| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The FSF warns (again) against MonoThe FSF warns (again) against MonoPosted Jul 17, 2009 13:50 UTC (Fri) by trasz (guest, #45786)Parent article: The FSF warns (again) against Mono
Java is GPL-ed now, so RMS spreads FUD to hurt its biggest non-GPL-ed competitor. Nothing new.
(Log in to post comments)
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 13:57 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]
Why do you say it's FUD? What about it isn't true?
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 14:32 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
You know, FUD can be true and still be FUD... for example many people believe both that 'Microsoft spreads FUD about patent liabilities in free software' and also that 'Microsoft holds patents which really can be used to attack free software', and this is not inconsistent.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 14:44 UTC (Fri) by regala (subscriber, #15745) [Link]
anyway, this article is just another rephrasing of what RMS said last week, so much ado for nothing.
Indeed, with FUD clearly stated as FUD:
"Microsoft is bad, because:
I am not that fond of that Do-what-I-say-not-what-I-do line, but lobbying is their job, after all.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 20, 2009 9:24 UTC (Mon) by TheMadHatter (guest, #59661) [Link] anyway, this article is just another rephrasing of what RMS said last week, so much ado for nothing. Indeed, with FUD clearly stated as FUD: "Microsoft is bad, because: - they ate my dog; - Fat chance - they'd get eaten - they ate your granny's; - they ate yours - they said 3 years ago they would eat anyone's dogs in the world" I am not that fond of that Do-what-I-say-not-what-I-do line, but lobbying is their job, after all. Lobbying is part of their job? Prove it. With direct links to the part of the Federal Register (or other regulation) that says that lobbying is part of their job. Producing high quality software is their job. Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten this.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 15:14 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] If the FUD is true, then it's an excellent reason to avoid Mono, no?
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 14:40 UTC (Fri) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227) [Link]
FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Unless you can prove the bad stuff is true, the fact that it may be true doesn't stop it from being FUD. Trying to scare people using "maybes" is what FUD is all about.
It's in the article Posted Jul 17, 2009 15:16 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] The "maybes" involved are of the type: "maybe that hungry fox will attack that nearby lamb". No no no, I'm just spreading anti-fox FUD, no one can prove what the fox is thinking. We should wait until after the attack before making any comment about the safety of leaving the lamb beside the fox. Despite various wordy announcements, MS still has broad unwaived patent rights on c# related things which could be used to launch patent threats against users/developers/distributors of Mono and related software in the future. Staying away from that area is simply common sense. (We should also try to end software patents, such as by instructing the USA's Supreme Court on how and why when they review Bilski)
It's in the article Posted Jul 19, 2009 22:02 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Eggsackerly.
The promise basically *only* covers a *complete* implementation of the spec. And the spec is buggy and incomplete.
So if you reduce the spec to logic, you get something like "A = not B" and "If A and B then you are safe". Putting the two together, the only possible logical conclusion is that the promise is worthless, and you are not safe.
So saying the promise isn't worth the paper it's written on is NOT FUD. Just applying basic mathematical logical reduction shows that the promise will self-destruct. So you can't rely on it.
Cheers,
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 15:20 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Trying to scare people using "maybes" is what FUD is all about. Perhaps so, but given Microsoft's past behavior, I don't think Linux distros should have anything to do with Mono technology. "Maybe" Microsoft won't try it's darndest to destroy Linux and Free Software... and "maybe" I really did win that lottery mentioned in the e-mail from Nigeria. In 1997, "The Right To Read" may have seemed like far-fetched FUD, but in the days of the DMCA, it's not so funny. RMS was prescient on that topic; maybe he knows a thing or two about the world.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 15:52 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
The trouble is, all these 'Microsoft patent' arguments apply equally well to Samba, and distros are happy to ship that...
(RMS is not arguing against the existence of Mono, or its use to run C# programs on free operating systems, or even against including it by default in Linux distributions, but rather he warns against writing new free applications in C#.)
