Miguel de Icaza talks to Glyn Moody about Mono’s progress, how Ximian was bought by Novell, and why he is so scared of Microsoft’s Longhorn. Read the interesting interview here.
Interview with Miguel de Icaza at NetCraft
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
They are going to help with the freedesktop.org stuff, not hack the two desktops together as was rumored. Good stuff Novel.
I’m not scared because I there is more than only one choice in the free world. A constantly changing product line is not a stable product. A country like China for example, will not even allow their people to use all Microsoft products, they want to support a stable and competitive environment.
The author should stand back from the Microsoft product line and get more confidence in the choices that are already available. He only makes me glad that I didn’t pursue C# because he has it connected to all these other constantly changing specializations, and in fact I regret that I don’t know more C++ and the skills of the programming generalist. Out of my platform I only want stability and evolution. Out of a product line I just want compatibility and a clear migration path, and I don’t want to take it seriously because it is constantly changing for the sake of sales.
People are just never happy, an hour ago MS did not innovate or change, right now nobody will use Windows because they change things too quickly.
The author should stand back from the Microsoft product line and get more confidence in the choices
Do you even know who Miguel de Icaza is? He is not some random self proclaimed “tech journalist”. His opinion is actually worth something.
http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/miguel
what a stupid remark…do you even know what you’re talking about?
of course we will be interested to know what miguel’s talking about because we’d like to know what his roadmap is for the Mono project…and GNOME.
just because he’s doin’ some talking doesn’t mean he has stopped coding stuff.
i presume that just because we keep on seeing these avalon/xaml/longhorn preview articles on osnews, you’ll argue that microsoft isn’t doing any coding these days???
Of course, the only drawback is that this new interaction is completely tied to .Net and WinFX. So we see that as a very big danger. A lot of people today cannot migrate to Linux or cannot migrate to Mozilla because a lot of their internal Web sites happen to use IE extensions. Now imagine a world where you can only use XAML.
It’s massive – I’m so scared.
A lot of MS-bashers say that MS never delievers on what it promises, so the Linux/OSS crowd can only hope they don’t come through this time
It’s not a matter of if, but when. Now whether all of the stuff they’re promising makes it out on a first Longhorn release – who knows. But eventually it will make it out. Microsoft pretty much delivered on .NET.
A lot of MS-bashers say that MS never delievers on what it promises, so the Linux/OSS crowd can only hope they don’t come through this time
No one has to hope anything. Microsoft’s products rarely live up to their own hype. Personally, I think the Mono team should focus on using XUL now, before XAML becomes the threat that Miguel believes it will be.
I’m personaly both scared and excited at the same time. XAML seems to be the most revolutionary and wonderfull piece of computer technology I’ve seen since I’ve been paying attention. But if it can’t be easily copied we, the nonwindows users, are doomed. If we can’t duplicate XAML, It would take a court order to stop microsoft from becoming opperessive again.
I’ve been learning to program and I’ve been wondering what project to help when I’m done. Now I know. We can only hope Novell and IBM put their development power into the effort.
But if it can’t be easily copied we, the nonwindows users, are doomed. If we can’t duplicate XAML, It would take a court order to stop microsoft from becoming opperessive again.
I think it would be wise to do what Abraxas said, and that is to use XUL, or develop something better if XUL can’t cut the mustard.
As for the Linux/OSS crowd, I think it’s better for them to come up with their own shite instead of constantly trying to play catch-up with whatever MS is currently doing.
Hi
“I’m personaly both scared and excited at the same time. XAML seems to be the most revolutionary and wonderfull piece of computer technology I’ve seen since I’ve been paying attention. But if it can’t be easily copied we, the nonwindows users, are doomed. If we can’t duplicate XAML, It would take a court order to stop microsoft from becoming opperessive again. ”
we already have a similar technology called xul long before xaml will get real life usable implementations for the end users. we need to extend xul and integrate it with the desktop environment. there is obsolutely no need to copy xaml here. just present a feature rich CROSS PLATFORM alternative.
