Comments on: More than an open-source curiosity

Novell's Miguel de Icaza is working on a technology that he says can replicate Microsoft's vaunted software development platform on Linux.

Mainsoft provide ASP.NET on J2EE

Mainsoft ( www.mainsoft.com ) use the power of J2EE to run ASP.NET. You gain both productivity and enterprise scalabilty.

Mainsoft provide ASP.NET on J2EE

Mainsoft ( www.mainsoft.com ) use the power of J2EE to run ASP.NET. You gain both productivity and enterprise scalabilty.

In comparison to what?

"Oh, Unix is a world of pain for developers."

To me, this statement from Miguel illustrates
just how horrible GNOME/Gtk is for developers.
He spent years saying you don't need an OO
language to do OO GUI development - he finally
figured out he was wrong.

Developing in KDE/QT/C++ is _easy_. Don't
believe that because one team (GNOME) made
terrible decisions that there is only one way
(Mono) forward in Linux development.

I've used Mono/Gtk# and Java/SWT, and they *are*
very nice. But they are only revolutionary when
compared to the stone knives and bearskins that
is the GNOME/Gtk API.

In comparison to what?

"Oh, Unix is a world of pain for developers."

To me, this statement from Miguel illustrates
just how horrible GNOME/Gtk is for developers.
He spent years saying you don't need an OO
language to do OO GUI development - he finally
figured out he was wrong.

Developing in KDE/QT/C++ is _easy_. Don't
believe that because one team (GNOME) made
terrible decisions that there is only one way
(Mono) forward in Linux development.

I've used Mono/Gtk# and Java/SWT, and they *are*
very nice. But they are only revolutionary when
compared to the stone knives and bearskins that
is the GNOME/Gtk API.

Big winner

" So, we are late. We are very late--we are 18 months behind Microsoft. But we still shipped, and people are still using it."
and you will be alway late...

if you really need .net as much used another product like ms.net.... at least you will not be late

"We did a study at Ximian when we were trying to find customers for Mono. We found that people said that it was 25 percent more efficient to build in ASP.Net, because they have to do all this academic crap (with J2EE)."
we know now Miguel de Icaza is a ******* and they said ********

that very winner to compare j2ee and asp.net...

why not jsp vs asp.net?


big looser

[rdean]

de Icaza doesn't know J2EE

If you ask the right questions, you can get any answer you want. I'd be willing to bet money that their J2EE "survey" was all about implementing things using EJBs. That's all fine and dandy, but EJB isn't the totality of J2EE.

In fact, with Java Studio Creator from Sun, WebLogic Workshop 8.1 from BEA, and WebSphere Studio Application Developer from IBM, building viable applications for J2EE has about the same difficulty of developing apps in .net.

Big winner

" So, we are late. We are very late--we are 18 months behind Microsoft. But we still shipped, and people are still using it."
and you will be alway late...

if you really need .net as much used another product like ms.net.... at least you will not be late

"We did a study at Ximian when we were trying to find customers for Mono. We found that people said that it was 25 percent more efficient to build in ASP.Net, because they have to do all this academic crap (with J2EE)."
we know now Miguel de Icaza is a ******* and they said ********

that very winner to compare j2ee and asp.net...

why not jsp vs asp.net?


big looser

[rdean]

de Icaza doesn't know J2EE

If you ask the right questions, you can get any answer you want. I'd be willing to bet money that their J2EE "survey" was all about implementing things using EJBs. That's all fine and dandy, but EJB isn't the totality of J2EE.

In fact, with Java Studio Creator from Sun, WebLogic Workshop 8.1 from BEA, and WebSphere Studio Application Developer from IBM, building viable applications for J2EE has about the same difficulty of developing apps in .net.

Open Source is a Joke

open source is actually a big joke or i can say a way to harm a company, create a rip off and give it free in order to harm your compititors. and way every open source project is linked a word speelled like "MICROSOFT", way way, every open source project is just linked to creating alternative to microsoft, but these open osurce people still hates microsoft and its technologies, no wonder open source is a tactic to big down microsoft funded directly and indirectly by microsoft compititors. i think they should now dump the idea of linux to create an alternative to longhorn. bye

[Raife]

Actually, 'Open-Source' is doing quite well...

.
>>> "Open Source is a Joke"

With regard to your statements... I consider your position to be seriously-flawed for numerous reasons.

First...

>>> "...create a rip off and give it free in order to harm your compititors [sic]".

