IronRuby

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Lloyd Linklater, Sep 12, 2007.

  1. I have heard disturbing things about IronRuby. The short version is
    that MS wants to get into the open source arena as that seems to be
    their biggest competition, but not in the way that those already there
    are. I heard that they want to change the rules for open source to
    insinuate themselves everywhere. I read their new version of the open
    source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from their
    code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.

    Also, I heard that they are going to add windows specific calls so that
    the user could "optimize" his program with the "optional" calls. This
    is what they did with java and Sun was outraged, sued and won. Now, MS
    came out with a more or less windows specific java in the form of C#.

    Are they going to do this with ruby? If so, will we be forced to write
    windows ruby just to have it cross platform compatible?

    Has anyone else been reading these things?
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Lloyd Linklater, Sep 12, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lloyd Linklater

    Phil Guest


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: [mailto:] On
    > Behalf Of Lloyd Linklater
    > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 5:15 PM
    > To: ruby-talk ML
    > Subject: IronRuby
    >=20
    > I have heard disturbing things about IronRuby. The short version is
    > that MS wants to get into the open source arena as that seems to be
    > their biggest competition, but not in the way that those already there
    > are. I heard that they want to change the rules for open source to
    > insinuate themselves everywhere. I read their new version of the open
    > source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from =

    their
    > code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.


    The IronRuby license:
    http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/permissiv=
    elicense.mspx

    That link can be found on IronRuby's Rubyforge project page =
    (ironruby.rubyforge.org).

    In short: No. MS even submitted the Permissive License for review by the =
    OSI (self-appointed watchdog over OSS licenses).

    > Also, I heard that they are going to add windows specific calls so =

    that
    > the user could "optimize" his program with the "optional" calls. This
    > is what they did with java and Sun was outraged, sued and won. Now, =

    MS
    > came out with a more or less windows specific java in the form of C#.


    Seems somebody misunderstood something a long the line (or listened to =
    FUD spread by Google): IronRuby will do the same thing for .NET as JRuby =
    does for Java: include an interface to the runtime/VM used.

    In a sense, you'll be locked into a runtime. But only if you use the =
    code of that runtime.

    You can go ahead, and grab IronRuby from Rubyforge and build it =
    yourself, and take a look.

    > Are they going to do this with ruby? If so, will we be forced to =

    write
    > windows ruby just to have it cross platform compatible?


    Huh? Will JRuby and Matz' Ruby suddenly disappear when IronRuby is =
    finalized?

    > Has anyone else been reading these things?


    Not me.

    --
    Phillip Gawlowski
     
    Phil, Sep 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 12:15:19AM +0900, Lloyd Linklater wrote:
    > I have heard disturbing things about IronRuby. The short version is
    > that MS wants to get into the open source arena as that seems to be
    > their biggest competition, but not in the way that those already there
    > are. I heard that they want to change the rules for open source to
    > insinuate themselves everywhere. I read their new version of the open
    > source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from their
    > code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.


    Blah blah blah. If you don't like it, don't use it.

    > Also, I heard that they are going to add windows specific calls so that
    > the user could "optimize" his program with the "optional" calls. This
    > is what they did with java and Sun was outraged, sued and won. Now, MS
    > came out with a more or less windows specific java in the form of C#.


    Oh noes! You mean I might be able to integrate with the entire .NET
    platform in which IronRuby runs? I could make calls to various .NET
    libraries that aren't available on other (read: non-.NET rather than
    non-Windows, given that various .NET VMs/runtimes are available for various
    operating systems) platforms? Truly, that would be a tragedy. Oh, yeah,
    unless that's what I was trying to do in the first place. And if it isn't,
    I don't have to use IronRuby.

    > Are they going to do this with ruby? If so, will we be forced to write
    > windows ruby just to have it cross platform compatible?


    What are you smoking? No one's forcing you to do anything. There are
    several implementations of Ruby compilers/VMs/interpreters/runtimes,
    including YARV, MRI, Rubinius, Cardinal, JRuby, and IronRuby. Some are more
    mature than others. Some perform better than others. Some provide
    integration with platform-specific libraries (i.e. JRuby and IronRuby
    providing Java and .NET integration, respectively). None of them are
    standards-compliant because no standard exists (no, a test suite is not a
    standard, and neither is a reference implementation).

    > Has anyone else been reading these things?


