On 9 Mar 2006 at 13:34, Marcus Meissner wrote:

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 12:31:08PM +0100, Burkhard Carstens wrote:

...

Ahm, zmd.exe? ZenUpdater.exe? You are kidding, right? Are you going to tell me, I will have to accept mono and .exe on my next suse system for vital system functionality (e.g. online updates) or will there be an alternative way without the need of mono?

Yes, this is the plan.

(Note how I am saying how much I like it in above line.)

Reminds me of: General (to the AI computer): We are under attack; should we attack, or should we retreat? Computer: Yes General: Yes, WHAT? Computer: Ses, SIR! ;-) Ulrich

On Thursday, March 09, 2006 at 12:31:08, Burkhard Carstens wrote:

...

Ahm, zmd.exe? ZenUpdater.exe? You are kidding, right?

Wow. We must do a really good job if everything you have to complain about are file suffixes ;-)

Henne

Hey, exe is related to windows/virus in my mind. I dont like the .exe suffix neither. Maybe we could use .mon instead ;-). Azerion

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 02:36:34PM +0100, Burkhard Carstens wrote:

Am Donnerstag, 9. März 2006 14:02 schrieb Henne Vogelsang:

...

Hi,

On Thursday, March 09, 2006 at 12:31:08, Burkhard Carstens wrote:

...

Ahm, zmd.exe? ZenUpdater.exe? You are kidding, right?

Wow. We must do a really good job if everything you have to complain about are file suffixes ;-)

not sure .. currently, yast software installation is broken (again) because libblocxx.so.4 is gone ..

However, once, Borland decided to drop Kylix and went the .net way. That was the point, where I stopped buying Borland products. Now suse is going the .net way and guess what? I won't buy any suse product anymore ..

Like Azerion also stated, "exe is related to windows/virus in my mind" and, even worse, it's related to mici-schrott, so ..

Anyway, what's the point in using .net software? I must admit, that I don't know much about it, because when it popped up, it was called "microsoft.net" which convinced me that it couldn't be good ..

Its the "Use your own dogfood." slogan. Zenworks is part of Novells portfolio and not using it, or only having it as add-on product would look bad in the end. There are for sure integration issues, which we will hopefully address in time. The SL 10.1 distribution will use rpm-md+ repositories I have just heard, so smart (?) yum (?) will work fine too for updating 10.1. (This is not finalized yet.) Ciao, Marcus

It doesn't really matter if Novell uses the MS .net "initiative" for own software products in a mixed environment. However, if software updates and distribution for any kind of linux product will _depend_ on mono or any other linux implementation of .net, people like me (former MD of Gartner Group) will help kill Novell Linux in marketplace. And very efficiently, believe me.

But there is no need to get emotional here since Novell people are smart enough to exclude this risk, I am sure. ;-)

FMF

It doesn't really matter if people like FMF (former MD of Gartner Group) will help kill some Linux-distro's in marketplace. However, if he touches SUSE Linux or things that depends on it, people like me (Azerion, noob beta-tester that should not be doing that) will help kill FMF in real life. And very efficiently, believe me. Azerion :P

On Thursday 09 March 2006 7:57 am, Azerion wrote:

...

It doesn't really matter if Novell uses the MS .net "initiative" for own software products in a mixed environment. However, if software updates and distribution for any kind of linux product will _depend_ on mono or any other linux implementation of .net, people like me (former MD of Gartner Group) will help kill Novell Linux in marketplace. And very efficiently, believe me.

But there is no need to get emotional here since Novell people are smart enough to exclude this risk, I am sure. ;-)

FMF

It doesn't really matter if people like FMF (former MD of Gartner Group) will help kill some Linux-distro's in marketplace. However, if he touches SUSE Linux or things that depends on it, people like me (Azerion, noob beta-tester that should not be doing that) will help kill FMF in real life. And very efficiently, believe me.

Azerion

Nothing in the software world deserves a death threat. No matter what happens with SUSE Linux, no one's life needs to be threatened for any reason whatsoever. Stan

Nothing in the software world deserves a death threat. No matter what happens with SUSE Linux, no one's life needs to be threatened for any reason whatsoever.

Stan

But sometimes a joke can make people smile. Maybe you should compare both posts ;-) Azerion

Am Donnerstag, 9. März 2006 14:50 schrieb Frank-Michael Fischer:

...

Its the "Use your own dogfood." slogan.

Zenworks is part of Novells portfolio and not using it, or only having it as add-on product would look bad in the end.

There are for sure integration issues, which we will hopefully address in time.

The SL 10.1 distribution will use rpm-md+ repositories I have just heard, so smart (?) yum (?) will work fine too for updating 10.1. (This is not finalized yet.)

Ciao, Marcus

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory-help@opensuse.org

It doesn't really matter if Novell uses the MS .net "initiative" for own software products in a mixed environment. This is a point I do not understand nighter...

Is there any company, who needs this Zenwhatever integration besides Novell themself?? With other words: all the work you are putting in the package manager now, is it for Novell internal IT only, or will _really_ profit other companies, too? -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Marcel Hilzinger

Pascal Bleser wrote:

Wow, you've just totally disqualified yourself, both by threatening and even more by stating you've been working for that bunch of completely technically unsavvy people who are driving the IT market nuts by making utterly stupid and unfunded statements that most IT managers run after (and pay a lot of $$$ for). Mate, you're part of the hype curve.

But as you said, let's not get emotional.

cheers

I like to stress _former_ MD, since I share a bit (not all) of your concerns. And in your favor I am assuming you believe that architectural decisions can make or not make a product successful (as much as proper marketing can do). FMF

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 04:22:52PM -0300, Cristian Rodriguez wrote:

2. DOESN'T CRASH (like all GNOME stuff I tried)

You sure you don't have bad hardware, because I yet have to see Gnome stuff crash. And when you then say that ALL gnome stuff crashed with you, I would asume there is something else going on. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 06:50:58PM -0300, Cristian Rodriguez wrote:

houghi wrote:

...

