Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Migration
Microsoft funds LGPL-licensed project
By on
September 10, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
- By <SLASH HREF="//linux.com/relocate.pl?id=d6ce25c2cc3b127d06ee7072e4e96563" ID="550b07898cb229ddc8f2f03ffd151cdd" TITLE="http://roblimo.com" TYPE="LINK">Robin 'Roblimo' Miller</SLASH> -
<SLASH HREF="//linux.com/relocate.pl?id=bc4971e5c53d5e6e7baf4566d12d5911" ID="2362ad1fc43bdf366b016d5247174148" TITLE="http://www.cs.arizona.edu/mbel/" TYPE="LINK">MBEL: The Microsoft Bytecode Engineering Library</SLASH> is a "...tool that allows the user to parse, create, edit, and rewrite .NET files with a convenient object-oriented API." It is "implemented completely in the Java programming language, which facilitates portability across different systems."' It is funded by Microsoft. And it's licensed under the <SLASH HREF="http://www.cs.arizona.edu/mbel/license.html" ID="3d7570d9487c4c7451beaa7064a186ca" TITLE="" TYPE="LINK">GNU Lesser General Public License</SLASH>. Updated 2041 US EDT
<SLASH HREF="//linux.com/relocate.pl?id=bc4971e5c53d5e6e7baf4566d12d5911" ID="2362ad1fc43bdf366b016d5247174148" TITLE="http://www.cs.arizona.edu/mbel/" TYPE="LINK">MBEL: The Microsoft Bytecode Engineering Library</SLASH> is a "...tool that allows the user to parse, create, edit, and rewrite .NET files with a convenient object-oriented API." It is "implemented completely in the Java programming language, which facilitates portability across different systems."' It is funded by Microsoft. And it's licensed under the <SLASH HREF="http://www.cs.arizona.edu/mbel/license.html" ID="3d7570d9487c4c7451beaa7064a186ca" TITLE="" TYPE="LINK">GNU Lesser General Public License</SLASH>. Updated 2041 US EDT
The project's Web site says, "Among the many uses of MBEL are code analysis, optimization, obfuscation, and watermarking."
The grant recipient is Dr. Christian Collberg of the University of Arizona.
We tried to call Dr. Collberg and ask him how he managed to obtain this grant in light of Microsoft's well-known antipathy to the GPL, LGPL, and the Free Software Foundation in general, but he wasn't in. If he responds to our email asking how he managed to pull off this coup, we'll update this story ASAP.
Perhaps Microsoft is turning over a new leaf. That would be nice. In any case, kudos to Dr. Collberg and the project's principal programmer, UA computer science student Michael Stepp -- and, of course, to the person at Microsoft who generously approved funding for MBEL.
Update: We just received this note from Dr. Collberg via email...
"Actually, that link got posted a bit prematurely. We're still working out the license issues with the lawyers (the university's, not MS's). At worst it will be copyrighted by the U of Arizona, but still open source, etc."MS gave me $15k to "do something with .NET/obfuscation/watermarking", which we did. We never told them we were going to use Java and they never asked... <-;"
Comments
on Microsoft funds LGPL-licensed projectNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
don't you find it more ironical that it runs on java?-)
That's not a huge surprise. Look at Windows Services for UNIX. It includes a sizable chunk of the GNU userland.
Ther real "problem" for MS here is really that the folks here use _Java_<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
Apparently, Microsoft not only feels the need to put out a tool for guiding people toward<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, but they have chosen to write that tool in cross platform Java, and to release it as Open Source.
Which tells me:
1. Microsoft is concerned that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net is not gaining enough developer support.
2. The developers Microsoft wants to target have escaped the Windows prison, and are writing for other platforms, such as Java or Linux.
In other words, Microsoft wouldn't be doing this unless it was necessary, which means that they see a large and growing pool of developers who work on non-Windows platforms, Linux in particular.
Of course, we already knew that -- Microsoft is just slow to admit it.
As to the tool, it comes from Microsoft, so it's obviously a Trojan Horse.
Therefore, continue to ignore<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, and ignore this new tool as well.
Which tells me:
1. Microsoft is concerned that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net is not gaining enough developer support.
2. The developers Microsoft wants to target have escaped the Windows prison, and are writing for other platforms, such as Java or Linux.
In other words, Microsoft wouldn't be doing this unless it was necessary, which means that they see a large and growing pool of developers who work on non-Windows platforms, Linux in particular.
Of course, we already knew that -- Microsoft is just slow to admit it.
As to the tool, it comes from Microsoft, so it's obviously a Trojan Horse.
Therefore, continue to ignore<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, and ignore this new tool as well.
