Mono Project Releases Version 1.0 517
theblackdeer writes "Just poking around the go-mono.com Mono website; it's now the multi-colored mono-project.com. Even better, it updated before my eyes to include the 1.0 release. Screenshots are (slightly) updated, too. Mono 1.0 includes the Mono Develop IDE (based on SharpDevelop, I believe). Download now and start your GTK# engines!"
Alliante adds "You can download the Release Notes and the Packages on their website."
Licensing concerns abated (Score:5, Informative)
The Mono project has also sparked a lot of interest in developing C#-based components, libraries and frameworks
Yes it has. In our company's roadmap, we considered C# and Mono, but the controversial elements of their licensing (ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows Forms subsets) gave us pause until we researched it further. Most of it is covered under the ECMA/ISO and the other technologies developed on top of it.
Looks like the Mono strategy is to work around the patent issues by using a different technique that retains the API but changes the mechanism.
Re:Licensing concerns abated (Score:3, Interesting)
If this looks like nit-picking, consider the implications for porting a Dotnet app to Mono: if 80% of API coverage is achieved instead of 100% it could easily make the port uneconomic.
This is the problem with the Mono value proposition - it drops exponentially in relation to compatibility, and you don't have to drop far until you've brought the whole cloning strategy into question, the question being whether
beware... (Score:5, Funny)
forgive the interruption.
Re:beware... (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know about you, but every animal I find attractive in that way is indeed a primate.
How important is this for Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
A open source RAD evironment sounds like it could have a huge impact on the number of apps that could be rolled out.
Not so much for the enterprise market, but also for the 'shareware' class applications. Most of my Windows specific applications are programs that are from very small development houses or shareware products. (I love to support a small shareware author!) . I use open source when prudent, but I also love to use a nice simple tool that even if it costs $15-$20 bucks to a pay-pal account, is money well spent in my opinion. Maybe Linux will start to attract this development base with Mono.
Another question, I have a pro version of C# I picked up at staples last year. Anyone know how realistic is it for me to build an application in Windows using my copy of C# and compile it and run it on mono?
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
The other thing you can do is run Gtk# on Windows for your xplatform GUI.
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:2, Informative)
ah, the joys of playing catch-up (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm cheering for the Mono guys but I don't see how they can avoid being also-rans in the compatibility race.
whoops, meant to post as top-level comment (Score:2, Informative)
See "mono-preview" package you can use NOW (Score:2)
Re:ah, the joys of playing catch-up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ah, the joys of playing catch-up (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ah, the joys of playing catch-up (Score:3, Interesting)
If the community were smart, they would
Re:ah, the joys of playing catch-up (Score:3, Insightful)
Just hours of configuration changes, and admins that are coders?
Seriously, that isn't that much of a requirement. Anyone doing enterprise level roll-outs is going to be spending THAT much time, and that many SKILLED manhours doing the rollouts anyways.
For companies running custom apps, that they have the source to, or they desgined themselves, or that they have a good relationship with the supplier for, Mono represents a great way to move back and forth between
Yes, it some cases, it
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:2)
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:2)
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:2)
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
At no time did I say or even hint at 'support' meaning 'fix'.
Support for a Microsoft product for instance is often easy to get and exists at multiple levels. If you truly need Windows 2003 Server support at 3 am over the phone, you can get it... you just may be paying an arm and a leg for it. However if you are getting an error message which makes little sense to you, a quick search of the Knowledge Base can often resolve it.
Because of some problems I was having today with Linux and kDevelop, I decided to start a blog [blogspot.com] about my anger. If you read the initial post you'll see a bit about what my gripe is, but I'll say it again here.
In my experience... (note that I say 'my experience', lets not flame me for being too dumb to have a good experience or anything else along those lines), Linux an open source software have an awful support record.
Lately I've had a number of difficult Linux related questions which I could not find answers for. No matter how many Linux 'experts' I'd ask or message board posts or Google searches I'd do... answers were never forthcoming.
Traditionally when you pay for a product, the author of it is more dedicated to it and spends a fair amount of time on it... unlike many open source projects that begin as a hobby or other non professional project.
I have no doubt that there is plenty of good (F)OSS, but in my experience (yes, that term again), a lot of it fails when it comes to documentation and support if the problem does not fall into very narrow bounds.
Yes, there are plenty of "How-To" Linux books in the world, but no matter how many they are, they and all of the other "How-To's" and related documentation and tutorials in the world are worthless to me if they cannot solve my problem.
