Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant [LWN.net]

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 14:07 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

I think Miguel is interested in writing end-user apps using Moonlight, which is a complete development platform in itself, intended as a competitor to Adobe's AIR. It's good to know that there are no swpat question marks over using it, at least from Redmond.

That said, I'm not entirely happy with these announcements or the free software community's reaction to them. Microsoft seem to have conditioned many people to believe that we can't write certain software without their explicit approval, and that's not healthy.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 14:57 UTC (Fri) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]

I don't think that is Microsoft's fault.

Rather I blame the people who keep yammering on about why we should not write anything in Mono because eeeeevil Microsoft will come get us.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 15:45 UTC (Fri) by qg6te2 (guest, #52587) [Link]

Rather I blame the people who keep yammering on about why we should not write anything in Mono because eeeeevil Microsoft will come get us.

Yammering? Microsoft is evil. Their entire business is about ruthlessly exploiting the nature of their closed source software (and closed source software is evil in itself). Will MS try to go after open-source? That's never been a matter of if, but whenever the opportunity arises. Just look at MS's actions against TomTom, and the frothing at MS's mouth after the MS-Novell deal. Should I point you to further milestones in MS's track record?

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 16:20 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

Their entire business is about ruthlessly exploiting the nature of their closed source software (and closed source software is evil in itself).

Right, but as RMS pointed out long ago: "But Microsoft is not alone in this; almost all software companies do the same thing to the users. If other companies manage to dominate fewer users than Microsoft, that is not for lack of trying."

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 16:31 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

"But Microsoft is not alone in this; almost all software companies do the same thing to the users. If other companies manage to dominate fewer users than Microsoft, that is not for lack of trying."

That may well be, but we have to be particularly careful of Microsoft because of its size. It's in a far more powerful position to hurt free software than smaller proprietary vendors are. So although Microsoft may only be about as evil as most other proprietary vendors, its huge power should raise red flags among FOSS developers and users.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 17:02 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Oracle, Vmware, IBM, Intel, and even a big hunk of Novell are huge proponents of making money from selling proprietary software..

Yet all these companies contribute heavily to Linux.

Oracle has done a few file systems for Linux and have made many contributions that have worked their way into the core of the Linux kernel. You can thank them for introducing Btrfs, for example.

Vmware is a regular Gnome/GTK contributer and is the major company sponsoring much of the Gallium development, which will be the core of the modern Linux graphics stack.

Much of the usability improvements and software improvements that are associated with Ubuntu for a lot of people actually come directly from Novell's own pocketbook.. in terms of developer's time and usability studies from a few years ago.

So on and so forth.

And all these things are very much core to the Linux system. If those companies have patents over their contributions they could really perform a massive amount of damage on the Linux ecosystem.

Versus Moonlight; which is just a browser-plugin. Or Tomboy or Mono which if there becomes a patent problem in the future the hardship caused by their removal would be relatively minor.

And, for sure, you can't trust those major proprietary companies any more then you can trust Microsoft. Especially when you compare Microsoft against somebody like IBM.. they are a bit of a pussycat.

------------------------

Really. When dealing with Microsoft the best approach you can take is:
"Trust, but Verify".

Which is about the same approach you should take when dealing with any major American corporation. They will all lie through their teeth if they think they can get away with it.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 19:07 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

And all these things are very much core to the Linux system. If those companies have patents over their contributions they could really perform a massive amount of damage on the Linux ecosystem.

Versus Moonlight; which is just a browser-plugin.

You mean it's just another attempt to replace free and open protocols (HTML, SVG, etc.) with proprietary and closed ones.

Really. When dealing with Microsoft the best approach you can take is: "Trust, but Verify".

I disagree. The approach should be "Don't Trust until Proven Otherwise".

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 19:34 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Except these companies have explicitly licensed their contributions under the GPL. Although patent claims would trump the GPL, the wording of the GPLv2 and GPLv3 regarding patents makes it pretty likely that any company explicitly releasing code under GPL would be considered to have abandoned enforcement of the patents against people using the GPL'd software.