"As to the tool, it comes from Microsoft, so it's obviously a Trojan Horse"
What warrants that conclusion? The article states it was done at the University of Arizona _FOR_ M$. To suggest that it is a Trojan without any proof is a slander towards Dr. Collberg. I think you owe the man an apology.
What warrants that conclusion? The article states it was done at the University of Arizona _FOR_ M$. To suggest that it is a Trojan without any proof is a slander towards Dr. Collberg. I think you owe the man an apology.
> "As to the tool, it comes from Microsoft, so it's obviously a Trojan Horse"
> What warrants that conclusion?
The fact that Microsoft commissioned the product, and lock-in is Microsoft's <A HREF="http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,15763,00.html" TITLE="wired.com">normal mode of operation</a wired.com>:
> "Subversion has always been our best tactic," John Ludwig, Microsoft's vice president in charge of Java development, wrote. "It leaves the competition confused, and they don't know what to shoot at anymore."
> The article states it was done at the University of Arizona _FOR_ M$. To suggest that it is a Trojan without any proof is a slander towards Dr. Collberg.
Nobody said that Dr. Collberg built the product for the purpose of being a Trojan. Nevertheless, that is how Microsoft intends to use it.
Still, I have little sympathy for Dr. Collberg. The man has chosen to work for a company that is known for its criminal activity. Since he supports criminals, he deserves no apologies.
A well-known example of a Microsoft Trojan Horse is J++. It is also one example among many of Microsoft's criminal behaviour.
The <A HREF="http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/051498.unfair.html" TITLE="sun.com">evidence in Sun's lawsuit</a sun.com> provides the following quotes from internal Microsoft documents:
Trojan Horse:
> Strategic objective [is to] kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market.
Fraud:
> At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.
Microsoft has also been caught stealing other companys' IP (Stacker), paying Washington think tanks who then pretended to be independent, paying ISPs to break their contracts with Netscape, threatening Apple if they didn't drop Netscape, lying to the public about DR-DOS, sabotaging DR-DOS, and so on.
By now, anyone in the IT industry will be aware of Microsoft's criminal behaviour. So to Dr. Collberg there's only one thing to be said:
If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
> What warrants that conclusion?
The fact that Microsoft commissioned the product, and lock-in is Microsoft's <A HREF="http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,15763,00.html" TITLE="wired.com">normal mode of operation</a wired.com>:
> "Subversion has always been our best tactic," John Ludwig, Microsoft's vice president in charge of Java development, wrote. "It leaves the competition confused, and they don't know what to shoot at anymore."
> The article states it was done at the University of Arizona _FOR_ M$. To suggest that it is a Trojan without any proof is a slander towards Dr. Collberg.
Nobody said that Dr. Collberg built the product for the purpose of being a Trojan. Nevertheless, that is how Microsoft intends to use it.
Still, I have little sympathy for Dr. Collberg. The man has chosen to work for a company that is known for its criminal activity. Since he supports criminals, he deserves no apologies.
A well-known example of a Microsoft Trojan Horse is J++. It is also one example among many of Microsoft's criminal behaviour.
The <A HREF="http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/051498.unfair.html" TITLE="sun.com">evidence in Sun's lawsuit</a sun.com> provides the following quotes from internal Microsoft documents:
Trojan Horse:
> Strategic objective [is to] kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market.
Fraud:
> At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.
Microsoft has also been caught stealing other companys' IP (Stacker), paying Washington think tanks who then pretended to be independent, paying ISPs to break their contracts with Netscape, threatening Apple if they didn't drop Netscape, lying to the public about DR-DOS, sabotaging DR-DOS, and so on.
By now, anyone in the IT industry will be aware of Microsoft's criminal behaviour. So to Dr. Collberg there's only one thing to be said:
If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Microsoft has been against the GPL license because they say it is like a virus. It requires all derived source code to also release the source code. Microsoft has said that the BSD style licence is better because derived works can be distributed in binary form without disclosing the added source. The LGPL is also similar. The LGPL was created to encourage programmers and developers to join the Free Software movement, but with out being Open Source. The LGPL allows you to create works linked to LGPL libraries without releasing your source code. This is what Microsoft wants. There is nothing surprising about Microsoft being willing to support LGPL if they are against GPL. The two licenses are different.
Yes, but software released under the LGPL must remain open source, whereas BSD doesn't have to. So why didnt Microsoft request that the license be BSD? At least later they could have swiped their own code and locked it up.
Im confused, I should feel good but I feel bad :(
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 11, 2003 08:51 AM
M$ releasing under the GPL. I feel violated, it makes me want to take a bath. Is there any way we can kind of say to them " No, make your own 'public' license, don't dirty the name of GPL"
Of course the ultimate snub will be that no one takes up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and it will look like even when M$ try to give stuff away nobody wants it because its crap.
