Comments

• Myfraudsoft

  2009-01-11 14:08:40

  quote: "...mid that we might need to heavily discount the OS as we did in Czechoslovakia." Czechoslovakia?!? WTF?

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 14:47:43

  This makes using Mono to run Windows applications potentially more difficult, but it's not like the Mono team couldn't invent their own media stack (based on GStreamer, for example).
  
  

  but we need a compact subset for phones and TVs.

  
  
  Kinda like Mono already has? :)
  
  From what I've read, Mono has some tools that make it extremely easy for vendors to create their own compact subsets containing just what they need (Mono on iPhone and Wii for example). This is all made possible because Mono is FOSS.
  
  I've also heard that a number of vendors have already switched to their own Mono compact framework because they were unhappy with what Microsoft's compact framework provided.
  
  I know you hate to accept it, but Mono is a win-win for the free world.

• Needs Sunlight

  2009-01-11 14:48:26

  Economic factors should be enough to ban WMV:
  
  http://www.financialexpress.com/news/microsoft-loses-antitrust-appeal-in-eu-court/217837/
  
  http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/general/12058/microsoft-loses-european-anti-trust-appeal
  
  We also know that proprietary formats and DRM threaten also sovereignity of not just the individual member states, but also the Union as a whole.
  
  Now with px07064 we can see that it's a matter of democracy. We're at a turning point: either democracy must put an end to MSFT (and MSFTers) or MSFT (and MSFTers) will put an end to democracy.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-11 14:50:19

  Remember what happens with codecs in Monolight [sic].

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 14:52:59

  WMV is a container format, not a codec. I don't see why "economic factors" should cause WMV to be banned.
  
  The links you provided are opposed to Windows Media Player being shipped with Windows, they say nothing about the WMV format.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 14:55:17

  Roy: yes, key word: codecs. Codecs aren't a full media stack. They are just one small portion.
  
  GStreamer is a full media stack, including codecs. If you get the codecs from Fluendo, they are legally licensed.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-11 14:55:50

  What will WMV contain in Monolight[sic]?

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 14:57:33

  I meant to add that since Microsoft has only provided Moonlight with codecs, then presumably Moonlight has its own media stack (sans codecs) which makes sense since from what I know, you can swap out the Microsoft codecs and replace them with the ffmpeg codecs (this is done via plugins).

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 14:59:04

  Roy: your question makes absolutely no sense. It's not Moonlight which defines what is in the WMV that it plays.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-11 15:16:44

  It's Silverlight content. That's exactly the point. It only validates the above antitrust exhibit.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 15:27:27

  Uh, no it doesn't. Please explain how you think it does.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-11 15:33:45

  Users are served patented stuff, not something like Ogg Vorbis/Theora.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 15:54:44

  That's because the content providers want to serve content in those formats/encodings. That has nothing to do with Moonlight or even Silverlight (I'd wager that Microsoft would support any formats/encodings that the content providers wanted to push - I'd actually be cheating, though, because I know this for a fact: Microsoft are adding h264 and AAC support because content providers asked for that).
  
  If content providers start asking for ogg/vorbis and ogg/theora en mass, I'd bet anything that Microsoft would add support for it. They want to sell their products, in order to sell their products, they need to give the customers what they want.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 15:55:28

  http://timheuer.com/blog/archive/2008/09/09/silverlight-to-support-h264-and-aac.aspx

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-11 16:02:12

  How frantically you jump at it. This must have hit some nerve; why don't you ask Microsoft about these patents? We're moving off topic now. Monolight[sic] was just some example, but it's not the thing to focus on.

• aeshna23

  2009-01-11 16:06:12

  Dan,
  
  At some level, I'm sure we all wish you were right. It's just that there are some risks out there with Mono. Obviously, Mono is a big project. Is there any part of Mono that you think may be risky. By risky, I mean a greater than 1% chance that Microsoft will pursue patent litigation against that part of Mono?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-11 16:19:55

  http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/11/ms-maintaining-gap-vs-linux/#comment-58063
  
  "Dan O'Brian said,
  
  January 11, 2009 at 11:03 am
  
  Yes, Windows.Forms could be a potential problem area. I haven’t ever disagreed on that."