Sorta. They only would be responsible for the specific code they contribute with the GPLv2. Now if they did it under the GPLv3, that may be a different story (since GPLv3 has the patent language), but obviously the Linux kernel will never be under that license. If Oracle introduces some feature to the Linux kernel that helps improve performance and then somebody else takes that feature and modifies it to improve the performance of a competing database then I don't see anything with the GPLv2 that would prevent Oracle from suing you for features they did not introduce (ie the modifications).

Also it's amusing that people are focusing on 'Mono'. If you understand patent law you would understand that it is no respector of implementation. That is the patents cover concepts. That means that any language that implements concepts and ideas similar to .NET is just as liable to violate Microsoft's patents as Mono. This means any new features introduced into Java, Python, Vala, Perl6, or Parrot or any attempt at creating modern languages is just as dangerous as implementing C#. Patents don't give a shit about language.

You mean it's just another attempt to replace free and open protocols (HTML, SVG, etc.) with proprietary and closed ones.

That would be the a browser plugin, yes.

I know that Adobe has lots of patents convering Flash, but why are people not leveling the same level of hatred and distrust towards Gnash or Swfdec? Certainly Moonlight is being created under the approval and full knowledge (and even some assistance) of Microsoft while Gnash/Swfdec is certainly and 100% done against the wishes of Adobe! Which project is more likely to cause legal problems? What makes working with Microsoft so much more dangerous then trying to destroy software that is core to Adobe's business? Adobe has a long history of suing people and promoting software patents to protect their proprietary software. Why does Fedora and everybody want to include Swfdec- plugin yet shuns Moonlight? They certainly need the same proprietary codecs and whatnot.

I disagree. The approach should be "Don't Trust until Proven Otherwise".

If you want to actively exclude people because they make and promote proprietary software your wrong in just focusing on Microsoft. There are literally thousands of companies just as 'evil' as they are.

If your going to be paranoid and distrustfull then you might as well be rational about it. Sure Microsoft is dangerous, but so is lots of companies. Just focusing on Microsoft irrationally will allow Linux to be more vulnerable to other just-as-evil corporations.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 20:29 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

If you want to actively exclude people because they make and promote proprietary software your wrong in just focusing on Microsoft.

So what other companies' representatives have called Linux a Cancer?

What other companies have been found to engage in anti-competitive and harmful practices? (Though Microsoft's conviction was overturned, the findings of fact were not.)

What other companies have licensed software from a small company, promising royalties and then given away said software for free, thereby screwing said small company?

Which of the other companies you've mentioned have spent millions of dollars trying to discredit UNIX and Linux?

Sorry. Microsoft is one of the worst of a bad lot, and you will not convince me otherwise.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 21:59 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

The difference between Microsoft and it's major competitors in the past is
that Microsoft was not run by incompetents. So they won. This is Microsoft
vs Novel vs Sun Microsystems vs anybody else MS had fought with. It does
not have anything to do with dishonesty or shiftiness. Microsoft is not
unique in that aspect, not by a long shot. The difference is that Bill
Gates and friends are simply much smarter then the people they fought
against.

That is why Microsoft ended up being sued and going in for the antitrust
stuff. It was not because they did something worse then everybody else,
it's because they actually pulled off doing what everybody else was tring
to do; which was being dominate.

I mean look at IBM, for instance. They are a major Linux contributer and
was a huge asset for Linux for a long long time. Microsoft PALES in
comparison to IBM and the shifty things that IBM has done in the past.

Just google around if you want. It's not hard to find dirty laundry for any
of Linux's major contributors who sell proprietary software. If you
_really_ want examples then I can supply them, but it's kinda of a waste of
time.

My ultimate point is that either you decide that your willing to work with
Microsoft when Microsoft is willing to work with you, for whatever
reason... OR if your going to be paranoid and call them evil then you
better not be willing to exclude the hundreds of other companies involved
with operating systems and whatnot that are just as bad.

