On Sun, 2002-02-17 at 15:25, Sean Russell wrote:
> Sean Middleditch wrote:
> 
> > Security is all based on the implementation... Mono *is* Open Source, so
> > it will be no more inherently insecure than Ruby, Apache, the BSD
> 
> Yes, this is true to some extent.  You /can/ build a certain amount of 
> security into a standard, and the standard can help the implementors avoid 
> certain pitfalls.  That given, a bad implementation can circumvent any 
> amount of designed security.

Thus, hopefully, an Open implementation will be among the best.  ^,^

> 
> > The standards *are* based on MS, yes.  But, if MS decides to break the
> > standards, all that does is make it so Mono can't communicate with some
> > of MS's .NET.  That makes it absolutely no worse than if we didn't have
> > Mono/.NET at all; it would actually make it better, since at least we'd
> > have a technology that does what Mono does, plus we'd still be able to
> > communicate with the Least Common Denomitor among other .NET vendors.
> 
> And what good would Mono then be?  This sounds a lot to me like saying 
> CORBA is useful even if you don't do any IPC.  I strongly doubt that the 
> LCD among .NET is going to be anything useful to "pure" Mono if MS 
> breaks/changes/extends the standards, given their track record.

Well, I was thinking more like how ORBit would still be useful to GNOME
even if it couldn't talk to another vendor's ORB.

> 
> Seriously, though, what are you hoping to get from .NET?  Below, you argue 
> that Linux /needs/ Mono so that it can hook into .NET -- which is 
> completely, utterly controlled by Microsoft.  Do you actually believe that 
> MS is going to take any steps to ensure that pure Mono apps are 
> able to work in any non-trivial way with the MS counterparts?  Maybe.  If 
> MS is selling the services, and there is no way you can get around paying 
> them money.  Otherwise, I wouldn't count on it.  And if they do help, all 
> the while it'll be "this would work better on Windows -- you really should 
> change".  It isn't in their best interest, financially, to help Linux, and 
> MS is not known for their altruism.

Well, not only MS will be selling these services.  The idea behind .NET
is that *anyone* can start a service.  WIth a functional implementation
of .NET on Linux, Solaris, BSD, Mac, etc., you can bet a good number of
services aren't going to be running on Windows servers.

I don't see Microsoft forcing these services to shut down.

> 
> > make use of and communicate with .NET services.  Locking Ruby out of
> > that when most other popular languages are or are planning to interface
> > with .NET will mostly kill off Ruby, without a doubt.
> 
> That's an extreme viewpoint.  I certainly hope that the health of Ruby is 
> not dependant on any MS technology.

THat is, of course, assuming .NET takes off (which I expect).  SImply
said, the new comers to programming would then only care about .NET
compatible languages.  They would have no reason to pick Ruby over
another language in that case.

If .NET doesn't take off, or doesn't have the impact I expect it to,
then yes, RUby probably will survive just fine as is, if perhaps near
non-existant on MS platforms.

> 
> > implementation, Mono (http://go-mono.com) before you start spreading
> > FUD, just like the oh-so-terrible Microsoft does.  .NET isn't the
> > end-all of programming environments, but it's certainly not the fiend
> > people make it out to be.
> ....
> > I have yet to see *one* good reason not to have .NET on Linux (or other
> > Open Source operating systems, for that matter) other than "I don't like
> 
> Hm.  Straw man argument.  Labeling my opinions FUD does not invalidate 
> them.  I don't claim to be a subject expert.

Aye, that's mostly what FUD is, isn't it?  "Badmouthing" something with
no real technical merit.  ^,^

> 
> ..NET /is/ a fiend, IMO, because of who owns and controls it.  Microsoft 

I honestly just can't understand that viewpoint.

> does not need to worry about embrace and extend with .NET because it 
> already utterly controls it.  The ECMA standards crap is a snowjob; it 
> won't affect in any way, shape, or form, what Microsoft does with .NET, C#, 
> or any other aspect of the technology.  Where MS leads, industry will 
> follow.  Hoping to play catch-up with a pure Mono implementation is 
> self-decieving.  If you want to play Microsoft's game, buy Microsoft 
> products -- that's the only way you'll succeed.

Well, I suppose we will have to wait and see.  I do not doubt MS will do
what it can to make itself the leader of the technology - but opening
the standards, letting every major player make their own implementation
(both Sun and IBM have their own, for example, and Apple likely will
too) and then breaking that will have one heck of a backlash.

Besides, again, even if Mono can't communicate with MS *at all*, Mono
would still be one hell of a useful technology, one that Ruby could at
least make use of, if not greatly benefit from.

> 
> That said, it is extremely difficult to make the argument /against/ trying 
> to add compatibility with a given technology.  Embrace and extend only 
> works if you have the market muscle to pull it off, but /adding/ options is 
> rarely a bad thing.  And, really, I don't care if somebody uses their time 
> to implement a Mono binding for Ruby; it is certain to happen on the 
> Windows side, for sure.  I doubt if it will stay cross-platform compatible 
> for long, and I fully expect that Ruby# will be a perverted dialect of 
> Ruby, but I don't have to use it.  As long as Ruby doesn't catch Mono -- as 
> long as Matz doesn't start incorporating Mono-isms into Ruby core -- I'll 
> be fine.  Mono is a fairly contagious disease, so we'll see where it goes.

I don't see a Ruby# happening.. that would be fairly pointless.  Tying
Ruby into .NET would be useful, on both the MS and Mono sides. 
Rebuilding Ruby out of scratch in C# or something would be rather
fruitless... unless there actually becomesd a platform that C# runs on
that the current Ruby doesn't.

> 
> > Please, if you can actually think of a good reason, enlighten me - I'd
> > much rather be proven wrong than to continue being wrong.  ^,^
> 
> What is .NET going to give me that I can't get with other technology?  More 
> portable viruses?  The honor of paying Microsoft for hoarding and 
> distributing my personal information?  The (gosh!) ability to do 
> distributed IPC?  The ability to use C# dialects that look like 
> languages I like?

^,^  Again, misinformation.  .NET does not in any way put your
information in MS's hands.  That is *only* if you use Passport or some
other MS service.  And there, Passport does not requrie any information
out of you for its basic usage.

Viruses aren't going to happen any more easily on a good implementation
than when you download and run executable off of the Internet as is
(most people tend to do that).  In fact, .NET has features built in to
greatly reduce the likelihood of virus by having far better access
control than Linux does (and, likly, ever will).

As for C#... Well, I've not used it, but I'd certainly like to.  I like
C/C++, and the thought of a byte-code (with JIT) C++ like language that
is immune to things like memory leaks and buffer overruns sounds very
interesting.

Granted, if Ruby has decent .NET bindings, I would probably just use
that instead... ~,^

> 
> My primary reason, however, is that I want MS influencing my life as little 
> as possible.  Many things I have no control over, but I can choose the 
> software I use, and I choose not to use MS software.  Mono, C#, .NET -- 
> these are defined by MS, and are therefore MS software.

Well, that is your choice.  ^,^  I simply suppose we have different
criteria on what we base our usage of software on.

> 
> -- 
>  |..  "Oh yeah... one more thing:  I'm glad you changed your last name,
> <|>    you son-of-a-bitch!"             
> /|\   --- Avatar, "Wizards"
> /|    
>  |         
>