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."
Mono is Wonderful (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep up the good work Mono team, I love C#, and I love how you are brining it to *nix.
I fear the day when Microsoft will come and snatch this out from under the Mono team, but I really think this benifits Microsoft just as having an open source version of Java benifits Sun.
Re:Mono is Wonderful (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the reason(meaning many simmilar things M$ have done) I currently dont use mono for any production systems
now this isnt totaly related , i do admit but the relationship is too close for comfort
. i feel on unsteady ground using it , not that it would matter as im in the EU (unless those *Explitives* get their way)
Although i must also raise a glass to the mono team on an excelent job.
Re:Mono is Wonderful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mono is Wonderful (Score:3, Insightful)
Java isnt closed in the sense that no one can get the code. Im not sure of the money you need (if any), but every JVM is well tested to make sure it does things in the way that Sun intended them to. That's what MAKES it a usable platform... and Im sure Sun really w
Re:Mono is Wonderful (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if Sun doesn't open their implementation, people will still create Java compilers. Take a look at the Kaffe and GCJ project. Why don't you complain about them "fragmentating" the Java community? If Sun open sources their JVM implementation, how will it suddenly generate more fragmentation than GCJ/Kaffe already do?
Re:Mono is Wonderful (Score:3, Interesting)
Because you are incapable of catching up with Sun, pissed off you can't use their code in yours, and that you can't even come close to meeting requirements with your project, so Sun's Java MUST suck! And the only way it can be good is if it is open sourced and you can rip off of it!.... Right.
Re:Mono is Wonderful (Score:3, Insightful)
Without that freedom, you and all that code you & your team spent 18 months coding are sitting under the thumb of Sun. Sun can tell you which platforms you can migrate to in the future (unless of course you want to rewrite everything in something non-java). If it is against Sun's business interest to port / allow a port of java to architecture/os xyz, you're n
Re:Mono is Wonderful (Score:3, Interesting)
# Perl's been going for longer. How many perl forks are there?
# How may rubies?
# How many phps are there?
How many big industry names (Sun, MS, IBM, Oracle, etc) are wrestling around those like in Java? No one. There is no danger because there are no pressures to do so.
All I can think of is your beloved java. MS, IBM, Sun, Kaffe, GCJ... Your strategy of keeping it closed to prevent incompatible versions doesn't seem
What are the good bits of which you speak? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which bit of Java isn't open ? (Score:3, Insightful)
C# is an ECMA standard (which of course with generics et al Microsoft is breaking). This is NOT open, and certainly not in comparison to Java.
The Java Community Process [jcp.org] go to the site and have a look at the "closed" and unchangable monstor that Sun has created. I mean its just scary to think that Java 6.0 [jcp.org] is ASKING FOR JOINERS, to input into the next standard.
How would you become an ECMA member and propose changes to C# ?
Re:Mono is Wonderful (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not reverse engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no "reverse engineering" involved. These applications are written in C#, an open ECMA standard, and the open source Gtk+ toolkit.
I fear the day when Microsoft will come and snatch this out from under the Mono team,
There is nothing to "snatch": these are applications implemented in a non-Microsoft toolkit using an open language standard.
I really think this benifits Microsoft
I don't see how writing Gnome applications in C# benefits Microsoft any more than writing Gnome applications in C++ or Python.
Re:it's not reverse engineering (Score:3, Interesting)
Those same applications will also run under Windows, which means people dont have to run a competitors OS to run the software. Plus, they can sell MS Office.NET to Linux users too, as it can run on Linux.
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:Did you forget about wxNET? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which raises the interesting question of whether we should be looking for another level of abstraction for GUIs beyond widget toolkits that let you write one codebase that then applies the HIG rules of the platform (which, of course, have to be something formally codified rather than just a spec document) to generate a (relatively speaking) HIG compliant UI.