• saulgoode

  2009-01-11 16:29:51

  That’s because the content providers want to serve content in those formats/encodings.

  
  
  Hmmm. Wikipedia and Archive.org aren't content providers?
  
  

  I’d wager that Microsoft would support any formats/encodings that the content providers wanted to push ...

  
  
  http://silverlight.net/forums/t/4460.aspx
  
  Sixteen months later and still no response...

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 16:35:06

  *sigh*.
  
  Yes, but Mono's Windows.Forms library could be removed without making Mono useless. In fact, removing Windows.Forms wouldn't affect any current Linux apps written using Mono at all.
  
  aeshna: Lets assume that Microsoft develops a media stack that Mono, for whatever reason, couldn't implement a compatible library for. So what?
  
  They could implement another media stack library instead. Banshee obviously already uses GStreamer via managed bindings. What's stopping Mono (or anyone else) from implementing alternative media stacks to the one Microsoft designs for their own .NET?
  
  Lets remember that Microsoft have had their own media stack since before .NET, Mac has had their own, and Linux has had multiple stacks of our own.
  
  Just because Linux application developers couldn't use Microsoft's media stack back in the c/c++ days didn't mean Linux app devs were SOL. They just had to use a different stack.
  
  If you want to argue portability - again, developers have already had to deal with that too.
  
  So why are people suddenly screaming about the sky falling when it is suggested that Microsoft could implement a .NET media stack that they might try to keep to themselves?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-11 16:35:14

  The letter was lost in the mail, I guess.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 16:43:21

  soulgoode: I've heard a rumor (and I have no way to verify), that Silverlight 3.0's multimedia API will allow web developers to implement-and-plugin their own codec support.
  
  If that is true, then there's no reason content providers couldn't use ogg.
  
  

  Hmmm. Wikipedia and Archive.org aren’t content providers?

  
  
  If you were a business and only had 2 content providers (who have no interest in being your paying customers) wanted a feature that you didn't already support, would you be quick to implement support? Likely not.
  
  Microsoft obviously does not make money on Silverlight plugins. They make their money on from their Windows Media servers and media encoding tools.
  
  If Wikipedia and Archive.org were saying "we'd buy Windows Media servers if they could stream ogg" then Microsoft might actually add support.

• saulgoode

  2009-01-11 17:37:50

  So why are people suddenly screaming about the sky falling when it is suggested that Microsoft could implement a .NET media stack that they might try to keep to themselves?

  From a standpoint of freedom and liberation of the masses, I think the Internet has the potential, if not already realized, to be the most significant technological advance since Gutenberg's movable type press and the most meaningful sociological advance since the separation of church and state.
  
  Microsoft did not build the Internet -- in fact they battled its inception and growth throughout its short history -- and they have no right to install tollbooths on it and to prise rent from its users. I stand opposed to any web standard which is not royalty-free or is encumbered by the control of proprietary interests. This is not just for philosophical reason (which are important), but also owing to the impracticality such control elicits.
  
  

  If you were a business and only had 2 content providers (who have no interest in being your paying customers) wanted a feature that you didn’t already support, would you be quick to implement support? Likely not.

  
  
  Which is probably a good reason not to let such a business control how people on the Web communicate and collaborate.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 17:49:30

  saulgoode: the media stack in discussion is not meant for the web, it's meant as the media stack for Windows applications.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-11 17:50:53

  Most things are moving to the Web.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 17:57:24

  Irrelevant.

• saulgoode

  2009-01-11 18:13:03

  saulgoode: the media stack in discussion is not meant for the web, it’s meant as the media stack for Windows applications.

