[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DotGNU Announcement]2001 -- The Year When DotGNU Was Born
|
From: |
Norbert Bollow |
|
Subject: |
[DotGNU Announcement]2001 -- The Year When DotGNU Was Born |
|
Date: |
Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:29:00 +0100 |
#################################################################
# #
# #
# This Year in DotGNU #
# #
# No 1 #
# #
# 2001 -- The Year When DotGNU Was Born #
# #
# #
# A year ago there was nothing, #
# and now there is something. #
# #
# Rhys Weatherley #
# #
#################################################################
Recently it was proposed on the DotGNU developers mailing list
that "DotGNU" should be interpreted as a recursive acronym (like
GNU stands for "GNU's Not Unix").. so maybe it will turn out that
"DotGNU" really means something like "DotGNU over the GNU
Networking Universe". In any case, we're building something that
could be called an "operating system for the internet" - a
collection of tools that allow software components to interact
with each other over the internet.
General project website: http://www.dotgnu.org
Table Of Contents
=================
Section A: DotGNU - Making the Web Work for You!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "New and Cool Software" department would like to draw your
attention to these articles:
1. DotGNU Portable.NET (with its C# compiler, runtime
and related development tools)
by Portable.NET lead developer Rhys Weatherley
2. phpGroupWare (a collection of groupware applications which can
be used from any browser and also from other programs via
XML-RPC).
by phpGroupWare lead developer Dan Kuykendall
Section B: DotGNU - Keeping You from Getting Tangled in a Net!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From the beginning we have been concerned that probably
Microsoft's intention with .NET is to ensnare and trap
developers. There can be no doubt that this unscrupulous
proprietary software company wants to extend their effective
desktop OS monopoly to Authentication / Authorization / Virtual
Identity systems on the internet. One of the main objectives
of the DotGNU project is to prevent that from happening, and in
general provide tools for webservices without "vendor lock-in" of
any kind. So the "Webservices Ethics" department would like to
draw your attention to these articles:
3. Email discussion of policies for authentication and IDsec
between Richard Stallman, David Sugar and Tony Stanco
[DotGNU is sponsored by FreeDevelopers (founded by Tony
Stanco) and by the GNU project (founded and led by Richard
Stallman). David Sugar is the chairman of the DotGNU Steering
Committee.]
4. Questions and Answers about "Webservices"
by Norbert Bollow (Steering Committee member and co-founder
of the DotGNU project)
Section C: DotGNU -- The Big Picture
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5. Origins of the DotGNU project
by Barry Fitzgerald (Steering Committee member and co-founder
of the DotGNU project)
6. An overview of DotGNU
by DotGNU Steering Committee chairman David Sugar
7. A formula for DotGNU
by DotGNU Steering Committee member Arun M.
Section D: DotGNU -- A Community
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This section contains notes from various contributors to the
DotGNU, project in which they explain why they care about DotGNU.
#################################################################
# #
# Section A: DotGNU -- Making the Web Work for You! #
# #
# Article 1: DotGNU Portable.NET (with its C# compiler, #
# runtime and related development tools) #
# #
# by Portable.NET lead developer Rhys Weatherley #
# #
#################################################################
The Portable.NET project was begun in January 2001, with the goal
of building a runtime engine, a C# compiler, and the C# system
library.
Early on, I realized that much of the infrastructure needed for a
runtime engine was identical to the code needed for a C#
compiler. In particular, the metadata reading and writing
routines in the runtime engine could also be used as the internal
class representation for the compiler.
>From this early core, the assembler, disassembler, and the other
development tools quickly emerged. At this point, the runtime
engine, the compiler, and the C# library were still in an
embryonic form. The C# library was split out of the "pnet" tree
into "pnetlib" specifically so it could be reused by other
projects.
Around late April, it became clear that the C# compiler was
becoming a problem to maintain. The level of complexity was so
great that bugs kept creeping into the code. I had used similar
designs on previous compiler projects, and had also had problems
with complexity. My design was technically correct, but the
sheer number of details kept sinking the code. So I went back to
the drawing board to rethink the design and to do some research.
