Today I will be discussing standards.

Programming languages, historically, are implemented by lots of people in different ways. To give FORTRAN as an example, I can think of five major compilers on the market today off the top of my head (GFortran, Intel, Pathscale, Portland, and Absoft). The same situation applies with, say, C. FORTRAN and C both have so many implementations, because there is a “core” for all those implementations to work towards - the idea being that if you write any program “in FORTRAN”, you can compile it with any FORTRAN compiler that supports the same revision of the core specification that you used. The most popular in use today are FORTRAN 77 (an ANSI-ratified standard) and Fortran 90 (both ANSI and ISO). Write an app for Fortran 90, and compile it anywhere.

You still have a degree of freedom to “extend” those standards (hence apps which will only compile with a subset or single compiler), but those standards exist, unchanging, as potential targets for your code.

A similar situation exists with C: people commonly talk about “ANSI C”, meaning the ANSI C89 standard (ratified a year later as ISO/IEC 9899:1990, better known as C90). This was an attempt to standardise the C language, following on from the mess of mostly-compatible languages built around a textbook by a couple of guys at Bell Labs.

Again, using the C standards allow for code which is compatible between different compilers (GCC, Intel, Pathscale, Portland, Borland, Microsoft, and so on). And again, whilst there are a lot of possible extensions, those standards are still there (and, again, are immutable targets for you to aim at if you so wish).

So what is this getting towards? Well, these days, there is an ugly trend away from reliable published standards for languages, which is a cause for great confusion - and worse - single-vendor implementations. Imagine a popular language, let’s call it “Boa Constrictor”, which essentially only has one implementation, which is prone to change and breakage at any given time (forcing application authors to constantly worry about whether their apps will still work over time). Where the only “standard” is today’s vision of one supplier, making fully compatible competitors (which might be much faster or better in other ways) is largely impossible.

Bad, right?

Now, imagine if someone came forward and said “actually, this sucks, we believe in standards”. Imagine that! A real, immutable standard for multiple people to work on, and make compilers and libraries to be compatible with. That’d be good, right? And then, when a new version is developed, that standard appears too, as an immutable alternative - much like F77 and F90. Nothing but good news!

Except, apparently, it’s not. The old situation, the single-source language with no coherent version to lean on is the best option. Why? Because, shock horror, the evil Microsoft are the ones who published the standards. See, when Microsoft get involved, things like “immutable” suddenly mean “evil trap” - “ISO/IEC 23270:2003″ means “ever-changing moving target”.

But that’s a lie, from serial liars with an agenda. It has no basis in reality.

The reality is, if you write an application which targets the published CLI standards (ISO/IEC 23271:2003 or ISO/IEC 23271:2006 at your choice), using a published C# language standard (ISO/IEC 23270:2003 or ISO/IEC 23270:2006 at your choice), then it will run on any complete, functional implementation of those standards - be it Mono or Microsoft.NET or DotGNU portable.NET or Microsoft Rotor or something else. If you use extensions beyond the core specifciation, then you need to worry about whether those extensions can be used elsewhere, but at that point you simply need to select cross-platform extensions which, again, have immutable versions you can target (so design your GUI with GTK# and not System.Windows.Forms, for example).

So there’s some reasoning on why standards are an important thing in programming languages - and why the oft-cited “Mono is chasing a moving target” line is lies. Mono is chasing two targets. Firstly, the published, immutable, ratified international standards which were published by Microsoft. Secondly, the stars - Mono is aiming to implement everything sensible beyond those core standards, and even bring some of its own compelling technologies to the table.

If anyone tells you Mono is “chasing a moving target”, call them a liar, and print out a copy of the published ISO/ECMA standards for them to read.

However, there are a few things to consider. Firstly, patents are not global - and in the case of patents on software, which are what threatens products like GNU/Linux,  not neccessarily available everywhere. Generally speaking, a jingoist US-centric view is dangerous because the issue is so complex - US patent & copyright laws are not the world’s copyright & patent laws, and you can make a serious error in judgement if you don’t remember that (and what it may mean to companies who dabble in software patents).

Secondly, software patents these days are rarely (if ever) exercised by anyone other than patent trolls. Certainly inside the US, where the patent office doesn’t seem to believe in issues like verification, non-triviality, or prior art, patents are filed at an incredible rate on the most ridiculous things, then never used. Companies like IBM amass a veritable armada of patents around the world, but never deploy them - other than in a nuclear-style self-defending threat. Everyone knows software patents are a farce, and nobody with a huge patent portfolio would stand to gain anything from beginning a real shitstorm - again, much like nuclear warfare. Given how many “huge” software projects are ingrained into so many places, actual patent risk to those products would be devastating for EVERYONE. The bluster is more valuable than enforcement - other than to trolls (or in less fluffy terms, terrorists). And for the trolls, only the biggest, “easiest” targets with the highest chance of payout is worth the time.