Imagine having applications written on a level such that the "OK/Cancel" button order is determined by the platform rather than by where the code explicitly placed the buttons. Such would certainly make GNOME and KDE much more compatible. At the same time it would formalise the HIG from a "reccomended way of doing things" into a mandated consistent GUI.
Jedidiah.
Re:Did you forget about wxNET? (Score:3, Informative)
Ignorants babble what they don't understand... (Score:3, Interesting)
wxWidgets is NOT an EMULATOR layer. It's a parallel implementation of an UI using the Native OS's widgets. From the wxWidgets site: "the open source, cross-platform native UI framework
with twelve years of evolution behind it".
It's not about how a widget should LOOK or FEEL. It's about using THE SAME CODE to make a program.
They even got a PalmOS version [wxwidgets.org] now.
Maybe for your small needs you don't need cross-platform. Maybe you're happy crunchin
Re:Did you forget about wxNET? (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as people keep downloading Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird.
Re:it's not reverse engineering (Score:2)
You might think they'd want that, but they really don't. The whole thing with Microsoft (especially Office and Windows) is how they can leverage one product to sell more of the other. For them to produce a MS Office.net version that would (legally) run on Linux would be a serious blow to their Windows sales in the corporate world.
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:it's not reverse engineering (Score:2)
Re:it's not reverse engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
Your point would be well made if all Mono wanted to do was implement C# but obviously Mono looks do to much more than that. I never meant to imply that these early adopter apps use ASP/ADO.NET as they clearly do not. I was merely commenting on the the larger issue touched on by the great grandparent which is the possibility of MS trying to damage Mono somehow (by using an IP / patent club in my example).
Who is to say that MS won't at some later date apply for a patent to some core part of
Depending on the good graces of someone who will go to great lengths to stop Linux is something we ought to consider *very carefully* before embracing Mono with both arms.
Note that Mono very openly encourages and advertises Mono's support [mono-project.com] for these questionable portions of
Saying that the patent issue is a "red herring" is an enormous stretch. Mono's web site acknowledges that is an issue and even tries to come up with mitigating factors. Heck, Miguel even acknowledges that this is an issue which deserves debate, discussion and may result in the FOSS community having to route around patent damage. I'm not sure why you're trying to paint this as a non-issue when all sides have agreed that it is an issue worthy of discussion.
Re:it's not reverse engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
The catch is that C# and CLR are not open standards - they are just ECMA standards. Apparently it was a brilliant move by MSFT because now people will automatically believe CLR is somehow "open". In fact, a while ago Novell was asking MSFT for a clear declaration that Mono does not infringe MSFT IP. Guess what, we never heard what happened with that.
I don't see how writing Gnome applications in C# benefits Microsoft any more than writing Gnome applications in C++ or Python.
It provides a hose that MSFT can step on to end the distribution of the appications. The more critical the app is for Desktop Linux, the better for MSFT. Hopefully the apps that are written in C# will stay small and architecturally open enough to be easily rewritten in another language should that happen. We should never become too dependent on Mono, or Java, or any other proprietary technology.
Re:it's not reverse engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
I went to the ecma site and saw this page [ecma-international.org]:
WARNINGS
The liability and responsibility for the implementation of an Ecma Standard rests with the implementor, and not with Ecma.
Below that was a warning and a linke about settling patent issues pertaining to ECMA standards. Scary.
B
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: it's not reverse engineering (Score:2)
Maybe so, but it's far easier for MS to embrace and extend their own 'standards' than other people's... After all, they've already done the 'embrace' bit. And it's not as if they haven't shown time and time again that they're ready, willing, and able to do so. It's their main flippin' business plan!
All the fuss about Mono and C# makes me very sad. It's as if developers are say
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.
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 is Wonderful (Score:2)
In addition I found a couple that I am going to start using such as portage-sharp.