The result was the "treecc" tool, which provides an
aspect-oriented approach to building compilers. The complexity
that used to cause so many problems was now trivial to handle.
The C# compiler was re-written in early July and was a marked
improvement. I also discovered that it was very easy to use the
treecc framework to support languages other than C#, and bytecode
formats other than IL. Support for compiling C# to the JVM and
for compiling Java to IL should be coming in early-2002.
Portable.NET and DotGNU merged in August. A lot of progress was
made on the core infrastructure, the pnetlib C# library, and the
C# compiler. But the runtime engine was still lagging behind.
The polymorphic nature of the instruction set was making it very
difficult to build an efficient engine.
I began work on another background research project to devise a
new engine. This culminated in the "Converted Virtual Machine"
(CVM) in October 2001, a radically new design for bytecode
interpreters. Instead of interpreting the difficult IL
instructions directly, the bytecode is converted into another
instruction set that can be interpreted efficiently.
One of the major benefits of the new engine design is that it
will be very easy to add support for JIT's in the future. CVM
itself is essentially a "bytecode JIT". Most of the hard work is
already done, which should make writing a native JIT a fairly
simple task.
At the end of 2001, Portable.NET had reached the stage of being
able to run simple example programs, and even a few complex ones
such as the "Curse of Frogger" video game.
The biggest area to be dealt with in early 2002 is completing the
C# compiler and the C# library, and then beginning work on an x86
JIT.
>From my own personal perspective, I find Portable.NET interesting
because of the research into language implementation techniques
that has arisen from my work on the project. I'm hoping to be
able to "spin off" other tools like treecc that are not only
useful to Portable.NET, but are also useful to other Free
Software projects.
#################################################################
# #
# Section A: DotGNU -- Making the Web Work for You! #
# #
# Article 2: phpGroupWare (a collection of groupware #
# applications which can be used from any browser #
# and also from other programs via XML-RPC). #
# #
# by phpGroupWare lead developer Dan Kuykendall #
# #
#################################################################
phpGroupWare is a web-based and web service for groupware
applications. It includes all the standard PIM applications such
as email, calendar, address-book, todo list, and notes. But due to
the powerful, well defined and easy to use API we developed other
applications can and have been fully integrated. All applications
are optionally installed so that the admin can pick and choose
only the applications that meet the needs of their users.
Normally users take advantage of the terrific web interface from
any browser on any platform they choose, because we stick to pure
HTML standards as much as possible. The web interface is the most
fully supported interface to the applications in phpGroupWare
but not the only one. With the use of the simple XML-RPC protocol
which we now support in phpGroupWare, developers and users can
access the applications functionality and data from other
applications. These applications would need to be written in a
language that supports XML-RPC but that includes most that I am
aware of. This makes phpGroupWare a "web service" because it is
offering up is functionality as a service to other applications
and this gives developers and users alike great power and
flexibility.
Web services are not the answer to all problems, but they open up
great possibilities for platform and language independence as
well as making it easy to offer greater shared code and
functionality than ever before. The possibilities are only
becoming visible, but they *will* change how applications are
developed from this point on.
With the combining of forces with DotGNU we will be able to
leverage our collective knowledge and experience to develop
outstanding applications and services for users. DotGNU is
focused, among other things, on authentication services and
platform independent bytecode solutions while the phpGroupWare
team focuses on Groupware based solutions. When the two come
together phpGroupWare will use the Authentication services of
DotGNU and DotGNU will have some real world working groupware web
services making use of their technology. Even more importantly
the phpGroupWare team is able to lend experience on things such
as a universal preferences settings service which will follow the
authentication services effort. phpGroupWare will immediately
make use of the DotGNU standards as they come out and are
appropriate giving DotGNU a great testing ground and giving
phpGroupWare the opportunity to influence what are sure to be
important standards.