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 04:22:52PM -0300, Cristian Rodriguez wrote:

...

2. DOESN'T CRASH (like all GNOME stuff I tried)

You sure you don't have bad hardware, because I yet have to see Gnome stuff crash. And when you then say that ALL gnome stuff crashed with you, I would asume there is something else going on.

MY hadrwaee is ok, and works with KDE .

Then it is extremely strange that everything Gnome related crashes. For me that it works with KDE does not mean that the hardware is OK. Just blaming Gnome for this without any investigation looks more like an emotional then a rational conclusion. e.g. I have seen broken memory that worked perfectly with Windows and Linux crashed. To draw the conclusion that the fault was with Linux was a wrong one. So again if everything Gnome related crashes, I would really think there is something terribly different wrong. If it were a Gnome issue, I am sure I would have the same problem. Could you be perhaps be more specifc, so I (and others) can see if they have the same issues and we can solve the problems. I run neither KDE nor Gnome so from me there won't be a pollitical statement, yet I would like to solve it for the benefit of others. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau

KDE! GNOME! KDE! GNOME! Please start another mailing then I can simply deny it in Kmail. Thank you. Azerion

Ulrich Windl wrote:

Is there some guarantee that Zenworks is free from patent claims (from Novell)?

The issue here is not just patent claims, the whole license situation around ZENworks is a bit foggy, since it comes NOT under a GPL but under an LGPL license. Which is legally questionable, LPGL explicitly is only applicable for libraries and derived (depending) software. Now have a look at yast sw_single and you will realize that in former SUSEs you will see a section "Depencies". This section is gone now (why???), so you have to dig in (rpm -R) in order to find out what libraries ZENworks depends on (on mono and others) From LGPL text now: "You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License." So where's the _prominent_ notice in ZENworks components? Therefore one could argue ZENworks is not derived from mono libraries, just because of the missing prominent notice. As devil's advocate I claim now: ZENworks LGPL license is void for the reasons I just lined out (and a few more). So what license does ZENworks run under? if any? Anybody proving I am wrong is very welcome :-) In lesser legalese: Why don't mono and ZENworks come with GPL license? What's the reason? FMF

I'm a bit put off by this for another reason; for such a significant change, I would have thought the openSUSE community would have been asked for input on the matter, which I did not see.

Joseph M. Gaffney aka CuCullin

We have allready two points off that matter in the mailinglists: - no binaries in the kernel (just announced, not explained) - package-management change :( Azerion

On Friday 10 March 2006 14:18, Robert Schiele wrote:

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 01:45:30PM -0500, Joseph M. Gaffney wrote:

...

So nothing yet from Novell or the developers?

Why should the developers say anything here about that? The whole discussion was completely emotional with no technical reasons. Thus you just addressed the wrong people and should try to talk to the marketing department instead.

My comments (and others) have gone a bit further than that, though I honestly don't remember if that were here or somewhere else (alot of forum postings over the past day or so). To sum it up, concerns are related to: Increased CPU/Memory usage from implementing a managed application as a core SUSE application for package and system management, possible legal ramifications, the reason for basing such a system on a set of "standards" that are controlled by another organization known to implement its own variations on a whim, the current state of Mono support and stability by comparison to other distros, the possibility for multiple required snapshots (a la wine or cedega as examples), and concerns over a lack of involvement from the openSUSE community. Some of that is for marketing, some of that is for management, and some of that is for developers. Not sure if I missed anything.

...

I believe alot of people here have expressed serious concerns with the use of a .Net based application as a core component, and I have yet to see any official response on this.

Well, whether your concerns were serious is quite questionable. Your main argument was that you associate .Net/Mono with Microsoft and that you do not like Microsoft. I don't like corporate policy of Microsoft either but competing with a company does not mean running through the world with blinders, ignoring this company's products.

No, that wasn't the reason. My concern is over duplicating the efforts. As I said (I'm pretty sure in forums on this one, so noone here would have seen it), innovation by duplication isn't innovation at all. I would much rather see a better system created, standardized, and implemented. I personally believe what ODT teaches us (yes full acceptance is a long way off, but I believe it will hold up and expand) is that an open standard with a thorough review process will result in a highly competitive product, beyond what can be offered in current commercial packages. A traditionally proprietary corporation implementing such standards seems highly unlikely, allowing the "alternative" (and I use quotes because its more than an alternative, its an improvement) to thrive. Without such a refined method, I don't believe the idea would have even come up in Massachusetts, and spread to other governments and organizations in the way it has so far. I also have no issue with implementing Mono and using it as a means by which Novell can take on the corporate desktop; .Net is a reasonable way to allow a company to comingle Linux and Windows. What I have issue with is using it, as mentioned, in such a required application. Nothing can be done is C# that couldn't be done in C++, and managed applications simple have a much larger footprint. To use a .Net application as an example, the Notepad implementation Microsoft offers as a sample, which doesn't even have the slightest bit of advanced features such as find and replace, uses a whopping 8MB of ram. Is this the kind of memory usage Linux users are going to see in the future? Considering the size of a system management application, when implementing large-scale changes and updates, is it possible that the 2GB limitation for a single thread could be reached (referenced to unpatched 2GB/2GB limitation on 32-bit systems with the linux kernel)? To what specifications will 10.1 capable systems need to be to pull off regular use of ZEN?

Note that I don't like programming (although I sometimes have to do it) in the Java language because it has some rather stupid design flaws in my opinion. But I don't run through town like a maniac crying that I will never use applications written in Java. As long as I do not have to maintain the software and it is doing his job I don't care when it is written in Java.