    We've all seen it, but no one is depending on Microsoft's goodwill so no
    one is particularly worried.

    --Greg
     
    Gregory Seidman, Sep 12, 2007
    #3
  4. Lloyd Linklater

    John Joyce Guest

    On Sep 12, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Lloyd Linklater wrote:

    > I have heard disturbing things about IronRuby. The short version is
    > that MS wants to get into the open source arena as that seems to be
    > their biggest competition, but not in the way that those already there
    > are. I heard that they want to change the rules for open source to
    > insinuate themselves everywhere. I read their new version of the open
    > source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from
    > their
    > code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.
    >
    > Also, I heard that they are going to add windows specific calls so
    > that
    > the user could "optimize" his program with the "optional" calls. This
    > is what they did with java and Sun was outraged, sued and won.
    > Now, MS
    > came out with a more or less windows specific java in the form of C#.
    >
    > Are they going to do this with ruby? If so, will we be forced to
    > write
    > windows ruby just to have it cross platform compatible?
    >
    > Has anyone else been reading these things?
    > --
    > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
    >

    This is also what they did with C++ in the form of Visual C++
    they tried to do it with HTML and Javascript too. Anything they touch
    really.
    They just try to use it as a business tactic. But every platform has
    stuff like that.
    You think Silverlight is just out of the goodness of their hearts?
    why are you shocked? This has long been one of their strategies.
    Sometimes it is simply an engineer introducing legitimate features,
    but tech companies have long known that features can also be platform
    lock-ins!
    If it's a legitimately useful/cool feature, others implement it as
    well and it becomes a defacto standard like the xml remote procedure
    call that led to AJAX.
    The irony is, Microsoft is probably setting themselves up to have
    more malware written in more languages that are easier to write code in.
     
    John Joyce, Sep 12, 2007
    #4
  5. Phil wrote:
    >> I read their new version of the open
    >> source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from their
    >> code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.

    >
    > The IronRuby license:
    > http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/permissivelicense.mspx
    >
    > That link can be found on IronRuby's Rubyforge project page
    > (ironruby.rubyforge.org).
    >
    > In short: No. MS even submitted the Permissive License for review by the
    > OSI (self-appointed watchdog over OSS licenses).


    In short, yes. From your link and I read and referenced:

    3. Conditions and Limitations
    (C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all
    copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present
    in the software.

    "ANY portion of the software"
    "you must retain ALL..."

    Gregory Seidman wrote:
    >> Are they going to do this with ruby? If so, will we be forced to write
    >> windows ruby just to have it cross platform compatible?

    >
    > What are you smoking? No one's forcing you to do anything.


    I was just asking about things I read. No need to ask what I am
    smoking. The things I have been reading seem alarmist and I wanted to
    ask in a place where I had hoped I could get a more reasoned and
    reasonable response.
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Lloyd Linklater, Sep 12, 2007
    #5
  6. Lloyd Linklater

    Greg Donald Guest

    On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Lloyd Linklater wrote:
    > I have heard disturbing things about IronRuby. The short version is
    > that MS wants to get into the open source arena as that seems to be
    > their biggest competition, but not in the way that those already there
    > are. I heard that they want to change the rules for open source to
    > insinuate themselves everywhere. I read their new version of the open
    > source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from their
    > code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.


    M$ simply doesn't understand open source. They think they can make
    their own version of everything when really they should just
    contribute to the existing software project like other not-so-large
    contributers do.

    To have so much money and still be so clueless..


    --
    Greg Donald
    Cyberfusion Consulting
    http://cyberfusionconsulting.com/
     
    Greg Donald, Sep 12, 2007
    #6
  7. > Can someone clarify for me the state of the various Ruby
    > implementations under .NET?
    > Here are the ones I've heard of.
    >
    > 1) Gardens Point Ruby.NET from Queensland University of Technology in
    > Australia (funded by Microsoft)
    > 2) RubyCLR from John Lam
    > 3) IronRuby from Microsoft which hired John Lam who now runs the
    > project


    1) and 3) are both being actively developed. There are folks who have commi=
    t privileges to 2), but I don't really have cycles now to contribute to 2) =
    and 3) :(

    -John
     
    John Lam (CLR), Sep 12, 2007
    #7
  8. Lloyd Linklater

    Ari Brown Guest

    On Sep 12, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Lloyd Linklater wrote:

    <snip>

    I may be bashed as a MS hater.... but long live the penguin.