  
  
  I'm honestly confused by your statement. Surely you don't consider Mono/Moonlight a Windows application?
  
  http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2008/Dec-02.html

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 18:19:38

  As has already been explained, Moonlight isn't using Microsoft's full media stack, they are only using the codecs (a very small piece). In fact, Moonlight can even use ffmpeg's codecs instead.
  
  If someone were so inclined, I'm sure you could get Moonlight to use GStreamer instead.
  
  You guys really need to get yourselves some clue about how these things work instead of making fools out of yourselves.

• saulgoode

  2009-01-11 18:49:16

  As has already been explained, Moonlight isn’t using Microsoft’s full media stack,...

  
  
  I didn't say it was. It is, however, their Silverlight media stack.
  
  

  Miguel de Icaza: Although Moonlight 1.0 exposes the Silverlight 1.0, Moonlight 1.0 ships a 2.0 media stack (minus the DRM pieces).

  
  
  How foolish of me to confuse Silverlight with having anything to do with publishing media on the Web.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 19:44:47

  I didn’t say it was. It is, however, their Silverlight media stack.

  
  
  Again, wrong. Silverlight has a different media stack than Moonlight. They only (optionally) share one small component of the media stacks, which is Microsoft's codecs.
  
  Miguel de Icaza's statement there is confusing, he means the codecs only. You can look at the Moonlight source code if you don't believe me.
  
  A media stack includes (but is not limited to):
  
  - a demuxer (Moonlight has implemented their own) - code to queue audio and video stream packets after being demuxed (Moonlight wrote their own) - codecs (Moonlight can use Microsoft's binary codec blobs or ffmpeg) - code to synchronize the audio and video packets (Moonlight implemented their own) - colorspace conversion (Moonlight wrote their own) - video scaling (Moonlight wrote their own) - code to play the audio (Moonlight wrote their own which uses Linux audio APIs) - code to display the video frames (Moonlight wrote their own)
  
  As you can plainly see, codecs are only one small piece of the full media stack.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-11 20:01:47

  Miguel de Icaza’s statement there is confusing, he means the codecs only.

  
  
  Are you talking on his behalf? Maybe he can explain himself and clarify. He does, after all, read this site every day.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 20:08:46

  Ah, then perhaps he will clarify.
  
  However, it's also easily verified by taking a look at the Moonlight sources.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-11 20:14:08

  Give him a ring/ping.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 20:38:15

  I don't have his #, do you? Plus, as I said, this is all verifiable by looking at the code. Why bother him with pointless questions that can be answered by doing 5 minutes of research?
  
  Here's your answer (which confirms what I've been saying):
  
  http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2008/Dec-02.html
  
  

  When we first prototyped Moonlight we used the ffmpeg media pipeline. A media pipeline looks like this:
  
  Charts by the taste-impaired.
  
  Originally ffmpeg handled everything for us: fetching media, demultiplexing it, decoding it and scaling it.
  
  Since we needed much more control over the entire pipeline, we had to write our own, one that was tightly integrated with Moonlight.
  
  Today if you download Moonlight's source code you can build it with either the ffmpeg codecs or you can let Moonlight fetch the binary Microsoft Media Pack and use Microsoft's codecs on Linux.

• mpz

  2009-01-11 21:50:58

  Discussion seems to have gone off the rails here a bit.
  
  The quotes from the article above shows clearly that part of the 'strategy' is to 'leverage' patented media formats to channel and control any alternative implementation of .NET (note how they use the derogatory terminology 'clone' as well). The usual `well it kind of works but once you grow up you have to pay us to use the real version' thing. Or even `use them as a toy but they're too risky to use to make money from'. Money making seems to be the driver of MS and it's band of cultish zealots.
  
  It doesn't matter who implements the 'stack', or even the codecs. If either are covered by software patents -- in the few countries where they exist -- then they can be used to control users and developers and limit their freedoms. e.g. in the USA, using ffmpeg to play a patent-encoded format/codec, with any product, is ILLEGAL.
  