The moral of my story is "Money = Incentive to (Succeed|Expand)", coupled with "Incentive => Higher Quality", "Higher Quality => Money"
That is to say, paying for a product motivates the author to continue their good work and support the product and make it the best they can. In turn a higher quality has a better chance of having people be willing to pay for it.
In my experience (and only my experience), (F)OSS tends to lack heavily in terms of usability compared to commercial products. With an income related to a product, one can often get better input (often from skilled consultants) on layout and design to ensure the application is as easy to use as possible... thus increasing the potential for further profit!
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
I would like to congradulate the Mono developers on a job well done. Programming languages are finally becoming a little more senesible!
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
When the windows desktop market was the size of the current linux desktop market (not in terms of percentage, of course, but numbers) there was a huge market for shareware. Why doesn't that market exist for linux today?
One reason could be the technology, which you've addressed, but IMHO the main reason is the economics. A while back, in a newsforge article [newsforge.com] I analyzed the situation and suggested how to create such a market. I was quite taken aback by the feedback, which consisted mainly of semi-coherent rants saying "shareware is teh evil!!!" and "kill anyone who dares to suggest proprietary software for linux!!" and so on, despite the fact that what I proposed would have the side effect more open source software getting written.
The linux landscape is changing, its going mainstream, and there are a lot linux users who don't like that. I must humbly suggest to such people that you cannot do anything about it, and you should therefore either accept the reality or start moving to another system where you can feel more "l33t".
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Plus, you can bitch and moan all you want about it being the One True Gnu, and be right for a change.
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's politics, not economics.... and Shareware's only bite is in closed-source non-free software.
The shareware model has generally proven ineffective. It has the maintinence problems of closed source along with stunting growth of other software by leveraging the effect of "market dumping".
I'd like to see more creative models, like the one where the author sets a "freedom" price on the software and people contribute to having the source code released under an open license. I think people would feel better contributing cash to a project if they knew it wasn't going into a vacuous pool.
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
You call others narrowminded but I don't think you yourself understand the reasons people are afraid of the side-effects of Linux growth. Maybe you're just hearing a vocal minority.
I personally cannot stand to use Windows these days, for many reasons... but one of the biggest is the environment. Under Linux searching for help, files or other content is particularly easy: the signal to noise ratio is quite good. Under Windows, it's "Sign up to download, we sell your email, now you can wait in a queue to get your file, but here are some ads to keep you busy". Pop-ups, spam, misdirection, just junk in general.
The bottom line for this reasoning is that Linux it's just easier to find what you want (or at least a definitive 'It doesn't exit') in a shorter time. When the community starts growing, we'll see lots of wannabe applications attempting to sell themselves to you, registration keys and website registrations, hassles downloading files or getting help, etc. This is a Bad Thing.
That all said, I'm in favor of Linux's growth and I think most people are. There aren't many true Linux users who do it just to be "leet" and I think its pretty silly to suggest that. Most Linux hobbiests do it because they are in control, in one way or another -- application choices, configurations, power, etc.
Slapping a dogma on someone and calling them an idiot isn't helping anyone. I think the Linux community is ready to expand and wants to expand, it's just afraid of how severe the consequences might be when the 'unwashed masses' start using this stuff.
Cheers
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
But I didn't say that I'd prefer to stay the way we were, I said I'm all for Linux's growth. I'm just dreading the day that I have to start dealing with this stuff in the Linux environmen
Open Source Gaming... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this impacts open source game production because, frankly, it's hard to find a way to give the source to the community and still ensure some kind of revenue stream.
What I figured is, why can't someone release a game, GPL all the source code, but claim that the artwork and level data are copyrighted and, please, feel free to give your buddies a copy, but don't use the art/leveldata in a commercial release
I think that, while not nesseccarily in keeping with the free software ideology, it is in keeping with the open source philosophy (and yes, bare with me, i know that free is not cost free and open is not simply saying 'check out my code')
By providing my source code to whomever wants it, I make it easier for the next guy not to have to reinvent the wheel. But the specific game data (leveldata, game sprites) are what makes this game unique (if only at the surface level) and are useless to a programer who wants to use my code to write his own game.
Such a license would allow one to release a Shareware version of the game (akin to Doom or Commander Keen, where you get an episode, not some software that expires over time and does half of what you want) which allows for commercial distribution, and a full version which the author can sell.