Of course the ultimate snub will be that no one takes up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and it will look like even when M$ try to give stuff away nobody wants it because its crap.
Re:Im confused, I should feel good but I feel bad
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 12, 2003 09:44 PM
Just because you won't take up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET doesn't mean no one else will. The rest of the world cares about productivity, not politics, when developing software.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is a fine platform for development, and thus it will be embraced.
Re:Im confused, I should feel good but I feel bad
Posted by: gila_catur on September 13, 2003 01:50 PM
If only<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET doesn't run only Windows, it would have been great.
Yeah I've heard about the CLI and stuff but knowing MS, it's just talk about cross-platform.
Eric
Malaysia
Yeah I've heard about the CLI and stuff but knowing MS, it's just talk about cross-platform.
Eric
Malaysia
Actually the part about Java is much more surprising than that it's released under the LGPL. Microsoft hates Java, and now that they've thoroughly researched and imitated it they want it stomped into the ground. The LGPL thing has pluses and minuses for Microsoft; they'll be sure to mention down the road to the Linux press that "you know, we've sponsored some open source projects ourselves".
The LGPL is actually a very reasonable, middle-of-the-road license that just about everyone should be able to agree on. It's the next step after open standards - sort of like "open standards that really work".
The LGPL is actually a very reasonable, middle-of-the-road license that just about everyone should be able to agree on. It's the next step after open standards - sort of like "open standards that really work".
Dude, times are a'changeing.
sure, they want open source to focus on mono and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net compatability.....so they can try and crush us that much more effectively with their DRM schemes....
As previously suggested, one of Microsoft's target's in this action could be Mono.
The Mono project has been very careful about avoiding Microsoft entanglements:
-- Mono has avoided adding features that might involve patented IP.
-- Mono uses only the public, published C# standard.
-- Mono does NOT use Microsoft's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net authentication services.
-- Mono does NOT expect to be 100% compatible with Microsoft's C# implementation -- if Microsoft adds undocumented extensions, Mono will continue to follow the standard.
Microsoft must hate that, because it gives them no hooks by which to slow or halt Mono's progress.
Meanwhile, Mono is a threat to Microsoft's plans:
-- Mono competes with MS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net -- it can be used to build similar applications.
-- Mono is Open Source, with no proprietary lock-in hooks.
-- Mono users are NOT dependent on Microsoft authentication services.
-- Mono users do NOT have to pay any money to Microsoft (or to anyone, for that matter, unless buying support).
-- Developers trained in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net can easily switch to Mono.
-- Applications developed in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net can easily be ported to Mono.
So, as Linux does to Windows, and OpenOffice does to Office, Mono undermines<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net's lock-in potential by providing an alternative -- an escape route.
What can Microsoft do? They could try a Sco-Scam (tm) but it would probably be equally ineffective. Thus, Microsoft would have to resort to their usual plan B, namely, infiltration and subversion.
By providing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net services that will run on Linux (and other platforms), Microsoft would hope to attract users to the "official" version, rather than Mono. Microsoft would hope to lull potential users into a false sense of security with the Opan Source license, and the Java implementation, such that they fail to see the real hook that lies in the Palladium authentication services.
Microsoft might also be hoping to fool Mono developers into using these tools, under the pretense that it will reduce the development effort of Mono, while increasing compatibility. But I doubt that the Mono developers will be fooled.
The Mono project has been very careful about avoiding Microsoft entanglements:
-- Mono has avoided adding features that might involve patented IP.
-- Mono uses only the public, published C# standard.
-- Mono does NOT use Microsoft's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net authentication services.
-- Mono does NOT expect to be 100% compatible with Microsoft's C# implementation -- if Microsoft adds undocumented extensions, Mono will continue to follow the standard.
Microsoft must hate that, because it gives them no hooks by which to slow or halt Mono's progress.
Meanwhile, Mono is a threat to Microsoft's plans:
-- Mono competes with MS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net -- it can be used to build similar applications.
-- Mono is Open Source, with no proprietary lock-in hooks.
-- Mono users are NOT dependent on Microsoft authentication services.
-- Mono users do NOT have to pay any money to Microsoft (or to anyone, for that matter, unless buying support).
-- Developers trained in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net can easily switch to Mono.
-- Applications developed in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net can easily be ported to Mono.
So, as Linux does to Windows, and OpenOffice does to Office, Mono undermines<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net's lock-in potential by providing an alternative -- an escape route.