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 16:44 UTC (Fri) by setecastronomy (guest, #59621) [Link] "The trouble is, all these 'Microsoft patent' arguments apply equally well to Samba, and distros are happy to ship that..." This is at least as far as I know not entirely correct. While negoiating the PFIF, the Samba project went out of their way to ensure that result would cover their asse(t)s while keeping it compatible with word and spirit of the GPL :After paying Microsoft a one-time sum of 10,000 Euros, the PFIF will make available to the Samba Team under non-disclosure terms the documentation needed for implementation of all of the workgroup server protocols covered by the EU decision. "Although the documentation itself will be held in confidence by the PFIF and Samba Team engineers, the agreement allows the publication of the source code of the implementation of these protocols without any further restrictions. This is fully compatible with versions two and three of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Samba is published under the GNU GPL which is the most widely used of all Free Software licenses. In addition it allows discussion of the protocol information amongst implementers which will aid technical cooperation between engineers. Under the agreement, Microsoft is required to make available and keep current a list of patent numbers it believes are related to the Microsoft implementation of the workgroup server protocols, without granting an implicit patent license to any Free Software implementation. (emphasis mine).
The second part is what (imho) sets the PFIF agreement apart from the community promise. C.f.
You've correctly pointed to the biggest difference, but not the implications Posted Jul 17, 2009 16:46 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] RMS is not arguing against the existence of Mono, or its use to run C# programs on free operating systems, or even against including it by default in Linux distributions, but rather he warns against writing new free applications in C#. Exactly. Because mono is good for existing C# programs: may be you'll be used by Microsoft in the future, may be not, but in the end - without CLR implementation you can not use such programs at all. The trouble is, all these 'Microsoft patent' arguments apply equally well to Samba, and distros are happy to ship that... By the same logic samba should be shipped and used where it's unavoaidable (for example to work with existing Windows-based systems), but not for the tasks where it can be replaced with something else (for example you should use real LDAP server, not Samba's AD replacement in pure Linux environment). AFICS Samba is used exactly in this fashion: it exists for interoperability with Windows, but not for anything else. It's the sad world we live in (Samba really can be better for some things then "native alternatives") but we can not easily swap it for other and so yes, we should treat Samba like mono: use it for interoperability with Windows, but for nothing else.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 22:20 UTC (Fri) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]
Samba wasn't developed by a company who did a dodgy patent deal with Microsoft shortly thereafter (which SuSE/Novell did).
I can see why that worries some.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 22, 2009 15:46 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
In fact Mono has existed for a long time, before Ximian was bought by Novell and long before Microsoft decided to officially recognize that Linux exists.
Novell and Samba Posted Jul 18, 2009 17:01 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I think you have to look at the bigger picture to know why distros are more comfortable with Samba (even if there is always some danger). The Samba team has testified before the European Commission in an antitrust trial against Microsoft. Samba is used to interoperate with Windows on the network. That should make Microsoft think before using their patents against anyone distributing it.However a lawsuit against people distributing Mono would probably be seen as Microsoft limiting distribution of their development platform. Mono is used to run .NET software on other platforms, and antitrust authorities do not care so much about that. If there was the same awareness about development platforms as there is for interoperability, Mono would probably be in the clear.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 17, 2009 16:48 UTC (Fri) by jeff@uclinux.org (guest, #8024) [Link]
I find it difficult to believe that intelligent people (evidenced by being a part of this community
discussion) still argue for the use of MicroSoft patented IP, in this case mono, after the VFAT debacle which is still(!) unfolding even now.
I suppose you were not the one on the receiving end of the strategic VFAT lawsuit, so it's safe to
I told you I'd shoot, but you didn't believe me. Why didn't you believe me?
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 17, 2009 21:34 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
If Microsoft was truly interested in not using the patents against Linux in the future they would note which patents apply. Their refusal to even list the patents they believe Linux infringes is tantamount proof that they intend to use them against Linux in the future because if they told us which ones apply, developers and free software lawyers could work together to evade the patents (or they could work to invalidate the patent) like they are trying to do with the VFAT patches.
