Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

De Icaza Pleads For Mono/.Net Cooperation 262

suka writes "In a recent interview with the online edition of an Austrian newspaper, Mono project-lead Miguel de Icaza pleads for cooperation between Mono and Microsoft's .Net: 'I think that the deal should include a technical Mono/.NET collaboration, and even go as far as Microsoft recommending Mono for all of their developers looking at migration'. The whole interview has some other interesting bits, like de Icaza's thoughts on open sourced Java and information about upcoming versions of Mono."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

De Icaza Pleads For Mono/.Net Cooperation

Comments Filter:
  • Mono (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:22PM (#18507823)
    My cousin tried Mono in college. Some bed rest and lots of fluid and she eventually got better.
  • >Microsoft recommending Mono for all of their developers looking at migration

    Why would it be in Microsoft's best interest to support migration to Mono?
    Doesn't EEE make more sense for them?
    • Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daeg ( 828071 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @06:02PM (#18508345)
      Because it saves them market share, which is still valuable. If you're going to lose someone to Linux, you can at least keep them partially on your platform. This makes it easy, or sometimes desirable, to switch back to Windows (for integration into other Windows software, etc).

      Furthermore, if you keep them on .NET, you may also keep them on SQL Server and Exchange, which are very very pricey and I'm sure turns a nice profit.

      Visual Studio is also very nice to work in, and Visual Studio isn't cheap, either. As you use Mono you can reuse those same components on Windows, too (ideally).
      • You know... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by encoderer ( 1060616 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @07:15PM (#18509169)
        You know, this guy got mod'ed troll, but at worst I think he was off-topic.

        In all reality, that is a quintessential Microsoft move.

        Purchase into a market, then leverage their OS monopoly to drive adoption of SUSE, or whatever they may call it then. It's already begun, but imagine a version of Linux that also supports the ACTUAL Win32 API, or true cross-compatibility between Windows and this one linux distro.

        Sure, the Microsoft-Haters in the linux community would throw fits over it and boycott it entirely, but the businesses that use Linux for web servers and db servers and such don't care about that. To them it would mean the best of both worlds. And in all honesty, they'd be correct.

        Of course, it would probably be bad for the Linux community, I'm not denying that. But this is a very standard modus operandi for Redmond. It's certainly more than just a troll.
      • Yes, and, as an added advantage, it forces the technology leader of a competing desktop offering (Gnome) to continually 'plead' for your help and support. Microsoft is bound to like that leverage.

  • so, at last... (Score:2, Insightful)

    the sleeper activates...
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I know a lot of people in the OSS community think of De Icaza as some sort of god. But when we look at his actual contributions, I think they've set the OSS community back by years.

      Take GNOME, for instance. When GNOME was first established, KDE was already the premiere OSS desktop environment. There were some minor licensing issues, but with Trolltech's cooperation those were quite easily worked out. Regardless, a lot of effort was put into GNOME to duplicate what KDE already offered. Even today, we still s
      • by Tack ( 4642 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @07:49PM (#18509551) Homepage

        There were some minor licensing issues, but with Trolltech's cooperation those were quite easily worked out.

        The "licensing issues" you refer to were not minor; they were simply not compatible with the ethos of a fully free desktop. To the best of my recollection, at the time of GNOME's inception there was no end in sight to Trolltech's proprietary hold on Qt. Qt was GPLed at least three years after GNOME was began. Dealing with Qt's "minor licensing issues" was not as trivial and straightforward as you make it sound.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          You remember quite wrong.

          KDE was started in 1996. GNOME was started in August of 1997. Qt was licensed under the QPL in November of 1998, along with the plans to release Qt under a variant of the BSD license were Trolltech to go under or otherwise abandon Qt. Regardless, Trolltech released the UNIX version of Qt under the GPL in September of 2000.

          For most pragmatic developers and users, the deal of November 1998 was more than sufficient. Thus GNOME was essentially rendered useless to everyone but a small ha
          • by Tack ( 4642 )

            You remember quite wrong.

            Seems to me that I remembered quite right, in fact. GNOME was started in 1997; Qt was GPLed in 2000. That's 3 years. Your bias (in presuming my wrongness) is your interpretation of "proprietary hold." From the perspective of a FOSS desktop, if vendors (say Red Hat) can't distribute a derivative of Qt, then that qualifies as "proprietary hold." The ability to distribute derivatives is hardly useful only a "small handful of zealots." The QPL was just not viable for a free deskt

            • by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @09:28PM (#18510349) Homepage Journal

              From the perspective of a FOSS desktop, if vendors (say Red Hat) can't distribute a derivative of Qt, then that qualifies as "proprietary hold." The ability to distribute derivatives is hardly useful only a "small handful of zealots." The QPL was just not viable for a free desktop, and, from a licensing perspective, there was still a place for GNOME even in 1998.
              Indeed, from a licensing perspective, there is a place for GNOME right now, since GTK+ is LGPL: there is a reason that things like Mozilla, OpenOffice, SWT, etc. use GTK+ rather than QT. Yes, the whole GPL v LGPL issue for the GUI toolkit is, for many many people, a minor point that makes no difference. There are people for whom the difference matters, however, and as long as the difference in licensing exists there will continue to be a licensing niche that GNOME successgully occupies.
      • by joto ( 134244 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @08:54PM (#18510111)

        Take GNOME, for instance. When GNOME was first established, KDE was already the premiere OSS desktop environment. There were some minor licensing issues,

        Uhm, at that time, there was no good OSS desktop environment. Sure, KDE existed. So did a bunch of others (e.g. Gnustep, CDE, various fvwm-based shit, etc...). They all sucked. KDE may have sucked a little bit less than some others, but it was far from obvious that it was what everybody should bet on (if it was, everybody would have done just that). And the licensing issues seemed pretty unsolvable at the time. It is doubtful whether Trolltech would have caved in, if it wasn't for the rise in interest in GNOME.