Of course, maybe that makes the author a capatalistpropriatarypigbastard, but i'd like to hear feedback on the idea...
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, I cheer on anyone who encourages closed-source commercial development for Linux because food isn't free and people have to eat.
Now, before you rate this down, here's what I would recommend the Linux community seriously consider. There are a large contingent of commercial organizations who would port their Windows applications over to Linux in a heartbeat if there was a Windows-like registry for Linux with the sole purpose of accomodating commercial applications. This registry would have to be protected by the OS itself and require Linux users to generally agree to not touch it (read: crack it). I don't care how the registry is implemented, but organizations want the ability to enforce 30 day trials on systems. The lack of a centralized, secured repository of information really deters commercial interests from porting high-quality software from Windows to Linux. There's a lot of Linux software for Windows, but over 90% of it seriously lacks in an area called usability - Oh, I've heard of "great strides" being taken, but every once in a while (every 3-4 months) I'll randomly try a distro. - Fedora Core 2 being the latest since it looked pretty interesting, but the first screen I encountered after the unusable installation put the username and password entries on separate screens...this is what I mean by usability - ease-of-use, the command-line login is more usable than the new graphical login of Fedora. The result? I went back to Windows and I'll wait a few months and try another distro. or a ported application to see if usability has improved any. BTW, I'm one of those people who makes recommendations for software/hardware combinations. To win me over to Linux is going to take some serious effort in the area of usability - effort I have yet to see. (And I know my way around enough of Linux to be dangerous, so don't write me off as some idiot Windows user).
That said, I also want every company that ports to Linux to agree that if a product goes EOL (End Of Life), the source code to that product becomes Open Source under a compatible license. This, IMO, is fair and reasonable. See, I like to develop software first and once I've finished what I've worked on, then I receive input about it. However, until I am completely done working on the source code, I don't want anyone else to touch it, let alone see it. Just like an artist, I only want people to see the finished product, not some half-finished masterpiece. It is only fair to existing users of the software to see the source code if it is no longer being developed. As such, if I EOL a product in the product line, I'll either migrate existing users to another product or open the source code. One thing I won't do is leave them hanging without options.
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually Mono/GTK# is quite likely to quickly become more cross-platform than Java. There are plenty of platforms that are underserved by Sun's JVM (the BSDs, Linux on anything but x86, etc.). Because Mono is Free Software it is very likely to get ported to all sorts of niche platforms that Sun is never going to be interested in.
Re:How important is this for Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's mostly the matter of extra options and personal choice. For instance, coming from a C++ background there are several things that I feel are "missing" from Java (default arguments, enums, operator overloading, etc.) and thus I am partial to using C# that has most of what's missing. A good cross-platform
(My intent is not to start a Java flame war here; this is just my opinion.)
I never thought I'd be chanting this, But... (Score:4, Funny)
(at least I'm not back in college anymore, where they would've probably hauled me away in straight jacket for chanting that...)
Someone... (Score:2)
Anyone here use Muine, is it better than xmms?
Re:Someone... (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, I think it suffers from that all too common among Apple and Gnome base apps problem of "Its so intuitive it's annoying." I like an asthetically pleasing
.NET terrarium.. (Score:5, Informative)
installing to find out.
I have been playing in GTK getting sprites and such working, but would like to use this for more portability..
http://www.windowsforms.net/default.aspx?ta
Check it
Congratulations Mono team (Score:2, Interesting)
I now await the FUD machine.
CLR is good stuff... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think someone is working on a Ruby to IL compiler, but I failed to successfully Google it...
Java Ruby bridge (Score:3, Interesting)
Once they figured out the CLR is really meant to run C# apps and they would have to drop interesting Ruby features, they probably gave up.
BY "Supports other languages", the CLR really means "Supports migrating other language developers to C#".
Interesting paper (Score:4, Informative)
One interesting result is that precompiling
Also, the
I couldn't really find a complete Scheme for
Re:CLR is good stuff... (Score:3, Interesting)
But it seems that the dream of great language interop has not been reached even with .NET - look at the work Nat+Trow are doing with Beagle/Dashboard. Rather than use the .NET CLR tools to reuse the Lucene search engine (written in Java), they forked it and rewrote it in C# - why?!
