Attachmate Fires Mono Developers 362
darthcamaro writes "Love it or hate it, Novell's open source Mono project has inspired a lot of debate over the last 7 years. Mono brings .NET to Linux, with some interesting patent connections. The project is now at a crossroads, with news today that Attachmate had laid off the US based development team for Mono."
And nothing of value was lost. (Score:2, Insightful)
(I will gb2/b/ shortly).
Good. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.
The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://swpat.org/ [swpat.org] and http://progfree.org./ [progfree.org.] This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.
Thi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents.
No, C# itself is covered by an open standard. Your suggestion of Microsoft Patent Ire is entirely academic, and Microsoft's patents covering Linux kernel technology are much greater concern
And with Java, the danger is not academic. Oracle is actually suing Google over patents for their implementation resembling Java.
Re: (Score:2)
Except he said nothing about Java whatsoever. Why do you (and the first person to reply) insist on stuffing words in other people's mouths?
Re: (Score:2)
If somebody royally fucks you over, hating them IS being objective -- and rational.
Re: (Score:2)
MS patents covering the MS kernel? Huh? MS has no patents that cover the Linux kernel. Not that I've heard of. What patents are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
He is not. C# has versions, and so does .NET. As well, C# has an Ecma standard, and so does .NET (CLI) - they are two separate documents.
He is correct in that the most recent standardized (by Ecma and ISO) versions of both C# and CLI are 2.0.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no published standard document from Ecma yet.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't care for proprietary programming languages as much as the next guy. Take away the .net part of it, look at the principal architect of the C# language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg/> Sorry, URL formatting has me stumped, I've followed the syntax, but that's not the point of this post. You can find him. He was was heavily involved/ perhaps lead architect (I don't know as of now) of Borland's Delphi. A most wonderful development environment, and the only real competitor to VB at the time. So my suggestion is don't bash C# but rather the encumbrances places upon it, like .NET.
Disclaimer: I still write in Delphi. If I want to update a network of 100 systems I just copy over the .exe. (Still using Delphi 7). No need to roll out updates to every machine. No registry usage. None of the BS that comes with rolling out a .Net application. And my clients find my work very valuable. My impression is that Delphi is much more common in the EU and I don't speak at all to the crap that's happened since then with the selling to this corp or that corp. I only point out that the person developed by C# is a talented individual.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Erm, Have you actually tried to deploy a .net application recently ?
Other then ensuring that the framework is installed, it is also generally as simple as copying a .exe file.
ClickOnce deployment is vaguely more complicated but its complexities exist to counter security problems. One can hardly blame MS for trying to be a bit more proactive about security either.
The largest (in terms of distribution) .NET program I've ever written had a target audience of roughly 40k computers. Our deployment process ? xco
Re: (Score:2)
last I checked MSI files are installers, meaning the user still has to install it once this file is on their pc.
On linux you could store your program in a self-hosted repository and each client can just sudo apt-get install programname
Installation all handled automatically so the user just has to click on the icon in the menu and run it. Software updates can happen without the user even knowing.
This can be done for ALL linux desktop software, not just the ones you create...
I believe there are ways to do th
Re: (Score:3)
what rinky dink Enterprise IT department do you work in? Users do not deploy programs to their computers. you push them out and they are just available from the end user's perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
1) Do your research:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/principles/osspatentpledge.mspx [microsoft.com]
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/IPLicensing/customercovenant/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.aspx [microsoft.com]
2) Stop plagarizing Richard Stallman's quotes without attribution:
http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono [fsf.org]
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/principles/osspatentpledge.mspx [microsoft.com]
That says it only covers patents "that are necessary to implement the Covered Specification." How worthless is that? So if you implement it the same way Microsoft did, or in the most natural and straightforward way, but there was some alternative way of doing it that still meets the spec then you're not covered? As in, even if the only alternative is a crap implementation that will require twice as much memory and 10 times as much CPU?
Obviously they couldn't have created a patent grant that says 'you can us
Re: (Score:3)
First, if they had done what I suggested and included a patent grant for all of the patents that the Microsoft implementation uses, it would only have implicated the FAT long filename patent (or any given other patent) if Microsoft's implementation had used it. And if Microsoft did use it for something in their implementation, the idea that a third party implementation that did the same thing wouldn't be covered is the whole thing people are concerned about.
