Re: [Mono-list] COM Refference Error
Robert Jordan wrote: >Mohammad Abul Khayer wrote: > > >>hi there, >> >> >>Is Mono Support COM ?? >> >>i install all the latest stable version of Mono in Linux Enterprise Edittion >>4. >> >> > >Linux doesn't support COM. > >Robert > > > No, the Linux kernel doesn't support COM, although there are some (IMHO rather incredibly poor) implmentations of COM services in Linux, including some that "license" Microsoft patents and software including a variation of the Windows registry. And no, I'm not talking Wine here either. I actually got involved with trying to help with migration of a major software system that was primarily Windows (NT/2000/XP) and to help with the migration of that whole system to Linux. Unfortuately COM services were a key part, especially with the networked parts. Needless to say, the costs involved with trying to deploy on Linux were so awful that we ended up abandoning the whole idea completely. But the technical side wasn't all that big of a deal and it did work. We just couldn't deploy anything beyond an engineering experiment. If you are talking FOSS support for COM, you are much more correct that there isn't support for COM, and that typical COM components won't work. -- Robert Scott Horning ___ Mono-list maillist - Mono-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono and Patents....
Miguel de Icaza wrote: Hello, My conceen is that RAND does not imply compatibility iwth the GPL or any other open source license, and I am trying to find out ifth eMono project is specifically licensed for the patents covering the ECMA specification, of simply relying on public statments regarding them. You are mixing GPL (a copyright license) and patents *again*. They have nothing to do with each other. I thought you had just said you did understand the difference. Miguel. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list I just have to add my $0.02 here. A clear-cut example of how a patent issue can have an impact on the GPL is the following: If you develop an MPEG-2 encoder on your own (for example, trying to decode DVD-Video), using the ISO documents (ISO/IEC 13818), there still is the problem of trying to obtain patent licensing from the MPEG Licensing Authority. The current per-unit licensing for a decoder (software decoders are treated the same as a hardware decoder) is about $2.00 per copy shipped. This, BTW, is considered by courts to be a Reasonable and Non-Discriminitory license, so buyer beware. (See http://www.mpegla.com/) If you write software using these specs, you own the copyright. That is not disputed. You can even distribute that software under the terms of the GPL. It is just that clause 7 of the GPL kicks in: *"7.* If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program." That would essentially kill any open source project using the GPL in this situation. Think about it carefully. That is one reason why Linux-based DVD systems are so slow to develop, and even the ones that are around have some very questionable legal background. I would strongly not recommend Ximian or any other group that wants to protect their behind to do something of this nature (DVD-Video processing) unless you are absolutely sure all of the patents have expired or don't cover your activities. I would also love to release some MPEG manipulation libraries for mono (and I still might), but there certainly are some issue to deal with before it happens. How this related to Microsoft and the C#/CLI patents is not directly impacted, but the issue certainly is something to consider. If Microsoft were to only charge $0.01 per copy of mono shipped, it could potentially kill the whole project, but still be considered a reasonable license. That Microsoft has granted royalty-free license might make it difficult to backtrack later, not to mention the P.R. impact they would have on all open source/free implementations of the dotNet platform. It would make the effort to establish the PNG group and format pale by comparison in a worst-case situation. I guess too many people still remember the BS with Unisys and the GIF data format. Thank goodness the LZW patent has expired. And yes, I do know the difference between patents, copyright, and trademarks. -- Robert Scott Horning 218 Sunstone Circle Logan, UT 84321 (435) 753-3330 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mentoring new developers with Mono
Andrew Stopford wrote: I think this is a great idea, as for a wiki maybe it could be hosted on the mono site or the mono community site (http://www.gotmono.com). Andrew Luckily the wiki does exist right now: http://www.nullenvoid.com/mono/wiki/ Robert ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
[Mono-list] Mentoring new developers with Mono
I've been lurking on this list for some time now, and I decided to try and wade in a little bit. I've noticed that there are occasional messages that pop up every now and again from new people who want to join in the efforts of developing Mono, but don't know where to begin. This can be very intimidating, especially when you got seasoned developers who are annoyed with the same (FAQ like) questions over and over again. In addition, trying to ramp up and digest everything that has been going on with a project the size of Mono can be very tough, and is going to be even tougher as time goes on. Every time a new file or an additional line of code gets committed to CVS, it just makes it that much harder for somebody new to come in. This isn't a problem with just Mono but is an aspect of just about every open source/free software project that I've ever seen. There are a variety of ways to get this accomplished, but I'd like to take a stab at it if there are no other takers. My own background is that I've been developing in Borland Delphi for about 8 years now on Win32 platforms archiving software using MS-Source Safe. It is a culture clash to say the least to switch to GCC on Linux using CVS. I still have problems along those lines, and finding a spare box (or Bochs) to install Linux, especially as my professional involvement is still strongly tied to Microsoft software development. I also have a small little project that I originally did as part of a U.S. Department of Education research grant that involved multi-media software development for educational purposes. This project was originally written with Visual Basic 3.0 on Windows 3.1. A small attempt to port it to Windows 95 using Borland Delphi was done, but this was only a half-hearted effort and the grant ran out. The non-disclosure/non-compete agreement with my former employer has run out, and I'd like to get that project going again. I've also developed and matured as a software developer, and I've been keeping my eyes out for a really good development environment that has the following requirements: 1) Cross platform capability. I no longer want to be tied to a single operating system environment, and want to keep a common software development base. I also want to avoid like the plague (Really! or anthrax, SARS, what have you) any "#ifdef Win32" or "#ifdef LinuxDev" statements in the software base. This may be acceptable in very, very limited exceptions, but I have seen those statements breed like mice in Australia and quickly overrun a project unless you keep hacking them down. 2) Modular plug-in capabilities. This used to be a much bigger issue in the past than it is now with most modern OS environments allowing this capability, but I would like the ability for this software to add extensions to the environment without having to recompile the main program. Distributed object oriented behavior is a big plus, and I'd like to make it a requirement as well. The plug-ins must pass objects to the main program, not simply expose a common plug-in interface. 3) Multi-media capabilities. This really is a requirement of the software itself, and again most modern OS environments give this ability very easily. The depth of media formats available is going to be a big plus factor here. I would perfer native code implementations of the media import/export, even if I have to write them myself. 4) Access to source code of the development environment. As I stated earlier, I have been using the Delphi Professional environment for about the total existance of Delphi, which always included all core compiler source code. While I never had to recompile the System unit in Delphi, I did pull things out of other core units and make bug fixes to things that Borland (or Inprise or Borland again) didn't get right for a particular application. There have even been a couple of patches to Delphi that some of these fixes have helped contribute. More on this in a moment. Compilers are complex programs, and by this nature will always have a bug or two left to pull out, even if it is very well done. Simply put, you need the compiler source code in order to really push and tweak performance in some applications. 5) Open Source friendly development environment. This is really a bigger factor than I considered originally. There are a number of open source efforts that are being done with Delphi, but it is very limiting when the main compiler that is being used is being distributed under a propritary license, even one with a good programmer friendly reputation that Borland has. Indeed, of the propritary compiler vendors, I would say that Borland is perhaps one the the most generous to the Open Source/Free Software movement. This still doesn't keep things frustrating when bugs don't get fixed. 6) Self-hosting. This doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but trying to fix a compiler tha