What can Microsoft do? They could try a Sco-Scam (tm) but it would probably be equally ineffective. Thus, Microsoft would have to resort to their usual plan B, namely, infiltration and subversion.
By providing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net services that will run on Linux (and other platforms), Microsoft would hope to attract users to the "official" version, rather than Mono. Microsoft would hope to lull potential users into a false sense of security with the Opan Source license, and the Java implementation, such that they fail to see the real hook that lies in the Palladium authentication services.
Microsoft might also be hoping to fool Mono developers into using these tools, under the pretense that it will reduce the development effort of Mono, while increasing compatibility. But I doubt that the Mono developers will be fooled.
-- Applications developed in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net can easily be ported to Mono.
Really? I would think that with all of those proprietory undocumented hooks that real working code would never port. Kind of like Java code that relies on MFC classes, though I've been coding Java for 5 years now and I have yet to run into any Java code that uses MFC classes. Did anyone ever use visual J++?
At best I would think that mono would help the port.
Really? I would think that with all of those proprietory undocumented hooks that real working code would never port. Kind of like Java code that relies on MFC classes, though I've been coding Java for 5 years now and I have yet to run into any Java code that uses MFC classes. Did anyone ever use visual J++?
At best I would think that mono would help the port.
Either Microsoft has realized that this is what people want, or it is going to use it in some way to give Open Source a bad name.
Who knows what to think where Microsoft is concerned?
Who knows what to think where Microsoft is concerned?
><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... use it in some way to give Open Source a bad name.
Such as arranging a court case where the GPL side loses -- on purpose -- then using that case as a precedent, and for anti-GPL FUD?
Yep, that sounds like a typical Microsoft strategy.
Such as arranging a court case where the GPL side loses -- on purpose -- then using that case as a precedent, and for anti-GPL FUD?
Yep, that sounds like a typical Microsoft strategy.
Or maybe Konqueror and Mozilla are the targets
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 11, 2003 04:11 PM
There are already ActiveX add-ons for Konqueror and Mozilla. (Konqueror developers were even short-sighted enough to give it <A HREF="http://www.konqueror.org/announcements/reaktivate.php" TITLE="konqueror.org">official sanction</a konqueror.org>.)
Likewise, there is a <A HREF="http://qtcsharp.sourceforge.net/" TITLE="sourceforge.net">C# interface for Qt</a sourceforge.net>. It is ostensibly there to provide support for Mono, but it can just as easily be used to access official Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net components.
Thus the precedent has been set, and the pieces are falling into place for add-ons to allow Konqueror and Mozilla users to access Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net-based web service sites. As with the ActiveX add-ons, Microsoft would hope that enough Linux users will be lazy and short-sighted enough to accept the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net add-ons, thus relieving any pressure on web developers to avoid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net for fear of driving away customers.
The end goal for Microsoft, of course, is Palladium lock-in for everyone.
Likewise, there is a <A HREF="http://qtcsharp.sourceforge.net/" TITLE="sourceforge.net">C# interface for Qt</a sourceforge.net>. It is ostensibly there to provide support for Mono, but it can just as easily be used to access official Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net components.
Thus the precedent has been set, and the pieces are falling into place for add-ons to allow Konqueror and Mozilla users to access Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net-based web service sites. As with the ActiveX add-ons, Microsoft would hope that enough Linux users will be lazy and short-sighted enough to accept the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net add-ons, thus relieving any pressure on web developers to avoid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net for fear of driving away customers.
The end goal for Microsoft, of course, is Palladium lock-in for everyone.
It's a trick and I doubt if this will ever happen. But if it does, it's a trick to blame everything that doesn't work on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET on the GPL and/or Linux.
Why and How will they do this?
Well, just imagine that you were a sociopath, with an army of sociopaths working for you at Redmondland's marketing dept. Then imagine how you could use the GPL to screw the GPL, harm the movement, and harm Linux. Imagine this without any moral considerations and with total ruthlessness..., as if you were a convicted criminal with no conscience whatsoever.
In other words, Imagine you were Microsoft.
Why and How will they do this?
Well, just imagine that you were a sociopath, with an army of sociopaths working for you at Redmondland's marketing dept. Then imagine how you could use the GPL to screw the GPL, harm the movement, and harm Linux. Imagine this without any moral considerations and with total ruthlessness..., as if you were a convicted criminal with no conscience whatsoever.
In other words, Imagine you were Microsoft.
"""Therefore, continue to ignore<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, and ignore this new tool as well."""
Thats the key - bye bye MicroShaft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Thats the key - bye bye MicroShaft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
what? Java not a virus?
I am very close to uninstalling Visual Studio.NET
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 12, 2003 07:32 PM
Dont cringe
I was a MS-developer by fate.