For technical reasons I avoid Java, in combination with the philosophical ones. As long as another option is available, I will avoid java at all costs, much like I do GNOME (I'm just a KDE guy - this is just simple preference).

Apart from that you are always free to port the functionality that is currently implemented to run on the Mono engine to your favourite language.

Robert

My concern isn't that I couldn't port it or replace it by another means, my concern is what this means for the future of the SUSE Linux platform. Will (and this is a prediction based on my experience with managed environments such as .Net) memory and CPU hogs become more prevalent, and integrated with the core that makes SUSE Linux the SUSE Linux distribution? Will the end users be required to make significant upgrades to their hardware to be able to perform an initial installation on slightly older hardware? There seem to be quite a few concerns (and I'm not the only one) as to the use of .Net based apps, but no apparent or offered benefits. This is what I would like some clarification on. Joseph M. Gaffney aka CuCullin

On Friday 10 March 2006 17:34, Pascal Bleser wrote:

[keeping the thread, but changing the subject to a more descriptive one]

Joseph M. Gaffney wrote:

...

On Friday 10 March 2006 14:18, Robert Schiele wrote:

...

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 01:45:30PM -0500, Joseph M. Gaffney wrote:

...

So nothing yet from Novell or the developers?

Why should the developers say anything here about that? The whole discussion was completely emotional with no technical reasons. Thus you just addressed the wrong people and should try to talk to the marketing department instead.

My comments (and others) have gone a bit further than that, though I honestly don't remember if that were here or somewhere else (alot of forum postings over the past day or so). To sum it up, concerns are related to:

Let me split those up in single points and address each of them.

...

- Increased CPU/Memory usage from implementing a managed application as a core SUSE application for package and system management,

Why increased CPU/memory usage ? (read further on, I think your reason for believing this is clarified there)

...

- possible legal ramifications,

Yes, that is not totally clear to me either. While our former Gartner friend on this list has stated that the LGPL is void or something, I don't see any reason it would be. It is LGPL, period. And I assume it is LGPL instead of GPL beause it also ships libraries. The LGPL just gives the option of using those libraries as part of a proprietary (or rather, non GPL) application, but otherwise the copyleft conditions of the GPL remain within the libraries.

Now, as of the state of Mono, ECMA standard, patents and microsoft. Miguel [de Icaza] has been stating again and again and again that there is no legal problem with Mono wrt microsoft and the ECMA standards associated with C# or the .NET runtime. Personally, I'm really not convinced ... not at all, as being an ECMA standard does *not* void any patent claims, infringement trials and similar. IANAL but personally, I always had the feeling that Miguel was stating the opposite almost ad nauseum but never really explained why. Might just be me though.

On the other hand, I assume that the Novell legal dept has checked back with this, as we all know Novell really isn't a friend of microsoft (and that if patent claims or infringement trails are possible, they will happen sooner or later).

My concerns are regarding the ECMA standards, as you mentioned, this does not void any patent claims, etc, etc. Regarding any kind of combination of licensing creates an issue, etc etc, I have no idea. My question lies in the above.

...

- the reason for basing such a system on a set of "standards" that are controlled by another organization known to implement its own variations on a whim,

While I strongly agree with the 2nd part of that (we all know that microsoft and standards makes 2), I really don't see that issue at all in this case. Mono is the platform, not .NET As I wrote in an earlier post, just forget that Mono is a .NET spec implementation. C# is a modern OO programming language, Mono is an opensource runtime, that's it, and that's fine with me.

Ehh.... I don't know that I can really consider that to be the case. Mono is, and was intended to be, a cross-platform implementation of .Net. To quote the home page: "Mono provides the necessary software to develop and run .NET client and server paplications on Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X, Windows, and Unix." .Net *is* the platform. Mono is the means.

...

- the current state of Mono support and stability by comparison to other distros,

I guess you picked up my argument about this. Well, at least, having Mono as a strong requirement for Zen and Yast2's package management module will imply having a very up-to-date Mono platform shipped as part of the distribution. I see that as a benefit ;)

*nod* Though a point of note is that varying implementations have caused varying dependencies of specific versions of Mono, as mentioned elsewhere.

When I wrote my gripes about Mono not being a stabilized platform in terms of API (I'm really speaking of platform and language features, not of bugs or crashes), I don't really see that as an issue in this particular case: Yast2 requires the Zen engine that requires a certain Mono version. That one has to be supplied with SUSE Linux >= 10.1. Period. No issue here.

Yes, that is the requirement at the moment; however, with rapid development, there are rapid release cycles, and the possibility of varying versioned dependencies. Will all versioning be kept in sync? Seems like quite a task at the moment.

...

- the possibility for multiple required snapshots (a la wine or cedega as examples),

Sorry, I absolutely don't see what you're relating to. Zen is developed against a certain feature-set of the Mono runtime. That version (or higher) of the Mono runtime has to be shipped as part of SUSE Linux 10.1. That's it.

See above...

...

- and concerns over a lack of involvement from the openSUSE community.

We're working in a "benevolent dictatorship" model here.

This deserves a thread of its own that would certainly be filled with emails for weeks, but I'd really like to make some points (that only reflect my very humble opinion, I don't mean to speak for anyone else). I'm no Novell fanboy, actually I don't care much about Novell itself, but I do care about the SUSE staff and that great distribution we all love to use (and, of course, I care even more about the community that's around it).

I understand and agree the model which SUSE is currently under. My point is, and remains, that this is an extremely significant change. While the advantage exists for using Mono on the corporate desktop, I do not believe there to be any advantage on the regular Linux user's desktop. In fact, for reasons mentioned throughout this response, I believe there to be significant disadvantages. I believe Novell would have done well to ask the input of the community in this regard, primarily to find where Mono and specifically .Net can fit in, and whether or not this is a "feature" any of the SUSE user community would really be interested in.