I see this even more. Interop is great in
Why .NET and not Java? (Score:5, Interesting)
As has been pointed out ad tedium in various Java-related discussions on /. - Java's early reputation for poor performance may have been
justified in the 1.0 and 1.1 days, but modern Java VMs employ
sophisticated JIT compilers which gives it comparable performance to
natively compiled languages like C++, and easily matches .NET's CLR
performance. Java's bytecode and .NET's bytecode are not that different, the main differences are in the APIs.
Which brings us on to the second justification for .NET over Java, native GUIs, which is even weaker. Java-Gnome [sf.net] does the same thing as
Mono's GTK bindings, offering exactly the same GUI abilities, and SWT [mindprod.com] offers a truely
cross-platform GUI API with a native look and feel on each platform it
runs on.
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it's unfortunate, but at the time the mono project started, those statements were true and were good justification. However, as time progressed and java stabilized as a great programming language, different reasons for pressing the mono issue came to the forefront.
Like it or not, this is an MS dominated industry, and they'
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:2)
We have solutions in
With mono, all we have to do is slap the code on a linux box and we're good to go.
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:4, Informative)
There are other reasons, I do not claim these are all of the possibilities, but here are some more:
to be supported without hacks.
issue solved completely by the availability of it
on
ints will be a list of ints, and not syntactic sugar for a list of objects of Integer. Importan
for performance.
for the framework: its trivial to call back into the old code base, without using JNI of any kind.
(yes, that means that someone else can build something new now, and fix the
But feel free to use Java for doing Gnome applications, I have nothing against it, we are
only an equal opportunity platform provider. Let the big boys fight it over.
Miguel
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, this is the first time I've seen a post of yours that has some merit.
I've been coding in Java for more than 6 years now, and I guess I've just gotten really comfortable with the language. I've also been using linux for several years now. The last few years has seen good JVMs & IDEs available for linux, so I've kept developing with it.
Recently I've become involved in setting up K12LTSP networks. I started a project [sourceforge.net] that's windows companion CD of software the students will be using at school on linux.
I wrote the graphical installer in Java and it took me no time at all. Its XML based and exactly what I wanted.
One problem, I have to bundle a vm to make it autorun.
Your mono stuff looks like it can do this and totally open source. I'll have to get use to some new libraries and what not, but if this works out, I'd be really psyched about your project.
Anyway, keep up the good work, and congrats on 1.0 !
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:5, Insightful)
That still seems a little weak. Most of the things you are trying to solve are either vacuous, or simply problems that should be solved at the VM layer without causing the users any additional pain.
Multi-Language: Please, they're all the same language designed to look like other languages. Java has multi language support to (Jython). This is not a fundamental reason.
Value Types: Use escape analysis and a better GC. This is a hack so programmers can give hints to a stupid GC.
Generics: Where are the C# generics? The version we're using at work doesn't have them. Java Generics will arrive first, but be worse off in the beginnnig. C# will arrive later, and initially have a better implementation. Java should fix their implementation in a future revision of the VM and bytecode standard.
Bindings: Spin the wheel and see which function gets called today. Not much needs to be said here, but there's something to be said for the precision of the java bindings as opposed to the pattern matching of the C# bindings.
ECMA: And patented by Microsoft. Fact it, Microsoft will embrace and extend it, or threaten lawsuit to keep their monopoly. The ECMA won't do jack about that.
C# language: The only even marginally valid claim. However, the lack of checked exceptions and sub-standard stack traces are pretty nasty. I don't think C# is a step up in any meaningful way, unless of course you like writing crappy code and just can't bear to know which exceptions you should be worried about. If that's the case, VB6 will always be waiting.
I'm not saying that the C# people are stupid, or anything like that. But this whole endeavor seems to demonstrate a monumental lack of foresight. Why fragment the world even further rather than uniting behind a standard the Microsoft doesn't own?
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:5, Insightful)
The big difference is that
Where are the C# generics?
In Mono.
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:5, Informative)
I now have to use C# at work as our company has decided that this is what Microsoft's future is invested in. I've had a love-hate relationship with it, and my opinion of .NET is possibly clouded by my use of C#, rather than a criticism of .NET, but anyway:
- Multi-language support by design is a hack. It's not real. C++, for example is not C++ as I, as a C/C++ hack, know it. It's a thing that is something like, but not quite C++.
- structs as ValueTypes are a pain in the arse. They have the same syntactic semantics as classes but have no similarities. Because of this
- Generics are not yet a standard feature of of
.NET CLR. This is the reason given by Microsoft for not including generics as part of C#.
