Mono and dotGnu: What's the Point? 493
joeykiller writes "The Register features an opinion by Neil Davidson, asking 'Mono and dotGnu: What's the point?' Some of the points he raises may seem irrelevant for open source supporters (like why make a C# compiler while Microsoft's is free anyway), but others are thought provoking and maybe a little bit controversial. You may not agree with his opinions, but it's an interesting read anyway."
Technical Director? (Score:2, Insightful)
bootstrap a compiler.
He obviously doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Although their time might be better spent in designing a true alternative to Java and C# instead of a copy that allows you to write a GNU application that runs everywhere, it's hard to fault Mono for recognizing a market niche and running with it. For example, maybe they'll make C# work on Linux embedded devices where Microsoft wouldn't go?
grrr. (Score:2, Insightful)
bright people doing what they like for free ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I, myself, am happy to have the chance to sample some of this work for free. Who am I to judge since I'm not paying?
Let the mindless bashing begin (Score:4, Insightful)
Motivations (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to use Java. First of all, I've never used it to develop software. Second of all, every user interface I've ever seen done with Java stinks. Maybe I've been seeing bad examples, but the windows, buttons, and other contols of the Java apps I've seen have an old fashion look and feel to me and I don't care for it. My personal opinion, but for me, that counts for something.
So, whatever the motivation of Mono or dotGnu, I simply want to develop my cross-platform C# apps. That's MY motivation, and that's what matters to me.
One reply (Score:4, Insightful)
I wanted to clarify a few things, because Mr Neil does not seem to
have looked at the Mono Roadmap, nor tried a recent release, since
code signing (authenticode and strongnames is implemented, remoting is
completed (soap, binary, http, tcp transports) and most of the
side-by-side assemblies work is done, and will be part of 1.0).
The Mono Roadmap (www.go-mono.com/mono-roadmap.html) contains the
release time frames for the various features of Mono and will help him
and other readers understand what exact plans are: no speculation, and
no half-cooked facts.
I am surprised by the motivation to do so little research on our
project given that Mr Neil is the technical director of a company that
sells
him reach customers using Linux, using mainframes or MacOS X.
Mono is based on the ECMA 334 and 355 standards. We like the C#
language and its runtime (as does Mr Neil's company) because it
increases our developer productivity, reduces the time to market of
our new products, this despite the fact that we do not implement Code
Access Security, which will only be used in embedded situations, a
segment that we are not ready to address in Mono 1.0.
We want to improve the productivity of developers in Linux, mainframe
and OS X developers by brining this unique platform to other
platforms. Just like Borland, SGI, Sun and IBM provide compilers,
runtimes and tools for other languages, we provide such a piece for
C#/.NET.
Mr Neil does not seem to understand why bootstrapping a C# compiler is
important, so let me explain this in terms he would understand: it is
important because:
* Using C# to write a C# compiler means that it improves our
development speed.
* To be able to harvest the benefits of productivity of C# on
Unix, we need a bootstrapping system.
* It allows us to write software on Unix without and be
self-sufficient to develop software as opposed to require
a Windows machine to develop software, and another to run it.
* It means that we trust our technology enough and it is solid
to the point that a relatively complex piece of software not
only runs, but is binary-compatible with the Microsoft
runtime.
Mono's objectives are not "To break Microsoft's monopoly". We do not
define ourselves in this way, there are more important social causes
to fight. We look at the ECMA 334/335 standards as a solid foundation
to improve Linux and bring more software, more quickly to it, and make
the development process more fun.
There is a lot more about this on:
http://www.go-mono.com/rationale.html
And a few other interviews
Re:grrr. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obvious and Sophmoric. Where's Something Origin (Score:1, Insightful)
Mono is evil (Score:1, Insightful)
No and Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's look at Java. How many professional/hobby/academic Java developers use Sun's SDK?
How many use Gnu classpath with some other VM? [gnu.org]
Have you ever downloaded an app or library that was developed and tested under SableVM/Gnu-classpath but not Sun's SDK?
Running it somewhere other than Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux, maybe? Mac OS X? Free BSD? I see getting C# programs to run on other platforms as a practical purpose. Later on in the article he acknowledges that you'd be able to run these programs on Linux, but that's more like a throw away concession he makes. He plays dumb in the beginning, and makes himself look silly.
How is making C# a standard on Windows and Linux going to hurt Microsoft?
I think that the people behind the project have better goals than that - namely, getting a particular tool to work on Linux. People use Linux for a variety of things. It would be nice if C# - just another tool - worked under it. What's the big deal?
There is an obvious practical purpose to getting C# programs to run on Linux. The real question, however, is will the
Why doesn't anybody complain about WINE? (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me a little hypocritical to complain about MONO and dotGNU when there's also WINE out there. What's the point of getting Win32 Apps to run natively under Linux? We'll never keep up with MS adding things to the API...
