Mono 2.8 Released

mallumax writes "A new veriosn of Mono(2.8) has been released: Mono has now integrated SourceGear's webservice enhancements, and there has been a lot of improvement in XML, serialization and web services. Other features are new thread locking and ahead-of-time compiler optimisations. Check out the Mono website for more details." Congratulations are in order for the Mono team as well -- SourceGear was their first customer.

Mono - the most important OS project currently

[pong]

I have worked with Microsoft/C++/COM, Unix/C++, Java, ruby and C#/.net. My favorites are ruby and C#/.net and they compliment eachother so well.

I think Mono is the most important open source project second only to linux, because it will make the most advanced software platform in existence available for free on unix and windows. It is also interesting that it is a useful tool for identifying those among us that are zealots and not software idealists. :-)

can you smell the hype ?

[DrSkwid]

*the most advanced software platform in existence*

It's just a VM and it exists because it's the only way MS could rescue themselves out of their leaky boat of an OS.

Hanging on to the coat-tails gives it legitimacy, kind of like having Cytrix exist as a third source of x86 chips should Intel & AMD go bust.

Your list of languages is hardly a broad base to make such a sweeping statement.

My views on mono

[BortQ]

At first I thought of mono as a way of getting MS .NET applications to run under Linux. Now I see that this view is silly.

Microsoft has built in a way to access the underlying Win32 API into .NET. Thus any .NET application that uses this functionality will never run under mono (except if wine can handle all the calls).

But that doesn't mean that mono is useless, far from it. MS' .NET was clearly created as a competitor to the java virtual machine. Mono is just another competitor to java and MS .NET as well. And the most important point is that it is fully free.

The open source communities have largely embraced java even though sun still imposes some restrictions through licensing. This has had a large negative effect on the spread of some java technologies (like JAI or java3D not being available on macOS).

Mono gives the open source communities a 2nd generation virtual machine design to call it's own. Forget about microsoft's .NET, view mono as a solution in and of itself and it looks very interesting.

Re:My views on mono

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget about microsoft's .NET, view mono as a solution in and of itself

That is what Microsoft want$ you to do. Then in 5 years or so when their IP is firmly entrenched in the Gnome/Linux landscape, a swawm of laywers will decend to argue over who actually owns what. Mono is probably more dangerous to Linux than SCO.

Re:My views on mono

[Anonymous Coward]

That being said, the question needs to be asked again: why?

If the idea is to build a new VM from scratch, MS be damned, why ever should it be built around their specifications? Why ever should it use their uninspired Java clone as the standard language? Why not build on the existing attempts at a free Java environment (GCJ, ClassPath, etc.), or other original and truly free language/platforms like Python or Ruby?

As it is, creating an almost-workalike of Microsoft's .NET does absolutely nothing for free software as a platform. It entrenches Microsoft's standards further, without even enabling us to run the vast majority of code written for the partly proprietary and "standard" Microsoft implementation.

No, the ONLY reason for mono to exist is to provide a 100%-compatible environment for running apps written to the Microsoft standard on non-Windows platforms. And if it falls short of that goal, it does nothing for anyone, and there are better choices for anyone writing software for free platforms already.

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently

[Kunta Kinte]

I have worked with Microsoft/C++/COM, Unix/C++, Java, ruby and C#/.net. My favorites are ruby and C#/.net and they compliment eachother so well.

Congratulations.

My favorites are ruby and C#/.net and they compliment eachother so well.

I'm curious, care to explain how these languages compliment each other??

I think Mono is the most important open source project second only to linux, because it will make the most advanced software platform in existence available for free on unix and windows.

Saying .NET is the most advance software platform in existence does not magically make it so. I can come after and say "no, you wrong, Java is the most advance platform", and we would have gotten absolutely nowhere.

I disagree with your assertion, by the way. And I have a few hundred JSRs at JCP.org [jcp.org] to back me up.

Most of Java's development is done in the open. Which means tool developers have a heads up on what changes are coming and even have a say in it too boot.

It is also interesting that it is a useful tool for identifying those among us that are zealots and not software idealists. :-)

(i)I don't think that Mono makes much sense currently because it's a implementation of a development platform specifically designed to increase Microsoft's market share at the expense of everyone else.

(ii)Because Mono does not have any say in the spec it is implementing *and* the writer of the spec is historically hostile.

If that makes me some type of "zealot", I'll accept my title :)

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently

[ekuns]

most advanced software platform in existence

OK, I'll bite. :) Most advanced platform in existence? Isn't that a bit lofty? C#/.Net can be described, accurately, as Microsoft's answer to J2EE. While I'm a pragmatist about this and I find things to admire and things to dislike about both platforms, history still favors J2EE as the better platform.

If Java were just Sun, then .NET would probably quickly become a superior platform. I hate to say this. I like Sun, I dislike Microsoft. But I have to be honest with what I see. However, Java is not just Sun. There is a huge array of open source software for Java. Just tour the Apache [apache.org] software web site and the enormous variety of Java software available so developers don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Microsoft is often better at making software easier to use. They are often better at making software to make making GUI's easy. They are often better at making certain kinds of tools and certain kinds of integration between products.

