Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: go-mono.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to go-mono.com.

Comments · 335

  1. Re-inventing C# (Re:backwards compatible) by gigi · · Score: 1 · on 10 Reasons We Need Java 3

    Sounds like he is re-inventing C#.
    But forgot the most for powerful feature of C# -
    Attributes, which allows you to do things like XmlSerialization with no hand-written code. I think Attribs will improve the way we write DB clients.
    If you want to see an example, go see Example4, listing one.

    It's also annoying he never mentions the term "boxing" and "unboxing" when he talks about turning 'ints' etc into objects. Sometimes you can borrow a page from your competitors' vocabulary.

    Also - how about adding the following C# language features:
    A) foreach(Type t in mylist){...} to prepare ground for templates
    B) tailcall IL instruction to allow Prolog etc
    C) System.Windows.Forms for a fast windows kit
    (goodness, IBM had to invent their own AWT replacement to create eclipse IDE)
    D) enums which can be flags, which can be or'd together
    E) events + function pointers ("delegates" in msspeak)

    go mono! /g

  2. Re:Too Little, Too Late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on MS to Implement Some DoJ Settlement Terms Preemptively

    Full Disclosure of their APIs: Done

    Ensure that .NET runs on UNIX: Done and Done

    Windows network protocols should be well documented in such a way that other companies can write software that interfaces with Windows clients (like SAMBA) and Windows servers (like Ximian Connector): Done

  3. Re:Hiring open source programmers? by paladin_tom · · Score: 1, Insightful · on Wanna Work for Dave Taylor & American McGee?

    I disagree. If someone is concerned about their project being cloned, I think junior open source programmers are the least of their worries.

    Proprietary software products are often cloned by other proprietary vendors. After Doom was successful, many similar games, such as Rise of the Triad, came out from other software shops - and this was before Id open-sourced Doom. To take another example, the Windows 9x interface was largely a more Macintosh-like replacement for the interface from Windows 3.x; GNOME and KDE also use a similar interface (and I believe this chain goes all the way back to Xerox, who did a lot of research into modern GUIs). Seeing how a product works, from a user's perspective, often gives a good developer enough information as to how to create a clean-room implementation.

    Furthermore, cloning a project on which you have worked is a legally risky venture, since you're (ex-)employer can point out that you have insider information as to how the product works. When people were cloning IBM's design of the PC back in the 80s, they made sure that the engineers re-implementing it had no prior exposure to the design.

    As for a more modern example, consider the Mono project . These guys are re-implementing Microsoft's .NET development infrastucuture, and they're not the guys who worked on .NET for MS. Furthermore, I believe they avoided looking at MS's Shared Source implementation for BSD, specifically because Mono is to be a complete clean-room implementation.

    I do not believe open source programmers are the risk you make them out to be.

  4. Re:What _IS_ .NET? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Gates Tries to Explain .Net

    See Mono.
    It runs on a dozen varieties of UNIX, Windows and Mac OSX.

  5. Re:Don't scream by curunir · · Score: 4, Informative · on .NET for Apache

    Whoah there!!! That's some concentrated FUD you're spreading there (FUD is like vegemite...anything more than a thin layer will leave a bad taste in your mouth).

    As for implementations, check out Mono. Pure, open-source .NET. Sure, it's not finished yet, but it proves that competing implementations *are* possible, if someone is motivated enough to get off their ass and code the thing...The specs are publicly available.

    I doubt you've been seriously using Java from its inception, 'cause if you had, you would've remembered how long it took before we saw non-Sun JDKs...give .NET time, and we'll see competing implementations.

    Sure MS is evil, but this is a win for Apache too. MS is basically conceding that their web server is sub-par...and they have no reason to compete with apache. The evolution of the app server (J2EE, .NET etc) has made Apache a trivial communication layer to implement the HTTP protocol. So MS never has to develop a quality web server (something they are aparently incapable of,) and Apache will run on every computer that isn't running some bass-ackwards NES server.

    Frankly, the only loser with this announcement is Sun. The fact that Apache supported J2EE and not .NET was an implicit endorsement of J2EE. Now, with this announcement, Sun loses that endorsement. Frankly, considering how Sun has treated the Apache group, they deserve this.

  6. Re:Don't scream by tshak · · Score: 5, Informative · on .NET for Apache

    Mono is only going to implement the VM, you most likely are still going to need tons of libraries.


    This is wrong. All someone has to do is go to the mono project's home page and see that they are implementing the vast majority of the .NET framework - most noteably the classes pertaining to web applications (ASP.NET).