The point is, the more implementations there are of the CLR for
On the flip side, why isn't anybody complaining that there's an abundance of Java VM implementations out there?
C
Re:He obviously doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
He understands all these points well. But he doesn't think it's a good thing because then everyone - even on Linux, even on embedded devices - will use
Regards
Re:grrr. (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally very much like
Re:Free for who? (Score:5, Insightful)
It goes without saying that both Gtk and Gtk# (Gtk wrapper for Mono) work on Windows, too. So you don't lose cross-platform angle, but this does show that Mono is *not* just a
--
Re:grrr. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care, you might not care, but for FREE/Open Source zealots it matters.
Why not support Java then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He obviously doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
The true question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:grrr. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for
Technically,
You can also compile many language in JVM, but SUN has never used that as a selling point since it is pretty silly. All
Mono and dotGnu are a good thing (Score:1, Insightful)
Why make another C# compiler when Microsoft already has one? That's a pretty silly argument. I wonder what Neil thinks of the redundancy among C++ compilers: Borland, Watcom, Intel, CenterLine, IBM, Sun, Microsoft, GCC/G++... More choice is a good thing, people can pick the one that best suits their needs.
Also, whether Microsoft's C# compiler really adheres to an open standard or is eeeeeeeevil closed proprietary software is purely an academic question unless someone makes a non-Microsoft version. Then any parts of the original implementation that are mysterious black boxes, encumbered by patents, or otherwise not really so open become apparent.
Re:you do know.. (Score:1, Insightful)
The C# languages specification is only part of the ECMA AND ISO standards that have been ratified... As well something called the BCL or Base Class Library was submitted as well. Over 900 classes, namespaces and interfaces.
Sure, Microsoft specific namespaces aren't there like WinForms, WebForms, Data & EnterpriseServices - but you would be surprised as what IS:
- cryptography
- networking (not just sockets, but higher level protocols as well)
- XML
Re:One reply (Score:5, Insightful)
That YOU are so sycophantic re: Micros~1 and mono is the greatest irony of all time. It would be funny if it weren't so truly stupid and truly dangerous.
This is a variation of killing the messenger for delivering the message. Instead you want to kill the message (.NET and C#) because you don't like the messenger (Microsoft). Frankly, I think it's just as stupid as killing the messenger.
Miguel thinks, and frankly, I agree, that
Has WINE helped or hurt Linux? It provides people a layer of compatibility that allows them to migrate to Linux. That's REALLY important to a lot of people, companies, and governments who are deciding which platform to use. If I'm a government agency and I have a custom tool written in C# and now we're thinking about whether to switch to Linux or continue using Windows, I have an option. Without Mono and dotGnu, my decision is made. I have to stick with Windows or rewrite my software. Which one do you think will cost me more.
Agreed! We must innovate! (Score:5, Insightful)
We shouldn't lag behind and chase Microsoft's coattails. We should instead innovate; create our own
But Why!?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He obviously doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not support Java then? (Score:2, Insightful)
It may be a more established framework, sort of, in a way, but it's also extremely fragmented, from framework through implementation through runtime.
While we're at it... (Score:2, Insightful)
It cuts both ways.
Re:Technical Director? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure Linus would have gotten the same sort of flack when making Linux. But he started the project, and look what it is becoming.
I think what the guy doesn't see is that not everyone 1) wants to program/compile on Windows (let alone whether they have a copy) and 2) wants to run this supposedly cross-platform language only on Windows.
It's okay to have dreams of bringing down a monopoly, but the point of an open source project is to have other options. Even if it is a long and arduous task, it still has merit, and should still be done, even if for just another option.
Now, if Microsoft makes a Linux compiler for
Re:Alternatives are good (Score:2, Insightful)
Due to the SUN license, no distro would bundle the JDK in the Free version. Kaffe was /usr/bin/java for all of the GNU/Linux distros.
Re:Motivations (Score:2, Insightful)
What this guys argument boils down to is "it's foreign to me, and since I'm already accustomed to something else, I don't really have the desire to use it."
There's nothing wrong with that argument when you're talking about yourself, but it's not really a valid argument for or against anything in general terms. It's the same arugment people use to stick with MS Office instead of Open Office, even though for most people OO would more than suffice. Same thing with browsers.
Personally, I love writing in Java, I think it's a great tool to teach this old the finer concepts of OO while being (mostly) platform independent.
Looking forward to 1.5...
Re:you do know.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They have no control over C# standards in exactly the same way they have no control over HTML standards: Developers code to the Microsoft implementation, regardless of what the "standard" may say.
Re:Why not support Java then? (Score:2, Insightful)
Note that I am in no way condemning Java, it certainly has proven to have it's place.