#################################################################
# #
# Sec. B: DotGNU - Keeping You from Getting Tangled in a Net! #
# #
# Article 3: Email discussion of policies for authentication #
# and IDsec between Richard Stallman, David Sugar #
# and Tony Stanco #
# #
# [DotGNU is sponsored by FreeDevelopers (founded #
# by Tony Stanco) and by the GNU project (founded #
# and led by Richard Stallman). David Sugar is #
# the chairman of the DotGNU Steering Committee.] #
# #
#################################################################
David Sugar wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Identity services allow people to roam from one content
provider's web site to another without having to refill forms or
provide information separately, such as credit card information,
etc.
Richard Stallman wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does this enable all those web sites to work together to collect
information about you? That is one of the things people regard
as a threat to privacy. Think of doubleclick, for instance.
David Sugar wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If done incorrectly it does. The key question is how to protect
privacy and provide convenience for people that do not otherwise
understand what they are surrendering thru convenience. In the
IDsec method, at least right at the start no single central
authority has every users data; rather any number of profile
providers can be providing it, including your own workstation,
and on a selective and controlled basis.
However, this doesn't in itself prevent the possibility of
collecting user data in the way you speak of, as it happens
already today. If one goes to site A and B, and happens to
permit sharing of, say, a credit card number with both, certainly
sites A and B can form a common database keyed on the common
credit card and identify people that way. Other kinds of data
can also be common keyed to try and match users between sites.
What IDsec does provide for, and in fact what we want in DotGNU,
is that no single entity will have a master database of every
user and hence one cannot form a single master common keyed
database of everyone that can be sold to other commercial
entities directly. Since separate and unique session keys are
used, unless common and unique identifying data (like say a
credit card # or ssn) is being permitted to be shared, there is
no direct way to determine that user "X" visiting site "A" is
also user "Y" visiting site "B". In IDsec there is direct user
control of what data is shared and with whom, and used correctly,
one can prevent correlative data from being shared if one uses it
purely for session identity so when I visit site "A" I simply
tell it I am the same "X" I was last time and share no data at
all and have the simple convenience of no login and single global
sign-on. Used this way it does not tell anyone that "A" presented
to site "X" is also "B" on site "Y". One can also keep multiple
profiles, including anonymous ones, and choose which identity to
use when visiting a given site. Of course, it does not prevent
or protect users who do share correlative data, but neither does
manual entry in today's world except thru the occasional typo :).
IDsec is certainly not perfect, and may require some thought to
use in a way that does protect privacy fully, but it is a far
better solution than those otherwise being pushed for today.
There are things we may wish to change in IDsec to make it better
for privacy, but it is at least seems a reasonable starting
point.
Tony Stanco wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes. IDsec seems to be on the right track. The question is not
should all that information be accumulated, but by whom. I should
have all the information about me on my machine. Others should
only have parts. And I think IDsec allows this. In fact, for
those who know some accounting, the system should be like double
entry accounting. I have all my information because I deal with
everyone, but they only have the other side of the transaction
that I did with them.
This is important, because I have all my information, but more
importantly, I can CHECK everyone else's information about me. If
I don't have the information on my machine, I have no way of
knowing what others have on me, or be able to correct errors that
they may have made.
David Sugar wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IDsec certainly does allow this, where you can have complete
information on yourself on your machine, and others have
incomplete but factually correct information as you permitted to
share and which you control the update and correction of. It's
original intent, however, was clearly to enable the creation of
internet identity providers as third parties; that the individual
can be such a third party is almost a side-effect of their
original design :).
As I said, IDsec is certainly not perfect, but it is close to or
can be made to do what we envisioned. As free software we will
be able to influence it's better aspects. One such way would be
to make it fairly easy and painless for any user to setup their
own identity service. That being said, I am not opposed in
principle to the existence of third parties that wish to
aggregate users and offer identity services so long as anyone can
commercially offer such services, companies can provide it to
shield their employee information from such third parties if they
choose, and there is the ultimate choice of being my own identity
service.
That it can enable commercial providers of identity services will
provide incentives for commercial interests to adopt it over
solutions that they would have no control over. That a bank or
financial institution can securely provide identity to their
existing customer base rather than put it in the hands of a third
party is a compelling selling point for them. In this respect, I
see IDsec as potentially interesting because it can successfully
align many commercial interests with our own ethical ones.