But to those who think that Open Source is all about copying what others innovate (I'm not accusing anyone in this discussion of that), there are a great many J2SE and J2EE projects out there that disprove that straw man. (I don't know enought about J2ME to speak intelligently.)

In addition to Apache, check out Exolab [exolab.org]. These are just a couple of the organizations creating open source J2SE and J2EE solutions. The existence of these sorts of organizations, these projects, brings great power and maturity to Java that .NET doesn't yet have.

I'm learning .NET stuff because I'm pragmatic and there are indeed some very nice features it has. One is the ability to link many languages in a native way rather than having to go through JNI. (shudder)

All of this to say that I have to question not only calling any software platform the "most advanced software platform in existence," but especially the .NET platform which has not yet caught up to J2EE in functionality. Not for web projects at any rate.

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Mono is the most important open source project second only to linux, because it will make the most advanced software platform in existence available for free on unix and windows.

Bah.

The GNU system is undoubtedly the most important open source/Free software project, bar none.

Neither Linux nor Mono would exist without the tools created as part of that project. I mean, what do you use to build your Linux kernels?

Re:My views on mono

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but a functional implementation of those standards does not produce a "standard" environment, that is, an environment capable of supporting all programs written using Microsoft's .NET environment. Microsoft Visual Studio .NET and their CLR, including Windows Forms and everything else, ARE the standards -- everyone writing .NET code right now is using those. So mono can either 1. implement the proprietary bits and fall into microsoft's trap, or 2. make something that serves no purpose whatsoever. I don't think either is desirable, although choice 1 is far better -- if they don't get sued, a samba situation is possible where the free version becomes widely used and helps to move people away from windows.

Re:My views on mono

[mshiltonj]

Mono is just another competitor to java and MS .NET as well. And the most important point is that it is fully free.

It's only "fully free" until Microsoft sues because of the patent infringment. It's only a matter of time.

Re:My views on mono

[benpeter]

.NET, [sarcasm] It's so cool how it's totally, fully interoperable with ALL windows XP AND windows 2003 server [/sarcasm] Microsoft again, trying to wedge proprietary into what shouldn't be to leverage market share.

Re:Mono - the most un-quirky yet

[pabtro]

I am sure you where joking, but if you truly favor the death penalty, then it is clear that you need a couple of lives more, at least, for self-realization, I mean :)

I have the greatest respect for the work that Bill Gates and MS have done and continue doing; MS has revolutionized the way we compute. Today, computers are in hour houses and companies, featuring effective interfaces, powerful programming languages and developing environments. I believe new developments, like .NET languages and framework are welcomed by everyone, since they represent the evolution of computing, and not only that; these products are presented as a consistent framework that is clear and easy to use, with some issues, but great all around.

What I don't like about a market economy and innovation these days is the rate at which products are launched, plus the upgrading as a commercial strategy for revenue. It is possible to produce at near zero defect quality, with some constraints, but companies and people don't bother anymore. I see this trend in software of course, but also in other industries, like in the music and movie industry. Quality is getting lost to favor a quick product. Not labors of love and craftsmanship, like a Stanley Kubrick film, but quick montages to quickly satisfy a need and to get something out in the market.

I have always said that the only open source projects that are successful are the ones that have a powerful vision behind, plus financing. Founding is essential since, due to our nature and for the project own sake. Founding obligates project leaders and developers to follow a well defined process, to commit to a plan or schedule and to effectively see the product happen.

Now Mono. Mono looks from the outside like an impressive piece of software. The development process looks exceptionally well organized and their lead developers exceptionally skilled. Good for Mono! If implemented completely (no doubt) it will be a very useful product since we'll benefit from the well crafted MS development tools and ideas.

We live in the real world, and you cannot simply expect that there is ZERO commercial interest in a development of the magnitude of the .NET framework. I would make no sense, as it makes no sense that the most successful company in the planet wouldn't have *any* interest in the parallel development of their technologies. *I have no proof of this*, but I, myself would be interested if placed in MS feet.

Finally I would like to say that the best work I have seen comes without any doubt, from young people when they are guided correctly, like university students, especially in their initial years. No matter if rich or poor, they believe in what they do. That is the spirit that has bootstrapped the open source movement and that still somehow impregnates it.

Regards.

Is Microsoft really behind .NET?

[Sanity]

I ask the question because as someone that had developed .NET software, the fact that Microsoft still requires users to download a 20MB runtime unless they already have .NET is absolutely the biggest reason not to develop for .NET. Microsoft could have addressed this by including .NET in XP by default, but they didn't.

Unless Microsoft throws their full weight behind .NET it will have all the problems of Java with no advantages over it.

Re:Is Microsoft really behind .NET?

[Burb]

Microsoft could have addressed this by including .NET in XP by default, but they didn't.

The .NET and XP beta periods overlapped substantially, if I recall correctly. There wasn't any way to get the completed runtime into the XP release.

the fact that Microsoft still requires users to download a 20MB runtime unless they already have .NET is absolutely the biggest reason not to develop for .NET

This is a bit misleading. It certainly applies if you are writing thick client (win32) applications. But it's irrelvant if you are writing ASP.NET applications or web services where you must only install the framework once per server. I would suggest it's not that big a deal really. True, it's a pain to download 20Mb over a V.90 modem. But with broadband, CD and DVD distributions it's not going to be a massive issue.