I don’t know all the implications of XAML and the differences with XUL. I see XUL working (i’m typing in some hype XULed browser afterall :p). I also see XUL not working (i type in the same browser on OSX, integration isn’t really as good)
Now.. XAML, sounds to be quite more than XUL to what is claimed everywhere, and quite easier.
But, the most important and dangerous thing, is that people using Windows are still wastly superior to the people using Linux. Everyday I see people doing IE specific webpages or webapps, or just even apps, without caring at all about other platforms (or browsers even) for this reason.
Now if XAML comes out and is that good, you’ll think they use XUL just for the sake of it ? They won’t even know what XUL is. They’ll all use XAML, they’ll make applications as easily as Miguel said, and yeah, if its really that good, I fear he’s right.
“there is obsolutely no need to copy xaml here.”
Even if xul becomes popular, which I doubt, xaml MUST be recreated on linux for compatibiliy anyway. Why not take what ms makes and make it our own? Improve it. Use it. Use what most people will be using around 2010. I’m an obsessed linux user. I’m also a pragmatist. There’s no way from a market share of 3% we can dictate standards.
From what I’ve heard xul is difficult to program with. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
XML was a standard designed from the beginning to exchange data easily and interchange it between formats. For something as big and publicly accessible as XAML, Microsoft will certainly have to publish a schema for XML format used. In fact, the XAML specification will be a concrete document when Longhorn comes out (that is, when the dialect itself leaves its current state of flux). Now if XUL or other OSS graphical rendering XML dialects have the necessary underlying features to support Avalon graphical operations, it would be relatively trivial, given current XML tools, to interconvert.
Furthermore, the XAML specification will be public long before it actually starts being used, so there will be plenty of time to write a parser for the linux desktop. Before this becomes necessary, though, the graphical infrastructure of linux needs to be built up so that it can efficiently support the graphical sparkle that is being built into the Avalon object model. This work is already being done by such people as Miguel Icaza and Freedesktop.org, but needs to be accelerated, hence his calls of doom and gloom to galvanize the developer base.
There is no reason to insult this man or the technology he is promoting just because it was produced in response to MS. Full MS compatibility is a good goal, because it allows Linux to still maintain a price advantage while offering no disadvantages. There’s no fear of losing the catch up game, because MS themselves are bound by how fast they can develop and by market considerations and backwards compatibility.
I’m a fan of Mac OSX, but if Microsoft actually delivered big time in longhorn and made this great tech that allowed programers to easily make great apps, beat the technology and UI behind OS X, then I’m there. There is no need to worry about innovation unless you are a developer who isn’t on the same train.
Thats why this guy is worried- he’ll become less relevant if Microsoft succeeds. I think Longhorn will be slightly a let down when it finally ships, because everyone else will already have similar/equivalent technology’s already released. just my opinion.
I totally agree with Miguel regarding two stacks in Mono, and being scared.
1) Whenever a mono article comes up, people seem to bask it (not everyone of course). They say Mono is going to die , as MS can pull the plug for ASP.NET / Winforms etc.
I think this is completely wrong. Mono is here, it is a solid foundation. It is a very easy path to migrate Windows coders to Linux, but also Gnome/Linux coders to Next Generation. GTK# is a good example. You can keep Windows.Forms compatability, but also introduce your own way. Extend .net. Create a unified architecture for Linux, so that a developer can easly jump. Linux is the biggest bloatware in terms of developer doc. You have zillions of options, which is good in some ways, but bad in most ways.
2) XAML is cool. XUL is also pretty good. The problem here is; Linux fanboys. They should wake up; With 3% share, there is no way to dictate a standard. Also, XUL is less capable and more complicated than XAML.
I think what could be achieved is; gradually developing XAML counterpart (it can be a re-worked XUL, no prob) but start providing it cross platform from the day one.
Just like OpenOffice is taking of on 3 different platforms , anything new will take off ilke that. If you go to a company and say: You do not have to pay money for this and you will not need to install Linux. But yes, if you decide to moye to Linux, this will be definitely possible as well.
Real business managers love choices. Not to use it, but to have a viable backup.
No matter what a XAML clone will have to be made but what about an OSS alternative? I mean is there a market for it? Not if it’s not compatible with windows.
