Microsoft Applies For .NET Patent 628
Wojina writes "Microsoft has applied for a comprehensive patent on what appears to be the entire implementation of the .NET CLR (Common Language Runtime) and the framework APIs. Microsoft's CLR is an implementation of the CLI (submitted to ECMA for standardization). Does this bode ill for the Mono project? See the CNET News story." And a chaser: Nept points to this interesting Microsoft-funded .NET obfuscation project.
Linux? (Score:1, Insightful)
Linux has had platform independent coding since the days of Java, which were in 1993, two years after Linus' frist post about Linux.
Linux? (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft have applied for a patent, but who knows ---- in 10 years it may still not be either granted or rejected, so let's continue with Linux + MONO right now and get things moving.
Dont let this legaleeze scare us; we have bigger && better things to be doing than worring about what MS does to people.
hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, i think Apache can claim prior art...
shooting themselves in the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Chalk another one up for greed and mis-guided beliefs. IBM backs up their talk about not charging for their patents by donating software to open source. Until microsoft puts their money where their mouth is, they just lost a huge chunk of credibility.
Re:Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Back up, most unix-ish C code can be compiled on any vaguely unix-like system with very little modification. I'd call that platform independence, wouldn't you?
Imagine that, and without the overhead of a bloated VM to slow things way down.
dear miguel, et. al., (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:CNET Article Text (Score:5, Insightful)
They may also be doing it to prevent or reduce somebody else from filing a similar patent against them. IOW, protecting their own ass from stupid lawsuits. Thus, it is kind of hard to assertain the real motivation behind such.
What a shock!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when has MS ever cared about standards. One nice thing about being a monopoly is that you don't! I honestly hope they aren't doing this just to stop the mono project. Perhaps because one day mono will be able to run
From a business stand point this is a smart thing to do.
A bogus patent ... (Score:3, Insightful)
java's "bloated" vm (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you patent the inventions of others? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously: Microsoft explicitly names the
Wow, they are patenting RPC and Web Browsers (Score:5, Insightful)
There is so much prior art for this claim it's not even funny.
But wait, it gets even funnier in claim #4....
4. A software architecture as recited in claim 1, wherein the application program interface comprises: a first group of services related to creating Web applications; a second group of services related to constructing client applications; a third group of services related to data and handling XML documents; and a fourth group of services related to base class libraries.
What?!! A network web service that can handle XML data using (said with pinky put to side of mouth) "CLASS LIBRARIES."
Hmmmmmm... Now where have I seen this before? Maybe Microsoft will try to patent a network service for sending and receiving text messages for the express purpose of communicating.
This is just another example of why software patents need to DIE! DIE! DIE! The sad thing is that about 50 guys had to waste their time writing this patent. Does anyone else see the irony of the first name listed on the patent, "Adam Smith"?
Adam Smith wrote in his famous book, The Wealth of Nations, "Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men."
Do you see the irony now? Today he would be be called an "ANARCHIST!" and he would definately be at home (somewhat) on slashdot.
Re:java's "bloated" vm (Score:2, Insightful)
No MONO? Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dave
Java Obfuscation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And a collective exclamation of.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And a scolding is in order for Icaza and gang. Has history of M$ taught nothing to you? Do we (Linux/Apache/GNU) are server people, we need to learn from a desktop company how to put an XML wrapper around http requests!
Re:CNET Article Text (Score:3, Insightful)
But we can infer based upon prior actions. Microsoft has a long history of taking predatory, underhanded actions against anything they percieve as a threat to their domination of any industry that interests them.
Re:Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, how can you really say 'Linux has had platform independant coding'? If it's actually platform independant, everyone has it.
--Dan
Re:Okay (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody has far too much faith that the Patent Office will not issue a patent for that which has prior art. Sorry, but it doesn't look that way from here. The PTO may well grant a patent, even though it really shouldn't. Then what?
if Microsoft does patent some technology, then our plan is to [...] find prior art that would render the patent useless.
Which means a lawsuit. More specifically, it means defending against an infringment lawsuit brought by Microsoft. This is the sort of thing that the side with the deeper pockets usually wins, just because he can keep stretching things out and delaying final judgement. How deep did you say your pockets were? (We know how deep Microsoft's are.)
