Re: Ruby and .NET

Sean Middleditch wrote:

> Security is all based on the implementation... Mono *is* Open Source, so
> it will be no more inherently insecure than Ruby, Apache, the BSD

Yes, this is true to some extent.  You /can/ build a certain amount of 
security into a standard, and the standard can help the implementors avoid 
certain pitfalls.  That given, a bad implementation can circumvent any 
amount of designed security.

> The standards *are* based on MS, yes.  But, if MS decides to break the
> standards, all that does is make it so Mono can't communicate with some
> of MS's .NET.  That makes it absolutely no worse than if we didn't have
> Mono/.NET at all; it would actually make it better, since at least we'd
> have a technology that does what Mono does, plus we'd still be able to
> communicate with the Least Common Denomitor among other .NET vendors.

And what good would Mono then be?  This sounds a lot to me like saying 
CORBA is useful even if you don't do any IPC.  I strongly doubt that the 
LCD among .NET is going to be anything useful to "pure" Mono if MS 
breaks/changes/extends the standards, given their track record.

Seriously, though, what are you hoping to get from .NET?  Below, you argue 
that Linux /needs/ Mono so that it can hook into .NET -- which is 
completely, utterly controlled by Microsoft.  Do you actually believe that 
MS is going to take any steps to ensure that pure Mono apps are 
able to work in any non-trivial way with the MS counterparts?  Maybe.  If 
MS is selling the services, and there is no way you can get around paying 
them money.  Otherwise, I wouldn't count on it.  And if they do help, all 
the while it'll be "this would work better on Windows -- you really should 
change".  It isn't in their best interest, financially, to help Linux, and 
MS is not known for their altruism.

> make use of and communicate with .NET services.  Locking Ruby out of
> that when most other popular languages are or are planning to interface
> with .NET will mostly kill off Ruby, without a doubt.

That's an extreme viewpoint.  I certainly hope that the health of Ruby is 
not dependant on any MS technology.

> implementation, Mono (http://go-mono.com) before you start spreading
> FUD, just like the oh-so-terrible Microsoft does.  .NET isn't the
> end-all of programming environments, but it's certainly not the fiend
> people make it out to be.
....
> I have yet to see *one* good reason not to have .NET on Linux (or other
> Open Source operating systems, for that matter) other than "I don't like

Hm.  Straw man argument.  Labeling my opinions FUD does not invalidate 
them.  I don't claim to be a subject expert.

..NET /is/ a fiend, IMO, because of who owns and controls it.  Microsoft 
does not need to worry about embrace and extend with .NET because it 
already utterly controls it.  The ECMA standards crap is a snowjob; it 
won't affect in any way, shape, or form, what Microsoft does with .NET, C#, 
or any other aspect of the technology.  Where MS leads, industry will 
follow.  Hoping to play catch-up with a pure Mono implementation is 
self-decieving.  If you want to play Microsoft's game, buy Microsoft 
products -- that's the only way you'll succeed.

That said, it is extremely difficult to make the argument /against/ trying 
to add compatibility with a given technology.  Embrace and extend only 
works if you have the market muscle to pull it off, but /adding/ options is 
rarely a bad thing.  And, really, I don't care if somebody uses their time 
to implement a Mono binding for Ruby; it is certain to happen on the 
Windows side, for sure.  I doubt if it will stay cross-platform compatible 
for long, and I fully expect that Ruby# will be a perverted dialect of 
Ruby, but I don't have to use it.  As long as Ruby doesn't catch Mono -- as 
long as Matz doesn't start incorporating Mono-isms into Ruby core -- I'll 
be fine.  Mono is a fairly contagious disease, so we'll see where it goes.

> Please, if you can actually think of a good reason, enlighten me - I'd
> much rather be proven wrong than to continue being wrong.  ^,^

What is .NET going to give me that I can't get with other technology?  More 
portable viruses?  The honor of paying Microsoft for hoarding and 
distributing my personal information?  The (gosh!) ability to do 
distributed IPC?  The ability to use C# dialects that look like 
languages I like?

My primary reason, however, is that I want MS influencing my life as little 
as possible.  Many things I have no control over, but I can choose the 
software I use, and I choose not to use MS software.  Mono, C#, .NET -- 
these are defined by MS, and are therefore MS software.

-- 
 |..  "Oh yeah... one more thing:  I'm glad you changed your last name,
<|>    you son-of-a-bitch!"             
/|\   --- Avatar, "Wizards"
/|    
 |