Either way your doing yourself a diservice by singling out Microsoft.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 19, 2009 16:14 UTC (Sat) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

Either way your doing yourself a diservice by singling out Microsoft.

Again, Microsoft is the only company that has explicitly declared itself an enemy of Free Software. Yes, other companies do shady and unethical things, but (for the most part) they see Free Software as just another fact of life to be factored into their plans.

Microsoft is the only one that tries to discredit and destroy open-source. History is littered with the carcasses of Microsoft ex-partners; if you want that to happen to Mono/Silverlight/etc, fine, but I won't take part.

If the day ever comes when I'm forced to work with Microsoft, that's the day I quit the computing field and find something else to do.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 20, 2009 6:37 UTC (Sun) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link]

Microsoft has not declared itself an enemy of Free Software. Companies
can't do that, as companies do not have motives or agendas beyond their
corporate filings. I'm pretty sure none of those mention Linux, Free
Software, or even competition at all, but instead focus on "provide top-
quality software blah blah" like every other software company's filings.

Some of the Microsoft executives may have said things about Free Software.
Executives are people. People have opinions, goals, agendas, and so on
separate from a company. While at the exact same time there were
executives at Microsoft spouting off on how they wanted to destroy the
cancer of Free Software there were contractors and developers within
Microsoft who were avid Linux users. I know four of them personally, in
fact, and they know of quite a few more.

These days there are executives in Microsoft that actually want to focus on
working with the Free Software and Open Source communities. At the same
time that other executives still want to eliminate all opposition at all
costs.

Microsoft is ***ing huge. One executive will say, "Linux must be
annihilated" while another VP says, "we should get more involved in Open
Source." And both work at their respective goals, because no man or woman
on the planet can possibly keep all the limbs of a titanic beast like
Microsoft working at the same goal.

Ballmer has issues with Linux and Open Source, and Ballmer is the CEO, but
here's a little that business-clueless people like you continuously fail to
grasp: the CEO doesn't actually decide what individual business units do.
That isn't a CEO's job, CEO's don't have that power, and the rest of the
executives and VPs and program directors and so on actually do have a say
in what happens within the company.

I've mentioned in other posts what Microsoft's current internal issues are,
stemming in large part from the lack of respect and reverence Ballmer
receives from the people that make Microsoft go: the techs. Gates was kind
of a slimy fellow, but he had the advantage of having the other developers
actually like him, since he was a fellow developer. His replacement, Ray
Ozzie, doesn't have Gates' clout, either. Since Gates' departure,
Microsoft has begun moving in a lot of different directions, many in
opposition with each other. The support Open Source receives from some
units of Microsoft is proof positive of this fact. Simply talking to
Microsoft employees (I live across the street from the main campus, so this
is relatively easy for me compared to most other LWN members, I suppose)
will also show the veracity of what I'm saying.

In many cases, Microsoft business units are even pitted against each other.
This is the same thing Open Source/Free Software people preach, even, that
competition is good and results in better products for users. Microsoft is
big enough that it actually makes multiple products covering the same
spaces, and these units compete with each other. Look at how long Works
existed in opposition to Office, for example. Or competing Windows
business units until the restructuring. Microsoft has had multiple finance
software divisions. While they have unified a lot of the units, these
units themselves still compete internally. A lot of the projects Microsoft
puts out were originally prototyped by multiple teams, with the winning
team (if any) getting the glory.

Other big companies do the same things. Sony has simultaneously worked to
reinforce and destroy DRM. IBM has had its moments. Novell, SCO, Intel...
name a large company, especially one involved in such a rich and fast-
moving industry as software, and I will bet dollars on that company doing
things at odds with itself.