Second, what you are describing is the trade off b
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.
This is the very definition of FUD. You have some assumptions made up of complete guesswork, and from that you try to scare the development community from using this language/platform. You have absolutely no facts to back up your assertions, and yet year after year people keep spreading this FUD and year after year it does not come true.
The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.
So what is the answer? To avoid applications written in C#? If you do that, then you have already lost the applications without any lawsuits being filed. The paranoia wins.
I
Re: (Score:3)
This is the very definition of FUD.
Sometimes fear, uncertainty, and doubt are warranted. IMO any time you're dealing with MS you should be fearful, uncertain, and doubtful. MS does have a history, you know.
The paranoia wins.
You try walking home through the ghetto without being paranoid. I'm not talking about MS here, I'm talking about staggering home from Felbers. Live in my part of town and paranoia is the only thing that will keep you alive. And to tell the truth, I fear MS more than I fear the gangstas.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes fear, uncertainty, and doubt are warranted. IMO any time you're dealing with MS you should be fearful, uncertain, and doubtful. MS does have a history, you know.
No, Microsoft does not have a history of breaking their Microsoft Community Promise. They have never created a standard and then sued everybody for using that standard. (No, FAT32 was always a proprietary file system)
Mono is not going to be killed by Microsoft's patents, just like OpenOffice was not targetted for using Microsoft's file formats (despite being rumoured for years that MS was just about to sue). You are correct that Microsoft do have a history, but it appears to be a history of letting others u
Re: (Score:2)
So why doesn't Microsoft sue? Because it would be a public relations nightmare - just as it was for SCO. That is the nail in the coffin for this FUD for me. Microsoft are just not stupid enough to put themselves in the position of such a David and Goliath lawsuit by going after the open source community.
And, really, something like the closest cousin of the Streisand Effect -- by taking an Open Source alternative/competitor seriously enough to sue Microsoft would instantly provide them with more advertising, PR, and usage than they'd probably get in 20 years on their own.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
So why doesn't Microsoft sue? Because it would be a public relations nightmare - just as it was for SCO.
Perhaps you aren't aware that MS funded SCO's lawsuit. [eweek.com] SCO was just a proxy for MS. Nothing to stop MS from "selling" the patents in question to some patent troll and engaging in another proxy lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
regardless of whether its FUD or not, its been going on too long now to put the fire out.
And in the open source world, as soon as something is despised or rejected by the community at large, its days are numbered.
Re: (Score:3)
regardless of whether its FUD or not, its been going on too long now to put the fire out.
And in the open source world, as soon as something is despised or rejected by the community at large, its days are numbered.
I don't know about that. The Mono Project has had to wear these accusations since it began and yet it still grows better all the time. Just because a few vocal people are against it does not mean that it will go away. I think that their branching out into the mobile phone arena will keep their profile up and ensure the project doesn't die.
Let's face it, Windows is despised in the open source community too and yet there is still quite a lot of support for the operating system in open source software. Sure it
Re: (Score:3)
It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.
The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://swpat.org/ [swpat.org] and http://progfree.org./ [progfree.org.] This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.
Miguel says everything is cool so you are wrong and we have nothing to fear. Ever. EVAR !
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have the same opinion with wine? should we make life harder for those distributing wine so that people cannot try to run windows programs as a compatibility layer so easily?
Same with mono, many universities teach c# these days in their courses, and if it were not for mono I would have had to actually used windows for once.
Something of value WILL be lost, the ability to continue using your linux system in the face of being forced to use .net stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.
Whoosh. You're utterly confused. C# is no biggie, to put it mildly. It's but one of the languages for which an implementation exists that happens to target the CLR and the .net framework. It's the platform that's the big deal, not a single language.
It's not dangerous to depend on C#, if anything it may be dangerous to depend on CLR or on the .net framework.
Free C# implementations do not permit users to run C# programs on free platforms. A free C# implementation is a C#-to-bytecode compiler. To be functional
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
ECMA standards don't protect you from patent lawsuits. Especially not when the standard is saddled with RAND patents (which virtually guarantee that open source usage is out the window.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Good Question. In all the MSDN conference media -which I do not define as MSDN proper, but programmer conference media-, Microsoft has not only embraces Mono but showcases it. Microsoft has no intention of developing a .NET solution for other platforms, but it is advantageous for them to support others who do so. Did you (not you who I am replying to but the original commenter) not see the recent Microsoft PDC conference video where Miguel De Icaza himself presented on Mono?
