.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 15:42:02

  So your answer to creating interesting content on the free desktop is:
  
  a. use command line tools b. create animated GIFs (not interactive) c. what do you want that for anyway? use video. (not interactive)
  
  That attitude holds back the free desktop. It needs high quality content creation tools which rival Adobe's. The free software community is not a passive consumer.
  
  People aren't going to stop creating interactive multimedia content. All that will happen without the tools is that our desktop gets left behind.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 15:51:55

  a. use command line tools b. create animated GIFs (not interactive) c. what do you want that for anyway? use video. (not interactive)

  
  
  Overstatement by exaggeration.
  
  

  That attitude holds back the free desktop. It needs high quality content creation tools which rival Adobe’s.

  
  
  There's wine/crossover/whatever.
  
  

  The free software community is not a passive consumer.

  
  
  The free software community needs to stick to established standards.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 15:54:33

  I'd love for you to show me the "exaggeration". Those three suggestions are what you put forward. I can now happily add a fourth suggestion you've put forward:
  
  d. Use Windows apps under Wine/Crossover
  
  Although I didn't notice you citing any free software apps which run under Windows for the task.
  
  Great suggestions there, very progressive.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 15:56:13

  Indeed. Why should F/LOSS waste time writing office suites or web browsers or desktops? We could all just run Windows apps under Wine! Who'd'a'thunk it!?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 15:56:38

  Editors/IDEs/graphical tools don't require descending to the command line. That's unnecessary escalation that you use to discredit my argument.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 15:59:52

  @Roy: you were the one who was saying you needed a wider definition that allows non-GUIs to succeed.
  
  If you can point at some of these "many tools" that have GUI form, all the better. Please, show us these IDEs/graphical tools!

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 16:01:09

  @Dan: precisely!
  
  Interesting how the "cheap Windows" argument suddenly got deployed.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 16:02:39

  And by Roy, no less!

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 16:03:45

  Oh, and lets not forget about putting ourselves in jeopardy over patents if we use Wine!

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 16:09:50

  Wine can in principle be disposed of without affecting the applications; unlike... say... Mono.

• saulgoode

  2009-01-07 16:09:53

  That attitude holds back the free desktop. It needs high quality content creation tools which rival Adobe’s. The free software community is not a passive consumer.

  A non-free solution implementing a non-free standard does nothing to advance the "free desktop". The Free Software community needs Free content creation tools which support open and unencumbered standards, not proprietary products only available from a single source.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 16:12:17

  @saulgoode: precisely why I originally said the legal status of silverlight needs to be cleared up. If it can't be used, then something else is needed.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 16:13:03

  A non-free solution implementing a non-free standard does nothing to advance the “free desktop”. The Free Software community needs Free content creation tools which support open and unencumbered standards, not proprietary products only available from a single source.

  
  
  The same applies to Mono.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 16:14:01

  No, the same doesn't apply. No distro excludes Mono, including those with the most stringent free software standards.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 16:16:13

  Practice does not legitimise bad decisions just as being a law does not make it ethical or worth obeying.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 16:18:58

  Wine can in principle be disposed of without affecting the applications

  
  
  Not if the only apps available to do the task needed are Windows-only.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 16:19:55

  You saying "ooh, it's bad" also doesn't de-legitimise it.
  
  The majority opinion is settled on this matter.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-07 16:20:07

  Roy: Red Hat's legal dept found Mono to be safe. They didn't just include it because other people were.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 16:23:02

  Not true.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 16:25:06

  What's the betting that you haven't done the simple thing, which would be to do the research: drop them an e-mail and actually ask.
  
  Your wild speculation that they were somehow bamboozled into distributing a legally dodgy product is far-fetched.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 16:27:21

  Maybe we'll do an open letter some day. Not today..

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 16:29:48

  Manyana, manyana, for now the speculation continues.
  
  (btw, an "open letter" isn't the same as "doing research". One is passive, the other is active.)

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 16:44:01

  If you urgently want an answer, why not ask them? You do, after all, participate in some Fedora stuff, right?

• Baby In The Bath Water

  2009-01-07 17:14:18

  I doubt AlexH needs to ask, he already knows the answer. It's clear, however, that Roy does not know.
  
  Note: this comment was posted from Novell's headquarters.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 18:14:42

  @Baby: not sure if it's either "does not know" or "does not want to know".

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-07 18:21:47

  I know the risks and so does Red Hat. Based on what I know, the issues leave Red Hat concerned.

• AlexH

  2009-01-07 19:04:06

  You don't seem to be very hasty to talk on behalf of companies...