I liked what Miguel was talking about concerning the open source desktop. He hit it head on. The open source technologies need to run on winodows as well, that way they can gain popularity and can finally get to the point where people can move to Linux easily since they already use those programs available for Linux. It would be great to see mono as the .net implementation of choice (because it is cross compatible but what are the chances), openoffice.org the office suite of choice, etc.
In some ways this XAML thing amazes me. I mean I can’t believe MS can get away with this! I know the DOJ merely slapped them but if it’s in the internet space then I would hope to see feds stir a bit. I guess it depends on how MS reacts to the Linux implementation of it.
I liked the interview. De Icaza demonstrated to be
knowledgable and realistic about what he’s talking about. I wish him and Novell success in delivering a more refined and viable OS.
hi
“Even if xul becomes popular, which I doubt, xaml MUST be recreated on linux for compatibiliy anyway. Why not take what ms makes and make it our own? Improve it. Use it. Use what most people will be using around 2010. I’m an obsessed linux user. I’m also a pragmatist. There’s no way from a market share of 3% we can dictate standards.
From what I’ve heard xul is difficult to program with. Please correct me if I’m wrong.”
by supporting xaml and creating a clone we effectively deny xul any chance of sucess and we will be playing a catchup for ever.
xul is pretty easy to design. you just need to define some tags. currently the runtime is not seperated. after it has been in a short time there is high chance that xul can be integrate as a gnome layer since gecko is being used anyway.
so we need to define the alternative not clone xaml.
we dont need to dictate anything. if we present xul as a working alternative with some headway before xaml has a end user implementation and developers understand that they cannot ignore 10% of the alternative operating systems they will choose xul as a cross platform development environment.
we should lead the way here
to cloning XAML? is XAML really so intertwined with windows/system.windows.forms? (XAML being just XML i find that hard to believe) or is there a threat of MS litigation just in case it is cloned?
if that is so, then XUL has to be turbocharged, and at the same time made (somehow) compatible to XAML. i guess that won’t be easy.
Hi
” (XAML being just XML i find that hard to believe) or is there a threat of MS litigation just in case it is cloned?
”
of course there is a threat. XAML has patents written all over it.
Well here we go again.
Rather than ask “what is XUL?” and get it wrong. Why not read some of the material out there.
http://www.informit.com/content/downloads/perens/0131423436_pdf.zip
[Buying the book would be nice]
http://books.mozdev.org/
[Online “Creating applications with Mozilla”]
http://www.xulplanet.com/
[Having issues, but otherwise a good site]
http://www.newsmonster.org/
I mentioned this last time because it not only uses XUL, but some of the other Mozilla technologies, and of course everyone’s whipping boy JAVA. Which should show you that there’s no ONE thing that you’ll use to effect a solution (same with MS technologies). Don’t forget Active state’s IDE, the MAB browser, and Iozone (hope I got that last right)
http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/14/0135236&mode=thre…
[Book review, and I recommend looking through the comments]
I think you’ll find XUL, and related more capable, and much better than going through hearsy.
OH, and for 3% not being able to influence anything? Well two things. I recommend you look at the history of Apple and the influence it’s had on computing. Two as the saying goes “It’s not how big it is, but what you do with it”.
hmm…would it be possible to develop an IE plugin that will help it read/interpret XUL?
coz if that were possible…XUL can deliver today what (most of) XAML promises tomorrow
He should be afraid of Longhorn! The open source “innovation” is copying of proprietary products. Longhorn is too big and requires too many resources that the open source zealots don’t have; think of it as the USSR vs USA. We all know how that ended.
I posted my thoughts yesterday about Mozilla and it’s future online yesterday.
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gro…
———————————————————
I’m one of the guys to wrote “Creating Applications with Mozilla” for
O’Reilly, and I have been very interested in the discussions lately
about Mozilla’s future as a web application platform. After thinking
about it for a while, I have something to say, so here it is:
————-
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2004-April/msg00008….