  7. Alphora Dataphor DAE by leandrod · · Score: 2 · on Blender Fund Raises EUR18,000 In Three Days

    The Alphora Dataphor DAE is the first relational database management system since IBM BS12 and the QUEL version of Postgres.

    It was coded for MS .Net, thus it should be readily portable to Ximian Mono or GNUs & Southern Storms DotGNU Portable.Net.

    If such a potentially useful software became publicized and free software, we could have a really innovating no Marketspeak intended , probably killer application the proprietary vendors would have a hard time scrambling after.

    And that with unreprochable theoretical foundations attested by the luminars of the field.

  8. Re:Will everybody do the same? by malakai · · Score: 2 · on Microsoft in Peru, Living Room
    MS arbitrarily changed the word format for a minor upgrade
    It wasn't arbitrary. It was a major shift between major versions. It was well publicized before hand, and I know, at the time, my IT department was ready for it
    This forced people to upgrade to 97 when they got files written in 97 and 95 would not open it.
    No. If someone in Word97 disabled the compatibility mode, then someone in Word 95 to read Word 97, would have to use the (free download) Word97 Importer for Word 95.
    MS SQL server by default uses case insensitive collation which is not SQL 92 compliant. That's just one I bet I can find a few more if I dig around.
    This is a myth. Look up the SQL 92 standard and tell me where you see that default implementation of the DBMS is supposed to be "case insensitive collation". SQL92 leaves it implementation-dependent.
    What you probably mean is "SQL Server doesn't have the same defaults as Oracle". Which is true. I don't really no which one is better, because I don't do much Unicode work, where this really begins to matter. But the default SQL Server has been using all these years came from the Sybase SQL Server code-base.
    You are conveniently overlooking the many "extensions" IE supports. I know you have to do that because (apparently) it's your job to spread MS FUD here but we all have visited sites which are useless in non IE borwsers. From vbscript to activeX controls, to proprietary tags. Embrace and extend.
    Oh, yeah, and Netscape never put in their own HTML extensions. Remeber ISINDEX? PROMPT? not to mention, most of the Netscape extensions did _not_ become part of the HTML standard, while many of the MS ones did. And the HTML standard body was _not_ pro-ms. They were just normal developers who agreed with sane logic. (blink tag excluded, )
    And as someone who wrote AX componets, before the 'Internet' took off, the ability to put my AX controls in IE allowed me to port many heavy front-end systems to lighter web-based systems in little or no time. Same thing with the ability to have VB Script on the page. MS put in that ability for people like _ME_. That's loyalty.

    The ability to put AX in a page was never intended to make people format their linux hard drives, and install NT to view some page. It was there for us developers who invested a lot of money in AX technology and training. Not to mention, it was part of the whole AX Document stuff which IE was a client to.

    I rarely see AX on public internet sites. Many times I see it on intranets, where an IT department has some app which performs something on the client and it's best done as a compiled binary. So I guess everyones BS fear about "AX in IE will force web browsing to be platform specific" was all just FUD (after all, IE is the dominant browser, and browsing is not platform specific). If you have trouble viewing sites, I really doubt it's because of AX. My guess is DOM 1.0 and CSS2 are your biggest hurdles, and that comes down to netscape/opera implementation.