        Even today, we still see that GNOME has not yet caught up to KDE.

        GNOME has never been about "catching up" to KDE. When GNOME was started, KDE was ignored out of political and philosophical grounds. Since then, both GNOME and KDE has gone out of their way to emulate Microsoft Windows. Sure, some ideas might have been brought from KDE to GNOME, or in the other direction, but for the most part, ideas have been stolen from more successful commercial products, not from some hobbyist open source desktop project.

        And then we have Mono, the subject of this Slashdot topic. Again, so much valuable time and effort has been wasted on creating a product that really is of no benefit to the OSS community.

        In my opinion, Mono has a lot to offer the OSS community. Does that make one of us wrong? Yes. Is it me? No. Just because you don't find any use for it, doesn't mean that it's useless. Personally, I find C++ to be pretty useless, but I don't go around blaming the gcc developers for spending their time writing a compiler for it. And if it wasn't for gcc supporting C++, there would be no KDE either.

        Just imagine how much further along projects like KDE, Python, Perl, and Ruby would be if effort and expertise hadn't been wastefully siphoned off to GNOME and Mono.

        I have lots of trouble imagining that just because people stopped developing Mono, there would magically appear lots of worthwhile contributions to KDE, Python, Perl and Ruby instead. People work on what they want, not what you want.

  • Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:24PM (#18507845) Journal
    Good luck on that. Microsoft most certainly doesn't want its application platform running well on other operating systems. The whole point of .Net was get something there while it fucked over Sun. I'm afraid that Mono, like Samba and OpenOffice, is stuck reverse engineering Microsoft, and that will always be a game of catchup.
    • Re:Good Luck (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:41PM (#18508075)
      Well, I think the point he is trying to make is that Novell should have pushed for the cooperation to be part of the deal, as in: one of Novell's demands. Of course Microsoft probably doesn't want to do this voluntarily, which is why it would have a place in the deal.
    • Re:Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:41PM (#18508081) Homepage Journal
      I hate to say it but I always felt Mono was a mistake. The problem with .NET is that it really is a Windows only system. When you try to point that out people say not it isn't you can use Mono. A convent lie that lets .NET compete with Java right up to the point where you have tens of thousands of lines of code and you want to migrate to a different platform. Then the Microsoft sales rep can say, "You know Mono really has fallen behind .NET. You can port your applications if you want but it would just be cheaper to stick with Windows. Once you add in the cost of porting all that code your Total Cost of Ownership will be much less with Windows. Oh and would you like some more copies of Office and another Exchange server to got with that?"

      Mono is multi-platform .NET is not.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Teckla ( 630646 )

        I hate to say it but I always felt Mono was a mistake. The problem with .NET is that it really is a Windows only system. When you try to point that out people say not it isn't you can use Mono. A convent lie that lets .NET compete with Java right up to the point where you have tens of thousands of lines of code and you want to migrate to a different platform. Then the Microsoft sales rep can say, "You know Mono really has fallen behind .NET. You can port your applications if you want but it would just be cheaper to stick with Windows. Once you add in the cost of porting all that code your Total Cost of Ownership will be much less with Windows. Oh and would you like some more copies of Office and another Exchange server to got with that?"

        Mono is multi-platform .NET is not.

        Even worse... How long until Ballmer starts grumbling about Mono using Microsoft patents?

        Mono will never be a safe language for developers ... or even users. Just wait until Microsoft starts talking about how users of Mono applications owe Microsoft money because of the usage of Microsoft patented technology in Mono...

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        Mono is multi-platform .NET is not.

        Well, by definition .NET is Windows-only. The underlying Common Language Interpreter doesn't have to be. IIRC, Microsoft released a couple of non-Windows versions of the CLI when .NET was first released, including one that ran on some flavor of BSD.
        • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
          And WindowsNT was multiplatfrom. Intel sold MIPS, Alpha, and PowerPC versions of NT....
          The only non-Intel NT/W32 Kernel sits at the heart of the 360.
      • is that there are fundamental philosophical differences in programming strategies that a cross-platform tool will be unable to overcome. Windows tends to support object-oriented approaches, while *nix supports data-triven approaches. Some loosely typed languages like Perl and Python allow one to sort of freely meld these approaches (Perl moreso than Python), but this has some strong drawbacks in certain types of projects.

        Even if .Net (or Java) were truly cross-platform (write once, test once, run everywhe
        • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
          There is nothing about Unix that makes it any less object-oriented than Windows. Just take a look at just about anything written using KDE/QT.
      • I thing all the projects started by Icaza have been secretly backed by Microsoft (except midnight commander). This includes Gnome.

        MS monopoly is all about protecting the API. As Ballmer said: developers, developers, developers! They had one API everybody used, win32, and it was their crown jewel. As long as everybody keep developing for win32, MS would win.