Tony Stanco wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes. Agreed.
I think that most people will opt for a commercial provider,
which they should be free to do. And yes, banks are a natural
candidate. They are already really just data centers; it just
happens to be financial data. But this is also why they are
deathly afraid of losing control. MS called them dinosaurs a few
years back (which really is right), and they are now afraid of
any loss of control of their data and guard it with their
life. (One reason e-banking is moving so slowly). But they will
eventually have to join a system and it might as well be ours.
I still suggest that we provide local backup capacities on the
personal machines, even if people opt for commercial providers,
otherwise they will be subject to lock-in. So while a commercial
provider may be a live repository, everyone should have a backup
on their own machine to protect/check their data and so they can
change providers easily.
#################################################################
# #
# Sec. B: DotGNU - Keeping You from Getting Tangled in a Net! #
# #
# Article 4: Questions and Answers about "Webservices" #
# #
# by Norbert Bollow #
# (a co-founder of the DotGNU project together #
# with Enzo-Adrian Reyes and Barry Fitzgerald) #
# #
#################################################################
What are webservices good for?
When a program is implemented as a "webservice", its
functionality can be used by other programs which can be
implemented in any programming language, and which can run on
any computer which is connected to the internet. This makes it
possible for example that multiple users in different parts of
the world can interact with a single set of data.
How do you define "webservice"?
"Webservices" are any services that are offered on the web
(regardless of what technology is used to provide them).
In order to turn this statement into an actual definition,
these explanations need to be added:
a) With "service" we mean not only that some functionality is
provided, but that there should also be some description of
this functionality, namely how the service should be used
and what it provides.
b) With saying that the service is "offered on the web" we
mean that it's offered on the internet via standard
protocols, i.e. protocols that are open, widely published,
and freely available for anyone to implement.
It is sometimes useful to distinguish between "webservice
components" which are meant to be used by other webservices,
and "webservice applications" which are meant to be used by
humans more directly. Both "webservice components" and
"webservice applications" are "webservices" as defined above.
What about other definitions of "webservice"?
A definition attempt by the Stencil Group has been discussed in some
detail on the DotGNU developers mailing list, in these messages:
* http://archive.dotgnu.org/pipermail/developers/2001-November/001252.html
* http://archive.dotgnu.org/pipermail/developers/2001-November/001253.html
* http://archive.dotgnu.org/pipermail/developers/2001-November/001254.html
* http://archive.dotgnu.org/pipermail/developers/2001-November/001255.html
Are webservices "the future", or will something better be invented soon?
Who knows? Right now it looks like webservices may become the
preferred way for implementing all kinds of intranet- and
internet-based computer applications, for the following
reasons:
* Loose coupling between components: Each component can be
implemented in the preferred programming language of the
implementors of that component, regardless of what languages
and development tools have been used to implement other
components. There is less organizational overhead to develop
changes or enhancements to various components in parallel.
* Rapid prototyping and an easy transition from prototype to
production: Prototypes of webservice components can be
conveniently implemented in scripting languages like Perl,
Python or PHP. The transition to production will typically
include moving the component to a different server (or
several load-balanced servers) and possibly also a more
efficient re-implementation of the component.
Is the data stored on the webservice server?
Data can be stored either locally or on the webservice server.
If multiple users need to interact with the same set of data,
then it should probably be stored on the webservice server.
This raises the legitimate concern of whether a webservice
provide can "lock in" customers by making it inconvenient or
impossible for them to get at their data; this issue is
addressed in the following questions.
Can we move to a different webservice provider?
The DotGNU webservice server requires that for each webservice
and each set of data that it acts on, there is an "owner of the
data" who has the right to download the entire set of data
together with the program which implements the webservice.
Program which have been downloaded in this way can be executed
in any DotGNU Secure Execution Environment on a desktop
computer or on a DotGNU webservices server.
(This means that when there is a need for an application to use
data from multiple sources, where no-one has ownership rights
to all the data, then the application must be divided into
multiple webservice components.)