I've always been of the opinion that Mono was a misguided waste of development time and talent -- precisely because Microsoft could (and would) torpedo it before it became a real threat (and after it had soaked up a ton of open source developer time and "validated"
Patent Everything NOW (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lots of reasons why I want .NET to fail (Score:5, Insightful)
thats where miguel has gone wrong. you should not be investing in a project that relies on the continued good will of MS. especially if that project is esentially aiming to take some control away from redmond
"castles made of sand, melt into the sea, eventually"
what .NET is (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway what is .NET? .NET is _not_ platform independent. You're definitely expected to run it on a Windows server. And to access it with IE. In fact it generates code (this particular code I don't think you can even get at) that makes it favor IE - it writes Javascript functionality for you on the fly but if you're what it calls a "downtarget" browser -- anything but IE - some things are not as nice. For instance validations that in IE happen on the client require a server trip; things like that.
It is supposedly "language agnostic", which means that it can subclass a VB.NET parent in a C# child. This agnosticism only extends to the languages MS has supported for it, namely VB,C#,C++(which is in some way I don't know the details of non-standard C++ in order to be .NET compatible) and J# (if anyone uses J# please tell me I'd be surprised)
What .NET really is in my opinion is a supercharged development tool, and a respectable new language. C# is actually pretty cool, they hired the guy that was the brain trust for Borland Delphi and copied lots of Java ideas - but hey Java is very much a copy of C......But the main thing is it is a very nice environment to code in. You can make a call to SQL Server (of course non-MS databases need not apply for this) and step through the code going through VB and C# function/object calls and then step through the SQL proc all without skipping a beat. And there's lots of type-ahead type things. If you define a function or a class method when you make a call to it the args are displayed. The debugger is very nice, you can roam through the code with a mouse and variables show their values as you pass over them.
I guess what they're going for is convincing tech managers that their programmers will be sufficiently more productive with their stuff to make up for the license costs. I try to find open-source equivalents for any features I like in the MS stuff, there are some respectable things like DDT (I think - the C/C++ debugger) - many emacs packages, JDEE in particular - Wing for Python (not open source though) - but the MS stuff really has some nice features for coders. You can get used to it.......and then news like this comes out and you remember what MS is all about.
Microsoft patenting INTEROPERATION of components (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's CEOs have made it "patently" clear [ffii.org] that they intend to restrict competing .Net implementations by cultivating Microsoft's patents, such as United States Patent Application #20020059425 "Distributed computing services platform" [uspto.gov] which covers the design and inter-operation of .NET based implementations.
Although there is prior art examples of individual technologies such as the JVM etc, Microsoft patents such as the one mentioned, define and claim the interoperation of the components, in such a way that any re-implementations will be sure to be covered by the patents. This remains true even for the Microsoft specs submited to standard
In comparison, Sun has granted the Apache and all open source developers FULL access to the specs, test kits and granted the full rights to develop competing products under the JSPA [apache.org] . Sun has also fully pened up the Java development standards process under the new Java Community Process (JCP) [jcp.org] . Even to the point of granting full open source re-implentations of J2EE such as JBoss [theregister.co.uk] ...
There those that claim that .NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any .NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.
Re:Patents & Antitrust (Score:3, Insightful)
So let's assume that Windows has evolved into its own economic market. The desktop user software market. Where does
So if they're in separate markets (they might not be, I'm not a market analyst), does the company itself, being a monopolist, justify denying them a patent upon a market they don't have a monopoly?
Re:It's just the web services part (Score:5, Insightful)
See http://www.scripting.com [scripting.com] for more info.
Re:Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that C doesn't include a standard GUI API, and that many programs require GUIs these days?
Re:And a collective exclamation of.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't even trust them then. Unless you've only been hitting Slashdot for the past week you couldn't have possibly missed the whole Sun vs. MS deal with Java. Legally binding document or not -- they'll still try and f-over the competition.
Now they're trying to get a legally binding document to help them cover Java, web services, XML, RPC, and SOAP by wrapping it up in somthing called
If it were IBM, Apple, or Sun I'd give them the credibility to assume they're patenting it to keep it from being non-controlled, and just letting the patent ride out so nobody else can patent it and enforce it. Not with Microsoft though; for them it's all about the short-term money.
Re:Linux? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:CNET Article Text (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet you continue to post here and read the content.
