Re: Comparison of Java, C# for development on Windows and future for them

"Ingo Pakleppa" <ingo-immigration_at_kkeane.com> wrote in message news:s8tY9.15210$LA4.1126284_at_news1.west.cox.net...
> > Wait, Mono isn't implementing the .NET framework, it's implementing
> > the ECMA C# and CLI specs (specs which have been approved
preliminarily
> > by ISO as well). There are some add-on Mono projects for Microsoft
.NET-
> > specific things like Windows Forms, VB.NET, and ASP.NET, but they
> > are not core to mono.
>
> The first paragraph on the page you gave says:
>
> >>
> Ximian announced the launch of the Mono project, an effort to create
an open source implementation of the .NET Development Framework.
> <<
>
> While I admit that "development framework" is not the same as .NET, it
at
> least seems to suggest that the emphasis of Mono is .NET rather than
the
> languages.

I didn't say just the languages. The CLI is the heart of the .NET Framework. I suspect that they said .NET Framework because it's easier to say than "ECMA CLI and C# Specifications".

Also, I'm sure Mono would like to implement ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows Forms, and indeed they have to some extent, but that's not the core of the project (the CLI and C# compiler).

> > The specs are specs and cannot change easily. MS can ignore them,
> > but as the ECMA-compliant crowd grows, MS would shoot themselves in
the
> > foot. They have said they will continue to work within the ECMA and
> > any new changes will be submitted and so far this has been the case
> > and there's not a strong reason to believe it will stop anytime
soon.
>
> Optimist ;-)

Not really since MS have done everything to help Mono and support the standards and have shown no sign of intent otherwise. MS is no ALL evil.

>
> >> Second, there are patent and copyright issues in .NET and C# that
> > would
> >> allow Microsoft to pretty much at any time they like stop the work
> > dead in
> >> its tracks (there are similar issues surrounding Samba, btw).
> >
> > Not quite. SMB is different, it's not an ECMA or ISO standard like
C#
> > and CLI.
>
> Actually, SMB is an RFC (RFC 2708). More importantly, there are many
instances of
> patented technologies being submitted for standardization. There
recently
> was some uproar about Rambus trying to do that in the memory chip
arena.

The problem with SMB, IIRC, is that MS' implementations in the past didn't
comply fully with the RFC. I think the newer versions do, but have extended
features (like NTLM and such). Again, it's not quite the same thing. Either
way, I don't recall seeing MS suing anyone for SMB implementations, even though there are many (not just Samba). HP, Compaq, and many other companies
have portal storage devices like hard drives with network cards, essentially,
that support SMB (they don't call it "Windows Networking", they call it SMB usually and that's an important distinction).

> > If Mono attempted to sell their product, then there might be an
> > issue, but I'm not sure.
>
> Patent law is more strict. Even if Mono was only used by Ximian
itself, it
> would still be a patent violation unless they purchase a license (or
prove
> that Ximian had developed and used the technology before Microsoft
filed
> the patent claim).
>
> Obviously, Mono is more ambitious and would be distributed to the
public -
> it doesn't matter whether it is sold or given away free of charge.

Seeing as how MS have been providing help and information to Mono, I find
it hard to believe that MS would turn around and slap them with a patent suit. Not only that, but IIRC, trademarks and patents must be defended, otherwise when a "real" infringment comes along, the court will recognize
that MS would selectively enforce their patents which is not acceptable.

I would guess that MS has pretty good legal council, so I must assume they know they're doing. I believe that by supporting Mono, they're making a strategic decision about the future of .NET.

-c Received on Sat Jan 25 2003 - 13:32:17 CST