    Apparently, what MS will do is enter a field and provide everything
    the competitors provide, except more.

    The catch is they insert all sorts of trips, like the software will
    only work when applied to .NET productions.
    An example is a piece of network software they wrote which would only
    talk to Windoze machines.

    So.......
    I really want to get my hands on that ruby compiler sooooooo baaaaaaaad

    ~ Ari
    English is like a pseudo-random number generator - there are a
    bajillion rules to it, but nobody cares.
     
    Ari Brown, Sep 12, 2007
    #8
  9. --=-p8ff/ke3uywXAVGFdW1l
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-up4wPYe5VjeQaeKOHMGd"


    --=-up4wPYe5VjeQaeKOHMGd
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    On Thu, 2007-13-09 at 00:15 +0900, Lloyd Linklater wrote:

    > I read their new version of the open
    > source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from their
    > code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.



    And this is different from the viral portions of the GPL suite how,
    precisely? If I make a program with over a million lines of code and
    add a hundred lines from a GPLed source, suddenly all of my millions of
    lines of code are under the GPL. Or is this different because it's
    Microsoft?

    --=20
    Michael T. Richter <> (GoogleTalk:
    )
    I'm not schooled in the science of human factors, but I suspect surprise
    is not an element of a robust user interface. (Chip Rosenthal)

    --=-up4wPYe5VjeQaeKOHMGd
    Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
    <HTML>
    <HEAD>
    <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; CHARSET=3DUTF-8">
    <META NAME=3D"GENERATOR" CONTENT=3D"GtkHTML/3.12.1">
    </HEAD>
    <BODY>
    On Thu, 2007-13-09 at 00:15 +0900, Lloyd Linklater wrote:
    <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE>
    <PRE>
    <FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">I read their new version of the open</FONT>
    <FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">source agreement that says that if you copy the sma=
    llest bit from their</FONT>
    <FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer=
    and sundry stuff.</FONT>
    </PRE>
    </BLOCKQUOTE>
    <BR>
    And this is different from the viral portions of the GPL suite how, precise=
    ly?&nbsp; If I make a program with over a million lines of code and add a h=
    undred lines from a GPLed source, suddenly all of my millions of lines of c=
    ode are under the GPL.&nbsp; Or is this different because it's Microsoft?<B=
    R>
    <BR>
    <TABLE CELLSPACING=3D"0" CELLPADDING=3D"0" WIDTH=3D"100%">
    <TR>
    <TD>
    -- <BR>
    <B>Michael T. Richter</B> &lt;<A HREF=3D"mailto:">ttmri=
    </A>&gt; (<B>GoogleTalk:</B> )<BR>
    <I>I'm not schooled in the science of human factors, but I suspect surprise=
    is not an element of a robust user interface. (Chip Rosenthal)</I>
    </TD>
    </TR>
    </TABLE>
    </BODY>
    </HTML>

    --=-up4wPYe5VjeQaeKOHMGd--

    --=-p8ff/ke3uywXAVGFdW1l
    Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
    Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBG6HM5LqyWkKVQ54QRAvh9AJ494euhXcC+g2ifYvrRAzzEewocQwCaAxVH
    diCLYjTnxOLSAb0Q8NQ40rg=
    =tXD+
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --=-p8ff/ke3uywXAVGFdW1l--
     
    Michael T. Richter, Sep 13, 2007
    #9
  10. Lloyd Linklater

    Phil Guest

    > From: Michael T. Richter [mailto:]=20
    > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:16 AM
    > To: ruby-talk ML
    > Subject: Re: IronRuby
    >
    > And this is different from the viral portions of the GPL suite how,
    > precisely? If I make a program with over a million lines of code=20
    > and add a hundred lines from a GPLed source, suddenly all of my=20
    > millions of lines of code are under the GPL.=20
    > Or is this different because it's Microsoft?



    Actually, the old BSD license with attribution clause is a closer fit. =
    The MS-PL doesn't require you to publish your code with the same =
    license, as the GPL does.

