Attachmate Does the Right Thing For Mono 100
mikejuk writes "Attachmate, who recently decided to dump the Mono development team, has done the right thing in allowing Miguel de Icaza's new company, Xamarin, a perpetual license to all the intellectual property of Mono, MonoTouch, Mono for Android and Mono for Visual Studio. This allows them to continue to develop and sell the products. Of course this income might just give them the time needed to support the software, which is a good thing, as Attachmate has also handed over the support for all existing customers to Xamarin."
Re:[Open]SUSE (Score:4, Insightful)
Mono and by extension .net is a piece of shit and the only people who care are shills and the people that have been convinced by the shills to believe the hype. Even MS is abandoning .shit for javascript/html5 in their next OS. Hahahahahahaha
Well done. I too would post as AC if all I had to say was an idiotic, embarrassingly stupid comment like that.
Re: (Score:3)
as trolling as that was, it does seem to have a bit of truth - Microsoft has kicked Silverlight to the curb by targeting it pretty much only for mobile and news from inside Microsoft seems to indicate they are ditching .NET for html 5. Knowing Microsoft, however, and seeing their open attack on the security of WebGL, I expect them to port over their Silverlight Direct 3D code and use that instead of using WebGL because a browser without proprietary features would be very un-Microsofty.
The thing that isn't o
Re: (Score:1)
and news from inside Microsoft seems to indicate they are ditching .NET for html 5
Do you have any idea how vast the .net class libraries are? It would literally be impossible to replicate all of that functionality on a platform like html without turning it into .net again. MS may be phasing out Silverlight in favour of html5 now that html5 has matured to the point that it is reasonable to do so, and for the web platform, where it makes sense to do so.
When Silverlight was launched, the only viable alternative was Flash, and that is what Silverlight was aiming to compete against. Unlike Go
Re: (Score:2)
news from inside Microsoft seems to indicate they are ditching .NET for html 5.
Where is this 'news from inside Microsoft'? Do you have any idea the vast amount of functionality that would be lost if you ditched .Net for HTML5? Ditching Silverlight for HTML5 seems logical but certainly not the whole of .Net.
Knowing Microsoft, however, and seeing their open attack on the security of WebGL, I expect them to port over their Silverlight Direct 3D code and use that instead of using WebGL because a browser without proprietary features would be very un-Microsofty.
I for one do see the danger in WebGL, i think it's a brilliant enabling technology (particularly friendly to me because i do most of my 3D coding in OpenGL) but that direct access from a webpage to the GPU (which is pretty much the most volatile piece of hardware in computers today)
Re: (Score:3)
How do we know you didn't? You are the MS whipping boy after all?
Re: (Score:2)
You're very wrong.
You completely misunderstand the
Re: (Score:2)
.Net is not bad at all, although not a solution for every problem. As an alternative to Java, it's better in every way except cross-platform compatibility.
.Net is inferior in the one aspect that matters, then, as total cross-platform compatibility is the raison d'être of Java.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying Java is superior to C because the latter being "portable assembly" was its whole purpose. Yes, it was so at the beginning, but the language and the frameworks built on top of them grew to encompass much more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
.Net is inferior in the one aspect that matters, then, as total cross-platform compatibility is the raison d'être of Java.
Total cross-platform capability? You can only run Java where you've compiled it to native platform-specific code or where there is a platform-specific JVM, just the same as with .Net code.
Re:[Open]SUSE (Score:4, Informative)
No, SuSE is one of the main reasons that Attachemate bought Novel. They have moved the SuSE headquarters back to Nuremberg Germany where it began, and the relationship with the OpenSUSE project is not expected to change.
Re: (Score:3)
Thankfully, the ecosystem of computer languages and platforms is not subject to the mouth-frothing whims of hard-core ideologues. Those of us who program for a living are not interested in your rants.
Re: (Score:2)
With the exception of the fact that most people who create programming languages and platforms tend fall into highly opinionated ideologue category e.g. Larry Wall, Guido van Rossum, Matz, Linus, DHH, Theo de Raadt, etc
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm not interesting in *their* rants, either. I use their software, but I don't have to read their manifestos. Exhibit A: Richard Stallman.
Yes, it WAS the right thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not you think Mono has value, granting a perpetual license to it to someone who will do something with it was the right thing to do. Allowing a particular technology to be continued rather than just sitting on it because they have no use for it should be applauded. I only wish IBM had done this with OS/2 many years ago. Who knows what would have become of it.
