Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNOME GUI Operating Systems Programming Software Windows IT Technology

New Mono Roadmap, DotGNU 0.1 On CD 41

Posted by timothy from the co-option-option dept.
msh104 writes "The Mono project just released a nice status update for Mono. They also preview a roadmap for what the future will be like. It's quite nice to read if you want to find out if writing .Net programs for Linux will have a future for you. The Mono roadmap is available here." And gibbon writes "The DotGNU Project announced the availability of the DotGNU 0.1 CD-ROM release. It runs on many platforms and the CD contains documentation, packages for GNU/Linux, FreeBSD and MS Windows. It is now possible to use the base class libraries and XML. System.Windows.Forms and the web services are coming along well, too. The announcement contains more information and download links."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Mono Roadmap, DotGNU 0.1 On CD More

New Mono Roadmap, DotGNU 0.1 On CD

Comments Filter:

  • 'Splain it to me, Lucy... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @10:38AM (#7396578)
    I'm asking this half sarcastically and half seriously.

    Could someone please explain to me: Isn't Mono basically an open source .NET and why would we expect Micro$oft to NOT shut Mono down cold if it goes anywhere so it becomes a threat to them?
    • Even if the MS .Net API patent is granted, there are several reasons why it may be difficult or impossible for them to enforce it gainst Mono and DotGNU. For example, there is the matter of anti-trust law. Patent law says that when a patent is unenforcable because of anti-trust law, that makes the patent invalid. Of course Novell (for the Mono project) and the Free Software Foundation (for the DotGNU project) will have to prove this in court. Until this is done, Microsoft might be able to make hell hot

    • Re:'Splain it to me, Lucy... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by avdi ( 66548 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @10:49AM (#7396721) Homepage
      Because a) Mono is an implementation of the open ECMA-standard components of .NET, done without any knowledge of MS's implementation; and b) Mono is much more likely to help than to hinder MS, at least in the short term.
      • an implementation of the open ECMA-standard components of .NET, done without any knowledge of MS's implementation

        The ECMA-standard components of .NET alone (for which MS has promised royalty-free licensing of any patents they may get) do not give a useful platform. Most C# programs use non-ECMA class library components in essential ways.

        How much the developers knew about Microsoft's MS's implementation is possibly relevant if MS claims contract violation (e.g. violation of some EULA clause) or copyrigh

    • Well, as far as I can tell there is no legal way that Microsoft could shut them down at this point. The .NET languages and bytecode formats are ECMA standards, just like JavaScript. The only thing I can see Microsoft possibly being able to use against .NET and Mono would be patents that might protect some of the libraries. I am not aware of any patents MS has at this point which could be used in this way, but there is a possibility.

      Now, MS may try asking DotGNU or Mono to shutdown without a legal reason
    • Well, don't you guys forget that there is only about 10% of the .NET on the ECMA. And there is a thing called "sub-license prohibition" where m$ tells you that you can use the stuff they provide, but can't redistribute it on a different license. So, goodye poor GPL. If you guys wants to be sure are writing free software, move away from this.

    • I hear a lot of sentiment here that .NET is just a poison pill for Linux. The basic FUD scenario is that a significant number of OSS projects will one day be based on mono or DotGNU and M$ lawyers will issue IPL based C&D orders and all that OSS will not be available on Linux. Bad, very bad.

      Why is .NET so tempting to Linux developers? Is it possible that such a managed environment is attractive to sophisticated developers? Why not write to the J2EE platform and look to OSS app servers such as JBoss?

  • I want to know why GNU net has support for forms but mono does not?
    Anyone know of a good ide for GNUnet or Mono.
    Emacs does not count.
    • [Warning: I'm just guessing there, I don't have Mono running on my compy right now]

      IF your CLI supports System.Xml and System.Windows.Forms, then MAYBE SharpDevelop [icsharpcode.net] will run on your computer.

      I tried it once using the early 1.0 framework, worked nice, a bit clunky if you are used to vs.net but then again SharpDev was an alpha OSS tool back then [now I gather it's a beta OSS IDE ;) ]
      Please feel free to flame me to death for my ignorance or just post a 'WFM'.

    • Re:.Forms (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      My guess is it's because Miguel is responsible for writing Mono, and he's too busy trying to figure out how to implement a Mono version of the paperclip.
    • Actually, Mono does have support for Windows.Forms in CVS, and it will be more complete and compatible than .GNU. Mono is using Wine rather than some hacked reimplementation like .GNU.