- EMCA standardisation is a joke if the libraries can be butchered. The language is the least of the problems when portability is concerned. The precise way in which the libraries work and interoperate is the big problem.
- .NET - as far as I can see - was simply a way of touting a "write once, run anywhere" platform, without actually proving the case. C# takes some things out of Java, and some out of C++, but never asks the question "why are these here". Operator overloads without templates, and without a good distinction between references are pointers spring to mind. (what does 'foo == bar' do?)
- Some prefer C#, but I can't see why...
Sorry Miguel. Mono is a worthy project, and I have it running on OS/X - it's impressive from that point. But asflibble foo = new flibble();
flibble bar = new flibble();
foo==bar"
means two completely different things depending upon whether flibble is a struct or a class. Which has given me endless problems with DateTime.
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? Structs are there to give you stack based storage outside of the GC so that if you are creating and destroying thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of variables the GC doesn't have to constantly collect. Even though gen zero collections are fast it's still an issue.
Generics exist in Java. They existed as open source projects and are now part of the language (see version 1.5). Ive heard this argument in the past:
You obviously don't understand the distinction he was making. Let me try harder for you. In Java generics generate the same old code as always and are really just a fancy way of letting you add type safety at compile time. In
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:4, Informative)
Um, anywhere that a method gets called continuously that has a large number small local variables (int, double, etc) that are used in calculations. My choices are to either pass in a re-usable object (which sucks when you have a method with 10+ local doubles) or to make the thing class level (if the method happens to be in the calling class) or to stash it in some static class that both of my classes now need to know how to interact with. Pretty much every option sucks, save defining the thing where you need it. Hell, if I was programming Java performance would have to suffer and I would not think twice about it (unless I *had* to) simply to avoid the maintenance headeaches of the alternatives.
Also note that structs can be created, manipulated, and destroyed with Java with JNI and CNI.
The entire point of using structs in
Java 1.5 has auto unboxing. Same thing
It's quite possible that my general ignorance about most things Java is showing. I'll dig into this and see how it compares to the (admitadly date) materials I have read.
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, in Python (the only interpreter I know under-the-hood), a simple int has to deal with refcounting, next and previous objects in the garbage collection chain, and a host of other issues because it is an obj
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:3, Interesting)
Most API's in both Java and
Which is not the point. These operations still take up memory in your address space that is managed by the garbage collector. And since a paint routine is not a usually a single line the chance that the GC could decide to collect in the middle exists.
For short lived objects where there is n
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:5, Insightful)
If these are the best justification for
There's a lot of reasons to go with
Which brings us on to the second justification
for
Java-GNOME is completely dead. Java on the desktop, except for Eclipse and SWT (no thanks to Sun) is completely dead. GTK#/Mono has a lot of momentum and Ximian/Novell throwing their weight behind it which is not to be underestimated. Guess which is more likely to have support two years from now, Java-GNOME or GTK#?
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:5, Interesting)
Smells like trolls 'round these parts.
Here are sourceforge's statistics on GTK#. [sourceforge.net]
Here are sourceforge's statistics on Java-Gnome. [sourceforge.net]
What criteria are you using to proclaim Java-Gnome dead? From the statistics on sourceforge, it seems that there is interest in the project and far more reports of bugs than for GTK#.
I agree that Sun hasn't been as cooperative as I'd like to see in terms of Java's relationship with the open source community. However, I think you are making some baseless assertions about the current and future relevence of projects supporting Java in the open source arena.
Also, I think it is laughable that the mono team claims "Java applications do not conform to the Linux GUI look and feel." Which look and feel is that, exactly? KDE? Gnome? FVWM? The majority of Linux apps that I use do not conform to any single look and feel. OpenOffice? Looks like Windows 95. Mozilla/Firefox (by default)? Completely different (though skinable). Sure, Mono, with GTK# looks like a Gnome app, but that really isn't going to help a KDE or FVWM user, is it?
Much of the anti-Java sentiment around slashdot seems to originate from rabid pro-open source ideology. I wish people would evaluate these technologies on their capabilities and applicability rather than whether the companies supporting them conform to their particular ideology.
Taft
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:5, Informative)
WRONG! SuSE does [www.suse.de].
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:3, Interesting)
And Sun's 1.4.2 also has:
Swing
Release 1.4.2 includes many bug fixes and these major enhancements:
* The Microsoft Windows XP look and feel. If you are using the system look and feel on the Windows XP platform, Swing components now match the platform.