...

...

...

I believe alot of people here have expressed serious concerns with the use of a .Net based application as a core component, and I have yet to see any official response on this.

Well, whether your concerns were serious is quite questionable. Your main argument was that you associate .Net/Mono with Microsoft and that you do not like Microsoft. I don't like corporate policy of Microsoft either but competing with a company does not mean running through the world with blinders, ignoring this company's products.

No, that wasn't the reason. My concern is over duplicating the efforts. As I said (I'm pretty sure in forums on this one, so noone here would have seen it), innovation by duplication isn't innovation at all. I would much rather see a better system created, standardized, and implemented. I personally

Yet another language ? Yet another platform ? Oh please, that's the least thing we need.

My comment wasn't in terms of a "yet-another-XX" situation, but using what is valid and open and available now. My concerns remain over the standards control of .Net. Java, imho (while being seriously lacking, as I mentioned I don't like any of these types of languages) would be a better choice. I don't remember where I saw it, so perhaps someone else can put a link to the article or blog (whatever it was), but a VP (or some such) at Sun recently commented that he is in charge of open-sourcing *all* of the software from Sun, in what seems to me to be an effort to involve the community, focus on hardware, and profit by supporting those who would purchase the hardware.

...

believe what ODT teaches us (yes full acceptance is a long way off, but I believe it will hold up and expand) is that an open standard with a thorough review process will result in a highly competitive product, beyond what can be offered in current commercial packages. A traditionally proprietary corporation implementing such standards seems highly unlikely, allowing the "alternative" (and I use quotes because its more than an alternative, its an improvement) to thrive. Without such a refined method, I don't believe the idea would have even come up in Massachusetts, and spread to other governments and organizations in the way it has so far.

Mono is Mono, period. Forget that .NET thing.

Read comments earlier.

...

I also have no issue with implementing Mono and using it as a means by which Novell can take on the corporate desktop; .Net is a reasonable way to allow a company to comingle Linux and Windows. What I have issue with is using it,

Well it's also just a modern programming language with a good runtime engine. While I very much prefer Java, both as a language and as a runtime, Mono isn't all that bad. Managed environments such as Java and Mono have a lot of advantages over "traditional" environments and it's definitely where the IT industry is heading to since a few years, especially with Java (that has been around for a lot longer than .NET and Mono).

Advantage being cross-platform capabilities, which is typically of no general interest to a Linux user, as mentioned earlier. The typical advantage to a Linux user is performance and stability - I don't see either as existing for Mono.

...

as mentioned, in such a required application. Nothing can be done is C# that couldn't be done in C++, and managed applications simple have a much larger footprint. To use a .Net application as an example, the Notepad

What makes you say they have a larger footprint ? You know that in many cases, a Java application is faster than one implemented in C or C++ ? (I'm not talking about Swing GUI applications, them being slow has very different reasons, the JVM itself is extremely fast)

The tradeoff exists - I won't sit here and argue this point, but I thinks its quite obvious that the increased portability is at the expense of cpu and memory.

...

implementation Microsoft offers as a sample, which doesn't even have the slightest bit of advanced features such as find and replace, uses a whopping 8MB of ram. Is this the kind of memory usage Linux users are going to see in

Awww.. please.. don't pick microsoft's notepad.NET as a proof for managed applications and environments being not as performant as statically compiled ones.

Statically compiled... ahh... much like you can do with Java? Well, I'd like to ask then, what is the advantage of a statically compiled binary of a C# application versus a C++ application? If you're going to have a compiled binary, whats the point in even using C# or Java? I'm sorry, but that point (brought up by many Java supporters in response to other comments of mine elsewhere) has always seemed kind of ridiculous.

...

the future? Considering the size of a system management application, when implementing large-scale changes and updates, is it possible that the 2GB limitation for a single thread could be reached (referenced to unpatched 2GB/2GB limitation on 32-bit systems with the linux kernel)? To what specifications will 10.1 capable systems need to be to pull off regular use of ZEN?

I'm sorry but that point is bullshit, from a technical point of view.

What is, the question about memory limitations being reached? Yes and no. My overall question is, what is the increase in hardware requirements, and is the focus of this as accepting to major hardware upgrades as will be required by Vista. I say this because currently no system on the market will be able to really use Vista, and Vista takes .Net to the fullest implementation as of yet (something MS has been pushing for years, and I've failed to see its usefulness still).

...

...

Note that I don't like programming (although I sometimes have to do it) in the Java language because it has some rather stupid design flaws in my opinion. But I don't run through town like a maniac crying that I will

must... resist... :) (no let's not start a programming language flamewar ;))

You said that, not me :P

...

...

never use applications written in Java. As long as I do not have to maintain the software and it is doing his job I don't care when it is written in Java.

Yep, that was exactly my point in my previous mail.

Again, you said this, not me :P You're quoting yourself here :)

...

My concern isn't that I couldn't port it or replace it by another means, my concern is what this means for the future of the SUSE Linux platform. Will (and this is a prediction based on my experience with managed environments such as .Net) memory and CPU hogs become more prevalent, and integrated with the core that makes SUSE Linux the SUSE Linux distribution? Will the end users be required to make significant upgrades to their hardware to be able to perform an initial installation on slightly older hardware?

Let me express some doubts about your experience with managed environments.

...

There seem to be quite a few concerns (and I'm not the only one) as to the use of .Net based apps, but no apparent or offered benefits. This is what I would like some clarification on.

I know it isn't your intention but my FUD-o-meter is almost red.

No, really, I see *no* advantage to a SUSE user.

Isn't it possible to discuss about this "issue" in a manner that would not threaten, that would not sound like "SUSE is dead", etc... ?