Re:Linux? (Score:2, Insightful)
Back up, most unix-ish C code can be compiled on any vaguely unix-like system with very little modification. I'd call that platform independence, wouldn't you?
Back up, most GM parts will fit any GM car with no modification. Would you call those parts make independant? I Didn't think so.
This is one of the things that gets me about *NIX people sometimes. They think they can just make their code "portable to any *NIX" and it's fine. As a result, they don't pay attention to abstracting the very much platform dependant aspects of *NIX and their code is not portable to Windows* or MacOS < v10.0. Last time I checked, that's quite a few platforms to which such code is not readily portable.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the reasons that Mono got peoples' backs up was that high-quality efforts such as Kawa and Parrot were already well established, and both of these targeted a number of different languages.
There was no need to copy Microsoft verbatim, since the goal of complete portability and interoperability (e.g. Photoshop for Linux) was very unlikely to be achieved. Therefore, development should have continued with one of the existing projects, incorporating any new ideas as appropriate.
One aspect that you gloss over is the utility of having the intermediate language ("bytecode") close or equivalent to the source language. The clear trend of modern development tools is to rely on introspecting components and representing them as source, even if only as an API. These kind of advances are precluded if you have a large gap between the two.
Yes, you should stop work on Mono now as you may be making users liable to lawsuits from the owner(s) of Dotnet patents.
No, SAMBA should not be halted, since protocols are much harder to patent than code, although Andrew Tridgell has certainly recommended inventing a new CIFS.
Did not find a single original thought (Score:2, Insightful)
HA!
I did suspect Microsoft of being brain dead in the innovation department, but THIS REALLY PROVES IT! I suppose the idea of "Caching resources" was especially clever...back in 1985!
Also, did anyone see that the only related applications (i presume patents) were all filed Jul 10, 2001? Netscape and Oracle get no mention at all! Both have significant investments in similar tech.
Ditch Microsoft. Buy Apple. Any Questions?
Here are the APIs (Score:3, Insightful)
From the patent (supposedly 94 namespaces):
System.Windows.Forms System.CodeDom.Compiler System.ComponentModel.Design System.Configuration.Assemblies System.ComponentModel System.ComponentModel.Design.Serialization System.Configuration System System.Net System.Collections System.Globalization System.Net.Sockets System.Collections.Specialized System.Xml.Schema System.Xml.Serialization System.Xml.XPath System.Xml System.Xml.Xsl System.Data.Common System.Data.OleDb System.Data.SqlClient System.Data.SqlTypes System.Diagnostics System.DirectoryServices System.Drawing.Design System.Drawing.Drawing2D System.Reflection System.Drawing System.Drawing.Imaging System.Drawing.Printing System.Drawing.Text System.EnterpriseServices System.IO System.Resources System.IO.IsolatedStorage System.Messaging System.Reflection.Emit System.Runtime.CompilerServices System.Runtime.InteropServices.Expando System.Runtime.InteropServices System.Runtime.Remoting.Activation System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels.Http System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels.Tcp System.Runtime.Remoting.Contexts System.Runtime.Remoting System.Runtime.Remoting.Lifetime System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging System.Runtime.Remoting.Metadata System.Runtime.Remoting.Metadata.W3cXsd System.Runtime.Remoting.MetadataServices System.Runtime.Remoting.Proxies System.Runtime.Remoting.Services System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters System.Runtime.Serialization System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Soap System.Security.Cryptography System.Security.Cryptography.X509.Certificates System.Configuration.Install System.Security.Permissions System.Security System.Security.Policy System.Text System.Security.Principal System.ServiceProcess System.Text.RegularExpressions System.Threading System.Timers System.Windows.Forms.Design System.Web System.Diagnostics.SymbolStore System.Management System.Management.Instrumentation System.Web.Caching System.Web.Configuration System.Web.Hosting System.Web.Mail System.Web.Security System.Web.Services System.Web.Services.Configuration System.Web.Services.Description System.Web.Services.Discovery System.Web.Services.Protocols System.Web.SessionState System.Web.UI System.Web.UI.Design System.Web.UI.Design.WebControls System.Web.UI.HtmlControls System.Web.UI.WebControls System.CodeDom System.Data System.EnterpriseServices.Compensating.ResourceMa
Re:And a collective exclamation of.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The point of mono (or at least why I have it on my computer) is to take Microsoft's new flagship and favorite buzzword enriched toy, run it with open source and shove that right up 'em. It's just like hacking the X-Box, running your win apps under wine, having a more efficiant SMB (windows) networking layer than windows itself and adding NTFS support into the kernel! It builds open-source moral.