  The discussion of web vs non-web isn't really much chop either - isn't that the whole point of silverlight, to deploy native-like apps with the deployment and user convenience of web pages? That's the direction many desktop-applications are going anyway - even without silverlight's copying of the idea.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-11 21:55:13

  mpz: In the case of multimedia, the codecs patents are the ones to worry about, and you can still get those legally on Linux, you just have to pay for them (e.g. Fluendo).
  
  Even if Mono and Moonlight didn't exist, this "problem" would still exist. So they cannot be blamed on Mono, no matter how badly Roy wants to.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-11 21:56:45

  It doesn’t matter who implements the ’stack’, or even the codecs. If either are covered by software patents — in the few countries where they exist — then they can be used to control users and developers and limit their freedoms.

  
  
  It's also about starving competition like Java.
  
  "As many of you may know, we've actually kind of broadened the product portfolio of Visual Studio, targeting all the way from the low end with students and hobbyists, kind of competitive in that Linux space, making sure that every developer has a copy of .NET and is trained in writing .NET solutions. [...] I think it will really help us in our competition with open source."

  --Eric Rudder, Senior Vice President, Microsoft

• Jose_X

  2009-01-12 05:42:59

  >> Even if Mono and Moonlight didn’t exist, this “problem” would still exist.
  
  I agree. The mono problem isn't about trying to gain access to patented or closed algorithms in codecs.
  
  I know I'm just echoing, but ...
  
  The issue is not Microsoft continual use of lock-in "this time or that other time." The problem is Microsoft as a monopolist. One has to fight that.
  
  From the dev pov, a lot of this means avoiding running their rat races.. avoiding supporting their ecosystem.
  
  If mono people really changed their product and diverted from MSdotnet .. and became popular, they would be calling the shots (to an extent) instead of Microsoft. Surely, Novell and ISVs know how to add proprietary hooks to whatever framework they build, right? [not to encourage them, but I know some habits die slowly... Into the forseeable future, Novell hooks are less detrimental than are MS hooks.]
  
  I'm not willing to support anything that smells like dotnet in details. Maybe in 5 years time mono will have diverged sufficiently for my tastes (I'm not holding breath).
  
  There are many indications that Novell is not competing in any real way with Microsoft but is instead very purposely helping Microsoft and aligning their gains with Microsoft gains. This would mean Novell is not after a unique product and leadership. However, the mono community is not likely limited exclusively to Novell (or Microsoft) employees, so there is some hope.
  
  >> If either are covered by software patents — in the few countries where they exist
  
  Software patents are a risk or a constant struggle in a large number of major economies as well as growing economies.
  
  mono (and some other clones to various degrees) is carefully following the patent crumb path laid out by Microsoft, in particular, by trying to simulate MSdotnet API behavior. When interfaces (their functionality) are a part of the patent protections, you can't work around them except by changing key aspects of the interfaces. Redesigning the apps and rewriting them and forever avoid using them (which is what a mono dev has gotten so used to doing and had debugged and built on) is not something I take lightly.
  
  So what are mono devs waiting for? ..lawsuits? ..legal correspondence from Microsoft (or proxies) with a real number of mono customers (or devs) that cause them to dump mono? ..threats against users of Linux that use mono components?
  
  mono is not what I call an investment worth taking (unless maybe I was already deep into dotnet and did not want to change for whatever reason and did not care all that much about users having various freedoms).
  
  Linux and freedom have little business getting near the Monopolist. There is no need for the vast majority of FOSS devs to follow Microsoft's patent crumb path or contribute to sustaining Microsoft's monopolies. Integrate and propagate with freer technologies. Force Microsoft to support Linux and freer interfaces. Help improve freer technologies if you think they need any sort of improvements.

• AlexH

  2009-01-12 07:55:07

  @Jose; the thing is, if you avoid everything that came out of Microsoft, there are a lot of things which you're going to have to give up.
  
  Simple example: any AJAX web application, since they're all based on a proprietary web browser extension from Internet Explorer.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 09:22:53

  Bad analogy. Method or prior art is not an API.