So, What is ths leading on to? Well, it’s leading on to a very sophisticated piece of software called Mono. Mono is an implementation of two international standards submitted by popular patent whipping boy Microsoft (Eolas, Visto, Alcatel, Patent Hawk - everyone wants a piece of the world’s biggest software company). Standards are a good thing - Standards allow companies and individuals to all sing from the same hymn sheet, to all interoperate and cooperate, with the least amount of effort. Whilst web browsers might have bugs, at least the internet is built on enough standards that you CAN “just”access ay web site you feel like - anyone remember non-standards like AOL Keywords? Standards also grant an air of legitimacy to a project - saying “I made a programming language” is all well and good, but “I made an internationally standardised programming language” makes it sound like you’re serious.

And Mono is serious.  It makes a serious effort to embrace those published standards to increase the number of people who can take advantage of them (Microsoft implementations are available only for Windows, FreeBSD and MacOS X). Mono has embedded users, and it has desktop users - it not only embraces those original standards, but extends them in both directions - those extensions are not only for Mono, but flow back to users of Microsoft’s implementation as well. Mono is a shining example of exactly what these standards exist for, and what they allow. By leveraging Mono, which by the way is  Free Software like Linux (in fact the license used is even more Free), developers are able to (and have) produce high-class, high-quality applications for desktop, server, or handheld device in a fraction of the time that some of the alternatives would take, and gain true cross-platform capability essentially for free. Mono takes many of the same promises as Java, but unlike Java, builds on an actual standard (and unlike Java, there is more than one implementation of those standards which actually works properly). Due to a streamlined and modular design (inspired in no small way by Java’s mistakes), applications built on Mono can be a fraction of the size of the equivalent built on Java - as Mono applications can easily only require a limited subset of the whole, rather than pulling in an enormous monolith just for one app.

So, how did I get from patents to Mono? Well, here’s the rub - because Microsoft own some of the patents to their published standards, some people freak out. And when people freak out, they tend to lie. A lot. They lie and conceal and deceive and lie some more, and with enough work, it becomes impossible for most people to tell when the lie ends and when the truth begins. Microsoft haven’t helped matters at all, with their bluster about patents, and neither have Mono’s main corporate sponsors, who signed a patent cross-licensing deal for their GNU/Linux offering (which some use as evidence that Mono must be at risk from patent litigation). When things are less than crystal clear, most just ignore it - but when someone is deliberately stirring mud (or FUD, however you opt to spell it) into the mix, it can make those who aren’t equipped with knowledge of the entire situation rather… uncomfortable. They know all about patent trolls and how those trolls go around suing people, and they sure don’t want to get sued, so if an agent of chaos whispers into their ear “you know, Mono is covered by some patents too”, it only serves to alarm them. Related parties have pointed out with relative frequency that those licenses are available under a “royalty free, reasonable & non discriminatory” license, but free patent protection isn’t remotely good enough, is it?

(Picture licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 Brazil License, and by Eurico Zimbres FGEL/UERJ. Modifying photos with logos and horribly formatted text makes you a big man and proves your argument is correct)

The thing about the FUD brigade is how inconsistent their arguments are. Circular logic rules the day. Try visiting their web sites and you might get lost in circular links, too (never cite a reputable source when you can cite yourself!). Here’s the typical exchange:

<them> Mono is dangerous because it is covered by patents

<me> So are lots of Linux apps. Why is Mono special?

<them> They’re MICROSOFT patents!

<me> There are lots of Microsoft patents in things. Why is Mono special?

<them> It is inconvenient for me to acknowledge that those exist, so i will pretend they do not. However, Mono is special because it goes out of its way to emulate patented Microsoft software!

<me> Really? Don’t things like Wine do that too, without such bile-filled reaction? And unlike Wine, Mono implements a published standard

<them> The standards are a trap! They can charge you for patent license fees!

<me> True. But they’ve said they won’t. And that’s more than you’ll get out of most people who own patents which are, to all extents and purposes, violated in Free Software projects

<them> But if you start to rely on Mono, then Microsoft can disable you down the line when they suddenly sue!

<me> And that’s different from loads of other software in GNU/Linux how exactly? Smarter people than me or you have a “don’t worry about maybes” attitude.

<them> But Mono is dangerous because it is covered by patents!

And so on. Ad infinitum.  Mix in something about the patent cross-license deal (which explicitly did not admit to any specific patent violation) and you’ve got an average day in a Mono IRC channel. And thanks to the carefully orchestrated FUD campaign, people who simply don’t understand the issue parrot it (which is, of course, the idea).