        Then came Linux. If Linux distros could provide a competing API to Win32, MS would be screwed. MS solution? fragment the Linux API. You see, one of the main values of a successful API is that it's universal. So how to destroy Linux? Destroy the universality of the API. Make not one, but TWO competing APIs! Then developers would have endless religious wars and Linux would not grow as a competing commercial platform against Win32. How to do it? Make Gnome and start a religious war against the then 'closed license' QT libraries. Forward ten years and what's the result? Nobody uses either KDE or Gnome to develop commercial software, the 'developers, developers, developers' are still somewhere else. Oracle uses Java as the API when running in Linux. And who started Gnome? Icaza.

        Meanwhile Java becomes stronger against C++. Developers switch to Java.

        Now what happens, MS decides to create a new API from zero, sacrificing their beloved Win32. The new API is then called .NET. They have to do this, because they could not destroy Java. Now MS has to protect .NET, make it the universal API that every developer would use. Linux (as always) is a threat to MS. So what's MS strategy this time? The same they used against Java, just a little backwards.

        Against Java they used the embrace and extend, promoting J++, that used MS proprietary extensions to the Java language to achieve developer lock in. To protect .NET from Linux, they would do a backwards embrace an extend: give Linux a limited .NET implementation, so that developers would still be locked to .NET proprietary extensions in the Windows platform. This limited .NET implementation is MONO. And who started MONO? Icaza.

        Right now it is Java vs .NET, everywhere where developers make $$$.

        Icaza is also a strong backer of the Novel-MS deal.

        All I can see Icaza doing lately is telling everybody: "why can't we be friends?", but I seriously suspect the motives behind it.
      • When you try to point that out people say not it isn't you can use Mono.

        First lesson: This is a comma, learn to use it. In fact, punctuation is your friend!

        Also: not? I don't think the phrase "not is isn't" makes any sense, in any context.

        So, the above sentence should read: "When you try to point that out, people say "No it isn't, you can use Mono."

        And it's still ugly as sin. Do you actually read what you type? Alright, going to ignore punctuation for the rest of the paragraph...

        A convent lie that let

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gambit3 ( 463693 )

      When has M$ cared about it, unless it was to Embrace then expand? It only cares about interoperability if it's playing catchup in the market. If it isn't, then you're screwed trying to get this from M$.
    • Re:Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SoCalChris ( 573049 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:42PM (#18508089) Journal
      Considering that section 3.d.iii of their MSDN code license (Covers the code samples on the MSDN site) specifically disallows you from using any of their code on non-windows platforms, I'd say their position on cross platform compatibility is crystal clear.

      MSDN Code License []
      • In fact, (Score:3, Insightful)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 )
        had mono came out about 3 years earlier (i.e. during the early days of .net), then MS would have cooperated until they felt that they had enough market share taken from java, and then they would have gone after mono. Based on MS's long history of screwing over all their partners, I would say that it was very predictable what this outcome was going to be. What I am amazed at, is that so many expect different of MS. This is the classic case of a dog helping a scorpion across the lake and then getting stung on
    • Re:Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kosmosik ( 654958 ) <kos&kosmosik,net> on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @06:29PM (#18508687) Homepage
      > I'm afraid that Mono,

      Dunno. I don't use it - *I* think it sucks cause I have installed some apps using Mono on my Fedora box and they crashed really bad all the time. So it probably sucks.

      > like Samba

      Samba? Well Samba is Samba. Maybe it lacks in some stuff that MS has implemented (AD and such) but still it is de facto standard for CIFS/Windows Networking on non-Windows systems. It is *the* standard for most of unices, NAS boxes, Macs, Solaris, Linuxes etc. So I don't really think Samba fits along with Mono or (read further for OOo) it is not even in the same league it is not even the same game. Samba *is* very successfull and fucking nice OSS project. I have like dozens of servers that do really weird stuff most of that would not be even possible using Windows. Like providing SMB services with custom configuration just to support really old (but trust me - business critical) DOS programs.

      I've read about Samba implemementations (search on /. there was a "Ask..." some time ago) that do stuff that Windows could never (for economical or practical reasons) do. Like really wide WANS, really Terminal Services (what Windows provides regarding printing is a joke) spawning multiple operating systems into custom soltuion.

      So *please* do respect that Samba *is* the killer-app of Open Source. I can bet that along Apache/PHP/Python/PERL/Java whatever stuff Samba is one off the most important projects that drive OSS adoption on servers (and also on clients - see OSX).

      > and OpenOffice,

      Well is a cow - bloated, big and slow. But still making OOo work faster (like throwing some hardware onto the problem) is cheaper than getting into MS Office licensing. OOo is *not* MS Office replacement (due to problems with exchanging documents with MSO - but hey even various versions of MS have *severe* problems with exchanging their documents) but as an office suite itself it is really nice. From my (company) perspective it does fucking loads of jobs right - it does basic office stuff almost right, it manages to interact with databases, it can do really nice macros/scripting/programming, it can produce decent PDF files, it can (due to ODF support) interact with other OSS projects (our marketing stuff edits our website right from OO.o via XMLRPC and eZ Publish CMS - imagine that). Etc. So OOo is also in another league than Mono.

      Mono? I just don't see any practical use of it for me. Few apps, bloated runtime. What are the advantages? Java is much better for portability.
      • I work in an office that uses windows networking, office, etc. for everything. The compelling use I've found for OOo is for presentations - you can make a very nice presentation very quickly, and save it as a pdf file. Everyone can read it, and you don't have to pay through the nose for Powerpoint.
  • by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:25PM (#18507861) Homepage Journal
    This is like a pimply teenager begging the homecoming queen to go out with him.

