Re: [DotGNU]Bending the twig of .NET (large -- sorry)

[David Sugar]

Norbert Bollow wrote:

> > Common Language Runtime
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > I was surprised to see that this is considered something
> > worthy of duplication
>
>
> It is the only reasonable way to implement the DotGNU
> Distributed Execution Environment.  We have very good reasons
> for doing this, even if our reasons are entirely different from
> Microsoft's reasons for doing a similar thing.

Also, the CLR is presumably being issued as an ECMA standard.  This would make 
it nessisary to have a compatible and standards compliant implimention to 
assure that if/when govt procurement or commercial bids refer to this that 
free operating systems can participate, much like what was nessisary by 
Microsoft to offer "posix" support in NT.  Going a bit further, it is best to 
have a true and fully spec document compatible system in this area because it 
makes it possible to remove from competitive govt bids incompatible vendors. 
This is an interesting irony and one which we could leverage to keep Microsoft 
at least a little honest.

That is not to say it's a particulary new or "innovate" technology.  CLR is in 
fact an old technology and Microsoft's approach is a somewhat poor 
implimentation in some regards.  For this reason we should look at supporting 
and integrating other VM based environments (like say Java) as also usable 
from the DotGNU framework.

> > However, this did not seem to me to be any response
> > to actual Microsoft customer needs. [..] The whole CLR
> > framework solves a strategic problem for Microsoft, not
> > customers.
>
>
> It is pretty obvious that Microsoft is doing a lot of things
> that benefit themselves more than their customers.  The DotGNU
> Distributed Execution Environment on the other hand addresses
> very real customer needs.

This is also an old idea, being done incorrectly to serve the needs of one 
company over it's customers.

> > I'm sure there's some very good reason why it's important
> > to mimic this Microsoft strategy to counter .Net -- but I just
> > couldn't figure out what it was.
>
>
> There's no benefit in imitating what Microsoft is doing.  We
> need to be perceived as innovators, not imitators.  But when
> Microsoft comes with a large, supposedly powerful framework,
> that must be countered with a different large powerful
> framework.

Agreed.  And it is nessisary to point out both the technological differences 
and the ethical ones.

> If our framework serves a useful purpose while Microsoft's
> doesn't, that makes it easier to market our product.
>
>
> > Creating an independent clone of a language that Microsoft
> > released solely because they could no longer co-opt Java? I
> > can see how that helps Microsoft and gives them credibility,
> > but can't see how it helps any anti-Microsoft forces at all.
>
>
> I have a feeling that Ximian is doing this for business reasons,
> not for "anti-Microsoft reasons".  I personally woundn't want to
> invest my time into this kind of project.

I disagree somewhat, only in that we do need a ECMA spec compliant 
implimentation of the runtime and language.  And that Ximian is doing that 
part is fine, so long as they don't make it into something that is then also 
tied into passport and all the other Microsoft control points.

> > My goal was to think about the 20% of .NET that actually
> > matters to 80% of real users today, and what might be the simplest
> > method of throwing a monkeywrench into that 20% of
> > Microsoft's plan -- and soon.
>
>
> YES - this is how to go about getting started with a first
> quick-and-dirty incarnation of a "DotGNU Virtual Identity"
> system.

Agreed.

> > I filled the paper with different ideas, but only one seemed
> > like something that could actually be working within a matter
> > of weeks, and having an impact on Microsoft's plans within
> > months. That idea was: a very simple, standards-based, single
> > logon system that requires no authentication servers at all
>
> [..]
>
> > What matters right now, today, for real users, is not having to type
> > in passwords, names, addresses, and credit card information all
> > over again for each and every web site they go to. That's it. And
> > that's not only a fairly simple problem, it's a problem area where
> > Passport is still quite vulnerable today.
>
> [..]
>
> > I don't want to talk about features or implementation in detail,
> > but about strategy and end-user perspective. The simple system
> > I'm talking about has simple features: the user gets to create their
> > own database of personal information on their own hard disk,
> > it's portable to floppy, it works with their favorite web browser
> > (e.g., via a plug-in) and participating web sites to eliminate the
> > need to re-type identical personal information.
>
>
> YES.  This is the way to go.
>
> Greetings, Norbert.