Can we get source code for the webservice programs?
If all of the following conditions are met, then the webservice
provider is required to distribute the source code for the
webservice program to you, upon your request:
* The webservice program has been licensed to the webservice
provider under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
or it is a derivative work of such a program.
* The webservice program runs on a DotGNU webservice server.
* You are recognized as an "owner of the data" for this
webservice.
Then the webservice server will upon your request distribute
the program to you in binary form. According the terms of the
GNU General Public License, this implies that the webservice
provider must upon request distribute the source code for the
webservice program to you.
Am I obligated to give away my webservice source code?
You are not automatically obligated to distribute your source
code, and you are certainly not obligated to just give it away.
However, if you sell webservice services, then your customers
will expect that you make them the "owner of the data" which
the webservice uses, and depending on the exact circumstances
that may indirectly give these customers a right to get the
source code upon request. Here are the details:
If you provide a webservice using a GPL'd webservice program
(which you may have modified), then the "owner of the data"
will be able to obtain the webservices programs under the terms
of the GNU GPL, and this implies in particular that they will
have a right to get the source code of the exact version of the
program which you're using. The terms of the GNU GPL also
require you to make a written promise to this "owner of the
data" that you will be willing to provide the source code upon
request. This ensures that the "owner of the data" will know
about this right to the source code.
The "owner of the data" is typically a paying customer, and the
fact that the customer has a right to get the source code
increases the value of the service you provide. Therefore you
will be able to charge a higher price and/or close more sales.
You can use the DotGNU development tools to program your own
webservices (instead of just modifying the webservice programs
which are distributed with DotGNU, or which others have made
available under the GNU GPL) and then your are not required to
make source code for these webservices available to the
customer who is the "owner of the data". However, even in
these situations where you are not required to make the source
code available to your customers, we strongly encourage you to
provide the source code to your customers under the terms of
the GNU GPL anyway. We believe that this is ethically the
right thing to do, and that it will be good for your business.
#################################################################
# #
# Section C: DotGNU -- The Big Picture #
# #
# Article 5: Origins of the DotGNU project #
# #
# by Barry Fitzgerald #
# (a co-founder of the DotGNU project together #
# with Enzo-Adrian Reyes and Norbert Bollow) #
# #
#################################################################
The introduction of the DotGNU project on the FreeDevelopers
mailing list back in June of 2001 brought many arguments. People
wondered what value it would bring to the GNU/Linux world and
shuddered at the thought of dealing with Microsoft founded
technologies. Many people even wondered if the project would
inadvertently help Microsoft. In the time since the idea first
came up, the discussions refined the idea until a founding
philosophy was designed. Our goals were not simply compatibility
with the Microsoft platform, we decided almost right away that
there was an obligation to create a webservices framework that
would ensure that the freedom of the members of our community
would be protected. If our work helped out the proprietary
companies of the world to subjugate the members of our community,
then the project would have been for nothing. So, it became the
mandate of the leaders of the project to ensure that protection
of freedom was a key aspect of this project.
"Webservices" is the new buzzword. Every tech writer is talking
about webservices when they talk about the future of the tech
world. The question is, where do these new webservices fit into
the larger picture? If you're to believe some people,
webservices are the future and the standard method of running
programs is defunct. If you're to believe others, webservices
are a fad and no one will ever use them. As with most tech
prognostication, both will most likely be partly true. The fact
of the matter is that the success of network services (webmail,
etc...) is already happening and these services are
complimenting the computer usage of people every day. This has
been the case been for some time as well. To allow this market
to be overtaken by a proprietary vendor would be unthinkable.
So, we must embrace the world the way it is and create a Free
framework with which webservices and larger network service
enabled applications can be easily constructed, allowing for
competition in the marketplace, security, freedom, and privacy.
