Re: Where is Gnome heading?

[Daniel Kasak <dkasak nusconsulting com au>]

Peter Gordon wrote:

> Daniel Kasak wrote:
>   
> > > Please consider embracing C#
> > >       
> > I don't think so. The minute people start rewriting bits of gnome in C# 
> > is the minute I jump ship.
> >     
> So you'd stick with C, even if higher-level languages were used to write the GUI portions of
> applications (such as Python with PyGTK or C#/Mono with GTK#)? Even when those higher-level
> languages make the applications easier to maintain and develop cool new features for?

No. I already noted in my 1st response that I don't have a problem with 
people writing GUIs in whatever language they want - I'm a Gtk2-Perl 
progammer myself. But the libraries should be in C. However, the 
original question seemed to be leading towards "Why doesn't everyone 
drop what they're doing and port their stuff to C#". I think my response 
to that was clear and completely defensible. And yes, if the gtk and / 
or gnome libraries were ported to C#, I would jump ship. I'm already 
watching Enlightenment's EWL / ETK with great interest.

>  For the
> record, GNOME already includes a few major applications written in C#: notably Tomboy [1], F-Spot
> [2], and Beagle [3].
>   

Sure. Though I would use *stable* apps as example if I wanted to win 
people over :)

>  I think people are more than aware of the
>   
> > legal minefield Gnome would be wading into by embracing a Microsoft 
> > technology such as C#. 
> >     
> C# is not a Microsoft technology. Sure, they were one of the initiators of it, but the language
> itself is an accepted standard (ECMA-334 [4])
>
> [1] http://live.gnome.org/Tomboy
> [2] http://f-spot.org/Main_Page
> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_(software)
> [4] http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ecma-st/ECMA-334.pdf
>     (This PDF is pretty big: nearly 2.5 MiB. Evince handles it pretty well, though. ^_^)
>   

I'm still unconvinced of the threat of legal troubles - particularly 
with the laws surrounding encryption technology. What you and I might 
consider to be legal  - even if it turns out to actually be legal - does 
not prevent Microsoft threatening to take legal action, or indeed 
initiating legal action. The legal outcome of that action may very well 
not be their goal; they are more interested in the effect it has on 
maintaining their monopoly. Take SCO, for example ( and read the 
Slashdot article posted today on the links between Microsoft, Baystar 
and SCO ). This already looks to be a clear legal victory, but the 
effect it's had on Linux adoption and Microsoft's bottom line isn't so 
clear.

Also, being an 'accepted standard' isn't going to be much help even if 
there is no legal challenge. Microsoft are free to extend the language 
to their heart's content. Their market penetration means that it doesn't 
make any difference whether the language is an 'accepted standard' or 
indeed whether Microsoft's implementation matches that standard. The 
reality is that Microsoft can and will use this penetration to sideline 
the 'competition'. It will be up to the Mono team to play catch-up. 
People who discount this argument should subscribe to the Samba mailing 
list. There is example after example of people posting 'after applying 
Service Pack xxx I can no longer connect from Samba-xxx'. C# is more 
complicated than SMB networking. I see a major problem in playing 
catch-up. I also see no point in every trying.

Considering the wealth of other scripting languages such as Perl, 
Python, Ruby, etc ( which all work on Windows, by the way ), I really 
fail to see why Linux users are pushing C#. Perhaps I can see why some 
C# programmers would want to create Mono so they can run their legacy 
apps under Linux. But as for everyone else, the mind boggles.

--
Daniel Kasak
IT Developer
NUS Consulting Group
Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway
North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060
T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989
email: dkasak nusconsulting com au
website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au