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I should have included the link. Miguel [msdn.com] describes all the features in the most current version of Mono. At a Microsoft Developers Conference. Enuff Said.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In all the MSDN conference media -which I do not define as MSDN proper, but programmer conference media-, Microsoft has not only embraces Mono but showcases it.
Since I know Microsoft well, that is all the reason I need to avoid Mono now and forever.
Did you... not see the recent Microsoft PDC conference video where Miguel De Icaza himself presented on Mono?
I hope you are not under the misapprehension that Miguel de Icaza has a shred of credibility left with anyone, least of all me.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has not only embraces Mono but showcases it.
Since I know Microsoft well, that is all the reason I need to avoid Mono now and forever.
So on one hand we have people stating that we should avoid Mono because Microsoft does not like the competition and will eventually crush it with their patents, while on the other hand we should avoid Mono because Microsoft likes it and showcases it as evidence of the .NET CLR cross platform status.
It seems Microsoft can't do anything right!
I hope you are not under the misapprehension that Miguel de Icaza has a shred of credibility left with anyone, least of all me.
It is quite damning of Miguel that he has lost the support of the paranoid set. So what has he actually done? He has created a programming platform that works, has withstood the test of time, and that has not been crushed under the legal might if Microsoft. He proved the naysayers wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
nope, they're saying that the copyright/patent situation is not clear at all, and that MS pushing c# so hard right now, including via mono, in no way guarantees that they won't have a change of mind 5 months - 6 years from now, and close everything up again.
They could also send out death squads to kill anyone who writes buggy software in C#. Or not.
It is one thing to have doubts about whether Microsoft are lying about making an open standard, but it is another to then take every opportunity to convince the world that they are doing exactly that - even if it is completely contrary to every action that Microsoft has taken since it created .NET.
All you are saying is that you fear that they may eventually turn against the developer community, that you can't be cer
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
Last I checked MONO was aiming to deliver .NET to Linux. .NET (platform) patents scare people, not patents regarding the language specification. I guess you can patent anything in USA and sue on ever more in Texas, but I do not think that the language specification contains anything patentable.
Have you read the patent statement? It says:
So, until you have Microsoft releasing GPL (w/ classpath or whatever assemblies you use on .NET exception) or LGPL code that compiles under Linux you really shouldn't be using it.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
Legally binding promise == estoppel (Score:3)
Look it up. Basically if anyone acts in good faith relying on the promise (a promise here being a one-way contract where you do not have to agree to anything), the principle of *estoppel* springs into play. It is even more legally binding than a contract, because MS cannot even terminate it because of anything you may or may not do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would create a single point of failure. If Novell decided to stop updating Mono (or, say, went out of business) then the community wouldn't be immune to the patents if they chose to pick up the slack.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Java is open source, GPL even, and has a patent covenant from Oracle not to sue for it's use.
How much better could it fit in the GNU ecosystem?
C# *and* core libraries (Score:3)
MS patent grant and covenant covers C# and core libraries. Unlike Java, C# and core libraries is standardized through ECMA and ISO. As part of having a standard accepted by ISO a submitter must grant license for any patent necessary for implementation on a RAND basis. This was not enough for the OS community, so MS issued the "community promise".
And yes, the community is legally binding and is even stronger than a contract as the recipients do not even have to agree to anything.
Enough FUD already
Re:C# *and* core libraries (Score:5, Informative)
The FSFs stance [fsf.org], but since the FSF are just anti MS, Stallman following loonies (right?), here's Groklaw's stance [groklaw.net]. I'm sure you can find more with your friend [google.com].
But don't let the facts presented by people who understand the applicable law and the related issues stop your fanboyism.
Re: (Score:3)
only C# version 2.0 is standardised by ECMA and ISO, so forget using any of those nice new features like LINQ.
Unless you do use those features, accidentally or otherwise, then you're obviously no longer covered.
The comunity promise isn't strong enough for the community, I can believe that given the way patent lawyering has been going recently.