Microsoft doesn't want their patents to be worked around because then they can't be used as a weapon. This is why they won't say which patents they believe apply. Tack that in with how they used the VFAT patent against Tom-Tom and everyone should be absolutely convinced how MS will proceed once Linux starts hurting windows market share. It's imperative that like Samba we treat these MS "inventions" as toxic elements that exist ONLY for interoperability with windows and are never ever a required part of any distribution.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 18, 2009 0:55 UTC (Sat) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] If Microsoft was truly interested in not using the patents against Linux in the future they would note which patents apply. Their refusal to even list the patents they believe Linux infringes is tantamount proof that they intend to use them against Linux in the future because if they told us which ones apply, developers and free software lawyers could work together to evade the patents (or they could work to invalidate the patent) like they are trying to do with the VFAT patches. I have never seen this put so clearly. 100% agreed.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 18, 2009 17:57 UTC (Sat) by directhex (subscriber, #58519) [Link]
It's a tricky game, that.
Saying "this app is free from this patent" means two levels of work need to be done
1) you need to determine that the patent you hold is enforcable, and relates to the kind of thing an app does (the "easy" stage, although if you own thousands of patents with a combination of hundreds of thousands of claims, it might actually be tricky to identify specific ones)
2) you need to perform a detailed analysis of the app in order to determine whether its implementation really does infringe on the patent in (1)
A general "yeah, we probably have patents on X, or stuff like it" is much much cheaper to say - albeit less precise in its implications. But saying "yeah, we probably have patents on X, but don't worry, whatever they are, you can use them" is somewhat LESS concerning than "you can use patent X" whilst keeping Y and Z secret
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 19, 2009 0:41 UTC (Sun) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
You are right. Plus, it occurred to me that if Microsoft listed all patents that they claim are infringed by Free Software, valid or not, it would be much harder to claim plausible deniability.
Patent X might be utter crap (like the long file names patent), but as soon as Microsoft announces it, everybody would have to stop using it, possibly for many years until it is invalidated.
Damn. It appears that no matter what Microsoft does, short of granting Comprehensive Patent License, it is all very very bad.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 19, 2009 20:53 UTC (Sun) by directhex (subscriber, #58519) [Link]
Don't worry, no matter what they do, even your suggestion, they're still worse than Satan, Jack the Ripper, and Hitler combined
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 20, 2009 1:28 UTC (Mon) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
Goodwin strikes again! :-)
Seriously though, I actually don't think that Microsoft is "evil" - that would be ridiculous. They are a for-profit corporation, which is allowed and expected to do whatever possible within the law for said profits. Clearly enforcing their patents is legal and desirable from their point of view.
Objectively I can't blame them for that. But clearly they are in a position of strength, which honestly scares me.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 18, 2009 6:25 UTC (Sat) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link]
Not everyone is willing to cede ground to Microsoft simply because they have patents in areas. Give up Mono now, the same logic the applies to Java, Parrot, etc. We give up Samba after that, then we give up ODF, then we give up virtualisation, and then we give up 3D drivers.
Eventually you end up with nothing. This is not a worthwhile or long-term tactic, anyone who thinks there are many "Mono-only" patents out there that we can avoid by just burying our head in the sand is thinking extremely wishfully.
And if you look, you'll also see Microsoft aren't attacking technologies like Mono. That wouldn't make sense; that would turn people off .net. They're attacking things which are completely unrelated but competitive: e.g., having people sign agreements over the Linux kernel.
Microsoft aren't going to be attacking the likes of Mono and OpenOffice.org that soon. The battle lines are in a very different area, and tearing ourselves up over stuff Microsoft likely gives two hoots about is undoubtedly helping them.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 18, 2009 14:14 UTC (Sat) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Not everyone is willing to cede ground to Microsoft simply because they have patents in areas. But you have to weigh the risks and benefits. Obviously, we'd fight for the right to run (for example) Linux, the X Window System, SSH, etc. because they are core parts of the free software infrastructure. If you are concerned about Windows interoperability, you'll also fight for the right to run Samba. C# and Mono simply don't seem (to me, anyway) to have enough benefits to outweigh the risks. Besides, the patent threat is only one problem. The far larger problem is trying to keep up with a technology Microsoft controls and can change on a whim. The Linux implementations of C# and Mono will always be poor substitutes for the "real thing", and Microsoft will use that as a weapon against free software.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 19, 2009 10:30 UTC (Sun) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link]
The "keeping up with MS" is a bit of a red herring. Mono is vastly usable in its own right, and is in fact ahead of the Microsoft implementation in key areas (e.g, compilation to static code, support for SIMD, etc.). People who think Mono is just copying .net are basically wrong.