I didn't realize it sounded that way. I see it more as sounding like "SUSE will cost significantly more hardware to implement over prior versions". I do see that as a problem, though many (other than myself) consider that acceptable. I see it as unnecessary bloat.

If every single time a decision is taken that doesn't make everyone happy we end up into threads like these...

I would consider this a bit more significant than just a simple decision - this is a core requirement that will be in every installation of SUSE, not choosing a blue theme over a green theme by default or some such.

cheers

Joseph M. Gaffney aka CuCullin

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 01:45:30PM -0500, Joseph M. Gaffney wrote:

So nothing yet from Novell or the developers?

I believe alot of people here have expressed serious concerns with the use of a .Net based application as a core component, and I have yet to see any official response on this.

A thread is ongoing on suseforums.net containing further concerns, and I've contacted Vir@s to post on suselinuxsupport.de as well.

I'm a bit put off by this for another reason; for such a significant change, I would have thought the openSUSE community would have been asked for input on the matter, which I did not see.

See my email address? Am I Novell enough for you? ZMD was written with Linux in mind using C#, there is nothing in it requiring Microsoft specific extensions. Also it is running on a free reimplementation. I can understand your concerns regarding bloatetness (if any) and new default running daemon, but I do not understand your concerns regarding a simple name string like ".exe". Ciao, Marcus

Am Monday 13 March 2006 16:24 schrieb houghi:

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 11:39:07AM +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:

...

See my email address? Am I Novell enough for you?

What? No mail from Jack L. Messman? Is he not at least lurking here?

<snip>

...

I can understand your concerns regarding bloatetness (if any) and new default running daemon, but I do not understand your concerns regarding a simple name string like ".exe".

We here know that a program can have any name, like `program.exe` or `program.sh` or just `program`.

Naming it `program.exe` is a bit confusing for the user, to say the least. I will try explain how I think about it without any emotional thoughts behind it.

There is no technical reason to give it another name when it already is called `program.exe`. The program can be executed. However people who will see the program will automatically think that this program is made to run under a dos-based system and will either try it out or test it first.

Imagine that you would call it `program.txt`. That woould have the same technical limits, yet it would also be confusing as to what the file is capable of doing and not doing.

extentions in Linux are there mostly for the convinience of the user. If you take that convinience away, you have taken away the purpose of the extention under Linux.

In the past I have downloaded files that are named *.exe and deleted them just to realize that it was indeed the correct file with a non-standard name. So please if it is a program running under Linux, ditch the *.exe.

The same would also apply for python or bash scripts for example, which also run as python $somepath/program.py . No one complained here so far. .exe is only the logical consequence when you run apps which comes from a windows enviroment and there is .exe the right suffix. -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany email: adrian@suse.de

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 04:29:05PM +0100, Adrian Schröter wrote:

The same would also apply for python or bash scripts for example, which also run as python $somepath/program.py . No one complained here so far. .exe is only the logical consequence when you run apps which comes from a windows enviroment and there is .exe the right suffix.

No, it is not the right suffix. It is not importand where it came from. It is importand what it is doing now and wether it follow Linux logic. If I see program.py I know it will run with Linux once I have python installed. If I see program.exe, I know that it does NOT run with Linux. Again, the extention is there for the benefit of the user. *.exe confuses people and will make them take the wrong action, like not running the program or deleting the program. For Linux no suffix is the right suffix. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 05:03:59PM +0100, houghi wrote:

If I see program.py I know it will run with Linux once I have python installed. If I see program.exe, I know that it does NOT run with Linux.

Nonsense. It suggests that it might be a PE file which it actually _is_ and that you can run it once you have Mono installed.

Again, the extention is there for the benefit of the user. *.exe confuses people and will make them take the wrong action, like not running the program or deleting the program.

People don't need to run this program manually anyway and if they start deleting files they don't understand, they are lost anyway.

For Linux no suffix is the right suffix.

For Linux an additional file permission should be invented: Stooge-Hidden. You set this permission on every file that average user does not understand. The flag does hide the file from the average user, because otherwise average user will cry at you for multiple weeks if they see the file, which might start to become pretty annoying. Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

On Monday 13 March 2006 11:52, houghi wrote:

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 05:27:44PM +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:

...

For Linux an additional file permission should be invented: Stooge-Hidden. You set this permission on every file that average user does not understand. The flag does hide the file from the average user, because otherwise average user will cry at you for multiple weeks if they see the file, which might start to become pretty annoying.

Nice eletist speak. Don't listen to the average user, just do what the elite does and understand. Realy interesting approach.

houghi

+1. Pretty offensive, and imho, belittling the issue at hand. It does go against standard naming practices. Though perhaps I should just go edit my linux.ini and rc.bat? Joseph M. Gaffney aka CuCullin

On Monday 13 March 2006 13:53, Robert Schiele wrote:

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:23:11PM -0500, Joseph M. Gaffney wrote:

...

+1. Pretty offensive, and imho, belittling the issue at hand.

Seems otherwise people don't get it.

...

It does go against standard naming practices. Though perhaps I should just go

No, it does not. PE executable files are used to be named *.EXE although this is not a technical requirement but as long as this does not interfere with usage there is no need to change this practice. And actually it does not interfere with system usage because the user never has to call this binary manually.

It goes against standard posix naming practices. PE = portable across 32 and and 64 bit Windows, now extended via .Net, and brought to Linux via Mono. Yes, .exe is correct in a Windows environment. And .Net is a Microsoft product. Mono is a Linux implementation of .Net. This means we use the naming principles MS has deemed acceptable? Do we then abandon other accepted "standards" within the Linux community by extension of Microsoft technologies being used by Linux?

...

edit my linux.ini and rc.bat?