After saying that I wonder if maybe Ximian has a different impression of what mono should be for and is clenching their teeth worrying about this whole patent thing. But I see it as a spirit lifter for those in the open source movement. To show MS that we can fight them on the servers, we can fight them on the desktops, we can fight them in their own runtime environment, we will never surrender! (my apologies to Winston Churchill)
legally irrelevant, but shows bad faith (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this patent shows bad faith by Microsoft. If Microsoft wanted C# to be perceived as an open language and core set of libraries, this is the last thing they would want.
Where does this leave us? We have two companies, Sun and Microsoft, that are engaged in some bizarre battle to try and control the software industry. Both have attempted to get patents that allow them to use the patent system to control who implements the language and how (yes, Sun has patents on key aspects of Java). Both are trying to keep control of the software, APIs, and future language evolution. And what is particularly ironic is that all this battle is about decades old technology.
What does this mean? Both open source and commercial users should say "no thanks" to both Java and C#. We need to get back to a model where programming languages and libraries are standardized through open standards processes and where the core language and APIs and are not covered by patents. C, C++, Smalltalk, Ada, and many other languages have shown that this is possible. In fact, had Sun not derailed and preempted the adoption of those other languages with promises of a bright Java future (on which they have failed to deliver), we might well be using some language now that is technically superior to both Java and C# and is covered by a truly open standard.
Re:Okay (Score:2, Insightful)
So you're saying that unless you work for Microsoft, you shouldn't be a programmer? Because *every* aspect of computing competes with Microsoft.
Your idiotic statements could've be made 10 years ago about Linux... and you would've been wrong then too.
"Why bother trying.. MS is bigger than me."
Re:What a shock!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Goalie_Ca wrote:
Here's a scenario for you: Microsoft builds a platform independent next generation OS that runs on top of .Net, and because of Mono, on top of Linux. This OS is popular because people can run the same applications regardless of the underlying platform and hardware. It quickly gains a near 100% marketshare.
Then Microsoft pulls out all the Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 era tricks it pulled to rid the world of nonMicrosoft DOSes such as DR-DOS. Linux (and OS X if it runs Mono) is discredited and dwindles. As a mere formality (and to rake in a bit of extra dough), Microsoft pulls out its patents and kills Mono.
Endgame: Millennium [microsoft.com]!
Shinoda: "The age of Millennium."
Io: "What does that mean?"
Shinoda: "A thousand year kingdom. It wants to create a home for itself. There is one flaw in its plan: Godzilla."
"Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)
PROTEST the patent as too general.... (Score:3, Insightful)
From the FAQ at the PTO:
#50 How does one file protest on patents that are pending?
Protests by a member of the public against pending applications will be referred to the examiner having charge of the subject matter involved. A protest specifically identifying the application to which the protest is directed will be entered in the application file if: (1) The protest is submitted prior to the publication of the application or the mailing of a notice of allowance under rule 1.311, whichever occurs first; and (2) The protest is either served upon the applicant in accordance with rule 1.248, or filed with the Office in duplicate in the event service is not possible. For more detailed information on protesting a patent, you may visit our Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.ht
Re:Typical Microsoft Strategy (tm) (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people like yourself are fundamentally opposed to RAD/IDE based development... I never said anything about RAD/IDE. I have authorized the purchase of Borland's products at my company for at least seven years. Their entire marketing strategy centers around RAD/IDE development. My post opposes .NET because I believe that at least one objective at Microsoft is to screw the computing community once again, not necessarily because of technical advances made since Win32 was designed, but because other companies have begun to offer Win32 APIs on platforms that compete with Microsoft's. By starting this .NET fiasco and closing all the legal loopholes from the start, Microsoft once again succeeds in holding back the entire community. And I refuse to fall into their trap.