    Wait. Did I just compare Bill Gates to a homecoming queen?
  • (Disclaimer: I somewhat dislike Java and .NET)

    What was the point for them of choosing .NET development over Java from FOSS's point of view?
    What does it give them they think that Java couldn't? MZ format wrapped binaries?
    • by 3vi1 ( 544505 )
      Language independance.
    • by Xtifr ( 1323 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @06:06PM (#18508411) Homepage
      Well, first and foremost, some people seem to prefer one over the other. God only knows why, but they do. That alone would be reason enough. Second of all, while they have many similarities, they also have many differences, and they're not particularly compatible. Having FLOSS support for both means software written in either can be free. That's a big deal too. It's basically the same reason that the Gnu Compiler Collection includes Fortran as well as C. And finally, while the Java spec was (and as far as I know, still is) under the control of one company, and is subject to change at a whim, Mono is (believe it or not) based on a public standard. It's a fuzzy standard from a dubious standards body (ECMA) that tends to be a bit of a corporate lapdog, and it only covers parts of what MS calls ".NET", but it is a standard, and FLOSS folks tend to really like public standards.

      But really, the first one is the biggie. Why have Perl AND Tcl AND Python AND Ruby? Why have Gnome AND Kde AND Xfce AND GnuStep? Why have Emacs AND vi? Why have bash AND tcsh AND zsh? Why have Sendmail AND Postfix AND Exim? Why have MySQL AND PostgreSQL AND Firebird? Because people aren't all the same, and have different preferences, and, at some level, FLOSS is supposed to be, at least in part, about choice and freedom.
    • by Mr2001 ( 90979 )
      The CLR supports a lot of features that are sorely lacking in Java's VM: delegates, generics with strong typing at runtime, dynamic code generation (at least I don't think Java has that), and pointers in unsafe mode come to mind. For interfacing with native code, .NET's P/Invoke is also supposed to be easier to work with than JNI.
  • .NOT NYET (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:30PM (#18507937)
    Oh just quit it, Mono has no takeup because if people wanted to use Microsoft technology they'd be buying Vista and .NET.
    If they want cross platform portability they don't rely on Microsoft for anything, rather than try .NET plus a clone.

    All Mono does is give them a veneer to claim cross platform portability without actually being cross platform portable.
    • by Shados ( 741919 )
      Correct. People thinking MONO allows cross platform compatibility with .NET have never coded anything beyond a few forms and command line tools in their lives. No programmer worth their salt will pick .NET for the language or the base framework themselves. They pick .NET because it integrate easily with windows land. (Active Directory, SQL Server or Oracle on Windows, just about anything Windows specific like the journal or the performance counters, IIS and ASP.NET, etc).

      As soon as you touch any of that stu
    • by dbIII ( 701233 )
      Forget the theory of "a veneer to claim cross platform portability" - it isn't Microsoft that is doing this but an admirer that wanted to get the system running on other platforms. It keeps him away from gnome and may produce some other unexpected benefits if this works well. Personally I think it would be better if MS actually do give him the job he is after and this MS javalike thing is worked on for other platforms instead of potentially being as platform specific and ephemeral as each version of VB is
  • Patents, again... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:31PM (#18507941)
    I'm hoping someone with more knowledge can chime in here and shed some light on the issue of .NET patents.

    My understanding is that Mono exists because of a statement, made by Microsoft, that they won't sue for re-implementations of the ECMA-submitted components of .NET. I think this is the C# language and the CLR.

    Mono is now starting to slip into linux distributions and that worries me. Tomboy for example is the default load of Ubuntu 7.04. I'm not a rabid MS hater, but since when does a promise from Microsoft mean anything at all?

    Is there any legal protection for the Mono team and those who distribute it?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) *
      While MS pledged some patents to be royalty-free as part of the ECMA standardization of C#, those were only the patents that applied directly to the C# language. Mono code is covered by claims in other Microsoft patents as well, and patents of additional third parties.

      So, if you use a paid-up copy of Novell, Microsoft says it won't sue you for using Mono. For 5 years, I hear, and then maybe they'll do it anyway.

      I can't begin to understand why Miguel would have wanted to devote so many years of his life to

      • by wasabii ( 693236 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @07:22PM (#18509263)
        Because he has an honest belief that a) patents are bogus and b) C#/.Net are great platforms.

        Is that so hard to understand? If we were all so scared of patents, we wouldn't have a) implemented FAT b) probably not written Linux itself c) would be scared of our own shadow.

        There are patents that cover every aspect of every system you use, FOSS or not. This is not an issue that affects Mono specifically, but rather our entire free software ecosystem. It's rather nice to see somebody who isn't scared of his own shadow be willing to take them head on.
      • by dbIII ( 701233 )

        I can't begin to understand why Miguel would have wanted to devote so many years of his life to a project that MS would invariably claim rights over.

        I suggest reading his comments on the subject - he appears to find it interesting and enjoyable and really thinks MS have some good ideas there. I haven't looked at those ideas so I can't comment one way or another, so I would say go to the source. He gave us the large backward step that is gconf out of some kind of MS registry envy so I didn't have a lot of

    • > Mono is now starting to slip into linux distributions and that
      > worries me. Tomboy for example

      OMFG some sticky notes app is using Mono. ;) Sorry for irony but it just quite summarizes the attempt of Mono. How about few hundreds of mature Java projects, probably thousands if nod millions of server side comercial Java uses (yes on Linux, or other unices) doing finance stuff and such.