The situation isn't vastly different to other areas anyway: MS have long had arguably a much better C/C++ compiler than gcc; big apps like OpenOffice.org enjoy a performance boost on W32. We lag them technologically in many areas. That's a different issue to software freedom and always has been.
I'm sure plenty of people won't see the benefit in using Mono. For the most part, they are not the target audience for it anyway: the target are those vast hoards of developers who are competent in Visual Studio but who would run screaming from vi/emacs.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 19, 2009 16:12 UTC (Sun) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] I'm sure plenty of people won't see the benefit in using Mono. For the most part, they are not the target audience for it anyway: the target are those vast hoards of developers who are competent in Visual Studio but who would run screaming from vi/emacs. And for that constituency, Mono will fail unless it slavishly keeps up with Microsoft, feature-for-feature. The people you're talking about are first and foremost Windows developers, who will deign to port to non-Windows platforms as long as it's a no-brainer. They won't show the slightest interest in Mono unless it can be used to port Windows apps effortlessly. And this is doomed to failure. Mono and C# have lots of risks and no benefits for Linux users. Likewise, they are not yet suitable for Windows developers looking for an effortless port. All Mono and C# do is waste developers' time when they could be working on more valuable free software projects.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 20, 2009 7:41 UTC (Mon) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link]
I'm not sure why you think it's useless for that constituency. The offer isn't "run your Windows apps on Linux" - for the most part, people sadly don't care a huge amount about that.
The offer is "use your Windows dev skills on other platforms". That's why we've seen take-up of Mono in places like the games industry: it's about transfer of _skills_, not transfer of _source_.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 20, 2009 11:47 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] The offer is "use your Windows dev skills on other platforms". That's why we've seen take-up of Mono in places like the games industry: it's about transfer of _skills_, not transfer of _source_. Sorry, I don't buy this. Any competent programmer can pick up a different language and environment fairly quickly. I own a software company, and I'm in charge of hiring developers. Any developer who is scared off because we use a different language or don't use Visual Studio would automatically go into my "do not hire" list. What a lot of people call "Windows dev skills" are nothing more than dilettante-level noodling around with pretty IDEs. Once such "developers" run smack into any non-Windowsism (which they will), they get stuck and panic. I've observed this several times in my career, which is why I no longer bother hiring developers unless they have some non-Windows experience.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 20, 2009 11:56 UTC (Mon) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link]
Whether or not these "dilettantes" are people you would hire is entirely orthogonal to the fact that they exist or the desire to support them, even if we limited the argument to that subset alone.
In any event, it's not entirely about capability (though there would definitely be people entirely stuck moving from VS to [for example] vim). It's about transferability of skills.
To much argument about Mono is "I don't need/like it therefore nobody else should do either". It misses the point.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 20, 2009 14:05 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] To much argument about Mono is "I don't need/like it therefore nobody else should do either". It misses the point. The point is that Mono does nothing very useful for the Linux community. It's also very risky for that same community, and it commits the Mono developers to slavishly following proprietary standards set by a company very hostile to free software. So really, I don't care if people use Mono on Linux. I would care very much if Mono were installed by default on a Linux distro, or became used for critical components of a Linux distro. That's crossing the line.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono: and correctly so Posted Jul 20, 2009 21:43 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
If you were to force me to use vi I would get stuck and panic: the
keybindings simply fall out of my skull. But everyone knows Emacs is a religion as well as an editor, so forcing me to use anything else would be religious intolerance. :)
|
|
||||||||||||