It’s nice to see Mozilla talking with GNOME on how to work together. One
reason of wanting to talk to GNOME is Mono, and how Mono could fit into
Mozilla and GNOME. Mono has the goal of cloning Avalon, so this
correlates with Mozilla’s future for web applications. However, I don’t
think Mozilla + GTK + Mono = Avalon clone is a good idea.
Mozilla should not be compatible with Avalon for three reasons. 1. It
only makes Microsoft’s technologies more dominant. 2. Avalon is not
finished, and will not be finished for some time. It’s dumb to clone
something before it’s finished. 3. It’s going to be a lot of work to
change from Mozilla’s XPFE to an Avalon compatible design, basically
needing to starting from scratch.
There are four technologies that Mozilla needs to leverage to provide an
Avalon competitor that is formidable and realistic. Those are Java, XUL,
JavaScript, and a Mozilla IDE.
Like it or not, Java and .NET are the primary platforms for future
software development. Aligning Mozilla with .NET/Mono would be a
technical and strategic disaster. Java is more open, cross-platform,
mature, and used than .NET. There is already a BlackConnect
(http://java.mozdev.org/blackconnect/) to create Java XPCOM. There is
already JRex (http://jrex.mozdev.org/) embed Gecko into Java
applications. That is about all you technically need to get Java and
Mozilla working together, a mature BlackConnect and JRex. Java
components should eventually be preferred choice for Mozilla, and some
Mozilla/Java design patterns need to be established.
XUL is good solid stuff, and should not be lost to XAML. It takes a lot
of time and energy to get something like XUL standardized by an outside
organization, so Mozilla needs to first come up with a solid, long-term
specification posted on its site. Be sure to cover topics such as SVG
and XBL specification for use with XUL. Standardization can come later.
The JavaScript name has always been sort of misleading, but I think it
no longer should be. I think that a JavaScript 2.0 should have the same
exact syntax as Java 1.5, but probably be a large subset of it all. It
would be an interpreted (scripted) Java language. JavaScript 2.0 does
not need access to Java APIs itself, however, only Mozilla APIs. The
reason for JavaScript 2.0 is to provide a similar combination Avalon has
of C# and XAML working directly together.
Recently an idea has come up about making an Eclipse plug-in to create
XUL. This is an OK idea, but it doesn’t use Mozilla as a platform to
make the IDE, which is kind of dumb. There is a XULMaker
(http://xulmaker.mozdev.org/) project that got surprisingly far along in
the middle of 2003. This shows that a Mozilla-based IDE could be easier
than people have thought. Try it out with Mozilla 1.4. Also, ActiveState
Komodo (http://activestate.com/Products/Komodo/) should be looked at for
either something to build on, or lessons learned.
So, what do I think the Mozilla organization should do in the next few
months?
1. Pick up BlackConnect and JRex as high-priority Mozilla projects.
2. Forge alliances in the Java community.
3. Get a XUL specification solid and future-proof.
4. Start making a JavaScript 2.0 syntax-compatible with Java 1.5, and
define an appropriate subset of the language to implement.
5. Pick up XULMaker as a Mozilla project, or start a new project with a
similar design philosophy. Start off as a simple XUL designer, and set
an ultimate goal for the IDE to be able to build and compile a whole
Mozilla application. Also consider how Komodo could fit into the Mozilla
IDE picture.
6. Decide how to handle security of web applications. Signed scripts
just don’t cut it.
BTW, XUL is just as easy as XAML, if not easier. The real problem is the Mozilla security model. XUL apps use JavaScript for functionality (XAML uses C#), and a XUL app posted online has no more JavaScript priviledges than JavaScript in HTML. There is an option of making signed scripts, etc, but that sucks. XAML/C# has access to more APIs when remotely deployed. Anyway, I am just starting to repeat my previous post…
P.S. It would be pointless to use XSLT to translate XAML to XUL. There is still the functionality of the application, and that is still C# and Avalon/.NET APIs.
that OSS has to compete feature for feature with MS, with Apple, with Sun, with (evidently) the closed source world. OSS offers more than just features, dashboards, multi colored butterflies and docks with cute icons. It offers us the ability to not get locked in by one vendor or another, if offers us the chance to pool our efforts to potentially make for the largest team of developers ever assembled on one project, it offers us, at the very least, a lower cost for software, and most importantly it’s snowballing across the planet. Some people in here seem to have the equally ridiculous notion that Longhorn will be the end of OSS, but I suspect if it ever appears that way, it would only be here in the U.S., not around the rest of the world. Somehow in other countries they seem to know better even if this is the home of Linux, BSD, etc.