As a last point, also keep in mind that things change. Even if Microsoft's
top execs and VPs in years past were all Free Software haters, many (most,
actually) of those people are no longer at Microsoft, or work in different
roles less related to product and business strategy. As more and more
young developers are raised with Linux and Open Source being a foundation
of their introduction to programming, more and more employees and execs at
Microsoft come in with an Open/Free-friendly attitude. They may not be
willing to argue for releasing all of Microsoft's code under the GPL, but
they're of the mind that software should compete on quality (and frankly,
Microsoft's software still trounces Linux and the various Open/Free
competitors very thoroughly in many ways; Windows 7 for example simply is
easier and quicker to use than any Linux desktop, even for someone who's
keyboard/console oriented like I am... it's almost pathetic how much better
a purely-graphical OS is at that stuff than the Linux desktops, but it's
nothing more than Microsoft actually putting effort into polishing and
fine-tuning their desktop experience instead of rewriting half the stack
every 6 months to avoid tedious and boring bug fixing).

I'm not saying that Microsoft has turned into RMS-like Free-loving hippies.
They're still out to make money and out-do their competition. What I am
saying, however, is that if some units of Microsoft want to play nice with
Open Source, the odds are they actually do want to play nice with Open
Source.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 21, 2009 17:38 UTC (Mon) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]

The Role of the CEO is to set policy and goals for the company and delegate the responsibility of pursuing those goals to subordinates.

Balmer hates free software, regardless of how uninvolved in the day to day operations of the company is he is the guy that if he calls the legal department and says sue FOSS companies for patents the legal office will move forward with the suits. Patent suits cost anywhere from $1-5million and can go upwards of $10million if the suit goes all the way to supreme court. Very few companies these days can fund patent suits but MS could fund dozens with pocket change.

You discount the power of Balmer to set policy while pointing at executives that act contrary to support free software. Having seen dozens of interviews with Balmer I believe him when he says his ultimate goal is to get MS patented inventions into free software and use it to extract revenue from free software. We shouldn't trust any contribution MS makes unless they make a patent pledge for all of free software for the entire length of the patent.

Just because some parts of the company and employees act in support of FOSS software doesn't mean you should discount Balmer's real power, to set policy, it's possible that he even knows about this and is using the executives and employees in question to get MS patents into FOSS software.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 19, 2009 20:35 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

In many ways IBM is a very good example.

they are a huge company that in the past behaved very badly, but they have changed direction and now are a very good company to deal with.

Microsoft could turn around in the future.

however, they have not done so yet. there are hints that parts of the company may be learning, but the direction from senior management is still wrong

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 20, 2009 23:17 UTC (Sun) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link]

IBM is still behaving very badly. It lobbies for software patents at every turn. The support it is giving to some free software projects is nothing compared to that.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 20, 2009 0:56 UTC (Sun) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

It is important to distinguish between what people do and what they say. Everyone who has watched politicians knows about this.

At the same time that Microsoft executives were saying in public that the GPL was very dangerous and companies should run a mile from GPL software, Microsoft was also delivering such software to their big corporate customers, with the modified source available (to anyone, not just customers) via FTP.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 20:50 UTC (Fri) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]

> I know that Adobe has lots of patents convering Flash, but why are people not leveling the same level of hatred and distrust towards Gnash or Swfdec? Certainly Moonlight is being created under the approval and full knowledge (and even some assistance) of Microsoft while Gnash/Swfdec is certainly and 100% done against the wishes of Adobe! Which project is more likely to cause legal problems? What makes working with Microsoft so much more dangerous then trying to destroy software that is core to Adobe's business?

...In what sense is the Flash plugin core to Adobe's business?

Anyway, the argument against Moonlight has nothing to do with whether MS or Adobe is relatively more evil. It's about them being in different strategic situations. Flash is evil, but its market share means that we're stuck with it, so we had better do our best to pry it out of the exclusive clutch of the proprietary world. Possibly this will end in people getting sued, that's a risk, but the worst case (for the community) is that Gnash/Swfdec disappear (or just go offshore), which leaves us no worse off than we were before.

