Mono Progress In the Past Year 441
Eugenia writes "OSNews posted an article accounting the applications created in GTK# the past 8 months, since the release of Mono 1.0. While many of them are still in their infancy, it's clear that the platform had a healthy progress, with 'super-hits' like Tomboy, F-spot, MonoDevelop, Muine & Blam! and other, less known gems, like SportsTracker, PolarViewer, MooTag, GFax, GIB, Sonance and Bluefunk. The 2.0 version of Mono is expected around May, but the developers advised distros and users to upgrade to Mono 1.1.4 despite being a beta."
Beagle (Score:5, Informative)
If Mono proves to be snappier than, say, Java, there might be some hope for it but the spectre of living under the mercy of MSFT is not easy to dodge. It's still there, however much people tried to not talk or think about it.
Re:Beagle (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is there a nice guide online to coding in Mono? (Score:3, Informative)
2. Afaik there even is a plugin for Eclipse
From a mono developer.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Question about GTK# (Score:4, Informative)
My good friend Paco (Fransico Martieneze) has posted a installer for
http://forge.novell.com/modules/xfmod/project/?
Re:it's not reverse engineering (Score:5, Informative)
These are not
You can run them on Windows, but you can do that with lots of other Gnome and KDE apps as well.
Plus, they can sell MS Office.NET to Linux users too, as it can run on Linux.
I think this would be great for Linux. Unfortunately, Mono will likely never be compatible enough for that, and hell would freeze over before Microsoft would even contemplate such a thing.
Re:good (Score:5, Informative)
Re:it's not reverse engineering (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't 100% accurate since there is also the issue of patents to consider. In order to implement some parts of the
MS gets to say that their solution (C#) is cross platform and usable on numerous platforms. In short, publicity.
Re:C# Rocks - go mono go. (Score:5, Informative)
#define MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS 64
This is the limit on the number of objects that can be waited for in WaitForMultipleObjects calls. The same limit is enforced in winsock2 for select calls, I believe because in the end microsoft's select implementation is using WaitForMultipleObjects underneath. (Also note that the winnt.h header file is entirely too large for a single header (9170 lines), but hey, that's window's style for ya).
Re:C# is Better than Java(At least I think So) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dashboard (Score:2, Informative)
Dashboard was really just search, and is largely dead. The bones of Dashboard were used to build the framework for Beagle [gnome.org].
You can do dashboard and so much more with the functionality in Beagle. Any future Dashboard-like app would probably be from-scratch on top of a Beagle back end.
Re:Beagle (Score:3, Informative)
There are thousands of open source java projects.
Here's a few. [sourceforge.net]
Did you forget about wxNET? (Score:2, Informative)
That's because they keep thinking "Linux-only". It's not "I'm going to make a cross-platform app using C#", but "I like C#, I'll use it on Linux".
WAKE UP, GUYS!!!
If you want Mono apps to run in Windows, perhaps you should take a look at wx.NET [sourceforge.net].
From the link:
(end of snip)
Take two very good cross-platform things (.NET/Mono, wxWidgets)... a powerful combination like this could jeopardize Microsoft's monopoly if you ask me. And that is always a good thing.
GoMono!
Re:From a mono developer.. (Score:5, Informative)
IP issues have been solved a long time ago. While Microsoft didn't publicly comment on IP issues in Mono, the legal department at Novell feels that any action taken by Microsoft against mono would be in amazingly bad faith and for 90% of Mono would be impossible to impose.
The sections that were released under the EMCA filing are public and they will be ours forever. The issues that maybe questionable are parts that were not released on the EMCA but Microsoft has released the source for those under a shared common licence (very restrictive) but allow anyone to "learn" from them as long as the don't take anything tangable (copy and paste, rigth it down) so as much as you can remember while looking at it is yours. The even make the comment in the licence that its a almost needed tool for implimenting your own runtimes. Mono has a personal policy not except code from people who even looked at to avoid all chances of something slipping up in the mess.
Microsoft has communicated with us in the past on different things and we have communictated with them when we find a security flaw in the framework. They even use our code deep in the depths of Microsoft for regression tests (as much as I have heard) and the even demo with our software at conferences and online broadcasts on the power of the
With all the positive support they have given towards it would be in bad interests to suddenly change on that and would be against anti-trust laws. We are also protected by the EMCA filling because it proves that Microsoft intented for
I just don't see any issue. It was a consern when we started before we had time to investigate.