      • Re:.Forms (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        the DotGNU implementation of SWF is not "hacked". They just decided to write it on top of Xlib on non-windows platforms instead of going the mono route with wine being a dependency.

        No, you won't be able to run .NET binaries that rely on SWF on dotgnu in the near future, but you will be able to run DotGNU binaries using SWF on windows. Hopefully they'll get some theme support going so it looks native.
      • You don't need the entire windows api to implement SWF. Using wine will result in an unstable and less portable port of SWF.

        How long do you think mono SWF works on OSX or Ipaq? DotGNU SWF has been working on both for months.
  • Or do I need to download special drivers, or windows drivers/dlls, etc??
    • Or do I need to download special drivers, or windows drivers/dlls, etc??

      You don't need anything besides what you already have... X11 on a GNU/Linux or other Unix-like system, or Microsoft's native APIs on the MS Windows system.

  • Suppose, I am starting a new project destined to change the world.
    It is definitely going to be thick-client-based one. I would consider .NET if I can be reasonably sure that those 5% of my potential users who do not run Windows on their desktop will still be able to run my application.
    If Windows.Forms will not be usable in Mono, this does not sound like much of an option and I would be better off with Java/Swing (as lead-footed as it is).
    I read the roadmap things but it is still not clear to me if Windo

    • Re:Windows.Forms (Score:4, Informative)

      by bizcoach ( 640439 ) on Wednesday November 05, 2003 @12:45PM (#7397892) Homepage
      it is still not clear to me if Windows.Forms is going to be more mature (implement more of the Microsoft namespaces correctly) in the future

      The DotGNU project is 100% committed to making Windows.Forms mature. We're even offering significant cash prizes [dotgnu.org] as an additional incentive to help move this forward as fast as possible.

    • The whole impetus to Mono is to move beyond the world of filters, pipes, and command lines to a workable GUI component-software framework.

      If one can say that there are two successful component-software frameworks out there, they would have to be Java and ActiveX. Java is single-language and multi-platform, but multi-platform in that one is running the Java platform under all the different OS's. ActiveX is, unfortunately single platform (Windows), but it is really, truly, multi-language (besides Visual B

    • See wx.NET (cross platform, based on wxWindows)
      See GTK# (not quite so x-platform - GTK+ exists for windows, but without the L&F of windows)

      Although I agree that a native cross platform toolkit would be better, would you expect anything else from Microsoft for Windows?? :S

  • Mono VS DotGNU from a commercial sense (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For that you'll have to go waaaay back to the origin of the problem. Mono has a proprietary commercial plan ie Proprietary Mono Sales [go-mono.com]. I'm not saying that it's bad , but for a GNU project to turn a blind eye to that happening to its code.

    For this purpose Ximian insisted thateveryone either contribute with an X11 license or GPL under (C) Ximian.com. Which is not wholly acceptable to FSF (who sponsors DotGNU).....

    It isn't like it's a Gnome-KDE war. Portable.net has re-licensed their I18N (ie those da


    • Also what they had was a VM that ran under Wine and used MFC like it would on Win32

      Uh no. MFC is a C++ wrapper for the Win32 APIs. It is definitely not the underlying API used by Windows forms on either .NET and Mono.

    • Re:Mono VS DotGNU from a commercial sense (Score:4, Informative)

      by miguel ( 7116 ) on Saturday November 08, 2003 @01:14PM (#7424504) Homepage
      Two lies above:

      * There were never any Windows.Forms cooperation plans. Each group has chosen a different implementation path.

      * We never pulled Windows.Forms out of Mono, we continue to develop it.

      Your conspiracy theory on the marketability of Gtk# is pure nonsense. We develop Gtk# to build Gnome applications, we have no choice if we want to leverage all the platform code available.

      We develop Windows.Forms and other APIs to remain compatible with code that people develop on Windows, and move it to Linux. As simple as that: Mono is not only a great platform to create *new* software with Unix-isms, it is also a platform to enable the growth of Linux by bringing the Windows people over.

      Miguel

  • What is the point of .Net on Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Decaff ( 42676 ) on Friday November 07, 2003 @02:22PM (#7418803)
    .Net on Linux is always going to lag behind .Net on Windows. Linux is a dominant presence in the server market, yet the aspects of .Net that Mono suggest they are least likely to implement are the enterprise server features, so only the client-side features of .Net are likely to be anywhere near complete.

    There is a language and system already available on almost every platform that has complete client and enterprise features and open source versions (GCJ, Kaffe) - its called Java.

    So why bother?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close