• AlexH

  2009-01-12 09:48:18

  @Roy: that sentence doesn't even make sense. Of course methods are API.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 09:52:20

  I'm not talking about methods in *that* sense.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-12 12:49:38

  It wasn't prior art when Microsoft first introduced it. And methods are a technology, and also patentable.
  
  So AJAX is a Microsoft technology.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 12:51:29

  Software is not patentable here. As for Mono, it remains a Microsoft recruitment tool.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-12 12:55:41

  If by "Microsoft recruitment tool" you mean a way for Microsoft .NET developers to move to Linux and for them to experience freedom, then yes.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 12:58:25

  As second-class developers with second-class VS and second-class .NET?

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-12 14:12:19

  They aren't second-class developers, you just want them to be.
  
  If MonoDevelop is a second-class VS, then so is (X)Emacs, vim, KDevelop, Anjuta, GEdit, Kate, etc. Is that what you are saying??
  
  Stop being a complete asshole and insulting people's hard work.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 14:29:38

  Microsoft wants people to do it the Microsoft/Windows way using more primitive tools. It enhances the perception that Windows is ahead and everything else is "cheap copycat".
  
  Had more developers departed from .NET mentality, there would be room for Linux to "innovate" it own way, kind of like Firefox.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-12 14:32:52

  Microsoft wants people to do it the Microsoft/Windows way using more primitive tools. It enhances the perception that Windows is ahead and everything else is “cheap copycat”.

  
  
  That may be so, but I don't see Microsoft calling MonoDevelop a second-class VS. You're the one saying that.
  
  

  Had more developers departed from .NET mentality, there would be room for Linux to “innovate” it own way, kind of like Firefox.

  
  
  Haven't you endlessly argued that "no one uses Mono"?
  
  Are you saying that because so many people use and are happy with Mono, that Linux can't innovate now?
  
  Or are you saying that Miguel de Icaza and his Mono team are the only ones capable of innovation, but since they are hacking on Mono, Linux innovation can no longer happen?
  
  Which is it?

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-12 14:34:49

  It should also be pointed out that Miguel & his team have innovated. See Mono.SIMD as one of many examples.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 14:41:23

  Or are you saying that Miguel de Icaza and his Mono team are the only ones capable of innovation, but since they are hacking on Mono, Linux innovation can no longer happen?

  
  
  The point is that they try to capture developing users (i.e. IDE users), IOW depleting the pool of developers at the expense of others.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-12 14:43:18

  If developers start using MonoDevelop, how is that depleting the number of developers?
  
  Your statement makes no sense at all.
  
  If those developers want to use an IDE, why should they be forced to use Emacs or vim? Who are you to tell them what they can and cannot use?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 14:49:03

  If a coffee shop opens up next to a restaurant, it can negatively affect the business of this restaurant.

• RyanT

  2009-01-12 14:54:07

  "That may be so, but I don’t see Microsoft calling MonoDevelop a second-class VS. You’re the one saying that."
  
  You can consider it implied in the use of the phrase clone in the very PDF from the horses mouth.
  
  "Haven’t you endlessly argued that “no one uses Mono”?"
  
  He said .NET, not mono.
  
  "Are you saying that because so many people use and are happy with Mono, that Linux can’t innovate now?
  
  Or are you saying that Miguel de Icaza and his Mono team are the only ones capable of innovation, but since they are hacking on Mono, Linux innovation can no longer happen?
  
  Which is it? "
  
  Stop putting words into his mouth. You're all as bad as each other sometimes.

• RyanT

  2009-01-12 14:57:16

  "If developers start using MonoDevelop, how is that depleting the number of developers?
  
  Your statement makes no sense at all."
  
  It's very simple math. Your sentence is based on completely missing what he said.
  