Silverlight is totally different; it's MS's attempt to introduce a *new* proprietary system into the web's design. Gnash/Swfdec are not, realistically, going to increase the usage of Flash by their existence. Moonlight very well might, and AFAICT that's the entire motivation for MS's cooperation -- it lets them play the compatibility card at web developers and regulators. Really, what other motivation could they have? What do you think they're getting from this? ("Embrace, extend and extinguish" has sorta become a meaningless cliche thrown around by reflexive MS haters, but it originally referred to a very specific strategy that is so far indistinguishable from their Silverlight strategy. Why help them along?)

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 22:18 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

...In what sense is the Flash plugin core to Adobe's business?

Well it's not _the_core_, but it is certainly a core item of their business. They sell proprietary software for programmers using Flash and along with related items; this is how they make their money. And they are trying to expand on this strategy with things like Adobe Flex and whatnot.

You'd definately have a fight on your hands if Adobe thinks your trying to shut them out of their market share.

Silverlight is totally different; it's MS's attempt to introduce a *new* proprietary system into the web's design. Gnash/Swfdec are not, realistically, going to increase the usage of Flash by their existence. Moonlight very well might, and AFAICT that's the entire motivation for MS's cooperation -- it lets them play the compatibility card at web developers and regulators. Really, what other motivation could they have? What do you think they're getting from this? ("Embrace, extend and extinguish" has sorta become a meaningless cliche thrown around by reflexive MS haters, but it originally referred to a very specific strategy that is so far indistinguishable from their Silverlight strategy. Why help them along? )

Well absolutely this is their motivation.
Beleive me I would like to see HTML5 displace Adobe Flash as much as anybody else here, but utlimately I am not a big big propronate of 'everything must be standardized'. As long as there is a open source implementation that is freely licensed then that is the major thing.

Think about it... If Silverlight does end up being competitive and displacing Adobe Flash for a lot of stuff then Linux and the open source community folks would be better off with that then if Adobe Flash remained dominate for decades to come.

Of course having HTML5 dominate would probably be the best, but it's not really a zero-sum game here... A enemy of a enemy is your friend and in this case Microsoft can be trusted as far as it lends itself to Microsoft's self-interest. In the case of Silverlight and Moonlight Microsoft's interests align with Free software's... They want Silverlight to be a viable alternative to Adobe and we want a effective open source plugin for the web to replace proprietary Adobe Flash.

Linux and open source is not in a position that Moonlight is going to make a huge difference to either Silverlight's market share. I think that Microsoft is willing to help out Novell slightly simply because Novell is occuring all the costs for developing Moonlight; its free advertising for Microsoft; I don't think they really give a shit or not if Silverlight works on Linux... if they did they would probably make a Silverlight plugin for Linux themselves.

If HTML5 is going to win out over Silverlight and Flash it will be because HTML5 _is_just_better_. Not because it's a 'standard' and not because Silverlight or Flash suck on the Linux desktop. The only chance HTML5 has at winning is simply by being superior solution. Playing games on the Linux desktop trying to diminish Silverlight or Mono is not going to aid in HTML5's adoption in any way that I see possible.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 19, 2009 18:52 UTC (Sat) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

In my view, the only problem MS has with Adobe's flash (and PDF, and anything else they make) is that it runs also in Mac and Linux. Should MS finally displace Flash with *their* propietary thing, the gracious donation of codecs (via Novell, min you) will be over. I personally don't want to be in that future. That's why I'm all for HTML5.

Yes, I realize it's all FUD in the purest sense, but Microsoft *is* to be feared.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 21, 2009 23:29 UTC (Mon) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]

The issue people are discussing here is not whether Microsoft is "evil" (whatever that even means for a company) but whether it's in their advantage to keep Silverlight open after it gains significant market share.

The answer is no, it doesn't. If Silverlight ever gains significant market share, you can expect to see more and more Windows-only parts of it pop up. You can expect to see more and more patent and other litigation surrounding it. You can expect to see a lot of tie-ins with other proprietary Microsoft products.

The only reason Microsoft is supporting Moonlight in the first place is so that they can check off the "cross-platform compatibility" checkbox on their features list. It's important for them to give the appearance of openness and cross-platform compatibility, so that people will happily adopt their standard-- the same way they adopted .doc for office documents, MAPI for email, and so on.