* The GTK+ look and feel. You can now customize your look and feel to a particular theme.
Which means the look/feel argument for
-Charles
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.slackware.org/pb/?vers=slackware-9.1&s
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:2)
From what I can tell, neither does Mono since I use KDE. I doubt there is a believable case that >50% of Linux desktops use Gnome...
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why .NET and not Java? (Score:2)
http://www.intellij.com
Also Sun's Netbeans and Java Studio are quite good as well (Netbeans is free).
http://www.netbeans.org
Finally another great non-free IDE/Editor is Visual Slickedit. It runs on just about any platform that exists (including Linux).
http://www.slickedit.com
Netbeans, IntelliJ, JBuilder... (Score:2)
Another possibility is IntilliJ [jetbrains.com], which a lot of people seem to like a lot - especially if they do not like Eclipse. It does cost money.
Then there is also the Big Mac Daddy of IDE's, JBuilder [borland.com]. That can cost a lot if you want the advanced features, but I don't think it's much if you want
Not true... (Score:3, Interesting)
I know this because to run Java on FreeBSD you have to compile it from source, which you have to download from sun independantly and then patch.
But (Score:2, Insightful)
But C# hasn't exactly exploded on the Windows desktop yet either so I suppose it's premature.
Re:But (Score:2)
Windows users tend not to know though.
Try MonoDevelop (Score:5, Informative)
glade can fill the gap for now (Score:3, Informative)
Shifting ABI's (Score:4, Insightful)
Debate all you want (Score:5, Insightful)
I really think operating systems have become a comodity anyway. To me, linux, windows, and mac don't mean much but the software that runs on them. Sure, making different versions like mozilla does works now, but you can't expect companies like adobe to ever do the same. I think running things off the same compiled code is where software should be headed. This would make the argument of not being able to switch to linux because of lack of supported applications moot.
This is the first time I've ever thought of
Go Cross-Platform! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Go Cross-Platform! (Score:2)
The only reason I can see for
Re:Go Cross-Platform! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Go Cross-Platform! (Score:3, Informative)
Dashboard (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that my main OS is Windows (sorry), is there anything like this for it?
What does this mean for .net apps (Score:2)
I really was disappointed when I found out this uses .NET, because the most recent .NET framework doesn't install properly on Crossover Office yet.
Is there any way to get an app like this running on linux? I'd like to be able to archive my gmail account and have a local copy for those rare days when I don't have internet access.
Multi-coloured? (Score:2)
Congrats, mono is impressive (Score:5, Insightful)
Too many people will get hung up over the Microsoft angle and notions that mono is out to wipe out all other development toolkits. This is nonsense. What the mono team has done is upended a Microsoft strategy - that Windows is differentiated because of the .Net platform. Now we have a level playing field on top of all of the other inherent advantages of open source.
Bravo and thanks mono team.
Free as in 'Free from vendor lockin' (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a problem, Microsoft is not nice.
Microsoft can take it into a direction where MS holds patents & IP protection (if it doesn't already which is very unlikely). Mono will either have to follow and lock its user in, or go in a separate direction and abandon any pretensions at cloning MS
What I think they should do is embrace and extend the the
That way the MONO implementation of
Re:Free as in 'Free from vendor lockin' (Score:5, Insightful)
That's precisely what they've been doing all along. Until recently, they've just been very quiet about it...
You'll notice lately that Miguel's been talking about "API stacks" -- i.e. Gtk# et al versus Microsoft's SWF et al., both built on the safe substrate of the ECMA standard. They've been working on that stuff all along, but until recently not talking about it separately.
See also this post [slashdot.org].
I believe they're offering packages without any of the Microsoft-specific bits now (to make e.g. Debian happy). And yes, this stuff works on Windows.
I don't think Microsoft quite realizes what's hit them yet. Embrace and extend again, but this time it's Microsoft on the receiving end.
JOIN FORCES WITH PORTABLE.NET (Score:3, Insightful)
Mono:.NET == Apache:IIS == Firefox::IE (Score:5, Insightful)
The nifty thing about this is that Mono has the potential to be bigger and better than the .NET Framework, and we don't actually *need* .NET to make good use of Mono.
The way I see it, Mono could end up gaining more market share than Microsoft's implementation, and as long as we don't tie ourselves to the Windows-specific APIs, there's not a whole lot Microsoft could do about it!