Re:IBM & OS/2 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
eComStation is a "barely" warmed over (as in bugfixes only) release of OS/2 Warp 4 which IBM last shipped in 2001. Had IBM released the source code to someone who might actually continue development (even if not open-sourcing it) there's no telling what kind of OS it could have evolved into by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no, IBM still owns (and maintains) OS/2. Serenity is only an authorized re-seller, marketing it under the name eComStation. The only real enhancements made by Serenity have been in the form of additional device drivers and add-ons, mainly for the purpose of extending it's life.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. So many of the posts above this are just troll posts about Mono being shitty, and while I don't hold it in the highest of esteem, I think it's very good that they decided to allow a group of people that was actually doing something with the IP to do it, rather than just sit on it, make them reinvent the wheel, and possibly sue them afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree entirely. However, there's a question that no-one seems to be asking: if Mono was as open, and as free of IP encumberances as Miguel has always maintained it is, then what IP did they need?
And if Attachmate held IP that prevented Xamarin from developing the project further, what does
Re: (Score:2)
Copyrights?
Not all incarnations of Mono are/were open source -- particularly, the mobile and embedded targets were, and remain, commercial.
Re: (Score:1)
What's wrong with it is it pollutes the Linux ecosystem with Microsoft IP.
Some think that's risky, and some of us don't care about that but just don't want to use anything that has any connection with MS.
Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. (Score:4, Interesting)
I fear OS/2 was a failure for the desktop as soon as they did the Adds for OS/2 Warp. A bunch of people staring at a computer screen saying how cool it is then showing some funky color like they are on an acid trip. Most people at the time didn't know what an OS was they figured that once you turn on your PC you go to DOS prompt... then there were GUI enhancements like Windows 3.1. Earlier versions of OS/2 were the same way... seeming just a shell on top of DOS. So OS/2 Warp just an another expensive DOS Shell, that ran DOS Slower and all those newly available windows apps wouldn't all run at 100%.
When Microsoft released Windows 95 at nearly the same time, they did what apple does now. Show the product, show them how to use it, make it seem so much easier then before and what the other guys do. So when people got windows 95 they knew what it was and what it was going to do.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I agree about the adds.
It was like, WTF, this sucks so bad they can't show you what's so amazing?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Yes, it WAS the right thing. (Score:5, Informative)
When Microsoft released Windows 95 at nearly the same time, they did what apple does now. Show the product, show them how to use it, make it seem so much easier then before and what the other guys do. So when people got windows 95 they knew what it was and what it was going to do.
No, OS/2 was superior to Win95 in nearly every way at the time. The reason for OS/2 demise had little to nothing to do with technology, but a combination of the "somewhat questionable" tactics MS used to force PC vendors to pre-install Win95 on every box shipped, and the ineptness of IBM's marketing.
Re: (Score:3)
No, OS/2 was superior to Win95 in nearly every way at the time.
Not true. As much as I liked OS/2, it had that nasty single message queue problem that Win95 did not. IBM tried many kludges but they rarely worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 95 also had a nicer migration experience from Windows 3.1. OS/2 Warp had a seperate Windows 3.1 mode, but switching back and forth was painful.
Wha? OS/2 Warp 4 could install directly on top of Windows 3.1 and Windows 3.1 applications ran seamlessly as if they were native OS/2 apps. What "switching back and forth" are you talking about? This didn't work for all Windows 3.1 applications (e.g. those with VxD drivers), but for most it was a no-brainer.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes. The single message queue issue. On this point I concede your argument. This was the result of IBM's (shortsighted IMHO) determination to not break compatibility with legacy (especially 16-bit) applications. This issue could have been easily resolved, at the expense of breaking compatibility, but IBM refused to deal with it (another of IBM's blunders).
Re: (Score:2)
IBM's ineptitude indeed... I remember being perplexed, back in the day, seeing IBM machines bundled with Windows. "They have their own system, supposedly it is very good, so why won't they use it instead?"
Re: (Score:2)
Do you read before you quote and post?
I stated nothing about OS/2 Technical Quality (I actually never used that OS thus I said nothing about quality, just the perception of the overall market), It was only about IBM failure in marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
286 compatibility (Score:1)
A major problem was that IBM insisted on 286 compatibility, which meant a 'back flip' between real and protected mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I read OS2 was still going, being resold and supported by a third party licensed by IBM.