From the portage-sharp project page [sourceforge.net] on sourceforge:
Gotta love all those good intention projects on SourceForge.net
Re:Reverse engeneering :O (Score:2)
also they cant add too many things to the standard because people will get bored of upgrading a 200mb runtime environment every 3 days
Mono talk w/ icaza (Score:5, Interesting)
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? Who comes up with names like these? I would blame the MBA's, but this is open source stuff, right?
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
At least give the program a somewhat descriptive name, ie Office, Internet Explorer, TurboTax, NotePad, Photoshop, etc...
If I were looking for a music player on Google, I wouldn't even give search results about programs named Muine, MooTag or Bluefunk a second glance, simply because they don't sound like music players.
Open Source programmers are good at a lot of things, but naming their programs isn't one of them. Just look at the whole Phoenix/Firebird/FireFox fiasco.
Stop being a crusty slashbot. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ford Explorer -- does that also access the internet?
Hyundai Accent -- is it about the korean language?
Honda Accord -- music perhaps?
People make names which they feel are the best for something. They rely on something's ability to be good at it to spread the love, so to speak. If it's good, people will remember it. If it's not good, it goes away and it's no issue. Do you really like how people went to ultrageneric names and domain speculation on the Internet? Pets.com? Mail.com? News.com?
Take a look at things which people remember. What about Napster implies filesharing? What about Suprnova? What about Google implies searching?
Naming is a magic game. Just because you don't like how others play it, does not mean they are playing it wrong. This whole "incorrect naming" meme is stupid and pointless. Start thinking critically about what you're saying before you repeat it everywhere.
The naming of cars is a difficult matter (Score:3, Funny)
1. The Honda Accord
2. The Isuzu Axiom
3. The Buick Rendezvous
4. The Mazda Protegé
5. The Alfa Quadrifoglio
6. The Diahatsu Charade
7. The Lambourghini Murcielago
8. The Mitsubishi Endeavor
9. The Oldsmobile Intrigue
10. The Subaru Legacy
Re:huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, and forget Access, Visio, Excel, BOB, Acrobat, Encore, PowerPoint, and similarly named programs. I can't tell what they do either just by their names....
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know why, but just about every OSS project title is some tongue-in-cheek in-joke amongst the developers who are the only ones who think it's funny. Like KDE programs all being titled with puns starting with "K."
Besides, Powerpoint, Access, and Visio have reasonable similarity with what they actually do. As for your completely random and pointless reference to Bob, I'm still amazed Slashdotters obsess over this small desktop shell released for a short time way back in 1994.
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Visio, as in vision, as in visualizing schematics.
This isn't difficult.
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Visio, Access, Oracle, or Winamp?
As we all know a product can only become successful if it has a clearly descriptive name like those above. I know whenever I want password and authentication software I think of access, when I want a scientific data visualization library I think of Visio, and it is clear that Winamp is software to provide fine tuning for your desktop volume controls.
Oddly however; stupidly nam
Everybody knows (Score:2, Funny)
Uh, right, I knew that. Sure I did. Yup. They're superhits, so I'd be a fool not to. Got that right.
Mono progress (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You were right the first time. (Score:4, Funny)
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, Insightful)
Re:Beagle (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Beagle (Score:3, Informative)
There are thousands of open source java projects.
Here's a few. [sourceforge.net]
Re:Beagle (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is it that anytime someone asks for an example of a decent Java App the Java Fanboys come up with either Eclipse (doesn't count, only useful with Java) or Azureus?
Why is it I have to install old versions of the Java Runtim
Re:Beagle (Score:2)
Just guess which one is more likely to attempt a lawsuit attack on the desktop Linux users. ISTR also that clean-room Java implementations are less infringing than Mono (which implements the ECMA standard that is granted with "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms). Too bad Java is a dog, especially for
Re:Beagle (Score:4, Interesting)
You should try gcj with the SWT or gnome-java bindings. Nothing doggy about it. :-)
BTW, gcj is the gcc Java compiler [gnu.org].