I agree with whoever said that XUL needs a better IDE and a browser plugin/active x control for other browsers to enable XUL apps.
The big advantages that XAML have atm are mostly the promise of up to 50% plus deployment(eventually), the development tools that MS will integrate with Visual Studio and the current hype.
Part of the hype is security at the moment. I don’t understand the security aspects of .Net at all. However I forsee similar security problems that ActiveX had (MS’s first answer to the Java spectre (and look what happened to it.))
The security issue of networked applications isn’t a trivial matter. From my limited point of view I still don’t see an adequate answer. You have to be able to access files, printers and all sorts of other stuff, yet not provide indiscriminate malicious access. You can’t ask the user every time they want to do something or ask once for all permissions (users don’t understand what it means and often don’t read the explanations anyways. They just click ok or cancel depending on their default behavior).
Does anyone know yet how the .Net permissions will work?
longhorn isn’t the end of OSS, and that’s not what these people are fearing. what they’re fearing is the effect of EVEN GREATER MICROSOFT LOCK-IN once longhorn comes out.
the better the OSS community can address these threats, the better things would play out, since it would afford less probability for the unsuspecting people/users/developers to get MS-locked-in.
i suppose we’ve all heard of the line, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? it’s much better to help prevent these people from getting locked into MS than to later on help them escape the MS/DRM clutches (which might be too late, or too costly)
WXYL XML blah blah hasn’t been out for more than five minutes and I’m already sick of it. I can’t wait for ZTML XML or MMML XML. What about you. Do you like the constantly changing environment, it’s like a merry go round.
relax…this is NOT war…and if xaml and Longhorn will be so good in 3 to 4 years then there’ll be a lot of projects developing oss technology that can compete..
Maybe Microsoft will hire Hulk Hogan to code “Power Library”. Everyone needs it, and it’s an innovation.
http://news.com.com/2100-1008-5189453.html?tag=nl“>Not – and why relax? This is more of an opportunity than a problem.
if the OSS community will still have to wait for the release of Longhorn before they respond…well, that really makes the OSS community simply reactionary. If the OSS community can start working on an alternative now and have it ready for production before Longhorn, that will steal whatever thunder XAML can come up with at launch date.
will creating an IE plugin for XUL work and probably help XUL gain broader acceptance? or will the OSS coders working on such a project face resistance from Eolas?
I started replying to this bit-by-bit but as re-read it I realized that you were probably too biased to make an objective opinion anyhow. At least I didn’t get that impression from what you wrote.
Saying things like “Aligning Mozilla with .NET/Mono would be a technical and strategic disaster.” without even a single comment as to why doesn’t help either.
He seems to be very aware of what is to come, which is a good thing. People who’s opinions have impact should have clue =)
One thing I see a lot is people who think that if OSS comes up with a good alternative to Avalon/XAML, things will turn out fine. While that would be great and good and all, I think it is important not to underestimate the giant.
Avalon and also XAML will play a very important part in the new OS in the Windows family. With a market share of over 90%, that means it’s technologies will penetrate everywhere. For an OSS alternative to dominate, it would have to outperform it, do so quickly and be compatible with MS.
The way I see it, making sure Linux and OSS stay compatible is a very smart move. The tecnologies themselves will probably be pushed long before the OS actually ships. This is why working on an alternative now would very possibly be late already. Now, OSS can also take benefit from this pushing and make it easy to also deploy applications on other systems.
Right now Linux is gaining market, but the share is small. This is what tactics has to be based on. If Linux were to gain a market share later of maybe 15 or 20%, tactics would be different. That would be the time to push forward techologies. Then people have to listen.
