__/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Wednesday 28 February 2007 20:23 \__
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
> <linonut@xxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:03:37 -0600
> <jLednUw777xkXnjYnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Paul Hovnanian P.E. belched out this bit o'
>> wisdom:
>>
>>> Linonut wrote:
>>>>
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, yttrx belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>> > In every experience with corporations that at one time or another
>>>> > adopted the .NET framework in New York, Boston, and Chicago, they have
>>>> > (given more than 12 months) without exception moved back to Java.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not just saying that to be a dick either, I'm saying it because
>>>> > it's
>>>> > actually very interesting. What is it about .NET that after enough
>>>> > experience with it, people at large organizations generally want to
>>>> > go back to Java?
>>>> >
>>>> > I can think of a few reasons, and when I've asked, I've usually been
>>>> > told that it was a matter of two things: Licensing and "usability".
>>>> >
>>>> > An interesting trend, that.
>>>>
>>>> However, a small group working in the same hut as us uses .NET.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, some things about .NET looked interesting. But, it's a
>>>> vendor's language. Bzzzt.
>>>
>>> .NET isn't a language. Its a runtime that supports a number of
>>> languages.
>>
>> Sorry, wrong term. Still gets a Bzzzzt, though.
>>
>
> I'll admit Mono is an interesting variant, and even sports
> Gtk#, an API/library that implements Gtk in .NET.
> However, there are a few questions:
>
> [1] Can .NET run Mono-created applications:
> (a) without Windows API?
> (b) *with* Windows API, if exported with appropriate assemblies,
> DLLs, or whatnot?
> [2] Can Mono run .NET-created applications:
> (a) without Windows API?
> (b) *with* Windows API, if exported with appropriate assemblies,
> DLLs, or whatnot?
> [3] Is it standard enough?
> (a) Clearly parts of it are standard. Which parts?
> (b) Can it identify non-standard parts of a foreign app?
> [4] Right now, Monodevelop can't compete with Eclipse, although
> presumably someone's working on such things as method completions.
> (a) Can Monodevelop eventually hope to achieve Eclipse's usability,
> at least at a general level?
> (b) Will Eclipse have a Mono plugin?
> (c) Will Eclipse have a .NET plugin?
> (d) Is there a Java-to-C# converter for either Mono or .NET
> projects?
> (i) Is Microsoft pushing one?
> (ii) Does it do API conversions as well (e.g.,
> System.out.println() to Console.writeln())?
> (iii) Is there a freeware variant?
> [5] What patents govern .NET, and interfere with Mono cross-platform
> issues?
> (a) Will Microsoft enforce them?
> (b) Are they valid?
> (c) Are there workarounds?
>
> It's a-gonna get messy, methinks.
You are not the only one thinking this. In fact, the only one defending Mono
very religiously is a long-time Microsoft apologist who has a lot of to earn
from Mono. It's Miguel. He even defends Microsoft in OOXML debates, so I
guess he's willing to reimplement (READ: replicate) 15+ years of work by the
large Office team (including tests).
Legal risks could be among the motivating forces that led Nat Friendman and
Miguel de Icaza to not only endorse but to also give their blessings to the
abysmal Microvell deal. Both appear to have friends at Microsoft and I
think, although I can't recall for sure, that de Icaza has an employment (or
affiliation) record with Microsoft. Maybe it's a case of returning favours
by predatory deals, contamination, and very dangerous unification. Red Hat
considers Mono a clear no-go area.
--
~~ Best wishes
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bYsxaMyFV2Y http://youtube.com/watch?v=QNb7gPA1JFk
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 522228k used, 513956k free, 53348k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