      Sorry Mono is just a sad Joke. It does not offer any portability, it is bloated and is a toy. Open Source or die - now w
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by paulxnuke ( 624084 )
      My understanding is that the "standardization" rules explicitly allow MS to charge a ("reasonable") license fee for stuff like the CLR.

      If they decided to ask one cent per application that uses the CLR on non-Windows platforms:

      • no one could call it unreasonable or exclusionary: many would say that MS deserves to be paid for their research
      • 10 cents extra / copy of the average distro is too much for most makers to absorb, and would cost several dollars to collect in addition to the user outrage involved. Li
  • Instead of catch up (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:33PM (#18507973) Journal
    Why not develop mono on it's own, as it's own application development platform.

    C# is a good language, having it represented outside of Windows is a good thing. Plenty of C# coders are hitting their streets, and linux could exploit that too.

    Instead of dicking around trying to recreate MSFT's libraries (Windows Forms), why not more focus on developing their OWN truly cross platform libraries, (like, say, GTK#)

    I had some success writing cross-platform apps based on GTK#, this was over a year ago, and haven't played with Mono since, I didn't want to invest too much time into something that looked like a novelty which would just be pitched.

    De Icazas focus seemed to be "do exactly what microsoft does" then, and seems so now.

    I'd take a thread safe GTK# over a half-assed wine-implementation of winforms.

    But, that's just one little bears opinion.
    • by tkinnun0 ( 756022 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:55PM (#18508251)
      Once upon a time, Microsoft tried to create an incompatible Java.

      Now, Open Source Aficionados are creating an incompatible .NET.

      Ah, the bitter sweet irony.
    • by agent dero ( 680753 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:56PM (#18508269) Homepage
      Wow, where does one even start to combat the trolling.

      If you look in the Mono.* namespace they've developed a LOT of Mono on its own, including Mono.Xml, Mono.Unix, Mono.Math and a wide vareity of other tools. Not to mention now there are various open source projects out there like DBus# [], Dumbarton [], and of course Tao [].

      Mono is a definite option now for cross-platform applications (Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, etc) and extends the compatibility to .NET 1.1 and is coming up on having a .NET 2.0 compatible class library.

      Don't get yourself mixed up, Mono does allow developers to use .NET code on other platforms, but it is really a powerful framework unto itself nowadays.
    • by caseih ( 160668 )
      To a certain point, this is exactly what is happening with Gnome and C#. Mono is a decent platform in and of itself if you remove winforms,, etc. In fact .Net really is superior to Java as a platform and development environment (language-wise) in many ways. As long as mono is positioned as a way of porting windows apps to other environments, it is doomed to fail, however.

      As for my own cross-platform development, I did once use C# and GTK# for an app like you did, and it worked out well. Now I ju
      • Mono does Python as well by way of IronPython so while it might be python it might not be CPython but its completely compatible. That doesn't also include the GCC backend that will compile all the GCC languages to CLI.
    • by jmccay ( 70985 )
      Why use GTK? GTK still limits you to GTKs look and feel--even on other platforms. I am not sure if it is available, but why not leverage another open source cross-platform framework that's been around since 1992. I am talking about wxWidgets. It is already cross-platform, and it has been bound to other languages like ruby & python. wx.NET [] started this, but has stalled. You could even use SWIG 1.3.18, or newer, to make the library available to C#.
  • by vivaoporto ( 1064484 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:34PM (#18507979)
    If Microsoft was interested in interoperability, they could have it, anytime. They own the platform, for goodness sake, and if they wanted other their framework to work on other O.S., they would do it themselves. Microsoft strategy is not and will never be help to other platforms to run their applications, they prefer people locked in, with no choice. What is the main excuse for Mono? "To help people that are locked in .Net applications to migrate to Linux". (btw, if those people had plans to migrate to Linux, they would not choose .Net in the first place, as the technology is widely known as MS only. It is not as if it was a market standard, it is 6 years old, tops). Microsoft, on other hand, lists .Net as an advantage over "Unix" []. Why would they give up that advantage? On the goodness of their hearts?

    I say it again: if MS wanted a fully functional port of the .Net framework for *nix, they would do it themselves (like the PS3 people ported linux to their console). The truth is that they don't want.
    • Mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim ( 1285 ) <> on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:39PM (#18508053)
      Not to mention that ALL the source code for Linux is Freely available online. If there's any "interoperability" issues, Microsoft has access to ALL the Windows code and ALL the Linux code.

      They only reason there are "interoperability" issues today is because Microsoft wants there to be.
      • by coaxial ( 28297 )
        You're right to say that MS could fix the problem, but there's little reason for them to. Mono is a flyspeck, so why waste resources on developing it? Complicating matters, MS would be helping a would-be competitor. Why the hell would MS want to do that?

        If I was MS, be acting the same way.
    • by samkass ( 174571 )
      (btw, if those people had plans to migrate to Linux, they would not choose .Net in the first place, as the technology is widely known as MS only. It is not as if it was a market standard, it is 6 years old, tops)

      If only it were true. Mono is oft-cited as a cross-platform solution that validates the decision to utilize .NET on new projects. "Well, if we have to support UNIX/linux in the next release, we'll just use Mono!" If Mono didn't exist, .NET would be a lot less popular, with even more support proba
  • by Locutus ( 9039 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:37PM (#18508013)
    Why does this guy need comfort from and a working relationship with Microsoft? And why do all of his projects follow some tech Microsoft convolutes from some REAL tech(OOP, Java, etc)? Sure seems like he's got a case of Microsoft envy or something and IMO, it can only be terminal.