Now, this does not mean that alternatives shouldn’t be pursued, just that whatever is done there must be compatibel with what is to come. People will develop for Longhorn, lets make it easy to deploy elsewhere as well.
Btw, one might argue that Apple has had a great influence on computing with a small market share. That may be true, but it hasn’t resulted in any noticable market gain.
This became to long a rant at the end of a long day, time to sleep…
Who cares about market share, if you are a Linux developer. You are supposed to be educated, and able to develop your own libraries, using a stable and slowly evolving platform. There should be none of this racing against Microsoft nonsense. I could care less about market share, it means nothing. I will continue to use Linux because I don’t want to have to depend on a constantly changing environment, where I have no control over anything, and no skills. People don’t even take the time to research, to find the ground, all of that system implementation knowledge, it is finally reachable because of a stable open source platform, yet the entertainment industry headed by Microsoft has your number.
“I started replying to this bit-by-bit but as re-read it I realized that you were probably too biased to make an objective opinion anyhow. At least I didn’t get that impression from what you wrote. ”
How’s that any different than the majority of the posts in this thread? Both ways?
“Saying things like “Aligning Mozilla with .NET/Mono would be a technical and strategic disaster.” without even a single comment as to why doesn’t help either.”
The topic’s still young. Maybe you’ll get an answer tomorrow?
The AC actually raises a very important point. If you look at the history of Open Source from beginning to about now. You’ll notice that not only did we come into existance, and survive, but even thrived, Regardless of what MS did. We’ve had questionable reports, and fake grass roots thrown at us. Pundents from paper to screen tried to poke at us. Some nations stood by us, while others didn’t. And yet here we are. So now what has changed that makes people think that we need to play by a different set of rules? The old rules have proven that they work, why abandon them now? Is MS omnipotent? Not if they’re throwing words at us they aren’t. They are scared, and abandoning what works is the worst thing we can do at this time. Even pragmatic Linus doesn’t want a winner take all situation. 30 or 40% will do nicely. So let MS come with their menagerie of alphabit soup. I’m confident that those who’ve brought us this far, can do so again. But not if we continue doubting them.
Open source users have to do what Microsoft can not do. They have to share knowledge, nurture a stable and slowly evolving environment, and the developers have to learn to be independent, they have to have confidence in themselves, and there should be a community that supports them. Microsoft is in the entertainment industry, and they can not provide any of these things. Do you want to be in the entertainment industry or the computer industry?
… as a developper, how and when we will have something as beautiful, as powerful, as easy to understand and deploy as this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dn…
this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/01/DevelopingAppsforLon…
and this:
http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2004/03/08/winfs_detail_3.html
Sorry, I’ve been programming for 5 years with OSS, but now I’m loosing my confidence, especially when I see that nobody seems to agree on what to do next …
Now, more than ever, is the time when strong OSS players must cooperate together, unite their effort into a common goal, for better or worst … It is better to take a decision than no decison at all.
microsoft announces new ‘hot’ technology. developers say “it’s not compatible with xyz!”. people panic.
have we learned nothing from history? remember how microsoft’s “smart tags” were going to kill the web (as we knew it) a few years ago?
y’all need to take a deep breath.
I agree that we should improve xul but, XAML will still be used extensively due to it’s integration into longhorn. Longhorn will be out in 1.5 years. Can we develope a counter and get it to most people in time to dull XAML’s impact? Maybe. Unlikely. Even if we did, at best we would have *most* web apps. The rest would be lost to us. On windows they could view both. How would you like to only be able to view 2 out of 3 web sites? If we receved an act of God and got 90% of web apps, you would not be able to view 10% of them. It’s the same as having 10% of web sites off limits to nonwindows users. Chances are that XAML will have a far greater impact that 10%. More like 90%. Market share is important. If someone with 90% market share says there’s going to be a new and noncompatibile technology installed on 90% of computers, you have no choice but to develop compatibility.
This isn’t a war as you would think it. Technologies aren’t battles. In this war the only thing that matters is a single number. The number of precious desktops. The user doesn’t care about zealotry. He/She doesn’t care who developed the technology, just that it works. If we ignore the tech that everyone else uses, and instead sit in our own little universe, we will quickly find that our zealotry has made us irrelevant.