Re:Examples please (Score:5, Insightful)
The parent was mistaken in thinking that I had said Microsoft had a history of using Patent litigation as a means to chill Free Software, and in thinking that only a past history of filing patent suits against other companies was relevant in determining their intentions. I had said we can infer Microsoft's intentions based upon their past predatory actions. Microsoft's repeated criminal abuse of its Monopoly status, its actions towards Netscape, Java, DR-DOS, Stac, and countless other products, along with the threatening language they've used towards free software projects like those cited in my post, can be used to easily infer Microsoft's likely intentions.
It's entirely acceptable for any corporation to publicly declare that they would pursue patent infringement in court, because otherwise they would be opening themselves up to shareholder lawsuits. They have a covenant with shareholders to earn money, and not piss it away by allowing their competition to infringe on their patents.
It's entirely legal and acceptable yes, but it is not necessary to prevent shareholder lawsuits. Patents do not need to be enforced to remain valid, unlike Trademarks. Microsoft holds a number of very broad patents which any number of companies could be said to violate, and yet they are not enforcing them. The CIFS licence patent mentioned above is available for use royalty-free, as long as the software is not covered by the GPL or LGPL. By your logic, the shareholders should be sueing Microsoft for not charging royalties to every company making use of that patent, but that hasn't happened at all. And the same example does demonstrate Microsoft's use of patents to hinder the Free Software community.
I like .NET (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents are starting to act like a tool to keep markets with shoddy products, which is wrong. Patents should save you from being exploited, from having others steal your genuine ideas. Not stop people from clicking once to buy something or try to stay on top of a market.
All in all, Microsoft, stop this behaviour and compete by trying to be better instead.
Re:Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, like, to "defend" themselves against Mono?
(I'm only half joking here)
Re:Okay (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, MS has little to no history of suing for patent infringement. Just because they're filing for patents, doesn't mean they're automaticly going after mono. In this day and age tech companies are using patents as a way to keep score. "See, we're making major technological breakthroughs. We recieved X thousand patents last year." This would be an example of good publicity. Suing the Mono project when they're submitting
So you are saying that Linux is a waste of time (Score:1, Insightful)
If, as you say, the Patent Office can simply ignore the law, then there is nothing to prevent Microsoft from using a similar tactic to stop Linux.
So by your logic, we should just stop working on Linux, Apache, KOffice, or anything else that might compete with Microsoft, because Microsoft will simply gain an unfair patent, and make our work a waste of time.
Doesn't really matter what MS patents (Score:1, Insightful)
Microsoft does not like the US patents-on-software system. They're filing patents to defend themselves from it.
Re:Sorry to say it, but I told you so (as did othe (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't fly. Wine has been around for over a decade, and short of trying to claim header files were copyrighted (yeah, right) they have not done anything to it. Why? Because there's nothing innovative there, and you can't patent or even copyright interfaces.
So, I don't understand all this Mono bashing. We need mono for two reasons:
1) Compatability. There will be .NET apps soon enough. We'll need to be able to run them.
2) Good tools for us.
Tough on them. They can't stop people replicating the platform, that is not legally possible.
No, but they do have a better understanding of the law than you do.
Re:Microsoft patenting INTEROPERATION of component (Score:2, Insightful)
Rubbish! If you're in the part of the industry that doesn't just run applications on desktop boxes you're going to take Java's portability very seriously. Why? Does Sun provide a JRE for the Mac? IBM's pSeries RS/6000s? How about your zSeries mainframe? Or your Nokia mobile phone? Or your SGI box? Out here in the real world people take these other JVMs seriously.
The fact that I can performance test my code on multiple hardware platforms, multiple JVMs and multiple application servers, then make the decision about deployment, is exactly what makes Java important to me and the companies I work for.
"Even today, you better not try writing a Java compiler that compiles to anything but Java bytecode, or that extends the language."
What, you mean like
- GCJ [gnu.org], that uses the gcc back-ends to compile Java to native code, or
- Pizza [sourceforge.net], that adds generics, function pointers and algebraic types, or
- GJ [avayalabs.com], which is the where the Java 1.5 generics support was prototyped.
No, better not try writing anything like that."They were very litigious in the beginning, suing Microsoft to keep them from messing with their platform. A platform they [Sun} fought fiercly to keep proprietary and closed."