Sometimes, shooting the messenger is appropriate. Nutcase Florida attorney Jack Thompson has done more harm to the “violent videogames are bad” movement than anyone else, through virtue of reducing his own argument ad absurdum. The anti-Mono crows have done the same thing for discussing important questions like the brokenness of the US patent system or monitoring the ethics behind the deal between Microsoft and Mono’s main sponsor. Much like Whacko Jacko, however, those who don’t know any better listen to ill-informed and one-sided diatribes as gospel, and doing so harms Free software as a whole.

So, since the FUD brigade won’t discuss it, I will. Microsoft claim to hold patents covering all of the following technologies - I challenge those who would single out Mono because of the Microsoft connection to discontinue use of any of the items on this list, for precisely the same reasons they claim Mono should not be used (threats of Microsoft patent enforcement). This is a reduced list - the full list is on microsoft.com:

• SOAP
• rlogin
• PAP
• COM+
• traceroute
• gopher
• IP over ATM
• ping
• Kerberos
• PPP
• POP3
• Appletalk
• DHCP
• SASL
• TLS
• LDAP
• PPPoA
• IPSEC
• IPv6
• PPPoE
• 6to4
• HTTP
• PPTP
• CIFS
• Firewire
• PXE
• TFTP
• IPv4
• telnet
• echo
• FTP
• SSL
• DNS
• SNMP
• LPD
• UPnP
• USB

Still here? Without any IPv6, IPv4, or HTTP? REALLY?

Mono is a Free Software implementation of an international standard making it easy to develop desktop and server applications which run without porting work on multiple operating systems. Nothing else today can claim that lofty title - and making it easy for developers to offer up high-class GNU/Linux software to Windows or Mac users is a great way to show them the power of Free software. It should be embraced, not derided.

Download x264 benchmark

And, lo and behold, mine’s busted. There are some horror stories concerning Xbox 360 returns, so I thought I’d document the process.

• Sunday, 2^nd September - Microsoft Support agree to take return of the console. It’s been freezing and showing red lights intermittently for a week or two. They promise to send me a return label in the post, estimated time of arrival: 3-5 days.
• Monday, 3^rd September - Return label arrives from UPS.
• Tuesday, 4^th September - Arrange for UPS to collect console from work. promised pick-up time: between 10am and 5pm. Later, the UPS driver rings to rearrange until Wednesday morning, due to the funfair that’s consumed the main route through Oxford.
• Wednesday, 5^th September - Package is picked up in the afternoon, tracking information available.
• Thursday, 6^th September - Console is shipped to Teleplan in Havant, Hampshire.
• Tuesday, 25^th September - Console is returned, along with a 1 month Xbox Live Gold subscription. It’s got the same serial number as the defective console, and the coversheet marks it as having undergone a motherboard replacement. Total time from pickup to redelivery: 14 working days

Download Cakemote for Linux

Download Bob the Robot here

Download Kickstart 0.37RC2 here

This seems as good a place to start as any.

For a while now, I’ve been producing a set of packages for the older “Long-Term Support” release of Ubuntu GNU/Linux. These include modern versions of the Mono framework, MonoDevelop development environment, Banshee media player, F-spot photo editor, and MythTV PVR application.

Since I already have a site about it, it’ll save me some time to point to it: here

David Cameron MP
Witney

Monday 11 September 2006
Jo Shields
41 The Springs
Witney
Oxon
OX28 4AJ

directhex@apebox.org

Dear David Cameron,

It seems the current government has been working hard to prevent impossible people (http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html) from doing impossible things (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/) though the exciting phenomenon known as Airport Security Theatre.

As a fairly frequent traveller, I have some suggestions for how the process could be improved, without in any way changing the effectiveness at preventing terrorist bombings:

• Airport Security Mime Art - Security personnel should be trained on the correct ways to mime "TATP", "Hydrogen Peroxide", "Acetone", and "Sulphuric Acid", and wear the traditional mime artist outfits, to delight and entertain passengers as they wait to have their bags searched for highly explosive baby milk.
• Airport Security Pantomime - Involve the long queues of disgruntled passengers with screaming children. Point at the man in the turban, and shout "He’s a terrorist!", to an enjoyable chorus of "Oh no he isn’t!" "Oh yes he is!". Fun for the whole family.
• Airport Security Show-tunes - I strongly feel that when dark-skinned travellers speaking in funny foreign languages are being evicted from their flights, that they would feel considerably happier if the airport personnel were singing happy songs from the latest Theatreland productions, such as “Everyone’s A Little Bit Racist” (http://www.avenueqthemusical.co.uk/homepage.php)

I hope that these proposals to raise the profile of the hard-working staff in Britain’s airports can be mentioned at the next meeting of parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Shields, concerned resident & jet-setter