The best way to go about this would be utilizing Java. It’s here, it’s solid, and with a little more time in developing Kaffe or Classpath, we would have an implementation free of Sun’s hand.
Instead of putting resources towards XAML, spend some time improving what is already here.
“Some people in here seem to have the equally ridiculous notion that Longhorn will be the end of OSS, but I suspect if it ever appears that way, it would only be here in the U.S., not around the rest of the world. Somehow in other countries they seem to know better even if this is the home of Linux, BSD, etc.”
Actually.. Linux was born in Finland, not the US. And there are a shitload of european Linux developers so I’m not sure it can be argued that the US is the home of Linux..
Not that it’s really important tho..
Someone has to sue microsoft in advance and fast! this is one more thing that the industry should not allow to happen..again
After have deployed silently a product through monopolistic practices…there will be nothing and nobody who can stop it…just like now
Certainly we all want rich-gui applications over the internet…but that must be based on standars and preferably…open
I am not only scared…but also so sad
“… as a developper, how and when we will have something as beautiful, as powerful, as easy to understand and deploy as this:
…
…”
I think, brother, it’ll be when it itches – you know, when someone’s using a Linux distro two years from now and can’t hit their online banking page because they just converted to XAML/Avalon for a richer interface.
I mean, most of the talks between Mozilla + Gnome only got around to “better integration with Gnome.” I think, though, Migeul, and this “Salvador” thing he’s talking about might be magic!
“Certainly we all want rich-gui applications over the internet…but that must be based on standars and preferably…open
“
And that will take how many years? The W3C hasn’t done a very good job at XForms!
No offense, my man, but the public isn’t willing to wait too long; unless a better, competitive technology crops up, your average webjockey – you know those people, they make the webpages with the excruciatingly small fonts and the little self-portrait, the whole page is less than 50 pixels long, and their personal blog/diary/shoot-me-now is tucked into a tiny-ass IFrame – is going to grab onto XAML/Avalon and not let go, because it lets them make even crappier webpages, crappy but interactive, you know? XAML’s ease-of-use doesn’t help either.
“However, I don’t
think Mozilla + GTK + Mono = Avalon clone is a good idea.”
Why not?
By the way, Javascript + XUL?! C’mon, man, XAML’s gonna let me hit that with any .NET compatiable language, and you’re going to force me to use, of all things, Javascript?! Why you trying to make me learn another language for the presentation layer, man? ‘specially a language that, in all odds, I will never use outside of the presentation layer. C’mon, man, think integrated, can you dig that?
They are going to help with the freedesktop.org stuff, not hack the two desktops together as was rumored. Good stuff Novel.
The stuff on Freedesktop is useful, but it will not solve the problem for Novell of not having an integrated desktop.
He should be afraid of Longhorn! The open source “innovation” is copying of proprietary products. Longhorn is too big and requires too many resources that the open source zealots don’t have; think of it as the USSR vs USA. We all know how that ended.
Yer whatever.
Hi
“By the way, Javascript + XUL?! C’mon, man, XAML’s gonna let me hit that with any .NET compatiable language, and you’re going to force me to use, of all things, Javascript?! Why you trying to make me learn another language for the presentation layer, man? ‘specially a language that, in all odds, I will never use outside of the presentation layer. C’mon, man, think integrated, can you dig that?”
there is no need for javascript. gtk can be integrated with xul to give you a toolkit as well as rendering engine with gecko
I think that it could solve the problem if they insure that the icons/ notification/ cut paste etc all work between gnome and kde. Then all they have to do is pick a desktop (I think kde is mentioned in the article) and make the apps from the other platform blend in like OO.o. After all if it looks like it and acts like it what does it matter if it is not… it? Then again what do you mean by “integration” exactly?
Microsoft is scared of Linux, and the Linux people are scared of Microsoft. That’s very good for technology. The paranoia is good. We may yet get some competition and innocation in this sector.
If anyone doubts this then why don’t they try it.