Re:Beagle (Score:2)
Wrong punctuation? (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't heard of even one of these "super hits." I think that should have been punctuated,
with 'super-hits' like Tomboy, F-spot, MonoDevelop, Muine & Blam! and other less-known gems,
Re:Wrong punctuation? (Score:2)
Re:Wrong punctuation? (Score:5, Funny)
[Insert requisite stream of sexist abuse towards Eugenia...]
C# Rocks - go mono go. (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep up the good work - I'm loving it!
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# Rocks - go mono go. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've had a .NET app handle 100,000+ active TCP connections on a Win2k3 box without blinking an eye.
Just watch out for heap fragmentation caused by pinning your input buffers. It's best to preallocate them in blocks and reuse them when you can.
Dashboard (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dashboard (Score:2)
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.
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Every morning I get up and feed F-Spot (my Beagle). Then, I get out some eggs, cheese, and MooTag to make myself an omelet. I learned how to cook omelets from Emeril. So, it's Muine & Blam! and my omelets done!
Next, I take a shower and wash off the Bluefunk. Once dressed in my suit and my PolarViewer glasses I call down to Tomboy (our doorman) and have him GIB up a cab.
Once at work it is non-stop Gfaxes and sneaking some time with my SportTracker.
Impressive (Score:4, Insightful)
Great works, mono devs.
And to all those trolls that will come out of the woodwork with every mono story, telling us that mono is the end of open source:
Please, for once in your miserable lifes try to provide arguments for your point that go beyond MS is evil (though I would readily agree with that) and therefor mono is the suX0r.
good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:good (Score:5, Informative)
Re:good (Score:2)
Almost 100% Agreed. (Score:3, Insightful)
By extension, you could just as easily say that the implementation language never matters, it's all just a Turing Machine(*) anyway. Except it does matter. Support for cleaner syntax, extra type checking, virtual/non-virtual method dispatch, etc. all matter when implementing an OO design. You can avoid whole classes of bugs by having proper language support, and programmer time can be reduced considerably.
(*) We'l
Re:Almost 100% Agreed. (Score:5, Funny)
It usually starts with this: "First, implement LISP..."
Have you ever seen backwards-chaining declarative logic designs in Scheme?
It usually starts with "First, implement PROLOG..."
I wish I was kidding.
Re:good (Score:3, Insightful)
uses polymorphism, then it's OO, otherwise it's just a modular design. Assuming
you buy into the distinction I just made, it's unusual, but not difficult or impossible,
to do OO in C since the language doesn't explicitly support polymorphism.
In contrast, python makes polymorphism so simple that you often don't even
realize you're doing it. With Java and C#, you either have to share a common
ancester or implement the same interface.
Geeks getting mono? (Score:5, Funny)
C# is Better than Java(At least I think So) (Score:5, Interesting)
The only problem I have with C# was that it was not as portable as Java, but Mono came to my rescue. I was surprised how many of my program just worked in Mono (after removing winforms that is). I can't wait for version 2.0.
Really, Mono should be embraced
P.S. And for some reason, they still have the sides on their computer case.......
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:C# is Better than Java(At least I think So) (Score:5, Informative)
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:C# is Better than Java(At least I think So) (Score:2)
Question about GTK# (Score:2)
Now that Windows forms is available, I could of course create cross platform applications in that, but I suspect I'd get more consistent results from using gtk#, if targetting both Unix and Microsoft dotNet is a requirement.
In any case, gtk# looks nicer as a programming model.
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:Question about GTK# (Score:2)
It's tricky to google-fu your way to an answer to this one, because naturally anything that mentions gtk# is bound to mention dot Net in a generic way, not necessarily meaning the Microsoft implementation.
From a mono developer.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:From a mono developer.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Great, now that you are here:
A while (a year or two?) ago Novell was asking MSFT to clarify the IP issues with Mono, or at least to declare that Mono does not infringe MSFT IP, i.e. that it's safe to use. What happened with that? I'd certainly like to get a form of reassurance that it's going to stick around and be safe to code for, esp. with the emergence of projects like IronPython...