I think it was these folks:
http://www.ecomstation.com/ [ecomstation.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not you think Mono has value, granting a perpetual license to it to someone who will do something with it was the right thing to do.
Just to clarify, this isn't a free perpetual license, it's a partnership. Attachmate is getting something in return, I presume a percentage of revenue.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the headline makes it sound like Attachmate is doing this to be fair or nice. This is just business. But it does make perfect sense for everyone involved.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
They didn't do this because there was hope that BeOS could make money in the embedded / mobile market even though they lost the desktop market.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were around back then, you too would understand why it's a joke when t
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting....analogy...I guess.
Xamarin? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not just call it Ximian rev. 2.0?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just call it Ximian rev. 2.0?
Same reason Blackwater is now called Xe.
Re: (Score:2)
Xamarin’s Mono-based products? (Score:1)
"Xamarin’s Mono-based products enable .NET developers to use their existing code, libraries and tools (including Visual Studio*), as well as skills in .NET and the C# programming language" link [xamarin.com]
is this the end of .NET? [i-programmer.info]
Good Will (Score:4, Interesting)
Not something you see often nowadays, what with patents and copyrights being thrown back and forth in endless litigation and cutthroat corporate espionage.
That said, these guys are pretty awesome for doing that. In a way it lets us know they actually care about the improvement of the industry, even if they couldn't support Mono themselves. Round of applause ol' gents.
Re: (Score:3)
Without being privy to the agreement, I wouldn't assume it was "good will". If anything, it's probably just a business agreement where Attachmate stands to benefit if Xamarin succeeds. If they really wanted to be "good will" about it, they would provide royalty-free licensing to everybody instead of just Xamarin.
Hooray! (Score:1)
Now Miguel can play with his pet project all by himself, so others won't have to tolerate him just because of his former association with their projects.
What's the point? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The IDE for developing iOS apps and Android apps is the same IDE: MonoDevelop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
because one compiles to Objective-C and the other compiles to Dalvik... you think the work involved in those separate platforms should not be compensated? They could bundle them together and just double the price of the product.
Mono for phones is expensive (Score:3)
you think the work involved in those separate platforms should not be compensated?
No, I think $650 for the bundle is a bit too steep for a microISV. As of right now, the best way I can see for a small developer to get a cross-platform phone application in front of an audience is to write the back-end in C++, write front-ends in Objective-C for iOS and Java for Android, and ignore Windows Phone 7.
Re: (Score:2)
650 dollars is too much to spend for a good idea? OK... then maybe you should develop your initial application as you state, then when you get successful, move to a tool set that provides a much higher throughput, making you even MORE money!
Re: (Score:2)
Their pricing scheme is certainly expensive, but presumably this is what they have to charge to recoup development losses and make some reasonable profit. Or, perhaps, it is what the market will pay.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Mono serves the same purpose as Wine - it's there as a stopgap while you transition away from Microsoft to real portable languages. dotNET is "portable" code in the same way writing for the Microsoft JVM is portable, except this time they can't be sued for pulling a 3-E's.
special hell (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I thought they had taken it out through the back-door, and put a bullet in its head.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. Slashdot ate my tags.
Re: (Score:1)
you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:1)
And why would that be? Seems all I hear from those Mono lovers is that those who are opposed to Mono and De Icaza's little ploy have no clue. Yet I am still waiting on what the right clue is. Why is there no patent threat in Mono? Why is it safe to use? Why will I never be sued by Microsoft when I deploy/sell Mono crap? Give me proof and nothing but proof. Thus far all I hear is a thundering silence.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft's community promise... it is a legally binding statement about where you as a developer stand when using Mono.
If you have a problem with the win forms parts not being included, then don't use winforms. No one seems to give a shit about using one of 20 different tool kits with C++, but for some reason, not using winforms with C# on the mono platform is some sort of barrier that makes developing with it impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
There are very few parts that are not covered and those parts are not part of the ECMA standard. Seriously... there are replacements for WCF and WinForms and the other small number of namespaces that are not covered.
Re: (Score:1)
Really De Icaza, posting as an AC? How's the funding going? Did Microsoft find you a new Baystar yet?
It's discouraging... (Score:1)
*sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
mono = yay (Score:1)