  "If those developers want to use an IDE, why should they be forced to use Emacs or vim? Who are you to tell them what they can and cannot use? If those developers want to use an IDE, why should they be forced to use Emacs or vim? Who are you to tell them what they can and cannot use? "
  
  Kind of like how the entire free software movement has been doing for the sake of enforcing freedom of software. A pragmatist view would be to say that, but then this site is based on and about upholding the ideals of software freedom, not pragmatism.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-12 15:05:35

  Ryan: The type of software that a developer writes is not dependent upon which tools he uses to write the software.
  
  If Joe LinuxHacker uses MonoDevelop, he isn't forced to write .NET applications. He can write C or C++ for example. Therefor he isn't "depleted" from the "pool of Linux developers". And obviously he's still developing for Linux.
  
  MonoDevelop is also Free Software, so where does pragmatism come in? He's still upholding the "Free Software ideals" by using Free Software.
  
  You seriously need to get on the clue train before you start arguing with me over things you obviously don't understand.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-12 15:08:11

  You can consider it implied in the use of the phrase clone in the very PDF from the horses mouth.

  
  
  I'd argue that "clone" != "second-class"
  
  Would you argue that OpenOffice.org is a second-class Microsoft Office? I think you'd get pretty upset at that idea, wouldn't you?
  
  But OpenOffice.org is very much a clone of Microsoft Office, at least in Microsoft's view.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 15:10:05

  Microsoft Office is not the first office suite. Your argument is based on a false premise and the comparison invalid.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-12 15:10:52

  “Haven’t you endlessly argued that “no one uses Mono”?”
  
  He said .NET, not mono.

  
  
  Well, that is a huge difference! Not.
  
  If Roy thinks that "no one" uses .NET, then obviously he must also think that "no one" uses Mono - because I highly doubt that Roy thinks that more people use Mono than .NET
  
  So my original statement was not at all flawed. Especially since Roy has indeed claimed that no one uses Mono, specifically.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 15:12:46

  I did not claim this.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-12 15:20:37

  Microsoft Office is not the first office suite. Your argument is based on a false premise and the comparison invalid.

  
  
  It's irrelevant which product something is a clone of, if it's a clone it must be "second-class", right? Why would something only be considered "second-class" if Microsoft implemented the original? Are Microsoft products god-like in that no application that is written to fulfill the same purpose can even come close in functionality or quality?
  
  MonoDevelop is no more a clone of Visual Studio than KDevelop or Anjuta, and none are more a clone of Visual Studio than OpenOffice.org is a clone of Microsoft Office.
  
  If you define MonoDevelop as a clone of VS, then OpenOffice.org is by your own definition a clone of MS Office.
  
  (FWIW, if MonoDevelop is a "clone" of anything, it's a clone of SharpDevelop - which is also not a clone of Visual Studio)

• RyanT

  2009-01-12 15:21:20

  "If those developers want to use an IDE, why should they be forced to use Emacs or vim? Who are you to tell them what they can and cannot use?"
  
  1) Don't be a cocky twat. I was at least fairly respectful to you.
  
  2) "If Joe LinuxHacker uses MonoDevelop, he isn’t forced to write .NET applications. He can write C or C++ for example. Therefor he isn’t “depleted” from the “pool of Linux developers”. And obviously he’s still developing for Linux.
  
  MonoDevelop is also Free Software, so where does pragmatism come in? He’s still upholding the “Free Software ideals” by using Free Software."
  
  I never said anything about monodevelop. I only called out a logical flaw in your argument, I was neither backing you or Roy. Saying a developer can use whatever he wants is pragmatic because, implied in the sentence, is the right to also use non-free tools and potentially develop non-free software. The issue is entirely about free software, thus the entire issue is about what software and development tools they use.
  
  "Would you argue that OpenOffice.org is a second-class Microsoft Office? I think you’d get pretty upset at that idea, wouldn’t you?"
  
  I wouldn't. It pretty much is. Perhaps I didn't phrase it well enough, but the point was that the use of the phrase clone is certainly more open to interpretation. To some extent, it can imply lack of original thought, and to many people something that is a clone product is "merely" a clone product (as if to say it is automatically a few steps below).

