IronRuby

ruby-talk
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/.

2

From: list-bounce@example.com [mailto:list-bounce@example.com] On
Behalf Of Lloyd Linklater
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 5:15 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: IronRuby

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/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).

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.

···

-----Original Message-----

--
Phillip Gawlowski

3

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

···

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 12:15:19AM +0900, Lloyd Linklater wrote:

4

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.

···

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/\.

5

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..

···

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.

--
Greg Donald
Cyberfusion Consulting
http://cyberfusionconsulting.com/

6

Since I'm the guy that runs the IronRuby project at Microsoft. You can direct any and all questions directly to me. Just because it's written on the Internet doesn't mean that it's true :slight_smile:

We're building a Ruby implementation because there are lots of folks on our platform who want us to do exactly this. I built RubyCLR before coming to Microsoft, and it was after folks could see what was possible via a bridge that they wanted something more.

IronRuby integrates very well with the .NET platform, and is also a driving changes in the direction of the Dynamic Language Runtime which provides much of the runtime services used by the IronRuby compiler. We're also building several other languages on top of DLR, namely IronPython from my team as well as VBX and JSX from some Microsoft partner teams. There are external folks who are building a Lisp (http://www.codeplex.com/IronLisp\) implementation, a Smalltalk (http://vistasmalltalk.wordpress.com/\) implementation among others.

You really should judge my team based on our actions as opposed to random comments by folks with blogs / email readers. We're doing a lot of things which are unprecedented at Microsoft to push the envelope in our interactions with the open source community. Much of my leadership really gets this and we're bending over backwards to do the right thing.

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.

These things are a good indication of positive progress in the company. Sure, not everyone shares our worldview, but change rarely comes about by throwing rocks.

Thanks,
-John

···

-----Original Message-----
From: list-bounce@example.com [mailto:list-bounce@example.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd Linklater
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:15 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: IronRuby

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.

7

<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.

···

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

8

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?

···

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.

--
Michael T. Richter <ttmrichter@gmail.com> (GoogleTalk:
ttmrichter@gmail.com)
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)

9

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.

···

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?

--
Evan Klitzke <evan@yelp.com>

10

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/\.

11

Clueless about what? Making money? Running a business? Dominating entire
market segments? Being incredibly fast at playing catch-up in market
segments they did not innovate in (and they aren't very good at innovation,
so that's an important one)?

Those may not be goals important to you, but they are goals important to
Microsoft. And they most certainly excel at the skills necessary to achieve
those goals.

Felix

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Donald [mailto:greg@cyberfusionconsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:15 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: IronRuby

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

--
Greg Donald
Cyberfusion Consulting
http://cyberfusionconsulting.com/

12

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

Did I omit any?
Which of these are still being actively developed?

···

On Sep 12, 2007, at 1:19 PM, John Lam (CLR) wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: list-bounce@example.com [mailto:list-bounce@example.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd Linklater
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:15 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: IronRuby

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.

Since I'm the guy that runs the IronRuby project at Microsoft. You can direct any and all questions directly to me. Just because it's written on the Internet doesn't mean that it's true :slight_smile:

We're building a Ruby implementation because there are lots of folks on our platform who want us to do exactly this. I built RubyCLR before coming to Microsoft, and it was after folks could see what was possible via a bridge that they wanted something more.

IronRuby integrates very well with the .NET platform, and is also a driving changes in the direction of the Dynamic Language Runtime which provides much of the runtime services used by the IronRuby compiler. We're also building several other languages on top of DLR, namely IronPython from my team as well as VBX and JSX from some Microsoft partner teams. There are external folks who are building a Lisp (http://www.codeplex.com/IronLisp\) implementation, a Smalltalk (http://vistasmalltalk.wordpress.com/\) implementation among others.

You really should judge my team based on our actions as opposed to random comments by folks with blogs / email readers. We're doing a lot of things which are unprecedented at Microsoft to push the envelope in our interactions with the open source community. Much of my leadership really gets this and we're bending over backwards to do the right thing.

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.

These things are a good indication of positive progress in the company. Sure, not everyone shares our worldview, but change rarely comes about by throwing rocks.

Thanks,
-John

---
Mark Volkmann

13

From: Michael T. Richter [mailto:ttmrichter@gmail.com]
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
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.

···

--
Phillip Gawlowski

14

The folks who created IronPython are on my team as well. FWIW they were treated with skepticism at start but eventually earned the respect of the community. We're in the same boat - we need to earn your respect by doing the right things as well. And we fully expect the community to call us on our mistakes.

-John

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Klitzke [mailto:evan@yelp.com]
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).

15

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

16

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.

···

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.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your hammer, everything starts
to look like your thumb."

17

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 commit privileges to 2), but I don't really have cycles now to contribute to 2) and 3) :frowning:

-John

18

Clueless about what?

Clueless about how to participate in a productive way with open source.
Making one's own version of an open source project is not participating,
it's forking. Forking, except in a very few rare cases, hurts a project
more than it helps.

Making money? Running a business? Dominating entire
market segments? Being incredibly fast at playing catch-up in market
segments they did not innovate in (and they aren't very good at innovation,
so that's an important one)?

It's no disgrace to not be good at everything. Just because Ruby is
awesome and they didn't make it they feel the need to go and copy it?
Why can't they just send patches in to Matz and the Ruby dev guys like
other contributors? What's to be gained by making another version of
the same thing? Do they think there's a gob of would-be Ruby users out
there who would love to start up Ruby if it only came packaged from M$?

Those may not be goals important to you, but they are goals important to
Microsoft. And they most certainly excel at the skills necessary to achieve
those goals.

That's exactly my point in a nutshell. Their goals are very different
from most open source project goals so why are they trying to feign
active participation when anyone with a brain knows their intentions are
not genuinely friendly.

···

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Felix Windt wrote:

--
Greg Donald
Cyberfusion Consulting
http://cyberfusionconsulting.com/

19

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.)

···

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.

--
Michael T. Richter <ttmrichter@gmail.com> (GoogleTalk:
ttmrichter@gmail.com)
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)

20

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/.