    Because De Icaza is not only putting Microsoft tech in Mono, he's pushed Mono applications into Gnome and he's loading the MS Trojan Horse onto many GNU/Linux distros.

    So what is up with him needing acceptance from Microsoft?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by AJWM ( 19027 )
      So what is up with him needing acceptance from Microsoft?

      From Wikipedia:

      In summer of 1997, he was interviewed by Microsoft for a job in the Internet Explorer Unix team (to work on a SPARC port), but lacked a university degree to obtain a work H-1B visa.

      Perhaps he's still trying to live down that rejection. (I seem to recall that he tried more than once to get a job at Microsoft, but I can't readily find a reference.) Mind you, I think anyone who would even apply for that kind of job was probably brain dam

      • by Locutus ( 9039 )
        yup, sure seems like he has a major interest in pleasing Microsoft.

        Regarding MS IE for UNIX, that was all a trick to make sure MainSoft got a huge payoff so they could afford the win32 source license. Microsoft had just quadrupled the price of that license to the other Win32-on-UNIX vendors and the result was to kill off all those UNIX apps ported to Win32 since now they had no update strategy. After Microsoft shipped Windows 95, they directed millions putting MS Windows NT againt UNIX, Novell, and OS/2 ser
    • So what is up with him needing acceptance from Microsoft?
      Maybe it's because he always wanted to work for Microsoft? Gnome was just plan B [].
    • by Rich0 ( 548339 )
      Yes, I find this a bit annoying. I used to use gtkatalog to track my software collection. It was replaced by a mono-based application that I have yet to get to work correctly - even on 32-bit linux (let alone 64-bit). I was left scratching my head as to why they'd use the mono platform for something like that...
      • by Locutus ( 9039 )
        IMO, this is all a good reason for having two or more desktops. Especially when one is driven by someone so infatuated with Microsoft tech and Microsoft is threatening it'll use its patents to stop Linux.

        • I believe that's a reason for just ONE desktop. Of course I'm talking about KDE. The first and true one.
    • by caudron ( 466327 )

      And why do all of his projects follow some tech Microsoft convolutes from some REAL tech(OOP, Java, etc)?


      De Icaza was at the forefront of Gnome development, the forefront Ximian development, and the forefront of Novell development (pre-MS deal). You may not like his choice here, but seriously, what's with the 'tude? I'm pretty sure he's done more for open source than Locutus of Slashdot...unless "Locutus" is RMS's /. screenname (in which case I take it all back and you are, of course perfectly correct

      • by Locutus ( 9039 )
        Gnome was based on MS COM and MS COM was in response to the OOP based IBM SOM. Mono is based on MS C#/.Net which was designed in response to Sun Java. What he's done on top of the tech has no connection to my comments. What he's done to bring Microsoft tech to GNU/Linux is questionable and there is way too much history to show that you do not win or help your customers by letting Microsoft dictate the rules.

  • Nevermind MS.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Let's see, every piece of software that has anything to do with Mono is slow, buggy and they leave zombie processes everywhere. I hate them to the point where I finally ditched Gnome. I recently updated to SUSE 10.2, which has been afflicted with Mono, even though I choose KDE. I now curse SUSE.

    Why would Linux users be interested in Mono again? Something about "compatibility" with MS software? You mean software that's slow and buggy and makes me curse like a sailor? No thanks.

    As far as I'm concerned,
  • by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @05:42PM (#18508095)
    Microsoft didn't get where they are today by enabling their customers to leave.

    Miguel's role in the world is to make it possible for Linux developers to get locked into Microsoft technologies, In due time Microsoft can harvest them in any number of ways. If he thinks otherwise, he needs to reconsider his choices in recreational chemistry.

  • the ones in "developersdevelopersdevelopers" ?

    havent they all got a chair thrown towards them already ?

    eheheheheehee. couldnt resist. sorry.
  • This gives a great opportunity to allow Visual Studio developers to port code to Linux, Mac OSX, *BSD Unix, etc by having Dotnet and Mono synch up to be 100% compatible in the code and CIL, CLR used.

    It also would allow Microsoft to more easily port Visual Studio to Linux, Mac OSX, *BSD Unix, and other platforms that Microsoft claims is too hard to port Visual Studio over to. After that is done, Microsoft can port their application software to those platforms more easily rather than rewriting code for a separate Windows and Mac version of MS-Office, etc. Then it would be one code base, and recompiled for each platform using Dotnet/Mono libraries. If Mono is finally 100% compatible with Dotnet, then the CIL and CLR code will run under Mono as well as it does under Dotnet on Windows. Since Mono exists for multiple operating systems, all that is needed is to compile the code for that OS and it makes cross-compiling easy and less costly.

    Think of all the money in R&D that Microsoft would save, if it partners up with Novell and Mono just on the R&R of OSX applications that Microsoft writes if the same code can be used for Windows and OSX with just being recompiled.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Moocow660 ( 975091 )
      Disclaimer: I am a C# dev working at a Microsoft Partner

      You realise that Visual Studio is mostly written in C++. .Net on any other platform won't help at all. In fact, most of Microsoft's big name products are mostly native code, and will be for a very long time - why re-write something that works?