Noone guided me to other O/S when I first started.
I was going to get into Java.
But come on - very new to programming<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. this thing of unzipping, installing, setting PATHs - got me baffled fast.
So I got stuck with 6 years of learning MS-crap, now including<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET C#<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I had enough
One with the bugs of ActiveX - ie try and automate MSOffice-Chart<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. you can't easily - it crashes or leaks profusely.
The other - which I am sure is a blow to many developers - is the clunky and crawling Visual Studio<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 2003<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
We are in the new millenium, and working on an IDE that is so slow like a ZX Spectrum. Eventually it wears you down.
I have to have a look at MONO, given that I do know C# reasonably way. Why waste knowledge? I was going to sweat over a project I am donating to GPL but using Glade/KDE C/C++<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. come on I am dreaming here, OF COURSE I will run into loads of obstacles.
I am glad, relieved to have escape MS - like defecting from a communist country. Like many of you - I am hoping Linux wins the desktop world - so that magic and wonder (never fear) comes back to computing again.
* Do you duty today, install a Linux distro for the girl next door<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) *
I was a MS-developer by fate.
Noone guided me to other O/S when I first started.
I was going to get into Java.
But come on - very new to programming<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. this thing of unzipping, installing, setting PATHs - got me baffled fast.
So I got stuck with 6 years of learning MS-crap, now including<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET C#<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I had enough
One with the bugs of ActiveX - ie try and automate MSOffice-Chart<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. you can't easily - it crashes or leaks profusely.
The other - which I am sure is a blow to many developers - is the clunky and crawling Visual Studio<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 2003<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
We are in the new millenium, and working on an IDE that is so slow like a ZX Spectrum. Eventually it wears you down.
I have to have a look at MONO, given that I do know C# reasonably way. Why waste knowledge? I was going to sweat over a project I am donating to GPL but using Glade/KDE C/C++<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. come on I am dreaming here, OF COURSE I will run into loads of obstacles.
I am glad, relieved to have escape MS - like defecting from a communist country. Like many of you - I am hoping Linux wins the desktop world - so that magic and wonder (never fear) comes back to computing again.
* Do you duty today, install a Linux distro for the girl next door<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) *
Just wanted to share another theory on what the story with DotNET might be.
Microsoft WANT people to develop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET platforms for other OS's. The whole point of moving away from windows onto a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET platform is to make MS a platform-independant company, without actually declaring windows obsolete.
If MS invests most of its resources in dotnet on windows while windows is still a viable platform, then they can build the brand well. If linux developers help them out with the whole cross-platform part, then they get free development resources.
Finally, all MS has to do is use their remaining resources to develop and unfairly market something which embraces and extends DotNET to create a dominant MS platform. This new dominant platform will be uniquely theirs by virtue of being illegal to compete with (due to patents, etc). Most importantly, it will be dominant regardless of the underlying (supposed) winner of the OS war, Linux.
DotNET does not exist to compete in the OS war; it exists to *bypass it completely*, and win anyway. If the visionary developers who won the OS war (ie, linux developers) develop DotNET too, that only serves to give MS a seal of approval.
Microsoft WANT people to develop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET platforms for other OS's. The whole point of moving away from windows onto a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET platform is to make MS a platform-independant company, without actually declaring windows obsolete.
If MS invests most of its resources in dotnet on windows while windows is still a viable platform, then they can build the brand well. If linux developers help them out with the whole cross-platform part, then they get free development resources.
Finally, all MS has to do is use their remaining resources to develop and unfairly market something which embraces and extends DotNET to create a dominant MS platform. This new dominant platform will be uniquely theirs by virtue of being illegal to compete with (due to patents, etc). Most importantly, it will be dominant regardless of the underlying (supposed) winner of the OS war, Linux.
DotNET does not exist to compete in the OS war; it exists to *bypass it completely*, and win anyway. If the visionary developers who won the OS war (ie, linux developers) develop DotNET too, that only serves to give MS a seal of approval.
It's a huge job to make something like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET or Java cross platform. Leaving it to the mono project to deliver on Linux is only going to make MS own windows implementation look awsome.
The java platform allows unmodified (no port required) bytecode to be run on different platform. Mono cannot promise that, because MS will diverge from their own standard, because they never said that they had to be compatible with someone else's implementation, let alone on a different platform.
The java platform allows unmodified (no port required) bytecode to be run on different platform. Mono cannot promise that, because MS will diverge from their own standard, because they never said that they had to be compatible with someone else's implementation, let alone on a different platform.
The Sky is Falling
Posted by: RJDohnert on September 11, 2003 07:07 AM#