Re:Driving developers to windows (Score:2, Informative)
Regards,
Steve
Re:it's not reverse engineering (Score:5, Informative)
That is what an open standard is: something that is published by a recognized standards body and that anybody is free to implement.
Apparently it was a brilliant move by MSFT because now people will automatically believe CLR is somehow "open".
They believe that because it's true.
In fact, a while ago Novell was asking MSFT for a clear declaration that Mono does not infringe MSFT IP.
Yes, Novell did ask that. That question doesn't refer to ECMA C#, which is as open as any language standard, it refers to Mono's implementation of
It provides a hose that MSFT can step on to end the distribution of the appications.
Erroneous statements like that seem calculated to create unjustified fear, uncertainty, and doubt about C# in order to keep people from using it. ECMA C# is open. Microsoft can no more "step on its hose" than they can step on C++ or Python or Java (on which, incidentally, they may also hold related patents).
We should never become too dependent on Mono, or Java, or any other proprietary technology.
Mono is not proprietary technology: it's an open source project implementing a de-facto industry standard. As such, it is no different from Linux, for example. As such, Mono consists of two parts: a part that implements an open standard (ECMA C#), and a part that implements a proprietary set of APIs (the parts of
If you want to use purely open APIs, just use ECMA C# and Gtk# and don't use any of the non-standard
Re:C# is Better than Java(At least I think So) (Score:5, Informative)
VB.NET originally supported this (different access on setter and getter) but since C# didn't support it they dropped it to be compatible... now that C# is gonna support it in the next version they are going back in and re-enabling the feature.
Why it wasn't in originally I don't know, it would seem to be an obvious feature.
Re:it's not reverse engineering (Score:2, Informative)
We don't decompile the MS libraries as a rule.
Re:it's not reverse engineering (Score:2, Informative)
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? These are mostly Gnome applications written in the C# language. They don't use ASP.NET or ADO.NET.
Even the Mono team acknowledges this as an issue but they promise they'll somehow code around the patent or they just won't implement parts of the standard. Certainly not an optimal solution.
My point was and is: the non-standardized parts of
The non-standardized parts of
MS gets to say that their solution (C#) is cross platform and usable on numerous platforms. In short, publicity.
Good for them: they let the language undergo standardization by an independent standards body, and now people are creating third party implementations of it for other platforms. That is as it should be.
Contrast that with Sun, which promised to standardize Java, and then pulled out of standardization processes twice when they discovered that those bodies had requirements for intellectual property disclosure and withdrew twice. Sun now falsely gives the impression that Java is an open standard and that the JCP is an open process, when neither is anything of the sort. That is not as it should be.
MonoDevelop 0.5.1 and Mono 1.1.4 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:it's not reverse engineering (Score:5, Informative)
because most of the remoting code was written by
Lluis (for all the high-level channels), Dietmar
(for all the low-level remoting bits), Patrik
(which filled a lot of the mid-level details).
All I can think of are stubs, which are not really
useful.
Those were either Novell/Ximian/Intel employees,
and in no case we did disassemble.
For the other pieces like Soap/Remoting, the code
was so broken that it could not have possibly
been copied/decompiled given how useless it was
until we fixed it in various iterations.
I very much doubt your statement, but if it
happens to be true, we have records for each
contribution going to the day zero of the
project and we can track it down.
Miguel.
Live Code Examples for Mono (Score:3, Informative)
Disclaimer: I am the founder of Zamples, Inc. Go gently on our servers, they probably won't survive being slashdotted!
Re:it's not reverse engineering (Score:5, Informative)
We are auditing the code, and the code that we have
in that area was either completely redone, or what
has not been redone is fairly broken.
I would be surprised if the implementation is
copied.
But if they decompiled to learn how it worked, we
will remove the code anyways.
Miguel.
Re:Mono Sucks! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Did you forget about wxNET? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Which bit of Java isn't open ? (Score:1, Informative)
The general JCP membership can vote in a bunch of elections, and gets to see some drafts a bit earlier than the general public, and *that's about it*.
cheers,
dalibor topic,
Kaffe dev