Microsoft Puts Roadblock in Front of Open-Sourcing Avalon and Indigo (eWeek) [LWN.net]

It's Dead, Jim.

Posted Jun 24, 2005 5:08 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

Miguel has always argued that the avalability, or lack thereof, of any specific library/assembly doesn't affect the usefulness of Mono.

Oddly enough, he's right, both ways. Mono is not useful no matter what sort of baggage they pile on it. That horse won't run.

It's Dead, Jim.

Posted Jun 24, 2005 6:45 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

It's a shame to see a LWN subscriber trolling.

Troll?

Posted Jun 24, 2005 14:30 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]

Dude, ncm is not a troll just because he/she just doesn't think Mono is useful. Post an informed rebuttal if you disagree. That might enlighten all of us. Crying "troll" won't.

Troll?

Posted Jun 24, 2005 17:09 UTC (Fri) by irios (guest, #19838) [Link]

He IS trolling because he is making unreasoned assertions on the uselessness of Mono, and whether another person posts an informed rebuttal or not does not change that.

Lighten up please.

Posted Jun 27, 2005 16:25 UTC (Mon) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]

We're talking about a snarky three sentence comment in an informal discussion. Would it have been better if ncm had articulated a supporting argument? Certainly. But you can't expect every post to come with a ten page academic paper attached. You especially can't expect this only of comments with which you disagree. Some people think Mono is useless. They might be mistaken, but you will neither convince them nor improve the quality of the discussion by calling them names. A polite reply pointing out reasons Mono is useful would have done both. Please, let's leave puerile pastimes like Troll Patrol to Slashdot.

It's Dead, Jim.

Posted Jun 24, 2005 19:23 UTC (Fri) by s_cargo (guest, #10473) [Link]

Would the real troll please stand up.

Does it matter - yes, in terms of perceptions

Posted Jun 24, 2005 7:14 UTC (Fri) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link]

Sure, if you read carefully, you can decide whether you really need this or not, and whether Mono is still useful to you as it stands.

But what are most people going to see? They're going to have their fears confirmed that MS was going to whack Mono sooner or later. If it gets played up in the press, this story will hurt Mono not so much because of the technology being there or not, but because of people's fears about the project's vulnerability to the whims of MS.

Maybe it could also be a wakeup call for Mono..

Posted Jun 24, 2005 7:42 UTC (Fri) by pkolloch (subscriber, #21709) [Link]

...not to just clone every API that Microsoft releases. Certainly it has appeal that you can run applications written for Windows "natively" under Linux.

I firmly believe that a managed language environment such a JVM or that that mono provides is far better than C/C++. I found that Mono integrates very well with existing C libraries which makes it better suited for environments where not portability is the key, but operation system integration while retaining most of the advantages of a managed language.

Thus I would care if Microsoft legally attacked the use of the same byte code/programming language. This would be reasonably hard given the ECMA standard and their not acting up so far. As far as I am concerned, they might even ditch the standard libraries, they suck at so many places... Naturally that really hurts existing applications.

Has already happened ;)

Posted Jun 24, 2005 7:48 UTC (Fri) by pkolloch (subscriber, #21709) [Link]

I just clicked on the MonoIndigo link and saw that they already responded in a way I very much like: They renamed the project to Amber and do not want to clone the API anymore. Instead they want to provide similar functionality in a library that runs in Mono and the original .Net environment.

It would be cool, if they succeeded in creating something sexy which is more popular than Indigo -- even on Windows. But there's of course a tiny bit of wishful thinking ;)

Has already happened ;)

Posted Jun 24, 2005 9:07 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]

do not want to clone the API anymore. Instead they want to provide similar functionality in a library that runs in Mono and the original .Net environment.

And thus breaking compatibility with the Microsoft libraries...

Bye,NAR

Breaking Compatability

Posted Jun 24, 2005 10:20 UTC (Fri) by pkolloch (subscriber, #21709) [Link]

Yes, obviously, and I outlined above that I do not care.

Has already happened ;)

Posted Jun 25, 2005 6:33 UTC (Sat) by lacostej (subscriber, #2760) [Link]

Except if they provide a compatibility layer for Microsoft libraries, something that allows to code for the compatibility layer and use Microsoft libraries + layer or mono lib underneath :)

With a transition tool to ease migration. Not sure how technically this is feasible, but that would be fun, turning the problem the other way around.

Has already happened ;)

Posted Jun 24, 2005 17:57 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

"... Instead they want to provide similar functionality in a library that runs in Mono and the original .Net environment. "

Couldn't they just wrap the existing Linux stacks, opening the door for other OSes in Open Source arena to establish a solid atandard?.

The idea is instead of providing the same functionality of Windoze to OSS/linux space, provide the "superior" functionality of OSS/Linux to *old* Windoze environments which could be achieved by wraping and shell replacing those environments like in colinux ( http://wiki.colinux.org/cgi-bin ) and or in bb4win ( http://www.bb4win.org/news.php )...

It seems to me that.NET environment was not really conceived to be cloned, the managebility features of C# were security oriented first, and programm easyng second, like a bait, a carrot at the tip of a poll hanging in front of your eyes. It was brilliant and has agglutinant power some how. But its modularity ensures that MS will always be a step ahead if they want too.

C# core is OK, but for one thing C# is not good for writing OSes and other close to hardware stuff, or even common server programms, even if there is a CLI CPU architecture, condemned to be "inferior", for sure, in the same sense that the JAVA CPU was.

I belive MS wanted all, not only the programms and programmers on their side(commercial and "freeware"), but also CPU architectures and IO expansion buses and protocols on their side also(hardware industry).

I belive they still want all, thought is evident that transforming X-box into a prevasive computational architecture will not do the bid, and CLI will not jump them on the CPU industry.

Pursuing MS path try to clone them will only prove to be a titanic adventure condemned to failure, but also promove fragmentation on OSS part, because the trend unfortunatly still is for everyone to go a separeted path.

Belive MS wil gain control of mono, or they will never allow it to copy enough to be a competitor. MS bid is that the Avalon/.NET will be a totally different environment than Win32/Windows. .NET modularity will provide easying up compatibility to kernel and to shell/GUI. I can see Novell enthusiasm , Avalon, Indigo on top of linux! on a pure WebServices architecture... but OSS dont really need that, because if it proves to be a not very good path, MS gets in trouble has it has been, but much smaller cloning contenders like Novell can implode!... it only needs that applications will run with a consistent look and feeling, thats all.

IMO the best path for cross pollination is to go with basic kernel cloning on top of a emulation engine like QEMU http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/qemu-tech.html
providing WINE/Mono API/ABI on top of it, be it on *user mode* or *full system mode*; i.e., get MS completely out of the loop, embracing and extending as much as possible... Would love to see their faces upon tasting their own remedy!