Also, regarding your comments about standards winning because they are "just better" -- do you live on the same planet as the rest of us? Because on our planet, VHS beat the superior video quality of Betamax, Microsoft DOS killed the superior DRDOS and friends, UNIX won out over Plan 9... I could go on and on.

Standards NEVER win because they're better. They always win because they're in the right place at the right time. Microsoft knows this better than anyone.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 17:05 UTC (Fri) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]

So I take it that you are one of the people in question, the people who believe we must beg permission of Microsoft in order to write software.

You know it does not make a difference if you use Mono or not. If MS really has enforceable patents on some technique in .NET, then they have the same patent on the technique implemented with Java or C++ or PHP or Ruby.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 23, 2009 2:15 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]

> You know it does not make a difference if you use Mono or not. If MS
> really has enforceable patents on some technique in .NET, then they have
> the same patent on the technique implemented with Java or C++ or PHP or
> Ruby.

This argument doesn't hold water.

First of all, most software patents can be worked around, *if* you have an open standard that you can modify. Mono is not such a standard.

Secondly, even if it's "obvious" to you that (say) a patent on for loops in Mono bears on Java as well, it's not obvious to lawyers. Very little is really "obvious" in litigation, especially when judges often have a poor grasp of technology.

The broader the patent claim someone tries to make, the more likely it is to be slapped down, for two reasons: firstly, because judges are often reasonable, and secondly, because other organizations may help you fight overly broad patent claims. In law the way previous cases were handled ("precedent") is often important.

Anyway, there are other legal and technical threats around Mono besides patents.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 21:44 UTC (Fri) by freealter (guest, #4335) [Link]

Miscrosoft is evil, 2nd take. What are the main issues for replacing MS desktops by linux ones especially for enterprises : "small" compatibilities problems between OpenOffice and MS Office, video drm of MS (forget pay-per-view services with linux), samba is still a PDC and not the equivallent of AD, MS Exchange connection with pure free software, synchronisation with external device in using specific MS protocols, ...

What is always striking is that all these problems are not software problems, they are all protocols and format problems. Protocols and format that are not opened by .... guess who.

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 18, 2009 22:02 UTC (Fri) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]

> why we should not write anything in Mono because eeeeevil Microsoft will come get us.

Actually, I wonder why we *should* write anything in Mono. Is it somehow technically superior compared to everything else we already have? I mean, besides the usual "choice is good".

Is Mono superior?

Posted Dec 18, 2009 22:14 UTC (Fri) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]

"Actually, I wonder why we *should* write anything in Mono. Is it somehow technically superior compared to everything else we already have?"

Yes it is.

Is Mono superior?

Posted Dec 19, 2009 10:35 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

How about leaving the "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is" etc on Slashdot?

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 20, 2009 19:52 UTC (Sun) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

Mono is closest competitor to Java. Being newer, it has slightly less
warts than Java as it has been able to learn from Java's mistakes. But
IMHO that's not reason enough for choosing a language.

As for Silverlight/Moonlight, its closest competitor is Adobe Flash. From
what I've heard of Flash player scripting, Mono is superior from the
technical point of view, but Flash has superior UI tools, at least for
now.

Initially MicroSoft attacked against Java because it was threatening the
de-facto Windows monopoly by its "write once, run everywhere" promise.

Now that internet and Browser has replaced things for many people,
MicroSoft is attacking against Flashplayer because it was loosing the
(media) content delivery platform (also to Apple & iTunes).

Moonlight 2 released with a new patent covenant

Posted Dec 21, 2009 17:35 UTC (Mon) by SEMW (guest, #52697) [Link]

> Is it somehow technically superior compared to everything else we already have?

In the sense there does not exist any one framework X for which you can say "X is objectively superior to mono in every way", yes, it is. This is not a very strong sense, however; all languages and frameworks have their their positives and negatives compared with others. Any language or framework which is objectively worse than some other one for *every* possible use won't last very long.