D-BUS support for Mono

[r_a_trip]

Tom von Schwerdtner Wrote: 
> I'm all about getting Mono into GNOME, but I do think there are some
> issues that need to be resolved first.  Some comments are in line. 
> I'm not attacking, I just don't agree with most of your points (or
> don't think they are strong enough):
> 
> Note: after writing this I realized I had not considered Mono on OSX
> in any of my statements, but I'm going to send this anyways.
> 
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 06:22:26 -0500, r_a_trip <dlist at ubuntuforums.org>
> wrote:
> > The fear of MS retalliation against Mono seems to be endemic and also
> > totally out of proportion. Just think about it logical.
> > 
> > What benefit does MS have to start a high profile attack against a
> > reimplemented competing .NET stack? Strangle the competition?
> 
> Making it harder for people to transition from Windows based
> development (in .NET) to Linux based development (in Mono).  I really
> fail to see what benefit MS would get from Mono being widely adopted
> in Linux.  Wider developer pool?  I don't think so, for every 1
> developer that abandons Linux to move to MS there would be 100 that
> went the other way.  MS has not won many wars with "better products",
> they have won them with "lock-in".  Why would they risk giving someone
> a choice when you can force them to choose MS?
> 
> > MS has found a more powerful weapon. Exclusive contracts with key
> > agencies like Healthcare and Defense, that run for over NINE years.
> > Good luck competing with a tender against that...
> 
> Just because they have one weapon does not mean they will not use
> another weapon.  This is business we are talking about.
> 
> > An all out copyright and patent attack on Mono would damage MSes
> > already haggard public opinion/image to the point of total loss.
> > Remember Steve Ballmer? Developers, developers, developers,
> developers.
> > Attacking Mono is not attacking FOSS, it is attacking developers.
> That
> > is one thing MS cannot afford. (Not to mention that IBM/Novell have a
> > huge patent arsenal to squash MS if they want to).
> 
> It's attacking 1% of the developers with the end reward being getting
> to keep the other 99%.  Sounds like a good deal to me.
> 
> > Having a development framework that is similar between two major
> > competing platforms is of importance to MS. One day a Mono developer
> > might consider switching sides and then he can just plug into .NET
> and
> > off he goes. For MS .NET means forging a developer base that can code
> > for Windows and because they control the spec, they are two steps
> > ahead.
> 
> Since when is Linux/GNOME a major competing platform with MS?  We have
> seen some good things in its adoption but we aren't even close to
> competing with OSX let alone MS.  We have the potential to be but I
> think getting Mono widely adopted would help us achieve this and thus
> be something MS would not want.
> 
> <snip/>
> > Ultimately, it doesn't matter who built the spec for the framework.
> > What really counts is how easy is it for a developer to work with it
> > and does it give the developer a tool that makes development faster,
> > while being able to forge powerful and innovative apps.
> 
> I think it does matter who came up with the spec when they are a
> "mortal enemy" to FOSS.  What happens when they start "enhancing" the
> spec in-house the same way they did with web standards and IE?
> 
> > Beagle and Dashboard seem to be the prime example that .NET/Mono fits
> > the requirement.
> 
> I do love Mono and what has come out of it.  I use Muine and Tomboy on
> a daily basis and I am awaiting some stable Beagle releases with much
> anticipation.   It seems that Mono provides an environment that makes
> it easier for people with good ideas to see those ideas come to
> fruition.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm very skeptical about accepting things as they
> stand without some assurance that MS isn't just waiting a few years
> before making our legal nightmare a reality.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Tom von Schwerdtner
> Etria, LLP :: Open Source Solutions
> Baltimore, MD
> http://etria.com/
> 
> -- 
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Tom, what you have said is pretty sensible, but I'll chime in with
some thoughts.

First off, I went from the premise that the base technology on the
table at ECMA is usable like the Ximian/Novell guys said, meaning a
royalty-free, FOSS-compatible license on the technology. If this is a
false premise, my house is built on quicksand.

It seems you only took in to account a Mono that is MS compatible.
Right now there is a MS Compat stack with ADO.NET, ASP.NET, VB.NET,
etc, but this stack is kept apart form the Mono stack, which is built
from FOSS from day one.

MS might have something to say about the MS compatible stuff, but if
they are making negative murmurs, this stack can be dropped. It would
mean letting the ties to the MS world go, but Mono would have it's Free
Mono stack.

This would negate the impact MS has on Mono and Mono would still be a
very usable technology for FOSS development. It would become a lot less
attractive to would-be FOSS programmers switching from Windows, but the
tech is there and it is similar to .NET.

If MS smacks down on Mono and tries to kill all of it, even the
completely Free part, it would send a message to Windows developers
that MS will exert control over what can and cannot be done with their
technology, even if it was released as an open standard. This would be
a message that they would take notice of. I don't think the majority of
developers would say: "Hey, but I'm on the good side of the behemoth'
fence".

Another problem for MS are the anti-trust regulations. Until now they
have been able to either make anti-trust cases go away with settlements
or to ride the waves and manipulate everything until the court climate
got more MS friendly. 

In the future it might get a little tougher to skirt the law. MS has
been in the spotlight to much and they are increasingly killing their
own third party software support by bringing out "for free" inferior
clones of third party applications. This is putting pressure on third
party software developers to either find a market somewhere else
(GNU/Linux, *BSD) or to try to get some more air through legal
measures.

Anyway, we could say: "Let's not use Mono. It could get us into
trouble." On the other hand, sticking with the tried an true stuff will
not get FOSS any further. Even if we stick to C, C++ and Bash Script,
undoubtedly FOSS is violating hundreds of Software Patents in the US,
just like Closed Source is doing the same.

The only hope we have is that our Corporate "Friends" IBM and Novell,
etc. were honest when they pledged to use their patent arsenal if it
would come close to a Patent War. This would force an armed peace,
because an outright Patent offensive would trigger MAD (Mutually
Assured Destruction). Either the patent system collapses in a massive
scale "IP" war or nobody can write software anymore.


-- 
r_a_trip