I was considering Monodroid... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OK so you wish to live without dynamic language support, true generics, query expressions/LINQ, closures, lambda expressions, the new async/await, and a whole host of other features so you can stick with a language that hasn't seen a major new feature in a long time? One that continuously makes the wrong decisions just for backwards compatibility? (type erasure is idiotic, just make people upgrade their JVMs. the "lambda" support coming in 1.7 will suck for the same reason - it isn't true lambda expressions
Re: (Score:2)
Cost prohibitive (Score:2)
Have you used Monodroid or Monotouch?
No, because they're cost prohibitive for a hobbyist programmer who has already graduated.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically Java is frozen in stone and will never be updated with anything worthwhile. Apparently anything that requires JVM support is absolutely out of the question.
When I first read about the type erasure fiasco and now the new lambda mess, this was my exact same thought. The only way they might be able to move the language and framework forward at this point is to have a huge drop-off where compatibility with older JVM is removed cold turkey in favor of improving the language. They'd call it something reasonable like Java 2, or something stupid like Java X, and it would be a fresh new start.
It doesn't even seem like compatibility would be that bad. Java programs
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that Oracle is behind the wheel now, and that just won't happen. As you said, Java is frozen.
This only means that your hypothetical Java 2.0 won't be called Java.
I don't know what it'll be called, but I bet it'll come out of Google.
(and no, Go is not that)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, this is the most interesting question now. Screw Mono - while nice in theory it never became popular on desktop Linux, and it's easy to understand why.
On the other hand, for mobile development, MonoTouch/MonoDroid was shaping up as the only cross-platform mobile development framework with native integration (unlike, say, AIR) and good perf. Now it looks like we're back to square one.
Looks like Attachmate didn't want Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Firing the mono developers didn't convince me of this. It's the fact they're basically moving Linux development to all be under a european division and giving them control over all the decisions. It's like they got that odd Linux thing and don't know exactly what to do with it.
I worked at Attachmate for awhile, and this doesn't really surprise me.
Re:Looks like Attachmate didn't want Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the fact they're basically moving Linux development to all be under a european division and giving them control over all the decisions. It's like they got that odd Linux thing and don't know exactly what to do with it.
Or maybe they realize that the US Patent system hopelessly f'ks things up for Linux development. Or if not hopelessly, at least expensively.
Terrible news (Score:2, Funny)
I sure hope someone else catches mono.
Re: (Score:2)
Not many tears (Score:2, Insightful)
>"Mono brings .NET to Linux,"
In a way that lags so far behind current versions and with limitations to make it unsuitable for just about anything useful. I am not shedding that many tears. It was a dangerous road to begin with (patents, not completely open, etc), and it is a shame those resources were not directed to something that would have truly benefited Linux and other Open Source platforms.
In any case, I am sure development will continue in some way. But without those resources, it will just con
Re:Not many tears (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I'm not going to wholesale bite but you really need to bring some Citation to this FUD.
You see, a simple google search results in this: http://mono-project.com/Compatibility [mono-project.com]
Which show's that as far as base libraries and feature support, Mono is almost all there with full .Net 4.0.
Seeing as that's the latest version of .Net and not even the latest version that a lot of businesses are targeting, would suggest that Mono isn't lagging at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I will admit that I based my comments from impressions of what I read over the last few years about things it couldn't do then and things it would never be able to do. There appeared to be a lot more about getting an app to work cross-platform than just the base libraries.
I can't site a source, and I am not a mono or .NET programmer, so I will shut up and let other people analyze it.
Re:Not many tears (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone that build's cross platform .NET apps using Mono, you should definitely STFU, and you obviously are talking out your ass. .NET compatibility in mono these days is steller. The only things we really lack are features of Visual Studio, not so much mono itself. MonoDevelop however is pretty dang good. In .NET we've been getting some amazing database ORM's that point & click to build your DAL automatically for you. In mono its a little bit more old-fashioned having to invoke command line for auto-generation. WPF obviously is not available, as to be expected when developing cross platform, so you use GTK. Go back to fox news dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
".NET compatibility in mono these days is steller."
I have to agree. The only area I've run into trouble in general is with the XML parser. Apparently the Mono team wrote their own, completely redesigned XML libraries, and so there are areas where it behaves differently than .NET in really weird ways.