Can you say "Internet Explorer", "MS-Internet Services", or currently, "Media-Player"..?

But, in a more direct response to your FALSE-IMPLICATIONS,

1. 'Open-source', is not merely a "rip off" of existing products. "Open-Source" is simply a different design, and marketing, philosophy for the creation of 'software-solutions'. Indeed, this 'open approach to design' was the 'STANDARD' for 'engineering' for centuries before it was re-applied to 'software'. ("Re-applied" after the 'Bill-Gatesian' concept of 'software as a licensed-service' rather than as merely another 'technological-product', ...which, after all, IS what 'software' really is).

Furthermore, the fact is that the single largest software-market segment which most often, 'merely copied existing-products' ...has, in reality, almost always been, ...well, "Microsoft". That's one thing, for which, Microsoft is historically-FAMOUS (In fact, Microsoft actually seems to refer to this approach of 'copying and re-marketing 'Microsoft-versions' of previously-existing products' as the very definition of the word, "...innovation").

>>> "...these open osurce [sic] people still hates [sic] microsoft and its technologies..."

2. First, it has been established (both, in court, and by the overwhelming preponderance of technology-analysts) that "Microsoft" doesn't really 'create' "technologies", they tend to simply market their own versions of previously existing 'products' (most frequently by 'leveraging' their un-ethically created market-domination in the "Operating-System" market). And, second, the legions of 'consumer rights activists', 'technologists', 'companies', and even 'ENTIRE-NATIONS', which are attempting to abandon Microsoft's 'proprietary solutions', should indicate that something is seriously-amiss.

>>> "i think they should now dump the idea of linux to create an alternative to longhorn"

Hmmmm... I think most people (including "Microsoft") now understand that "LINUX" IS an alternative to "Longhorn".

So, finally...

>>> "Open Source is a Joke"..?

The reality is that the tech-industry is littered with the carcasses of companies that simply refused to accept the 'realities', and 'viability', of potential-competition (even when such products were being rapidly adopted 'across the board', just as 'Open-source', now is).

But, please, feel free to wallow in any comfortable delusions which you like, ...for as long as you can. Personally, I intend to stay 'on top of things' (such as the wide-spread adoption of potentially better 'standards'), and to be around in the computer-industry, for as long as I can.

Open Source is a Joke

open source is actually a big joke or i can say a way to harm a company, create a rip off and give it free in order to harm your compititors. and way every open source project is linked a word speelled like "MICROSOFT", way way, every open source project is just linked to creating alternative to microsoft, but these open osurce people still hates microsoft and its technologies, no wonder open source is a tactic to big down microsoft funded directly and indirectly by microsoft compititors. i think they should now dump the idea of linux to create an alternative to longhorn. bye

[Raife]

Actually, 'Open-Source' is doing quite well...

.
>>> "Open Source is a Joke"

With regard to your statements... I consider your position to be seriously-flawed for numerous reasons.

First...

>>> "...create a rip off and give it free in order to harm your compititors [sic]".

Can you say "Internet Explorer", "MS-Internet Services", or currently, "Media-Player"..?

But, in a more direct response to your FALSE-IMPLICATIONS,

1. 'Open-source', is not merely a "rip off" of existing products. "Open-Source" is simply a different design, and marketing, philosophy for the creation of 'software-solutions'. Indeed, this 'open approach to design' was the 'STANDARD' for 'engineering' for centuries before it was re-applied to 'software'. ("Re-applied" after the 'Bill-Gatesian' concept of 'software as a licensed-service' rather than as merely another 'technological-product', ...which, after all, IS what 'software' really is).

Furthermore, the fact is that the single largest software-market segment which most often, 'merely copied existing-products' ...has, in reality, almost always been, ...well, "Microsoft". That's one thing, for which, Microsoft is historically-FAMOUS (In fact, Microsoft actually seems to refer to this approach of 'copying and re-marketing 'Microsoft-versions' of previously-existing products' as the very definition of the word, "...innovation").

>>> "...these open osurce [sic] people still hates [sic] microsoft and its technologies..."

2. First, it has been established (both, in court, and by the overwhelming preponderance of technology-analysts) that "Microsoft" doesn't really 'create' "technologies", they tend to simply market their own versions of previously existing 'products' (most frequently by 'leveraging' their un-ethically created market-domination in the "Operating-System" market). And, second, the legions of 'consumer rights activists', 'technologists', 'companies', and even 'ENTIRE-NATIONS', which are attempting to abandon Microsoft's 'proprietary solutions', should indicate that something is seriously-amiss.