Exactly _that's_ the point. If some people see something they associate with Microsoft, they run cracy like a short-tempered bull. Either they learn to see the world in a more technical objective way or they are likely to earn more sarcastic comments like the one above.

Ah, so people getting short-tempered with something obviously MS related, and your comments are different.... how?

If your aim is to destroy anything related to Microsoft you have a _really_ long way to go, but if you waste your time whining about file name extensions then you will stumble already before doing the first step.

Robert

My problem isn't with the naming so much as with the back end supporting it, as commented elsewhere. Repeatedly. Joseph M. Gaffney aka CuCullin

On Monday 13 March 2006 15:22, Robert Schiele wrote:

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 02:21:09PM -0500, Joseph M. Gaffney wrote:

...

It goes against standard posix naming practices. PE = portable across 32 and

Could you point to the section of the POSIX standard that describes naming rules for binary files of runtime systems like Mono? In my copy of the standard I could not find it yet.

Robert

You're right, I spoke incorrectly. Bit busy at work and I blurted that out mistakenly. Instead, I'll revise my comment to 'man elf'. Joseph M. Gaffney aka CuCullin

On Monday 13 March 2006 16:00, Robert Schiele wrote:

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:34:22PM -0500, Joseph M. Gaffney wrote:

...

You're right, I spoke incorrectly. Bit busy at work and I blurted that out mistakenly.

Instead, I'll revise my comment to 'man elf'.

Then point me to the section of this manual page that says something about file naming.

And even if it did it would be completely irrelevant because we are talking about PE files not ELF.

And PE is used on 32 and 64 bit Windows. So what you're saying is, we're running a 32 or 64 bit Windows binary executable. Is that what is being said now? My point remains (from the other trail of this thread) that a windows binary (which a PE would be, btw) has no place on Linux, for more reasons than because I hate MS (which I do, quite admittedly).

And btw. all Java executables are named *.class and all YaST script files *.ycp --- do you want them to be renamed as well?

.class is interpreted by the java vm, and ycp is handled by yast - so they aren't exactly the same type of situation. Unless you're saying its interpreted. So is Zen a compiled binary, or is it still interpreted by Mono? If its a compiled binary, then I still don't get wtf Mono is needed for. If its being interpreted, wtf is interpreted code doing in a core application? Please excuse my laziness in not looking more closely at the files myself, I have a very hectic week, and my weekend (while spent out of the office) was all but useless as far as rest and hobbies go.

Robert

Joseph M. Gaffney aka CuCullin

On Monday 13 March 2006 17:10, Robert Schiele wrote:

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 04:11:53PM -0500, Joseph M. Gaffney wrote:

...

And PE is used on 32 and 64 bit Windows. So what you're saying is, we're

And on any implementation of the CLI specification like Mono.

Correct me if I'm wrong... but don't you mean CLR spec, which satisfies the CIL requirement?

...

running a 32 or 64 bit Windows binary executable. Is that what is being said now?

We are running CIL byte code within Mono.

So whats being done with Zen is JIT compilation, am I correct here? My understanding of C# is that it always runs natively, whether compiled as native code, or CLR bytecodes (as mentioned) w/ JIT compilation. This is the source of my worry regarding cpu/mem usage.

...

My point remains (from the other trail of this thread) that a windows binary (which a PE would be, btw) has no place on Linux, for more reasons than

PE is just an extension of the COFF file format. The COFF file format and many other of it's extension are used on various UNIX flavours and other operating systems.

Extension... yes. The three E's come to mind on this one. Anywho... Modern *nix's, such as Linux, Solaris, Irix, BSD's (well - except OSX), etc, as you know use ELF, because COFF was far too limited. PE... still limited. It lacks good versioning, can cause a decent amount of pain with conflicts, overly complicated by comparison to ELF, not as easy to extend as ELF, doesn't contain ELF goodies like prelinking, symbol versioning, storing binaries within a PE is not possible while it is with ELF, the PE EULA has some built in legal concerns, and ELF is very well specified across many architectures. I take odds with alot of what Mono has to offer us - not in terms of, as I said, what can be offered to the corporate desktop, but what it does to us as opposed to for us on a regular, home/hobby user Linux machine. It just doesn't sit well with me.

Although I consider ELF to be superior to PE I can't see why PE "has no place on Linux". Linux used a.out prior to ELF which is a plain stupid format compared to PE.

Yes, though thankfully not anymore :)

...

.class is interpreted by the java vm, and ycp is handled by yast - so they aren't exactly the same type of situation. Unless you're saying its interpreted.

Sure it is --- or compiled by a just-in-time compiler, depending on the implementation of the runtime system. Thus it is exactly the same situation with the only difference that CIL is a more advanced language than Java bytecode or the ycp script language.

...

So is Zen a compiled binary, or is it still interpreted by Mono? If its a compiled binary, then I still don't get wtf Mono is needed for. If its being interpreted, wtf is interpreted code doing in a core application?

Huh? Even before this change YaST was already using YCP. Now there is a more advanced language used as well.

Are you comparing perl to java? C'mon.... maybe at the CLI there could be some basically similar performance, but not in any more complex environment.

...

Please excuse my laziness in not looking more closely at the files myself, I have a very hectic week, and my weekend (while spent out of the office) was all but useless as far as rest and hobbies go.

It's ok if you have no time to inform yourself about the basics but then it might be useful to take this into account when giving comments on a topic.

I meant I didn't have time to hack away at the file itself. The overall issues with Mono/.Net remain, regardless of my screwing around and seeing precisely what makes Zen tick. Its also why I've asked developers to respond as to what advantages Mono will be offering in this new package manager, that couldn't be done the same, and faster, in C++ or some such. Which is why in certain areas, I've asked, as opposed to reviewing the problem I have with it.