For example, up until about a month ago, if you tried to read UTF-16-encoded XML from a MemoryStream, it would fail, indicating that the first character (the XML byte order marker, I believe) was invalid. I open
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting to read testimonials about those who HAVE used Mono for something productive. But, like you, I question the validity of comments made by "Anonymous Cowards" who also resort to swearing and personal attacks. Fortunately, there are other comments that are valid retorts to my posting and are not made by cowards and are more convincing.
But yes, I still think it is a possible trap. Like I said in other postings, I don't question the technical merits of .NET/C#/Mono as much as the motivation
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Professional full-time .Net programmer with extensive mono experience.
Mono's implementation of winforms is shit. But hey, winforms is shit!
Otherwise, I found mono to be entirely as good as MS' CLR, with the caveat that it lags behind by a short period of time. This becomes less and less important, as new language features are less and less important (generics was huge, linq was useful, type variance is nice...). Additionally, unlike winforms, mono's ASP.NET implementation is actually pretty passable.
Re: (Score:2)
Mono is great, but it also sucks for some specific purposes
If you have an 100% .NET app, it works (most of the time) .NET apps with native code, as Wine and Mono don't work together.
The problem is mixing
Unfortunately this is very common
Mono does work with wine... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not entirely true, as WPF uptake was fairly slow since it debuted in 3.0. There are plenty of .NET apps written in the last few years (on .NET 4, even) that still use WinForms, and will run on Mono.
Of course, there's plenty other missing stuff. I definitely wouldn't call Mono compatibility story "stellar". It's quite possible to write cross-platform CLR apps using it if you mind the limitations (i.e. coding to lowest common denominator and/or cross-platform portable libraries such as Gtk#), but that's
Re: (Score:3)
Look, without Mono you can't run serveral projects in the cloud without paying Windows stupidity tax. You can run them on anything but windows if mono falls apart. Like it or not C# is at least as good a language as java and arguably better than c++ for many types of projects. We don't want to lose c# from the non-windows open source world.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not trying to imply that C# is not a good language. I am sorry if my comments sounds as such. It probably is just fine. I have heard/read things that support just what you said. And I would hate to see any project that benefits Open Source platforms suffer. My objections have a lot more to do with the source of C#, patents, past history with that company and what they do, etc. And also what distraction C#/mono could be in siphoning away mindshare or resources from historically more open and more
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting to read the various feedback from people, such as yourself, that have used Mono productively and for purposes that help instead of hurt platforms other than MS-Windows. Thanks for sharing the info.
Re: (Score:2)
C# of today is in significant areas way ahead of Java. LINQ and parallelism is only two areas. Java might catch up in some areas and will undoubtedly jump ahead in others in Java 7, but Java 7 has proven that the entire Java process is irreversibly broken. The delays and the Oracle ownership are significant problems.
I build vertical in-house enterprise apps for a living. No environment on the planet currently matches .Net for this. Not even close. Being able to run on Linux servers is something I would miss
Re: (Score:2)
LINQ is interesting, but I'm not sure what you mean about parallelism being better in C# - can you elaborate?
The main area that C# (actually all of .NET) lags behind Java is in the core libraries. The collections support is lacking (and only recently became useful in any real way), there's no equivalent that I'm aware of to something like java.util.concurrent (see previous comment about parallelism), etc. The toolset is also lacking - I don't care how many people say VS is awesome, it still needs Resharper
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure what you mean about parallelism being better in C# - can you elaborate?
I suspect he means Parallel LINQ, which is, of course, not a language-specific feature.
there's no equivalent that I'm aware of to something like java.util.concurrent (see previous comment about parallelism)
I'm not saying that it's as rich, but System.Threading.Tasks [microsoft.com] and System.Collections.Concurrent [microsoft.com] namespaces provide similar high-level building blocks in .NET 4.
By the way, this is about more than just parallelism - asynchrony is also neatly expressed via tasks/futures, and C# 5 will add some nice syntactic sugar [msdn.com] for that.
As a platform though, .NET has a way to go before it's really mature IMHO.
It largely depends on the field of application. You have to remember that .NET was originally marketed
Re: (Score:3)
100% agreed there. What struck me as interesting (aft
Re: (Score:3)
What struck me as interesting (after years of explaining Swing to WinForms devs) is how much WPF reminds me of Swing, mixed with a little HTML and CSS.
Do you mean the layouts and model/view separation?