    --
    Phillip Gawlowski
     
    Phil, Sep 13, 2007
    #10
  11. --=-4GC6X/kIxxQrM+ayijCe
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-nRCf62BGKhl+6C6ivrzZ"


    --=-nRCf62BGKhl+6C6ivrzZ
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    On Thu, 2007-13-09 at 10:01 +0900, Phil wrote:

    > > And this is different from the viral portions of the GPL suite how,
    > > precisely? If I make a program with over a million lines of code=20
    > > and add a hundred lines from a GPLed source, suddenly all of my=20
    > > millions of lines of code are under the GPL.=20
    > > Or is this different because it's Microsoft?




    > Actually, the old BSD license with attribution clause is a closer fit. Th=

    e
    > MS-PL doesn't require you to publish your code with the same license, as =

    the GPL does.


    Well, fair enough. The point I was trying to establish was that it's
    not unusual for licenses to say "we encompass any work you do" --
    whether the "encompassing" involves attribution (old-style BSD or
    current MS-PL) or viral infection (GPL). The secondary point is that
    people really need to stop "MS is evil, therefore anything from MS is
    evil"-style reasoning. (And I say this as a person who switched
    permanently away from MS technologies in 2004.)

    --=20
    Michael T. Richter <> (GoogleTalk:
    )
    Experts in advanced countries underestimate by a factor of two to four
    the ability of people in underdeveloped countries to do anything
    technical. (Charles P Issawi)

    --=-nRCf62BGKhl+6C6ivrzZ
    Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
    <HTML>
    <HEAD>
    <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; CHARSET=3DUTF-8">
    <META NAME=3D"GENERATOR" CONTENT=3D"GtkHTML/3.12.1">
    </HEAD>
    <BODY>
    On Thu, 2007-13-09 at 10:01 +0900, Phil wrote:
    <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE>
    <PRE>
    <FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">&gt; And this is different from the viral portions =
    of the GPL suite how,</FONT>
    <FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">&gt; precisely? If I make a program with over a mi=
    llion lines of code </FONT>
    <FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">&gt; and add a hundred lines from a GPLed source, s=
    uddenly all of my </FONT>
    <FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">&gt; millions of lines of code are under the GPL. <=
    /FONT>
    <FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">&gt; Or is this different because it's Microsoft?</=
    FONT>
    </PRE>
    </BLOCKQUOTE>
    <BR>
    <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE>
    <PRE>
    <FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">Actually, the old BSD license with attribution clau=
    se is a closer fit. The</FONT>
    <FONT COLOR=3D"#000000">MS-PL doesn't require you to publish your code with=
    the same license, as the GPL does.</FONT>
    </PRE>
    </BLOCKQUOTE>
    <BR>
    Well, fair enough.&nbsp; The point I was trying to establish was that it's =
    not unusual for licenses to say &quot;we encompass any work you do&quot; --=
    whether the &quot;encompassing&quot; involves attribution (old-style BSD o=
    r current MS-PL) or viral infection (GPL).&nbsp; The secondary point is tha=
    t people really need to stop &quot;MS is evil, therefore anything from MS i=
    s evil&quot;-style reasoning.&nbsp; (And I say this as a person who switche=
    d permanently away from MS technologies in 2004.)<BR>
    <BR>
    <TABLE CELLSPACING=3D"0" CELLPADDING=3D"0" WIDTH=3D"100%">
    <TR>
    <TD>
    -- <BR>
    <B>Michael T. Richter</B> &lt;<A HREF=3D"mailto:">ttmri=
    </A>&gt; (<B>GoogleTalk:</B> )<BR>
    <I>Experts in advanced countries underestimate by a factor of two to four t=
    he ability of people in underdeveloped countries to do anything technical. =
    (Charles P Issawi)</I>
    </TD>
    </TR>
    </TABLE>
    </BODY>
    </HTML>

    --=-nRCf62BGKhl+6C6ivrzZ--

    --=-4GC6X/kIxxQrM+ayijCe
    Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
    Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBG6J5oLqyWkKVQ54QRAvkpAJ4iaN7Da9ItNWdG8uazUnxqRnnzRwCfb60G
    o5IStdAmBGoA7x4HnzBMc98=
    =n7j1
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --=-4GC6X/kIxxQrM+ayijCe--
     