PPC Support (Score:3, Interesting)
Runtime Distribution (Score:5, Interesting)
This Mono 1.0 release seems to be developer-oriented. Will they (or someone else) be creating smaller runtime packages which only include the stuff necessary to run applications?
It would be nice if there were an easy install package for Win32, too. This might seem pointless on the surface, but Microsoft.NET won't install on all Windows systems due to deliberate barriers, plus Microsoft's distribution does not come with GTk# and so forth.
I'm installing the full release on my main system, but it'd be nice to have a smaller runtime package that I can put on my other boxen to run any apps I create. Perhaps in a few hundred years Debian will have a runtime package which can be depended on by mono apps without having to pull in the whole development environment. (mono-runtime vs. mono-devel, both depending on mono-common)
(I see a page about the Mono runtime but it's talking about the runtime portion of the project rather than a specific runtime distribution.)
Mono vs JVM (Score:3, Insightful)
Java on the hand, goes out of its way to jump in your face at every opportunity. Java is completely unlike everything else on your system. Java spews its shit all around your system even when you install it from a package (what the hell entitles Java to a toplevel directory in
Then you've got your Ant build systems, Jar packages, and tons of other stuff completely alien to Linux. The few Mono apps I've compiled have been the standard "./configure, make, make install". Long story short: Mono will will the desktop because end users don't have to know what Mono is in the first place.
Longhorn is a ruse (Score:3, Funny)
As soon as the Mono guys finish the hard part of the Linux port, MS will abandon Windows, fork Linux and start selling MS Linux bundled w/ Mono (and of course, Firefox with the new IE theme), and MS Office for Linux.
It's just crazy enough to work.
What about the patent issues? (Score:3, Insightful)
The SCO fiasco, which was funded both directly and indirectly by Microsoft, tells me that litigation is probably going to be Microsoft's weapon of choice in the not too distant future. I have expressed these concerns in previous MONO discussions and always get a lot of replies telling me that Microsoft "won't" do this because of this reason or that reason. What I have never got was a reply telling me why Microsoft CAN'T to this.
So, given the fact that SCO has shown that litigation can and is being used as an anti-competitive tactic and given the fact that Balmer not so long ago said, when referring to open source that Microsoft would "vigorously enforce its IP rights", why should I feel good about the MONO project?
Would some lawyer type please tell me why Microsoft CAN'T prevail in a lawsuit over patent violations when the time is right for them to strike? I'm not trolling. I really want to be able to use MONO and feel good about it. But until I know that I'm not putting Linux at risk I simply can't support MONO.
Help me out here Please!
Re:What about the patent issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Mono is much closer to a "clean-room" development model, based almost exclusively on the API libraries and reverse engineering of data formats to become more compatable with MS function calls. Although Mono started with the core components being compiled with the free dotNet compiler from MS, it has been self-compiling for some time now.
The anti-trust issues won't help out MS either if they file a lawsuit against Novell. Novell has some relatively deep pockets, and it would be in their interest to get into a legal fight with Microsoft, particuarly one that MS initiated. From a sheer anti-trust viewpoint it would not be a good thing for MS to engage in something like this directly, and it could only be a direct threat from MS that would amount to be worth anything, unlike the SCO fiasco. No hiding behind serrogates for this fight. Furthermore, MS would risk a counter suit from several parties (Miguel to start with) if they tried to get the software pulled, potentially costing MS quite a bit of money.
Almost all of mono is derived from the ECMA documents, which also state rather clearly (with formal waivers signed by Microsoft) that anybody is free to create their own implementation of those standards.
Where the Mono Project could run into problems is if somebody (in a really stupid moment) decided to include some "shared source" source code from MS into Mono. This would be the same issue that Linux is facing from SCO, and when that goes to court it will have a final court ruling on that issue. If SCO wins by some act of God, it will become a huge issue for almost all open source/free software projects, not just Mono. I don't know if the courts have the political will to shut down a multi-billion dollar industry that easily over a technical ruling. Besides, the remedies to fix an issue like that are very easily done, and can even be done in a very pristine "clean room" atmosphere to replace any code that caused problems like that.
I would have no problem testifying in court that Mono and dotNet are two totally different pieces of software, from benchmarks and I/O behavior to variable names and even Mono-only software classes.
What is going to be interesting is that Mono, now that they are at version 1.0, is going to be in a position to actually drive mindshare with this system. I predict that you will seem MS backporting some of the mono class features (including method names... even a mono.* class naming system) into standard dotNet. The question would then become who is driving the development for whom?