I had a look at the examples on the longhorn site on my system at home with Windows Longhorn 4051 installed, and tried the XAML examples from the links above.
All I can say is WOW!!!, There is an animation of a spinning listbox, scalable graphics and it looks gorgeous + they were incredibly simple to make.
Before I couldn’t understand why he said he was scared, Now I can!!
http://oeone.com/developers/joy_of_xul.html
XPCOM allows it to be many languages, not just Javascript (which is a rather underappreciated language).
Hey, brother, just try “think” next time.
GTK+ is a toolkit, not a language.
XPCOM allows it to be many languages, not just Javascript (which is a rather underappreciated language).
Hey, how cool is that? Tie it into a rendering engine and we’re in business.
Hi
“Hey, brother, just try “think” next time.
GTK+ is a toolkit, not a language.”
gtk can use many language bindings. whats your point?
“Hey, how cool is that? Tie it into a rendering engine and we’re in business.
”
it is cool
(Speaking, by the way, as a full-time developer, employed by a regular corporation, developing in XUL)
I am in full agreement that the open source world would do well to focus on XUL. XUL is already cross-platform, so what’s to stop us from extending that notion into the future? Want XUL on Microsoft, then write a XUL/XAML interaction layer, or some such. Why should we chase the Microsoft platform? Let the Microsoft platform chase us for a change (really, that’s all XAML is anyway — Microsoft chasing XUL).
Everyone should READ Eric Murphy’s comments and take them to heart. (Thanks for the book, by the way). Most people in the open source world don’t realize what a gem we have, in the form of XUL. Don’t for a minute make the mistake of thinking it is just a “web” technology, and that in competes in the same problem domain as HTML/DHTML/Javascript. This is a complete declarative GUI solution, which can be connected to many backend solutions, as well as many methods of remote interaction. And even though it is not limited to Javascript, Mozilla/Netscape’s version of Javascript is a much more powerful tool than most developers realize. We shouldn’t be acting like we are the newcomers to this area! Microsoft is the newcomer, in every case.
I think, in the end I have to agree with Robert X. Cringely: “The Only Way to Beat Microsoft is by Ignoring Microsoft”
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040415.html
Remember one thing Microsoft can’t compete with Linux on two things.
1.- It Is free
2.- Its is open sourse.
And here I am using a mac…. huh, no worries here…
How are things going in the Queen City (unless, of course you’re just dialing in through there)?
I think it’s suicidal for the OSS community to not follow MS into the managed code .NET territory. Java is a similar thing, but .NET represents a lot of lessons learned and is a fast, useful tool. Once you’re building on Mono or .NET, it’s not a huge issue to support such things as XAML or multi-language bindings, or platform neutral code. Linux will always have the cost advantage on Windows, but the lock-in aspects of Microsoft’s empire will not be defeated until and unless Linux developers make the system as compatible with windows as possible.
To all those who say that MS will change the APIs and specificationss to foil such attempts, I say so what? That’ll just piss off their developers and cause them to jump ship, not to mention the breaking of backward compatibility which will make users jump ship. Linux just needs to get over this “usability” hump and emulate microsoft’s best features to win.
It’s fine here. Funny that someone with the your moniker would be advocating that OSS should adopt .NET. Anyway I disagree. Here’s proably the best way to think about it. Remember when Netscape first released their source code? Well at that time we could have simply made the decision to make it in the image of IE, faults and all. All for the expressed purpose of making it easy for Windows users to cross over. But of course we didn’t. We coded to standards, and endured for over four years the slings and arrows of our audiance. Now here we are with a browser that not only follows standards, but also brings several technologies to the table. Not to mention the side programs that were created (bugzilla). Webmasters are already recognizing the importance of standards, and why IE is deficient (they may not always be able to effect a change, but they do recognize them). So basically what some are saying is the equivalent of suggesting that Picasso should have been more like Andy Warhol, just so he could be more popular. How about we develop our own technologies (kind of like a great movie), and let the discerning audiance decide which they would prefer. If we truely believe in ourselves and our dream then eventually people will come to recognize it’s goodness, rather than us putting on a phony face and trying to buy our way in to their good graces.