#################################################################
# #
# Section C: DotGNU -- The Big Picture #
# #
# Article 7: A technical overview of DotGNU #
# #
# by David Sugar #
# (chairman of the DotGNU Steering Committee) #
# #
#################################################################
DotGNU is in part concerned with producing bytecode runtime
systems for portable executables, and of course, we are
interested in the ECMA "standardized" bytecode system and
creating a freely licensed and fully portable implementation as
represented by the Portable.NET project. Having a portable and
universally interoperable runtime for developing and delivering
web hosted applications represents an important part of DotGNU,
as does extending support to other existing bytecode systems such
as Java.
Another part of DotGNU is concerned with providing a fully valid
and technically correct solution for authentication and user
identities that provide the convenience of internet-wide single
sign-on services without the need to deliberately handicap such
systems thru a single vendor point of failure or implement such a
solution in a manner that forces users to compromise personal
data or which compromises the integrity of commercial
organizations. Certainly there is neither any technical merit
nor commercial reason to have one and only one source of
authentication and identity services on the Internet.
While enabling the existence and use of multiple trusted third
party identity services is quite valid and useful commercially
when such services can be hosted on a non-discriminatory basis by
any organization wishing to do so in a free and open market,
rather than by either a single vendor or a small group of
privileged vendors, ideally we wish it to be possible for an
individual user to provide identity and personal data services
directly from corporate offices or even their own workstation if
so desired to protect their personal data to the fullest.
Tying together authentication, identity, and runtime, are
meaningful services, and DotGNU also will produce useful web
hosted application services that will demonstrate the full cycle
of authenticated single login in a secure manner with personal
data that can be kept private and secure or hosted by trusted
third parties and using the Portable.NET runtime to deliver these
services where they involve local execution on your workstation,
all using freely licensed software under the GPL and hosted on
freely licensed operating systems, such as GNU/Linux.
#################################################################
# #
# Section C: DotGNU -- The Big Picture #
# #
# Article 7: A formula for DotGNU #
# #
# by DotGNU Steering Committee member Arun M. #
# #
#################################################################
DotGNU = Runtimes/Compilers
+ AppServer
+ WebServicesDevelopmentFrameWork
+ CommonServices
+ DesktopIntegration
Runtime
C# runtime (Pnet) is major component of DotGNU,
But DotGNU will support others like parrot, Kaffe etc.
Various language compilers for CIL are needed.
AppServer
An application server based on CIL/C# is needed. It will take
more time as we need to complete C# corelibs.
Now the question is, should we restrict AppServer to C#? Can
we add other existing AppServers to DotGNU ? A few choices
are Zope, Webware, eZPublish, phpCMS. Will they be
interested in joining ?
WebServicesDevelopmentFrameWork
A set of libraries for common web service standards is a
major component in this. Most AppSevers now have xml-rpc or
SOAP support. Some even support WSDL.
I feel SandStorm may be a good addition to DotGNU in this
regard.
CommonServices
Identity is the first component. IDSec, macs etc comes here.
Groupware comes next (solved by phpGroupWare). Another major
one is ERP system available as webservice. GNUe should join
DotGNU, or DotGNU should work on a webservice plugin for GNUe.
DesktopIntegration
Desktop applications will have to be written to support the
services we provide.
#################################################################
# #
# Section D: DotGNU -- A Community #
# #
# DotGNU is not just a collection of software, but also a #
# Community of Free Software developers. Here are some #
# notes from various contributors to the DotGNU project, in #
# which they explain why they care about DotGNU. #
# #
# (The submissions are sorted according to their length) #
# #
#################################################################
Bill Lance writes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Internet came to life at the rim when it dropped the idea of
a central server. The forces of government and finance wish to
pull power back to the center and regain control. The pressure
to things like ASP's, subscription/teathered software, and server
centric webservices are manifestations of this today and reveal
their strategy. DotGNU seems to me to be the incubator of the
LibreSoftware alternative. That's why I'm here.
Bradley Kuhn writes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DotGNU is of particular interest to me and I was honored to be
put on the Steering Committee this year. DotGNU has the
potential to bring together years of work in programming language
integration research, and marry it beautifully with web services.
I have in the past worked on using the Java Virtual Machine as a
language integration platform, thus I am excited that DotGNU's
Portable.NET might make true language integration possible.
