Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Ruby > IronRuby

Reply
Thread Tools

IronRuby

 
 
Lloyd Linklater
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2007
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/.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Phil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2007


> -----Original Message-----
> From: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) [(E-Mail Removed)] 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/s...ics/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


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gregory Seidman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2007
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


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Joyce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2007

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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lloyd Linklater
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2007
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/s...velicense.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/.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Greg Donald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2007
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/


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Lam (CLR)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2007
> 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ari Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2007

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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael T. Richter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2007
--=-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 <(E-Mail Removed)> (GoogleTalk:
(E-Mail Removed))
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"(E-Mail Removed)">ttmri=
(E-Mail Removed)</A>&gt; (<B>GoogleTalk:</B> (E-Mail Removed))<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+g2ifYvrRAz zEewocQwCaAxVH
diCLYjTnxOLSAb0Q8NQ40rg=
=tXD+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-p8ff/ke3uywXAVGFdW1l--

 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
> From: Michael T. Richter [(E-Mail Removed)]=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




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Microsoft lessening commitment to IronPython and IronRuby Neil Hodgson Python 8 08-10-2010 04:29 PM
IronRuby...will it be like J++? Thufir Ruby 20 10-24-2007 10:22 PM
Anyone interested In IronRuby IronRuby Ruby 15 09-29-2007 03:26 AM
First look at IronRuby Daniel Lucraft Ruby 0 07-23-2007 03:21 PM
Microsoft announces IronRuby Tim Hunter Ruby 5 05-01-2007 05:58 PM



Advertisments