Robert

Joseph M. Gaffney aka CuCullin

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 07:53:20PM +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:

Exactly _that's_ the point. If some people see something they associate with Microsoft, they run cracy like a short-tempered bull. Either they learn to see the world in a more technical objective way or they are likely to earn more sarcastic comments like the one above.

So if it is an end-user it is short-tempered bull. If it is a technical knowledgable person, then it is a sarcastic comment? Eletisch bullshit.

If your aim is to destroy anything related to Microsoft you have a _really_ long way to go, but if you waste your time whining about file name extensions then you will stumble already before doing the first step.

My aim is not to destroy anything M$ related. My aim is to have things clear to the end-user. Having an *.exe as a Linux program is not clear. I will sum up what you are writing: If I am an enduser and complain, I am wasting my time. If I am an enduser and not complain, nothing will change. What I read in this is eletisch behaviour. The fact that you use sarcasm towards the enduser looks as if you can not or want not discuss anything with these endusers. This in itself is eletsh behaviour and should not be done on an openSUSE mailinglist. I hope you understand what the 'open' stands for. houghi -- Nutze die Zeit. Sie ist das Kostbarste, was wir haben, denn es ist unwiederbringliche Lebenszeit. Leben ist aber mehr als Werk und Arbeit, und das Sein wichtiger als das Tun - Johannes Müller-Elmau

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:59:09AM +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote:

On 13 Mar 2006 at 16:29, Adrian Schröter wrote:

...

The same would also apply for python or bash scripts for example, which also run as python $somepath/program.py . No one complained here so far. .exe is only the logical consequence when you run apps which comes from a windows enviroment and there is .exe the right suffix.

Adrian,

maybe, but there's a temptation to run those using wine. You could the programs also (as someone pointed out already) "README", "icon.tif", "or "init.sql". I think: Eithewr use no extension or a useful one. Arguments like "have the same file name in Windows and UNIX simply sucks. (Occasionally I see files on UNIX

At least he _HAS_ an argument. You instead just say that you "think" how it should be. Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

Hi, On Thursday, March 09, 2006 at 14:39:38, Marcus Meissner wrote:

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 02:36:34PM +0100, Burkhard Carstens wrote:

...

Am Donnerstag, 9. März 2006 14:02 schrieb Henne Vogelsang:

...

On Thursday, March 09, 2006 at 12:31:08, Burkhard Carstens wrote:

...

Ahm, zmd.exe? ZenUpdater.exe? You are kidding, right?

Wow. We must do a really good job if everything you have to complain about are file suffixes ;-)

not sure .. currently, yast software installation is broken (again) because libblocxx.so.4 is gone ..

Hehe there you go. I knew it! We are not perfect. Damn! ;-)

...

However, once, Borland decided to drop Kylix and went the .net way. That was the point, where I stopped buying Borland products. Now suse is going the .net way and guess what? I won't buy any suse product anymore ..

Why would you do that? I understand you dont like .net. What makes you say that "suse is going the .net way"? Because one functionality of a gazillion functionalities in SUSE products is implemented in C#/mono? I for instance dont like java. Do i use OpenOffice? Sure i do. I dont like c++, do i use kopete? Yes i do. I dont like perl. Do i use ripit? I do.

...

Like Azerion also stated, "exe is related to windows/virus in my mind" and, even worse, it's related to mici-schrott, so ..

You must have better reasons to not like something. Otherwise its a rather dull statement that you hate microsoft. I like that from a emotional perspective. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. We against them. Youre my brother in arms. We will overthrow the big evil. But from a rational point of view its a poor argument to base technical decisions on.

...

Anyway, what's the point in using .net software? I must admit, that I don't know much about it, because when it popped up, it was called "microsoft.net" which convinced me that it couldn't be good ..

The points are layed out at mono-project.com. Do you have to agree with them? No! Do you have to like them? No! Do you have to support them? No! Do you have to accept that its there and that other people agree, like, support mono? Yes, im sorry, you have to. Its their choice :)

The SL 10.1 distribution will use rpm-md+ repositories I have just heard, so smart (?) yum (?) will work fine too for updating 10.1. (This is not finalized yet.)

Rudi will say something about it once he finds the time... Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, Core Services "Rules change. The Game remains the same." - Omar (The Wire)

...

...

not sure .. currently, yast software installation is broken (again) because libblocxx.so.4 is gone ..

Hehe there you go. I knew it! We are not perfect. Damn! ;-) :-)

...

...

However, once, Borland decided to drop Kylix and went the .net way. That was the point, where I stopped buying Borland products. Now suse is going the .net way and guess what? I won't buy any suse product anymore ..

Why would you do that? I understand you dont like .net. What makes you say that "suse is going the .net way"? Because one functionality of a gazillion functionalities in SUSE products is implemented in C#/mono?

Remebmer my initial question: "..have to accept mono and .exe on my next suse system for vital system functionality (e.g. online updates) .." It's not about any one function, it's about THE CORE. I mean, yast2 is the thing, that makes suse unique, isn't it? And if this baby depends on a microsoft-concepted framework ..

I for instance dont like java. Do i use OpenOffice? Sure i do. I dont like c++, do i use kopete? Yes i do. I dont like perl. Do i use ripit? I do. I also don't like java, that's why my OpenOffice always takes ages to start up .. but it works without having the java stuff installed, rigth? c++ -- did I mention that I am a pascal developer ;-)?

...

...

Like Azerion also stated, "exe is related to windows/virus in my mind" and, even worse, it's related to mici-schrott, so ..

You must have better reasons to not like something. Otherwise its a rather dull statement that you hate microsoft. I like that from a emotional perspective. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. We against them. Youre my brother in arms. We will overthrow the big evil.

hehe

But from a rational point of view its a poor argument to base technical decisions on.

Basically, you are right. BUT: Microsoft concepts have proofen to be somewhat shortsighted, so I decided not to waste my time with it.