      The big problem with 'porting' .Net as you describe is that a lot of the actual .Net framework is simply a thin veneer over win32. This means in order to 'simply' port .Net, you need to reimplement large chunks of
    • You just did a great job of describing exactly why Microsoft would never support Mono...
  • by filesiteguy ( 695431 ) <> on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @06:16PM (#18508543) Homepage
    I've been a SUSE user for about two years now. I have exclusively SUSE on one laptop and dual boot one desktop with Win2K. My other desktops have either SUSE/XP or SUSE/2K at work. I remember the big push after Novell bought Evolution and brought all the Mono developers on board, where they said, 'hey, let's all be one big mono happy family and everyone use Gnome.' Of course, us KDE-fans screamed and pouted and stomped our feet so much, that Novell pulled back to some degree.

    I remember back to TechEd (or was it TechNet) 2001 in Atlanta where Bill and Co. introduced .NET to us as "the next big thing." Even back then I thought of it as a half hearted attempt to marginalize Java. (Not that I had any love for Java at the time.) Now, they have the market share they want, we've all got VS 2005 loaded on our machines (next to Netbeans 5.5) and those few who use Linux (including me) as a desktop may want to use C#/Mono to develop. Well, the problem is, there's no good IDE. Monodevelop isn't really up to the same level as VS 2005 or NetBeans (or Eclipse, for that matter) and is currently at a 0.13x release. Who'd want to develop an enterprise-scale application using that?

    So, here's Miguel, who failed at getting us enterprise users to adopt Evolution, and he wants us to go with Mono.NET. I particularly love Miguel's naivety in saying he'd want to, "even go as far as Microsoft recommending Mono for all of their developers looking at migration." Migrating from what? Windows? Microsoft doesn't want people to migrate away from Windows. That's the furthest thing on their minds.

    In any case, I'll stick to migrating to Java. Now that it is going to be truly OSS, I'll trust them just a wee bit more than our good friends in Redmond.
  • by d3xt3r ( 527989 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @06:17PM (#18508553)

    Seriously, now that Java will be GPL'd, why exactly do we need Mono?

    .Net only exists because M$ failed to embrace and extend Java. Why does the OSS community need a knock-off of a language that only exists because M$ couldn't control Java?

    • by KingMotley ( 944240 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @07:06PM (#18509101) Journal
      First, .NET isn't a language. It's a platform. If you recall, Java was one of the original languages that was going to ship with .NET, but Sun threw a fit, filed a bunch of lawsuits, and Microsoft finally just took it out.

      Because Java isn't good at everything (Actually, I find it's good at very little), the .NET platform supports all of the following languages:
      Ada, APL, Basic, Boo, C, C#, C++, Cobol, Eiffel, Forth, Fortran, Haskell, IL/MSIL, J#/Java, JavaScript, LISP, LOGO, Mixal, Modula-2, Perl, Pascal, PHP, Prolog, Python, Ruby, RPG, Smalltalk, and Tcl/Tk.

      Each of them is capable of both creating and consuming code written by any of the others. So I can write in VB.NET, and use a class that was written in C#. I can package it up, and the application just works.

      A better question that you should have asked is why would we care about Java being GPL-ed when it's slower, less scalable, only supports a single language, controlled by a single vendor, and YEARS behind. When the Java language becomes forgotten (like all computer languages do) for the next best language, all your code is useless. But all my libraries are just a call away, no matter what language takes the place of what I currently use.
      • by gludington ( 101178 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @08:42PM (#18509993)

        A better question that you should have asked is why would we care about Java being GPL-ed when it's slower, less scalable, only supports a single language, controlled by a single vendor, and YEARS behind.
        I am not going to get into a pointless flamewar on speed or scalability, but Java has not been the only language on the JVM for quite some time. The first result on a Google Search for jvm languages [] lists over 200 languages. Granted, most of those listed are toy and/or unfinished projects, but there are solid options available for most of the main languages you list, and with JRuby, Rhino, and JSR-223, this is rapidly improving, at least for dynamic languages. I will grant you .NET is far ahead of the JVM in terms of mixing languages in a single application.

        When the Java language becomes forgotten (like all computer languages do) for the next best language, all your code is useless. But all my libraries are just a call away, no matter what language takes the place of what I currently use.
        Since the JVM can and support other languages, the question for both JVM and .NET is "When the JVM/.NET runtime becomes forgotten, what happens to my code?" This is one reason why people are excited about the GPL of Java. With an open source virtual machine, should (Sun|Microsoft) (go bankrupt|lose interest), other people can pick up the slack. In the Java world, open source JVM efforts (e.g. Kaffe) no longer have to spend the time with clean-room reimplementations, and can focus on improvements. You could say that Mono could do the same thing -- but that seems to be what Miguel is arguing now, that without explicit Microsoft cooperation Mono has to expend too much of its resources in playing catchup.
  • I though monoculture already exists in the computer industry...
  • ...Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was hospitalized today. Doctors say that he nearly died of laughter.
  • by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <> on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @07:12PM (#18509137)
    Mono is factually sponsored by MS. The Novel/MS deal was all about Mono! The patent-deal thing was a feint (with a neat side effect, mind you)! No, hear me out. Just reading his talk and arriving at page 2 made me notice it. I honestly believe it is and it's not that Miquel is seriously bullshitting about his opinions. Allthough they are notably influenced by black MS accounts - which I am now certain of. Allthough maybe without him knowing for a fact.

    Figure this:
    If there is any way MS can prepare to hop the OSS bandwagon that is continously growing without losing their face it is the mono(t)rail (pun intended). In a well built mono they can without haste probe the OSS market for sophisticated free developer tools and their chances to get into OSS bases servicing and specialized proprietary offers without thinning the .Net brand or attracting attention. All the while having Mono on the leash. If the test fails, they pull the plug, go completely off trail with .Net and leave behind yet another OSS plattform along with the XUL, Ajax, Java, QT, etc. bunch to bash their heads competing for attention. If it does work out they can slowly shift to OS independant services and tools. They can even combine both with varying intensity in which ever way they require it.