>>> "i think they should now dump the idea of linux to create an alternative to longhorn"

Hmmmm... I think most people (including "Microsoft") now understand that "LINUX" IS an alternative to "Longhorn".

So, finally...

>>> "Open Source is a Joke"..?

The reality is that the tech-industry is littered with the carcasses of companies that simply refused to accept the 'realities', and 'viability', of potential-competition (even when such products were being rapidly adopted 'across the board', just as 'Open-source', now is).

But, please, feel free to wallow in any comfortable delusions which you like, ...for as long as you can. Personally, I intend to stay 'on top of things' (such as the wide-spread adoption of potentially better 'standards'), and to be around in the computer-industry, for as long as I can.

Wondering about this

Hi.
im wondring about things mr Miguel de Icaza
said ,Mono would never catch .net and it will never complete , its obvious , MS dont like competitor
and linux is another annoyer of microsoft ,
So how will MS let MONO to complete?
Does Mr Miguel de Icaza , has all technical design documents of .net to implement its core services ?
Mr. Miguel de Icaza when you could run Yukon , or any other MS .net based Commerical products on linux he can claims that mono is goiing to complete .

[Fray9]

I think..

Im not entirely sure what you just said but to sum it up I think you were asking: "Why would Microsoft allow them to complete this software?"

Well partially its because the Department of Justice is still riding them hard to create more open standards. If Microsoft were to squash this software product like they have all others in the past it would be detrimental to their posing as a "reformed, respectable company" lately. Also it would draw the attention of the DOJ.. people they are wise to try to avoid incurring the wrath of after narrowly escaping severe punishments the last few times theyve attempted the heavy handed, immoral and borederline illegal practices theyve become notorious for.

Though I do have to agree that the Mono developers are far from "out of the woods". Microsoft still has the option to, at a later date when the Mono system becomes widely accepted, extort all Mono customers for licensing fees (almost free added revenue to placate MS's increasingly unhappy investors).

The Mono development software is a gamble but one that will result in major benefits and progress for everyone involved, especially consumers worldwide, if it survives.

Wondering about this

Hi.
im wondring about things mr Miguel de Icaza
said ,Mono would never catch .net and it will never complete , its obvious , MS dont like competitor
and linux is another annoyer of microsoft ,
So how will MS let MONO to complete?
Does Mr Miguel de Icaza , has all technical design documents of .net to implement its core services ?
Mr. Miguel de Icaza when you could run Yukon , or any other MS .net based Commerical products on linux he can claims that mono is goiing to complete .

[Fray9]

I think..

Im not entirely sure what you just said but to sum it up I think you were asking: "Why would Microsoft allow them to complete this software?"

Well partially its because the Department of Justice is still riding them hard to create more open standards. If Microsoft were to squash this software product like they have all others in the past it would be detrimental to their posing as a "reformed, respectable company" lately. Also it would draw the attention of the DOJ.. people they are wise to try to avoid incurring the wrath of after narrowly escaping severe punishments the last few times theyve attempted the heavy handed, immoral and borederline illegal practices theyve become notorious for.

Though I do have to agree that the Mono developers are far from "out of the woods". Microsoft still has the option to, at a later date when the Mono system becomes widely accepted, extort all Mono customers for licensing fees (almost free added revenue to placate MS's increasingly unhappy investors).

The Mono development software is a gamble but one that will result in major benefits and progress for everyone involved, especially consumers worldwide, if it survives.

courses on J2EE for anyone

quoting Miguel from the article:
"Yeah, and you see a lot of people using all the alternative technologies with Java like Struts. The problem is that other than a couple of O'Reilly books, there is nothing else there. It's not something that you can attend a course on. It's not something you can just pick up training or support anywhere."

au contraire: try CIS 278 at Washtenaw Community College in Ann Arbor. or try Sang Shin's online course; it cycles three times a year.

No courses, Miguel? Come on, why are you spreading this FUD?

-- TT

courses on J2EE for anyone

quoting Miguel from the article:
"Yeah, and you see a lot of people using all the alternative technologies with Java like Struts. The problem is that other than a couple of O'Reilly books, there is nothing else there. It's not something that you can attend a course on. It's not something you can just pick up training or support anywhere."

au contraire: try CIS 278 at Washtenaw Community College in Ann Arbor. or try Sang Shin's online course; it cycles three times a year.

No courses, Miguel? Come on, why are you spreading this FUD?

-- TT