However, it is not the golden bullet, the ultimate answer. It is not 42. It has lots of problems, or rather, limitations just like every other platform out there.
The Office.NET Test (Score:4, Insightful)
If it will, then I'll be happy to declare
But if it doesn't, then I judge the whole effort to produce non-MS
Now,
Now, as you can probably tell from the tone of my post, I've more-or-less concluded that there is basically no chance that MS will ever allow Office.NET to run on any non-MS
Re:Free for who? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mono and dotGnu are a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that you know even the most basic of facts, perhaps now you'll understand why your posting belongs in
then point the zealots are missing... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right, open source projects written in mono will have the ability to run under both linux and windows, mono and
Re:He obviously doesn't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Important stuff such as System.Windows.Forms and ASP.NET and a few more are not ECMA standards.
That is why they will have ecma profiles for the compiler i guess.
--
Re:Technical Director? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think its more of a cross-language platform.
Thanks Miguel but a request (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Quote from Miguel (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope...sure wouldn't want basic facts known, for people to make a decision.
You can either look at history and nod knowingly, this is going to be bad for everyone except for Microsoft, or you can be a sucker and get kicked in the nuts, some time down the road, for the 1000th-time, and try your best to act suprised. While everyone around is laughing and pointing at the sheer stupidity of it all, I might add. Meanwhile, +10 points for Microsoft. Good thing you were there to help them. They sure needed help with their monopoly!
Re:Why not support Java then? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:you do know.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly what MS will do. How freaking naive can MS weeines be? MS is all about dominating a market. Big deal if C# the language is a standard. The platform is what matters and MS controls their .Net platform. People/Companies will code to that MS .Net platform and leave all other platforms out of the game.
If you want a cross-platform framework, use Java. If you want a cross-platform application, use wxWindows [wxwindows.org] or QT [trolltech.com]
In the most recent Linux Magazie or Linux Journal (I don't recall which since I get both), I just read that many analysts are predicting that Linux will have at a minimum 45% of the server market share by 2007, only three years away. If Linux gets that kind of market share within 3 years, don't you think MS will continue to do whatever they can to continue to lock customers into their platform? Why do you think MS ported their C# compiler to FreeBSD over Linux?
Again, C# the language is open and you or anyone else can create a compiler. Big deal, you can now compile your first Hello World! C# applications. The commercial C# applications will be built on .Net and limited to MS Only.
Is there anyone out there that actaully thinks MS would develop a true cross-platform solution? Can their be a human that is that naive?
Re:He obviously doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure you have a good understanding of what a patent is? They are not enforceble if you do not use the same method as the one that is patented. Essentially, MS has patented certain algorithms that happen within Windows.Forms, which can be and are being rewritten in another way.
I doubt that an API is patentable, since it isn't a method or a material object. Then again, if it were, enforcing it against Mono or DotGNU is pointless... the projects are not profiting from the sale of the technology. They don't even exist in the same marketplace as the framework, since they are completely free.
Re:He obviously doesn't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
At least with Microsoft we know they are anti-Linux. Sun trys to seem all buddy-buddy when around the Linux community but in a lot of their press releases and documentation they bash Linux.
Shoot some people have claimed SCO is just a Microsoft pawn. And although I am not doubting Microtosft is somewhat cheering for SCO, I wouldn't be surprised if Sun wasn't doing the same.
Re:Technical Director? (Score:3, Insightful)
I understood that, loud and clear the first time you said it. I have no idea how you came to the conclusions you made, based on my statements. Your assessment of my statement is far, far in left field.
As for the "impossible" quote, I don't think anyone really cares if it's possible. Heck, let's argue it is possible. Great! Now, MS will break it to cause incompatibilities every chance they get, just like they historically have. That didn't cause enough problems. Wonder how large the pantent royalty base is going to be from the MONO user base. Why is empowering Microsoft good for anyone other than Microsoft? If you think for even a second that MONO isn't empowering for Microsoft, then we have nothing else to talk about. Seriously! Period.
As far as stagnancy of Unix (and the creation of Linux), I think that is a narrow application.
Hmm... I thought it was very broad. Not sure how or why you decided to narrow it and then decide that I said it.
Your assertion would be similar to ".Net is going after Java," not development platforms in general.
Well, I asserted no such thing, in that context. While it is very obvious that it is a Java power play by Microsoft, I'm not sure why you'd bother to slant it this way to take it out of context from the original thread.
I'd think that since Microsoft is "betting the company" on
Granted. They need their next vendor/developer lock-in. Java has them on the run.
I do agree with you about the UNIX market being stagnate, however, I do not believe Java has been. Java has continued to evolve from everything that I've read. Clearly 1.5 is getting some of the C# features, but look where they came from. That is, people that have been saying, we've been needing these features all along. If you want to say, they directly came about because
Re:Why not support Java then? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going to ask you to 'cut the crap' as well.
Comparing the portability of ServerSide java to the entire
Java isn't a silver fucking bullet.
I am not condemning Java in any way, I'm not zealoting for
Re:Wine + Mono = Instability (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems Mono made a mistake in relying too heavily on Wine. It may have been more work, and may have been a duplication of effort, but they would have been better off in the long run recreating what they needed to, especially if their goal is 100% compatibility. Thus, they can only attain that 100% if (and its a big IF) Wine also attains it.
Im developing System.Windows.Forms (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.dotgnu.org/ [dotgnu.org].
Ive written a large chunk of the System.Drawing and System.Windows.Forms namespace. We currently have two "toolkits" that means our SWF copy will work on Windows and X Windows (using Xlib directly). Mac OS is thus supported.
C++ improved on straight C, Java improved on C++, C# improved on Java. C# is becoming an important standard.
We want to reuse software. We want to take existing software that is built to only run on Windows and run it on Linux or other platforms.
We have much of the framework built to write gui applications using System.Windows.Forms. Despite peoples initial suspicions, what we have done works. We already have most controls completed, including textboxes, treeviews, comboboxes, tabcontrols etc.
See http://pnet.homelinux.org [homelinux.org] for some screenshots
You can now take a
The technology is excellent and open source. We need people to help us finish it off.
Re:Free for who? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. You can't build GTK# using only the Framework, any more than you could build Windows.Forms using only the Framework. You need GTK for GTK#, and you need Win32 for Windows.Forms.
Windows.Forms is part of Microsoft's
The Framework is the CLR and standardized API.
Right. And Mono implements the CLR decently (minus a few features), then implements the API decently (minus a lot of features, but slowly catching up); then it adds to that API more features.
Constructing their own GTK# language
API, not language.
and database access is not an extension to "The Framework" but rather an implementation of the "The Framework".
Wow. No. Not even. Ever. Under any definition.
Both of those things (GTK# and the database API whose name I've forgotten) are APIs that Mono developers have, that the
They are NOT a implementation of the Framework. Mono is an implementation of the Framework.
Unless they are making modifications to the CLR and/or adding new instructions to the CIL, they're not extending anything,
Great! Then we agree -- because Mono makes modifications to the CLR (by providing more APIs), it's extending
[they're not extending anything,] anymore than I do when I write my own application.
But Mono isn't just a
-Billy
Re:Wine + Mono = Instability (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, ya, that was kind of the point.
Let me draw you a chart. If Mono can acheive 100% compatibility with the code THEY are responsible for, but there are compatibility issues with Wine, than, overall, there is no 100%. Since they have no control or influence over the Wine project, they will have, at that point, reached an impasse; since Wine can improve, not improve, fold, or accept external improvements to their sources and summarily wipe their asses with them, there is nothing further Mono can do to improve their own project.
If, however, they impliment their own windows emulation, they can make use of changes in the Wine project (giving them credit, of course), start from scratch, or whatever. But, they then have a situation in which they can acheive their goals, and have the control they require to further their main project.
As people higher in this thread have stated, there are issues with Wine. Were this not the case, such a statement would be senseless. But all duplication of effort is not necessarily a bad thing.
If you ever learn how to manage a project, this whole subject is basic.
Re:you do know.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is, will these developers avoid .Net if there was no Mono? If not, then a few years from now you'll have the killer apps ported to the .Net API, and alternative OSes still won't be able to run any of them. If Mono is able to achieve significant compatibility, then a port becomes that much cheaper to make. Maybe even cheap enough to make a profit from Linux sales.
The commercial C# applications will be built on .Net and limited to MS Only.
MacOS X and Linux can probably claim at least 10% of the desktop market. MacOS X currently can attract major applications like PhotoShop. What if you could support twice the MacOS X market, using the same code base as your main Windows product, by avoiding a small set of Microsoft-only APIs?
The commercial C# applications will support Linux if enough Linux users are willing to pay enough for them to justify the port. Today is port is very expensive. Tomorrow there will be more Linux users, and Mono may lower the porting cost significantly.
Novell has done a complete legal analysis of Mono. (Score:2, Insightful)
So...
With regard to Mono, Novell must either:
(a) have done a complete legal analysis of what will happen when MS doesn't like Mono anymore, or
(b) believe that Mono will always be acceptable to MS.
The fact that they haven't told us about (a) makes me fear that the truth is (b).
Novell, if you are listening, please tell me the answer. I'm a developer and I like the dotNet technology, but I need to know where you are going with this, and I need to now whether it is 'safe' for me (and my conscience) to use Mono and, for example, your windows forms library.
Is Windows.Forms the primary focus (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free for who? (Score:3, Insightful)
Gtk# is not an extension to the
then you'd be extending
Mono is a project that comprises many subprojects. One of those subprojects is