    Think about it. It's a very smart move and not that a stupid notion at all. They can continue to slowpoke about with their bloated NT/2k/Vista Kernels and go 'plattform independant' whenever the need arises, squishing whatever Zends, SuSEs, Novels and RedHats get in the way. And with a 'Mono excuse' they won't even raise a blip on the antitrust radar doing so.
    If this works out we'll see yet another rare of strange things: MS actually trying to build quality software again. For a short period of time that is. Until they regain their stranglehold. Then it's business as usual again.

    No, friends, it's absolutely clear to me: Novel bought Ximian, SuSE and then some. Then they went f*cking around aimlessly with those brands for two years. They are MSes easiest, least dangerous, most hidden, most powerfull and - oh, the irony - cheapest way into a potential MS dominated OSS market. This is what's behind all this.

    My 2 dollars.
  • This reminds me of an Onion headline from Our Dumb Century, to the effect of "Japanese enter well-thought-out alliance with white supremacists."

    Microsoft has always been utterly ruthless in suppressing any attempt at compatibility with their software. They make money because they control the API; a competing implementation that's allowed to become comparable is a threat, and they are pretty active about trying to make sure that such things don't stay viable.

    Did it really take this guy this long to realize
  • Crap (Score:2, Informative)

    by recharged95 ( 782975 )
    I like SuSE a lot, and Novell does have the clout to push back against MS (though it is making deals with them), but Mono is just killing the interop effort.

    Shout to Novell: Just drop mono and switch to Java...Pleeaseeeze! (pleading like De Icarza).

    And yes, I've tried switching my winforms apps to mono and it never worked out. Why? cause the cool features in .Net apps are either referenced unmanaged code or some DLL import hack. .Net only offers great cross coding between MS languages and webservices (I

  • by Augusto ( 12068 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @07:29PM (#18509335) Homepage
    (literally: Miguel, step down from that cloud - Miguel, get real)

    I just don't understand your project.

    Most .NET developers are not aware of your project, and most would not want to bother with it. People that use Visual Studio care about using the latest tools and APIs from Microsoft, and when they know you don't even have .NET v2 they don't want to bother.

    "On the migration piece, the open sourcing of Java will not have an effect on Mono. Because the crowd that we are targeting is the .NET crowd which is typically not using Java. The open sourcing of Java will not alter the balance of applications that will be ported from other platforms to Linux. If they existed, people were already using the proprietary Java from IBM or Sun or even one of the GNU based efforts."

    I'm so glad Java is now being open sourced, you won't have this as an excuse anymore. Why would anybody want to develop in your environment, which has serious patent concerns? It lags behind and has no serious number of tools for anybody to use?

    Your statement about MS recommending Mono is bizarre. Why would Microsoft recommend Mono? The only reason for them to even mention your project, is in the chance a customer maybe asks about running in other platforms. I could definitely see MS just mentioning Mono to get a customer, but they surely will have no incentive for anybody to use your technology.

    Finally, why is this project called mono? It reminds me of the phrase:
    "El hombre crea y el mono imita", which seems apt for your project (Man creates and monkeys imitate)
    • by wasabii ( 693236 )
      What serious patent concern? Please point one out. Please also point out why it doesn't equally apply to Java.
      • by Shados ( 741919 )
        The concerns are from the fact that only PART of .NET is open, for example the C# language specification. Anything that can actually be patented in VB (aka: not much, languages themselves not being patentable and all) is, ASP.NET contains a ton of patented stuff, etc. .NET's assemblies are also very easy to disasemble, but there is still copyright on the code (the same copyright laws that make the GPL possible, btw!): how much do you want to bet that a ton of Mono is just copy paste from .NET assemblies ope
      • by Augusto ( 12068 )
        Did you miss the deal MS made with Novell to agree not to sue them due to patent concerns?

        How about the fact that MS has intellectual property in .net and their libraries that they don't welcome or officially endorse?

        Java is getting GPLed, hopefully you would understand the difference ...
  • .NET 3.0 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And how will Mono support .NET 3.0? Many of the new features such as Windows Presentation Foundation simply aren't available on a Linux system. Has someone already wrote a XAML parser as well?
  • "I think that the deal should include a technical Mono/.NET collaboration..."

    Right and elevate all doubt that mono violates Microsoft's patents.

    This is EXACTLY why we should let the mono project die. Don't support it, don't use it. Find other ways to deliver active web pages. PHP, JAVA, etc...

    Microsoft has shown in both word and deed that they are not interested in coexistence with open source. We should all work together to make Microsoft irrelevant. It won't be quick and it won't be easy but it reall
  • by espressojim ( 224775 ) <> on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @08:17PM (#18509807)
    Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."

    -Natural Born Killers
  • When MS says "cross-platform" they mean mobile devices (running a Windows-esque OS of course). Look at the system requirements for the compact .NET 2.0 runtime and it should be obvious enough: milyid=9655156b-356b-4a2c-857c-e62f50ae9a55&displa ylang=en []

    Microsoft actually released the 1.0 CLI sourcecode with support for BSD and OSX, and the license is not that bad, except for a small paragraph which prohibits any commercial use (breathe easy, the catch

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger