Comments on: Promises, promises http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/07/07/promises-promises/ The Magic of Open Source Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:17:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: The Open Sourcerer » How to remove Mono from Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/07/07/promises-promises/comment-page-1/#comment-11397 The Open Sourcerer » How to remove Mono from Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:00:31 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=1424#comment-11397 [...] of it is surely to do with Microsoft’s Community Promise made back in July 2009, but I doubt that is really the only reason for the attenuation. I do wonder [...] [...] of it is surely to do with Microsoft’s Community Promise made back in July 2009, but I doubt that is really the only reason for the attenuation. I do wonder [...]

]]> By: Mono Roundup: Still Dangerous, Still Not Acceptable | Boycott Novell http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/07/07/promises-promises/comment-page-1/#comment-10789 Mono Roundup: Still Dangerous, Still Not Acceptable | Boycott Novell Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:35:17 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=1424#comment-10789 [...] promises,” calls them Alan Lord. They are not legally binding. The reason I won’t be using Mono is that the .Net framework is [...] [...] promises,” calls them Alan Lord. They are not legally binding. The reason I won’t be using Mono is that the .Net framework is [...]

]]> By: Alan Bell http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/07/07/promises-promises/comment-page-1/#comment-10766 Alan Bell Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:24:32 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=1424#comment-10766 I think the complete/not complete loophole isn't worth worrying about, they would be dragged through hot coals if they tried to use that one (plus if there were a lack of completeness anywhere it would be fixed shortly after being pointed out). The future versions is the kicker. So Microsoft will sit and write a future version, implement it, then pass it to the standards committee for rubber stamping. Then they wait. Then when and if they feel like it they promise not to sue for that version and then the Mono developers can start. Of course I may be suffering from a lack of trust and optimism here. I think the complete/not complete loophole isn’t worth worrying about, they would be dragged through hot coals if they tried to use that one (plus if there were a lack of completeness anywhere it would be fixed shortly after being pointed out). The future versions is the kicker. So Microsoft will sit and write a future version, implement it, then pass it to the standards committee for rubber stamping. Then they wait. Then when and if they feel like it they promise not to sue for that version and then the Mono developers can start. Of course I may be suffering from a lack of trust and optimism here.

]]> By: Alan Lord http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/07/07/promises-promises/comment-page-1/#comment-10765 Alan Lord Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:15:25 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=1424#comment-10765 "There is little point in adding innovative new function calls..." Also, the "promise" only covers complete implementations of the specification. Not anything outside of that. And as Glyn Moody has just <a href="http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-microsofts-promises-for-ever.html" rel="nofollow">noted</a> from their FAQ: "Q: Does this CP apply to all versions of the specification, including future revisions? A: The Community Promise applies to all existing versions of the specifications designated on the public list posted at /interop/cp/, unless otherwise noted with respect to a particular specification. " That's a no then. “There is little point in adding innovative new function calls…”

Also, the “promise” only covers complete implementations of the specification. Not anything outside of that. And as Glyn Moody has just noted from their FAQ:

“Q: Does this CP apply to all versions of the specification, including future revisions?

A: The Community Promise applies to all existing versions of the specifications designated on the public list posted at /interop/cp/, unless otherwise noted with respect to a particular specification.
”

That’s a no then.

]]> By: Alan Bell http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/07/07/promises-promises/comment-page-1/#comment-10764 Alan Bell Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:34:20 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=1424#comment-10764 Firstly I don't think Linux on the desktop is following anything. It is ahead of other operating systems in many areas and importantly there is the freedom to innovate (a Microsoft term as I recall) in any direction. It is what it is and it is it's own thing. As I see it Mono is more like Wine. It is an implementation of a specification defined by someone else. There is little point in adding innovative new function calls to Wine because if they are not in the Windows API they won't get used. Now this doesn't mean Wine (or Mono) are not useful tools. They just are not platforms that are free to grow because their functionality is defined by what someone else does. Firstly I don’t think Linux on the desktop is following anything. It is ahead of other operating systems in many areas and importantly there is the freedom to innovate (a Microsoft term as I recall) in any direction. It is what it is and it is it’s own thing. As I see it Mono is more like Wine. It is an implementation of a specification defined by someone else. There is little point in adding innovative new function calls to Wine because if they are not in the Windows API they won’t get used. Now this doesn’t mean Wine (or Mono) are not useful tools. They just are not platforms that are free to grow because their functionality is defined by what someone else does.

]]> By: Jadd http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/07/07/promises-promises/comment-page-1/#comment-10763 Jadd Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:41:25 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=1424#comment-10763 By that logic (it's always catching up so we shouldn't be using it), why should we use GNU/Linux on the desktop? By that logic (it’s always catching up so we shouldn’t be using it), why should we use GNU/Linux on the desktop?

]]>