I think we can both agree that Sun and Microsoft have tried (or will try) to use the law to protect their technical vision for Java and .Net respectively. The difference is in what that technical vision is. Sun sued Microsoft in order to make sure that different implementations of Java would be compatible across platforms, because that is their technical vision (remember "Write once, run anywhere?"). Microsoft are attempting to patent .Net, and the suspicion is that they will use it to prevent compatible implementations of .Net on different platforms. Now do you see the difference?
Realworld platform & solution independance ! (Score:4, Insightful)
The goal here is that once a developper has build a binary it is valid for each and every complient platform.
About
So, no, dotNet is not and will not be an competitor against Java platform on the "WORA" ground !
(WORA = Sun's Write Once Run Anywhere)
MS has clearly seen that Java new coding habits bring more productivity than previous technologies without compromissing the reusability of the solutions.
That's the reason, after leaving the Java project for policy reason, they 've decided to build a clone.
The fact they pushed the very core to any kind of standardization process only shows that they do no intend to standardize other part of the platforms (non-CLI APIs for instances !). This have a major impact over the potential portability of designed solution.
To explain this, if you want to design real world dotNnet solutions you are in a way or an other constraint to use the COM+ container (to get transact features for instance), by doing so, your solution become practicaly (but even virtually) Windows tied. Just because COM+ is not part of any standard stuff and is only implemented on Win32. Here is fact !
That's the reason i said earlier, mono is not real worldstuff ! It is fun : ok i can run a Csharp class or two
Here MS has done right pushing affiliates and spinnoffs to FUD the community
Want more fact ?
I got customer of mine whom first run their J2EE applications on Win2k but as soon as they realize if could not stabilized under load, they think of "what if we evaluate an other solution" ?
So we start to test and bench alternatives
At the end we came up with a high power rock stable : Linux with IBM VM, with Opensource J2EE appserver on the same hardware.
That was just amazing, cost were drastically down, stabillity was here and customer thanks lords to have choosen Java 2 years before !
Gess what, i love to have choice
If this application was running on dotNet what would be his choice ?
- Rebuild bottom-top a new application
- Go and pray for a miracle
- Buy a new cluster or blades
- Wait for Windows2003 SP2
That's why i do argue that Linux and Java are the killer team. Java legitimate the linux choice without having to tied the solution to yet another OS.
As a conclusion, i would like to publically thanks all the Java opensource community that brought us very brilliant and reliable software solutions (JBoss, Tomcat, ant, xalaan, Batik, jedit, !
Special thanks goes to the Jakarta Apache groups
-SLK
Feel the choice for liberty !
Re:Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, .NET (and Java) seeks to provide binary-level compatability. No recompiling necessary. Not to mention support for a minor little thing we've thought up within the past twenty years -- OOP. Not to mention a component model. Oh yeah, and some half-decent security stuff. Starting to see the point?
(Don't get me wrong, I like C, but these days ignoring OOP for anything beyond simple utilities and command-line tools is just stupid.)
Re:Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time I checked, anything older than MacOS 10 is obsolete. Since Mac OS =>10 is pretty much unix, we now have platform independance. X is available on all those platforms now.
Re:java's "bloated" vm (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never liked the "Java is better because I can be sloppy and it doesn't matter" argument.
All it tells me is you like being sloppy.
YAW.
Re:Linux? (Score:2, Insightful)
Furthermore, the claim that using non-OOP for anything but simple utilities and command-line tools strikes me ass odd. C and C++ are suitable for OOP, OOP is a programming discipline, not a programming language.
Re:CNET Article Text (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And a collective exclamation of.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh, no, it's not his fault, but he is naive in the extreme to think that MS would allow a third party implementation of a "standard" that they designed.
Icaza wanted Mono to be integral to Gnome. If this patent goes through / is upheld, that would kill Gnome if Icaza's wish were fufilled.
it's broke, fish. (Score:3, Insightful)
If prior art can be patented today, it can be patented again tomorrow. All they have to do is call it something else. Bogus and trivial patents breed more of the same by making patent searches more difficult and requiring more work at the patent office. Software patents, which are essentially algorithms and business methods should never have been patentable in the first place.
Re:Linux? (back to .NET Patient Issue) (Score:2, Insightful)
On another note....What in the world is all this talk about Linux and Java have to do with this thread? Is the intent to prove that the
Can we bring it back to what the article is about...