Yes, I dont trust Microsoft, and won't rely upon their goodwill. True as well, if you had developed a completely independent virtual OS (like dotNet or Java), there might not be as much to argue here, but then again, you might even be in more danger of violating a patent, simply because you weren't aware of it.
I think a much bigger threat for a submarine patent that would threaten Mono would come from Sun, or even some silly 3rd party that filed a patent 5-10 years ago covering virtual operating systems. The concern then is not with Microsoft, but with the USPTO instead.
Re:How can Miguel say that Mono is independent.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to call it something else `D#', be my guest, but I think that incremental changes to the
language have a better chance of having an impact in the world, if we work with the standards organizations
than just by forking things.
Re:ah, the joys of playing catch-up (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone of your favorite projects was late or playing catch up: Samba, OpenOffice, Gnome, Linux, glibc, gcc, gdb, CUPS.
Miguel.
Re:ah, the joys of playing catch-up (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, even if Microsoft killed their
Wether Mono has feature parity with MS
Of course, some will say we've already got Python, or Ruby or whatever. But I say I want to program Python in Mono [ironpython.com].
Re:Some please explain to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Mono was developed because Miguel thought Mono was kinda cool, and because he could. Beyond that, though, there are a few other important issues.
Most importantly, Mono is vital to the future of Linux and other open-source projects. This was a blatant attempt by Microsoft to reign in wandering developer mindshare. Also, it is part of their strategy to bring the application space back from the web, to the desktop-- Microsoft's desktop.
Also, although most geeks realize that Microsoft is not to be trusted, and that generally they produce shoddy (or downright dangerous) software, most of the rest of the world doesn't understand the danger. So, for a lot of manager-types (you know the ones, knuckles dragging the ground, sloped brow furrowed in concentration while parsing simple sentences, signs your paychecks with an 'X'), they see this as "Microsoft's next big direction." Many will choose to follow that direction, because they love Power Point.
And finally, there's the issue of choice. Java is Okay, but there are issues with it. C# has a different set of issues. Both suck. Both are great. Both cower before the awesome power of LISP. Different developers like different things in a language. Some languages suit our personalities better than others. Me, I'm a LISP and Perl kinda guy. The guy sitting next to me likes C and PHP.
There are potential pitfalls with C#, but at the moment that is all they are: potential. And in most cases, those problems are perceived, and not actual. Now
But ultimately our goal should be to produce damned good software, not just destroy Microsoft; we should concentrate on building up, not tearing down.
Re:Some please explain to me (Score:5, Informative)
The greatest risk of the Mono project is Microsoft stepping in and filing suit against the project for using its API w/o a license. Doesn't anyone else see this? Why was Mono ever started to begin with? All you Mono developers are doing is putting $$$ into microsoft's pocket!!!
Actually, the majority of the API is covered by the public EMCA specifications. Microsoft specifically made it impossible (very very difficult) to sue someone for that when they made the standards public. See the mono and microsoft faq [mono-project.com] for details. The fact that mono is perfectly legal doesn't change the fact that they may be putting $$$ into microsoft's pocket though.
Re:What the Mono guys don't get (Score:3, Informative)
No. You're the one who doesn't get it.
Just exactly how is Mono+Linux any better than .NET+Windows?
Runs on Linux.
Does the Mono team have ANY plans to innovate beyond what Microsoft is doing
Yes. See GTK-sharp, Qt-sharp, Mono.Posix, Mono.Data, etc. (in fact, try reading the FAQ before posting) The Mono and portable.Net projects are both interested in supporting the Microsoft APIs, but support for Linux APIs is also important.
Re:What the Mono guys don't get (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the speed at which they have acheived version 1.0 is to be commended; What the mono project is acheiving that Microsoft in not, is a true crossplatform framework based on the
Re:Any tutorials out there? (Score:5, Informative)
I also recommend you check out the standard GTK+ tutorial [gtk.org]. A lot of it is still directly applicable to GTK# and it's more complete than most GTK# only tutorials. If you're already familiar with GTK+, Glade# for Rapid Development [ximian.com] will help you get up to speed with Mono.
Re:Microsoft can kill this project anytime it choo (Score:3, Informative)
No they can't. read the FAQ [mono-project.com]
Re:Interpreted languages (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My System got Mono! (Score:3, Informative)