...

...

Anyway, what's the point in using .net software? I must admit, that I don't know much about it, because when it popped up, it was called "microsoft.net" which convinced me that it couldn't be good ..

The points are layed out at mono-project.com. Do you have to agree with them? No! Do you have to like them? No! Do you have to support them? No! Do you have to accept that its there and that other people agree, like, support mono? Yes, im sorry, you have to. Its their choice :)

Yes, it's their choice, and I totally accept that, as long as noone forces me to use it .. I have been happy not to use beagle, it's my choice. But if I have to not use yast because of my choice not to have mono on my system, what would be the point in buying suse ?

...

The SL 10.1 distribution will use rpm-md+ repositories I have just heard, so smart (?) yum (?) will work fine too for updating 10.1. (This is not finalized yet.)

OK, this is some light in the dark ..

Rudi will say something about it once he finds the time... That would be nice. Thanks.

However, keep cool everybody! Nobody needs to be killed, and killing Suse, well, i guess Novell is able to do it without any help .. ;-) cu, Burkhard

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Joseph M. Gaffney wrote:

On Thursday 09 March 2006 09:02, Henne Vogelsang wrote:

...

On Thursday, March 09, 2006 at 14:39:38, Marcus Meissner wrote:

...

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 02:36:34PM +0100, Burkhard Carstens wrote:

...

Am Donnerstag, 9. März 2006 14:02 schrieb Henne Vogelsang:

...

On Thursday, March 09, 2006 at 12:31:08, Burkhard Carstens wrote:

...

Ahm, zmd.exe? ZenUpdater.exe? You are kidding, right?

Wow. We must do a really good job if everything you have to complain about are file suffixes ;-)

not sure .. currently, yast software installation is broken (again) because libblocxx.so.4 is gone .. Hehe there you go. I knew it! We are not perfect. Damn! ;-) However, once, Borland decided to drop Kylix and went the .net way. That was the point, where I stopped buying Borland products. Now suse is going the .net way and guess what? I won't buy any suse product anymore .. Why would you do that? I understand you dont like .net. What makes you say that "suse is going the .net way"? Because one functionality of a gazillion functionalities in SUSE products is implemented in C#/mono? Yes. Its not just one way either, I could see this becoming a trend. I'm not a fan of mono or .net, and not because of an NIH mentality. I don't like it for many reasons, but one of them is the lack of a qt-sharp (yes there *was* development on this outside the project, but it has been dropped). There are many other reasons listed further down, but I don't like gnome/gtk, and I would prefer to stay as far away from it as possible.

I do see this as a trend that is starting to happen. I love UNIX/Linux because it is UNIX/Linux. I hate the assosiation of extentions with being able to execute them. I do not think it is the NIH mentality. I think it is that Novell is becoming a MS wanta-be. I have always gone for Novell and UNIX/Linux because of the innovation and trends to be imaginative. MS does not invovate they beg, borrow, and destroy. The inovation is in gobling up companies/innovations and destroying them. I look at FOX Base, and other technologies. MS took what they wanted and destroyed the UNIX/Linux base. I love the freedom of choice that has always been with UNIX/Linux. I prefer the open development to closed. I really applauded Novell for is movement to Linux inside the company. I am just afraid that the innovation is going to become that of the MS mentality.

If this move is the beginning of a trend, in combination with the evolution/mono/gnome on the corp desktop general migration to a more gnome & .net focused distro, I will put slack or arch or some such on my systems in a heartbeat.

I can see a standard base but to force us to a mono/.net focus is wrong. It should be independent and a generic library easy to use in any of the desired formats. I am waiting to see if this will become more generic and not mono/gnome/what_ever based. To me that has been the main reason I have been with SUSE so long. This beta of the ZENUpdate and the reprocussions of this switch in what I am begining to feel as philosophy change concerns me. I want the distro based on Open Standards that are set and firm. If they change they change by standards changes. Not dependent on any one company. Like with ODF.

...

...

...

Like Azerion also stated, "exe is related to windows/virus in my mind" and, even worse, it's related to mici-schrott, so .. You must have better reasons to not like something. Otherwise its a rather dull statement that you hate microsoft. I like that from a emotional perspective. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. We against them. Youre my brother in arms. We will overthrow the big evil.

But from a rational point of view its a poor argument to base technical decisions on.

Not really. having an 'exe' goes against the very nature of linux, where any file can be executable, regardless of extension - it merely needs to be set as such.

+1

I find, in a similar way, the use of a .exe extension as the beginnings of a migration towards a more microsoft-style linux distro. If I wanted that, I'd use linspire. Note that I do not use linspire. Anywhere.

Exactly.

...

...

...

Anyway, what's the point in using .net software? I must admit, that I don't know much about it, because when it popped up, it was called "microsoft.net" which convinced me that it couldn't be good .. The points are layed out at mono-project.com. Do you have to agree with them? No! Do you have to like them? No! Do you have to support them? No! Do you have to accept that its there and that other people agree, like, support mono? Yes, im sorry, you have to. Its their choice :) Accept it? Sure. However, its kind of offensive to me to be using .net, for patent issues, among being an MS controlled environment. For example, what would happen if MS decides to go after mono? What if later .Net implementations break usage on non-MS OS's?

Anything you can code for .net can be done in C++. C++ is a portable, standardized, and known format - .net can change without anyone's consent.

We need to stop copying complete garbage from MS, and do original items that are better. I'm getting sick of this "it worked for them, lets do the same!" mentality. Linux isn't thriving because it copies functionality, it thrives because of innovative *new* ideas. So ffs, we need to stop copying MS just because MS did it.

+2 Let Novell/SUSE be great for inovation and imagination not following MS... Thanks for reading my rant. This is a very charged topic for me! -- Boyd Gerber ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047