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:From a mono developer.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Easier Coding Tools = Better Software!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Take me for example. I work for a Fortune 500 company that is currently working on NextGen database products. I'm the chief software designer. Back when I was in college in the 80s, programming was a black art known only to nerds who wore underpants on their heads and uttered dark incantations. I never really got on with those guys because they just weren't popular enough and they smelled kind of funny.
But thanks to the miracle of the 90s, I am now a software developer myself. My dev suite is comprised of Photoshop (for mock layouts of the UI), Macromedia Flash and MS PowerPoint. With these tools I am crafting the nextgen interfaces that are what put my company at the top. We are drawing lots of attention and turning lots of heads with our products because only we know what the users want these days. Our database product is an award winning package that combines the ambience of Myst and Riven with an Oracle backend and a hint of The Matrix. Users want cool looking apps, not some archaic software that just displays data. Why settle for an app where the text is just displayed in a scroll box, or worse through a terminal emulation program like WRQ Reflection? Our app flys in the text from the side and makes the text sparkle like you see in the intro to a lot of movies. That's the key folks, don't look to Silicon Valley for great software ideas, look at Hollywood. They get it right.
Since I'm a generous guy, I'll share some suggestions about how to design great apps these days:
1. Always make sure that you focus on making the UI look as cool as possible. This requires the use of many tools to make sure that the interface is going to make the user look as good as possible.
2. Always add more features to your application because nothing helps users more than new features. And make them sexy. I'm not talking about adding automatic spell checking or useless shit like that. I'm talking about syncronized sound effects that reflect the actions on screen like you see in the best films.
3. Pervasive use of MPEGs. Our company got away from the old practice of using stupid 16 color icons for button functions and the like because we realized that this was confusing to users. Most of the time those images didn't mean much. Instead, we replaced them with full MPEGs running in loops to represent every possible function a user might do in the real world.
4. Watch all the latest blockbuster scifi films that make use of computer interfaces. The geeks get UI design wrong every time. Only Hollywood knows how to make cool looking UIs and only the best software designers know to take their cues from the film industry.
5. Require that your customers have the most powerful boxes to run your programs. We can't be bothered with idiotic businesses that want to keep desktop systems with PIIIs and 256 megs of RAM. How the hell are you supposed to expect the software to run properly? We tell all of our customers that they must upgrade all desktops to the following minumum requirements: Pentium 4 2.5 GHz or better, with 1 gig of RAM. That just barely keeps up with our advanced software, but it's the minimum. (Alienware makes the best business machines we've seen)
It makes me laugh when I see you geeks trying to come up with new programming languages and platforms. Mono. What a joke. You call that progress? I don't. Keep working on more tools like Photoshop, Flash and PowerPoint. That's where development is these days. All that antiquated complicated crap is just mental masturbation for losers with no life. I read an article recently about a company that is working on self writing software. If these guys succeed, and they partner up
Story time (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know the detailed inner workings, but it seems like these projects are forever doomed to being a shadow of a "mostly" implimentation riddled with "gotchas" and always a few steps behind. I don't blame the developers in any way, its just we all know MS does not play nice with others.
Re:Story time (Score:5, Insightful)
secondly, mono is more about enabling developers to use C# and CLR, rather than allowing people to run windows software on *nix, so there isn't the same necessity for bug-for-bug compatibility as there is in samba (where you want to look exactly like a Windows box from the outside).
Re:Story time (Score:5, Insightful)
Mono has a long way to go, even in OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Java (14080 projects)
C# (2206 projects)
Also, don't forget there is a very interesting ahead-of-time Java compiler as part of the gcc toolchain, gcj [gnu.org]. It isn't complete, but it is constantly improving and can now be used to write SWT and Gnome applications. Good stuff!