- Bradley M. Kuhn, Vice President of the FSF and DotGNU SC Member
Norbert Bollow writes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If everyone uses webservices, and these programs use Microsoft's
centralized auth system, then secret services and other crackers
can easily observe how anyone is using their PC. This could far
too easily become the foundation of a "Big Brother" type
totalitarian system. Microsoft is a Goliath. From the beginning
of DotGNU I have felt somewhat like a David challenging this
Goaliath, doing what needs to be done, in the name of Jesus. Yes,
I believe that for DotGNU to be successful, we need to have God
on our side.
Barry Fitzgerald writes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DotGNU has the potential of solving a number of problems that
currently keep developers in the habit of creating programs for
That Other Platform. We could create a unified, cross-system
compatible and completely interoperable development environment
for multiple language development. This would be a boon for the
entire development industry and would solve many potential
program availability issues that currently keep GNU/Linux from
becoming ubiquitous in the market. This aspect provides a unique
opportunity to place Free Software at the forefront of the
industry if we take our steps wisely. Interoperability truly is
king, but we must do more than interoperate. We must create the
best Dam*ed development environment that ever existed. In the
long run, this is our mandate. We must, along with the rest of
the Free Software world, do what it takes to dethrone the
proprietary forces of the world.
Dan Kuykendall writes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have been working with phpGroupWare since its inception as the
project leader. I have had several years of experience as a
groupware administrator of all three of the big commercial
groupware servers and felt that all of them lacked in some way or
another. When phpGroupWare started I knew that I could help build
a groupware server that did not have all the failings of the
commercial products in both features and lack of freedom. By
helping build both the code and the community I feel that my
efforts have been a tremendous success. phpGroupWare is a
powerful, flexible and *free* product that can meet and exceed
the needs of many many people. When I became aware of web
services and realized their potential I immediately started to
push phpGroupWare in that direction because I knew that web
services would change the rules, and I wanted to be there. Our
code has so easily been adapted and continues to be a perfect
testing ground for new technology that I know we have built
something to be proud of, and I believe the DotGNU team has show
great vision and wisdom in including us into their team. I
believe phpGroupWare and DotGNU can be successful and offer the
world top rate applications and services without giving up
freedom or features.
David Sugar writes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There were many things that concerned me when I first heard about
DotGNU. Of course, like many others at the time, I was highly
skeptical of such an enterprise until I took the time to think
deeper on the subject. There are those that say that DotGNU
helps legitimize ".NET" services from Microsoft. I believe Java
already does this very well. The problem Java faces is that Sun
does not wish to relinquish control to certain parts of it, just
as Microsoft chooses not to relinquish control to parts of it's
so called ".NET" technologies, especially in regards to
authentication and web services.
Neither situation is valid or useful for web centric free
software to progress. To create software on a non-free
infrastructure (Java) is problematic even if the resulting
software itself can be freely licensed. Worst still would be to
create a free infrastructure or runtime that integrates with
proprietary services and protocols, as the latter, while free on
the surface, can be used to lock out any other vendor solutions
at the key middleware services level and in fact could be used to
effectively block free software development by changing licensing
on key services and protocols that may later be required. While
it's easy to pretend that these things will not happen or will
never be adopted by others, the fact remains that burying one's
head in the sand will not make the problem go away.
DotGNU is about assuring freedom, for both developers and users.
In this sense, I, among others, understood it was necessary to
look at and engage in the full spectrum of services, from basic
runtime to web services and protocols, and to do so in a manner
that protects the integrity of user's private data. This was why
I chose to become part of DotGNU, because I thought it was far
better to do something than simply ignore the problem and hope it
would simply go away...
===================================================================
"This year in DotGNU - No 1" -- All articles are Copyright 2001 by
their authors. Compilation Copyright 2002 by Norbert Bollow. All
rights reserved. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire
issue is permitted in any medium or format, provided this notice is
preserved.
===================================================================
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [DotGNU Announcement]2001 -- The Year When DotGNU Was Born,
Norbert Bollow <=