As far as layouts go, WPF is fairly bland, though I find it easier to reason about what goes where when you write the tree as XML (where it maps one-to-one), as opposed to wiring it all up in code. There are similar third-party solutions for Swing, so far as I know, but I never understood why they didn't do that from the get go - of all the ways XML is misused, UI layout is something that actually is a good application for once.
As for model/view, I dare say
Re: (Score:2)
... and? Are you saying that the feature itself is not useful?
Mono also has it, by the way, and it's very handy for calling into various C libs on Linux as well. The problem is portability, but the way Mono does it, if you have the same shared library on all supported platforms, your code is readily portable.
Re: (Score:2)
I would also be interested in hearing what you think is missing from the .Net ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much concerns (as in things which are wrong) and more that some of the libraries in Java are so powerful. I have a personal soft spot for util.concurrent (which started life as Doug Lea's concurrency package). The executor model effectively gets rid of the need to directly manipulate threads/pools (and are great for DI based apps, e.g. using Spring/Unity), and the concurrent collections (like ConcurrentLinkedQueue) are nice for performance in heavily multithreaded apps. Even the little things -
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Realised I forgot the second part of your query. In terms of ecosystem I'm referring to tools (profilers, decompilers, etc), libraries (for example hibernate, spring, jaxp, ANTLR, jbpm etc etc). There are equivalents for many of these in the .NET world now, but in many cases they're non-free and non-open, and also often less mature than their Java counterparts.
Something I miss as a server-side dev is JMX - if anyone's aware of anything like that for .NET I'd love to hear about it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I knew mono was bad news (Score:2)
not good (Score:2)
As C# is the basis for some very important to me projects this is not in the slightest good news to me.
Re: (Score:2)
As _________ is the basis for some very important to me projects this is not in the slightest good news to me.
This is the lesson everybody who hitches their wagons to Microsoft technology eventually learns. VB, FoxPro, mono, etc.
the equivalent command in ubuntu... (Score:2)
sudo apt-get purge cli-common mono-runtime
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget
sudo apt-get install banshee- rhythmbox tomboy- gnote evolution- thunderbird
or similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Gnote is a GTK version of Tomboy, and pretty much the only reason it exists is for people who don't want Mono on their box. Likewise rhythmbox.
GOOD: Just think of energy saved... (Score:4, Insightful)
By not loading up multi-megabyte runtime to print "Hello world!"
Re: (Score:2)
Impact on popular Linux applications (Score:3, Interesting)
Looking through the Mono application screenshots [mono-project.com], what I believe are the most popular programs impacted by Mono development slowing are Banshee, F-Spot, and Tomboy. Since this trio is easily replaced by Rhythmbox, gThumb, and Gnote, among other options, good riddance to the lot of them. In addition to the standard Stallman concerns [fsf.org], the high concentration of the development team within Novell was always a problem anyway. There are way too many similar applications within open-source operating systems, so culling out some of the weaker ones--from a development risk standpoint--is a net benefit as far as I'm concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Impact on popular Linux applications (Score:4, Informative)
F-Spot... easily replaced by... gThumb
I'm actually enjoying Shotwell. It's also a good advertisement for the Vala [gnome.org] language, which seems interesting.
Good start. (Score:2)
Great (Score:3)
now hopefully certain distros *cough*ubuntu*cough* will stop requiring mono just so they can put in Tomboy. (Or is it the other way around?)
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest they were probably thinking of some difficult to diagnose disease, but that wouldn't be fair.
Re: (Score:2)
"Mono" is Spanish for "monkey". The people working on Mono are "Ximian" (simian). Why the monkey theme? Got me.
Re: (Score:2)
None of the core GNOME apps use Mono besides Tomboy [gnome.org] (the others aren't "core apps" and are considered "extra" or even "third-party" apps). You can run GNOME without any of them installed, and they all have reasonable replacements that don't use Mono (Rhythmbox, Gnote, Shotwell, GNOME Shell's search bar, etc.). Rhythmbox is actually quite good; I used to be a Songbird and Banshee fan, but I tried Rhythmbox and, while it doesn't have every single feature under the sun, it's nice to work with and not nearly as
Re: (Score:2)
Well, most of those projects have satisfying alternatives, except one (at least for me): Banshee. Rhythmbox just plainly sucks in comparison.