I hate to see C# getting any uptake when all it is intended to do is allow Microsoft to co-opt all of Java's good ideas while stifling portability as much as possible. It is a transparent Java ripoff.
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, reading that statistic I was impressed by how well C# is doing -- 1/7th as many projects as Java, and really all in about 2 years, and in the OSS community which isn't exactly MS's core area.
I think MS have recaptured a bit of their old magic here, in lowering the 'energy threshold' required to get a project going. That's what made VB and Excel so ubiquitous -- I'm not saying that that was a good thing, but it sure worked. The work you have to do to create, package and distribute a
Re:Mono has a long way to go, even in OSS (Score:5, Interesting)
Java: Azureus, Eclipse.... I'm sure if I really searched I could find a third.
Mono: Beagle, Tomboy, F-Spot, Muine, MonoDevelop etc. [osnews.com]
It's no sillier a metric than the amount of showelware on SourceForge for a given platform. For the Linux user it's certainly a more interesting one.
Even these so called crown jewels of the Java desktop can be spotted a mile away as Java programs. When you run Beagle or Tomboy you can not distinguish them from native GTK+ apps. For all intents and purposes they are native.
Java and Mono have chosen completely different paths at this point. It's futile to try to evangelize one language over the other at this point. Java has settled as a backend language for stuff like web services, while Mono/.NET competes with the incumbent C/C++, and Python to some extent, over the desktop. It's now a case of different tools for different jobs, and at this time it's already pretty clear that Mono is going to be a major force when it comes to the future of the Linux desktop.
Driving developers to windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Its great to have a language that can come installed with linux (java cough* cough*). However mono ultimately will work OK, but will drive developers to windows in droves because of the better deveopment environment that Visual Studio.net offers.
I fear that ultimately there will be mono apps that can run sometimes on windows (if you install gtk# etc...etc.) and
Mono has its place, but I don't think cross platform apps is going to happen.
C# for UI? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm primarily a *nix developer, but this Mono implementation of
A good portable way to write programs might be to write the application core in standard C++, then write the UI in C#/Mono on *nix, Obj-C on OS X, and C#/.NET on Windows.
Thoughts?
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!
I'll say this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Having recently considered learning C#/Mono, a few things bugged me. Firstly, it was not easy to find a tutorial more complex than Hello World but less complex than "oh, look, we're going to be making a wordpad clone". Considering that it is much easier to program with C and GTK, or C++ and QT or GTK--, it will take some serious work to make Mono attractive if you're looking to attract the people who don't need Windows compatibility.
Re:Mono - HOWTO Shoot Yourself In The Foot (Score:2)
Re:Mono - HOWTO Shoot Yourself In The Foot (Score:2)
Re:Hmm, does realy Mono work.. (Score:2)
Mono is actually rather stable, provided you're not trying to use things like Windows.Forms, which is still a bit buggy, IMHO.
If you're using Mono for GNOME/GTK development, it's actually quite stable, and much more usable than trying to write applications in old-fashioned C.
Re:Hmm, does realy Mono work.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but let's be honest here: if you're writing a GTK/GNOME application you're writing a reasonably high level application and pretty much anything (Java, Python, hell even C++, bindings) would be "much more usable" than "old-fashioned C".
Please note that I am not dissing Mono. Variety is nice, and C# does provide a relatively nice language to be able to code GUI applications in. My issue is with the common implication that C# is unique in this - it isn't. Try out PyGTK [pygtk.org] for instance (particularly with libGlade).
Jedidiah.
Re:Is there a nice guide online to coding in Mono? (Score:3, Informative)
2. Afaik there even is a plugin for Eclipse
Cue the Microsoft paranoia (Score:2)
it's not .NET (Score:2)
By analogy, Qt applications written in C++ have nothing to do with MFC applications written in C++; they are two different application frameworks that happen to be based on the same programming language.
Re:Take the Mono Challenge !!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Contrary to both the JVM and MS
And we're rapidly improving to support better server workloads.