    Michael T. Richter, Sep 13, 2007
    #11
  12. Lloyd Linklater

    Evan Klitzke Guest

    On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 00:15 +0900, Lloyd Linklater wrote:
    > I have heard disturbing things about IronRuby. The short version is
    > that MS wants to get into the open source arena as that seems to be
    > their biggest competition, but not in the way that those already there
    > are. I heard that they want to change the rules for open source to
    > insinuate themselves everywhere. I read their new version of the open
    > source agreement that says that if you copy the smallest bit from their
    > code that you MUST include the entire MS disclaimer and sundry stuff.
    >
    > Also, I heard that they are going to add windows specific calls so that
    > the user could "optimize" his program with the "optional" calls. This
    > is what they did with java and Sun was outraged, sued and won. Now, MS
    > came out with a more or less windows specific java in the form of C#.
    >
    > Are they going to do this with ruby? If so, will we be forced to write
    > windows ruby just to have it cross platform compatible?
    >
    > Has anyone else been reading these things?


    I can't really speak to the IronRuby situation, but I have been keeping
    track of the progress Microsoft has been making with IronPython, and so
    far that has been a good project. In particular, the IronPython folks
    make it a big priority to make IronPython 100% faithful to the Python
    language description (IIRC they even run the mainstream CPython
    regression tests).

    If IronRuby ends up like IronPython, the community should be pleased; a
    new implementation can only draw more people to the language (especially
    if it creates an easy way for C# developers to transition to the
    language). Of course it could be devastating if Microsoft ends up
    embarking on an embrace and extend type of strategy (as they did with
    Java), but so far I don't see any nefarious actions on their part.

    --
    Evan Klitzke <>
     
    Evan Klitzke, Sep 13, 2007
    #12
  13. > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Evan Klitzke [mailto:]
    > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:49 PM
    > To: ruby-talk ML
    > Subject: Re: IronRuby
    >
    > I can't really speak to the IronRuby situation, but I have been keeping
    > track of the progress Microsoft has been making with IronPython, and so
    > far that has been a good project. In particular, the IronPython folks
    > make it a big priority to make IronPython 100% faithful to the Python
    > language description (IIRC they even run the mainstream CPython
    > regression tests).


    The folks who created IronPython are on my team as well. FWIW they were tre=
    ated with skepticism at start but eventually earned the respect of the comm=
    unity. We're in the same boat - we need to earn your respect by doing the r=
    ight things as well. And we fully expect the community to call us on our mi=
    stakes.

    -John
     
    John Lam (CLR), Sep 13, 2007
    #13
  14. John Lam (CLR) wrote:
    > A couple of recent things that we've done is: a) submit Ms-PL for OSI certification, and b) release the IronRuby source code on Rubyforge *and* accept contributions back from the community.


    You just released the core classes, yes? Or is what's on RubyForge all
    someone needs to run IronRuby? Could what's on RubyForge be forked and
    run on an arbitrary CLR? I'm a little confused on these points.

    - Charlie
     
    Charles Oliver Nutter, Sep 13, 2007
    #14
  15. Lloyd Linklater

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:20:39AM +0900, Michael T. Richter wrote:
    > On Thu, 2007-13-09 at 10:01 +0900, Phil wrote:
    >
    > > > And this is different from the viral portions of the GPL suite how,
    > > > precisely? If I make a program with over a million lines of code
    > > > and add a hundred lines from a GPLed source, suddenly all of my
    > > > millions of lines of code are under the GPL.
    > > > Or is this different because it's Microsoft?

    >
    >
    >
    > > Actually, the old BSD license with attribution clause is a closer fit. The
    > > MS-PL doesn't require you to publish your code with the same license, as the GPL does.

    >
    >
    > Well, fair enough. The point I was trying to establish was that it's
    > not unusual for licenses to say "we encompass any work you do" --
    > whether the "encompassing" involves attribution (old-style BSD or
    > current MS-PL) or viral infection (GPL). The secondary point is that
    > people really need to stop "MS is evil, therefore anything from MS is
    > evil"-style reasoning. (And I say this as a person who switched
    > permanently away from MS technologies in 2004.)


    Agreed. I'm all for being incredibly suspicious of anything Microsoft
    does -- but suspicion shouldn't translate to simply rejecting everything
    with the word "Microsoft" or the letters "MS" attached without even
    bothering to look at it. After all, the best trackball I've ever owned
    was a Microsoft product, even if the worst OS I've ever used also came
    from Microsoft.

    I don't trust Microsoft as far as I can throw the 900 pound gorilla, but
    even pathological liars must tell the truth from time to time, even if
    that truth is only setup for another lie.