• RyanT

  2009-01-12 15:25:41

  Bugger. Wrong quote.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-12 15:28:00

  Ryan: This whole discussion has been about MonoDevelop since Roy claimed it stole developers from the Linux developer pool.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 15:47:17

  MonoDevelop is a bad idea for several reasons, not just its Novell control/ownership (remember: Novell sells "IP peace of mind").

• Baby In The Bath Water

  2009-01-12 16:38:43

  MonoDevelop doesn't require (c) assignment AFAIK, so therefor Novell does not control it.
  
  So what are these "many reasons"?
  
  Note: this comment was posted from Novell's headquarters.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 16:42:49

  It's called _Mono_Develop. It's not there for Java, Python and C++. That's not the target audience.

• Gentoo User (and proud of it)

  2009-01-12 17:52:17

  It’s not there for Java, Python and C++. That’s not the target audience.

  
  
  First of all, an IDE is not useless if it's targeted to a single language.
  
  Second, last I looked MonoDevelop supports C#, VB.NET, Boo, C and C++. And if it supports all of those, then I'd guess it's designed so that other languages/compilers can be plugged in.
  
  Third, it's obvious you have a problem with Mono itself, and that's why you have a problem with the IDE, so pretending there are "several reasons", talking about "target audiences" and getting the technical aspects wrong don't really make you look any better.
  
  Note: comment arrived from a witch hunter that does not even use GNU/Linux.

• Baby in the Bath Water

  2009-01-12 20:21:48

  As Gentoo User has already mentioned, MonoDevelop supports more than just C#. In addition to the languages that Gentoo User listed, MonoDevelop also supports Java and Vala.
  
  That's 2 invalid reasons out of the 2 reasons you were able to come up with. Wanna try again?
  
  Note: this comment was posted from Novell's headquarters.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 20:27:19

  http://monodevelop.com/Main_Page
  
  First sentence: "MonoDevelop is a free GNOME IDE primarily designed for C# and other .NET languages."
  
  http://go-oo.org/
  
  First sentence: "Go-oo has built in OpenXML import filters and it will import your Microsoft Works files."
  
  'Baby in the Bath Water'. are you working just for Novell? Is a takeover near?

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-12 23:43:32

  First sentence: “MonoDevelop is a free GNOME IDE primarily designed for C# and other .NET languages.”

  
  
  So what? It still supports Boo, Nemerle, Java, Vala, C/C++, and other languages.
  
  

  First sentence: “Go-oo has built in OpenXML import filters and it will import your Microsoft Works files.”

  
  
  How is that a bad thing? Would you rather Novell screw people out of their data?
  
  Import support does not propagate OOXML formatted documents (which is I know what you like to argue). Same for Microsoft Works. Those documents exist in the wild, why not add support for importing them? Seems like a pretty sane thing for Novell to support.
  
  It's pretty ridiculous to attack them for giving their customers a way to move from Microsoft products over to Free Software.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-12 23:46:29

  So what? It still supports Boo, Nemerle, Java, Vala, C/C++, and other languages.

  
  
  But it advertises and emphasises C#.
  
  

  How is that a bad thing?

  
  
  They advertise OOXML and even call it OpenXML. Then they go on raving about VBA.

• Dan O'Brian

  2009-01-13 00:31:20

  And guess what? That's important to a lot of people who have invested YEARS developing VBA applications in their MS Office documents.
  
  What do you want these people to do? Just forget about their apps?
  
  The VBA support in Microsoft documents is part of the user's DOCUMENT DATA.
  
  If you want to attract customers to your alternative application, then you need to support all of their old data without loss (as much as is humanly possible). The less data that is lost to the user, the more likely he/she will be agreeable to at least trying your alternative application.
  
  On the other hand, the best way to make sure you never get any customers to switch to your product is to take the Roy Schestowitz Approach(tm) of belittling them and making sure that your application can never load the user's data.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-01-13 00:32:55

  It's not the support that my gripe is about. it's about Novell's promotion of it. Same for OOXML.