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    W. Somerset Maugham: "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for
    wit."
     
    Chad Perrin, Sep 13, 2007
    #15
  16. Lloyd Linklater

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 12:48:50PM +0900, Evan Klitzke wrote:
    >
    > If IronRuby ends up like IronPython, the community should be pleased; a
    > new implementation can only draw more people to the language (especially
    > if it creates an easy way for C# developers to transition to the
    > language). Of course it could be devastating if Microsoft ends up
    > embarking on an embrace and extend type of strategy (as they did with
    > Java), but so far I don't see any nefarious actions on their part.


    I'm sure someone at Microsoft is, or shortly will be, angling for such a
    way to leverage projects like IronPython and IronRuby. That doesn't mean
    there isn't value in the projects themselves, or that they should be
    rejected for the potential for misuse they represent. I think that
    IronRuby can be an incredibly positive thing, and may even serve to
    provide some impetus for people to move away from their vendor lock-in
    circumstances with Microsoft (in sort of a "the first hit is free" way).

    Just keep your eyes open, and look out for the likely "embrace, extend,
    extinguish" tactic from Microsoft's decision-makers.

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your hammer, everything starts
    to look like your thumb."
     
    Chad Perrin, Sep 13, 2007
    #16
  17. Slavo Furman wrote:

    > John is without doubt best person to answer such questions, I just like
    > to
    > say that in his weblog post
    > "http://www.iunknown.com/2007/07/a-first-look-at.html" he says that:
    >
    > "once the DLR matures and reaches 1.0status with fully supported public
    > interfaces, we will *fully open up all parts of the IronRuby project for
    > external contributions*


    The link given was a dead page for me. Will the source be fully open
    eventually?
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Lloyd Linklater, Sep 13, 2007
    #17
  18. PiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgTGxveWQgTGlua2xhdGVyDQo+DQo+IFRoZSBsaW5rIGdpdmVuIHdhcyBhIGRl
    YWQgcGFnZSBmb3IgbWUuICBXaWxsIHRoZSBzb3VyY2UgYmUgZnVsbHkgb3Blbg0KPiBldmVudHVh
    bGx5Pw0KDQpZZXMgLSBhcm91bmQgdGhlIHRpbWUgdGhhdCBETFIgaGl0cyAxLjAsIHdoaWNoIHdp
    bGwgYmUgc29tZXRpbWUgbmV4dCB5ZWFyIC0gbGlrZWx5IGluIHRoZSBzdW1tZXIuDQoNCi1Kb2hu
    DQoNCg==
     
    John Lam (CLR), Sep 13, 2007
    #18
  19. Well, if they actually give full open source, then those that always
    think 'conspiracy' when Microsoft is named need not fear as everything
    is there for viewing under the microscope. I see that CodeGear (read
    Borland) has their Ruby for rails IDE (3rdRail) for sale already.
    People do not seem worried about that. I expect that fears will fade in
    proportion to how open the source is with MS as well. After that,
    IronRuby will succeed or fail based on its intrinsic merits just as
    everything else does (or should).
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Lloyd Linklater, Sep 17, 2007
    #19
  20. Michael T. Richter wrote:
    > On Fri, 2007-14-09 at 10:36 +0900, Konrad Meyer wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> It's Microsoft. Unlikely.

    >
    >
    >
    > Of course someone could just make a GPLed version of the CLR, seeing as
    > how it's standardized and all:
    > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm.


    In case you're not aware of it, see the following project:

    http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page

    This is a project to create an open source version and has been around
    for some time now.
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Cody Skidmore, Sep 29, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Neil Hodgson
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    397
    Michael Torrie
    Aug 10, 2010
  2. Tim Hunter

    Microsoft announces IronRuby

    Tim Hunter, Apr 30, 2007, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    118
    Charles Oliver Nutter
    May 1, 2007
  3. IronRuby

    Anyone interested In IronRuby

    IronRuby, Sep 27, 2007, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    200
    John Lam (DLR)
    Sep 29, 2007
  4. Thufir
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    247
    Julian Raschke
    Oct 24, 2007
  5. John Lam (DLR)

    Quick update on IronRuby status

    John Lam (DLR), Nov 9, 2007, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    91
    John Lam (DLR)
    Nov 9, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page