    But who cares if someone wanted to put AX on their site. They know they'd be limiting themselves to a specific platform, it's their perogative to do that. Web sites do it everyday when they ask themselves the question "Should we worry about Mac support/testing?". Many times, large sites say "no". And the only reason Macs can view things (generally) fine is because the Graphic Artist who designed the look of the site constantly bugs the web developers with their mac bugs. Otherwise, a company would say "I'm not paying 2x as much for a website just so .5% of my vistors can see it". It's their decision. That's their right.
    Well except that you can't code GUI and Database which makes it just about useless outside of .NET
    oh really?
    And the windows forms may not be complete yet, but they will eventually: here
    But who wants ugly window forms on linux? Use GTK
    When you are talking about the character of somebody it's perfectly OK to point out evil acts in their past. Should we ignore the past records of child molesters, murderers and rapist because "they are not doing it now"?.
    First, it's a corporate entity, not a human entity. If you take into account the turnover rate, it's a completely new MS from back then. Infer from that what little there is, but you can't say it's the same company (is IBM the same company it was 30 years ago? what about the ma'bells?).
    As for child molester, rapists and murderers, I take it you're of the mindset that believe once you commit a crime, you can never truly repent and make up for. Scarlet letter them for ever and such. No point in debating that with you, it's an intrinsic belief that won't change.
    During the communist regime in the soviet republic people stood in bread lines but there were always a few who made out like bandits.
    You don't really want to compare MS v Communism and OSS v Communism do you?
    Sure you made money but a bunch of people paid to buy crappy shit that broke, were coerced into buying shit they did not want, were denied competing products, yadda yadda yadda
    Well, I guess here's where I simply have to agree to disagree. As someone that's built many a companies IT networks, and large software solutions that run on top of those networks, I have to say I never had that experience. All my clients have been happy, all still are. The software works, the networks hum, and databases purr.
    Granted, I'm not the founder of Dr. Dos. And I'm not saying predatory tactics weren't employed and shouldn't be reprimanded, but again, i don't think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. Even if there's lots of starving kids in the world who I could adopt.
    MS is an American company, and like most (if not all Fortune 100) companies they play for keeps. they are aggressive, they think out strategies and plans and use tactics more similar to fighting wars then what many would consider 'doing business'. this is the nature of free enterprise. We don't own castles anymore, we own companies. And as head of your own company, you pretty much feel like a king.
    Survival of the fittest. Attack with the sun at your back, and from high ground. Don't expect this to be some sort of British battle where both sides line up in equal numbers in the middle of a large field and get to take turns shooting or stabbing each other.

    It's corporate Darwinism. No matter how well seated you think a company is, they are always 1 week away from chapter-11.

    -malakai
  9. Re:Will everybody do the same? by malakai · · Score: 2 · on Microsoft in Peru, Living Room
    MS arbitrarily changed the word format for a minor upgrade
    It wasn't arbitrary. It was a major shift between major versions. It was well publicized before hand, and I know, at the time, my IT department was ready for it
    This forced people to upgrade to 97 when they got files written in 97 and 95 would not open it.
    No. If someone in Word97 disabled the compatibility mode, then someone in Word 95 to read Word 97, would have to use the (free download) Word97 Importer for Word 95.
    MS SQL server by default uses case insensitive collation which is not SQL 92 compliant. That's just one I bet I can find a few more if I dig around.
    This is a myth. Look up the SQL 92 standard and tell me where you see that default implementation of the DBMS is supposed to be "case insensitive collation". SQL92 leaves it implementation-dependent.
    What you probably mean is "SQL Server doesn't have the same defaults as Oracle". Which is true. I don't really no which one is better, because I don't do much Unicode work, where this really begins to matter. But the default SQL Server has been using all these years came from the Sybase SQL Server code-base.
    You are conveniently overlooking the many "extensions" IE supports. I know you have to do that because (apparently) it's your job to spread MS FUD here but we all have visited sites which are useless in non IE borwsers. From vbscript to activeX controls, to proprietary tags. Embrace and extend.
    Oh, yeah, and Netscape never put in their own HTML extensions. Remeber ISINDEX? PROMPT? not to mention, most of the Netscape extensions did _not_ become part of the HTML standard, while many of the MS ones did. And the HTML standard body was _not_ pro-ms. They were just normal developers who agreed with sane logic. (blink tag excluded, )
    And as someone who wrote AX componets, before the 'Internet' took off, the ability to put my AX controls in IE allowed me to port many heavy front-end systems to lighter web-based systems in little or no time. Same thing with the ability to have VB Script on the page. MS put in that ability for people like _ME_. That's loyalty.

    The ability to put AX in a page was never intended to make people format their linux hard drives, and install NT to view some page. It was there for us developers who invested a lot of money in AX technology and training. Not to mention, it was part of the whole AX Document stuff which IE was a client to.

    I rarely see AX on public internet sites. Many times I see it on intranets, where an IT department has some app which performs something on the client and it's best done as a compiled binary. So I guess everyones BS fear about "AX in IE will force web browsing to be platform specific" was all just FUD (after all, IE is the dominant browser, and browsing is not platform specific). If you have trouble viewing sites, I really doubt it's because of AX. My guess is DOM 1.0 and CSS2 are your biggest hurdles, and that comes down to netscape/opera implementation.

    But who cares if someone wanted to put AX on their site. They know they'd be limiting themselves to a specific platform, it's their perogative to do that. Web sites do it everyday when they ask themselves the question "Should we worry about Mac support/testing?". Many times, large sites say "no". And the only reason Macs can view things (generally) fine is because the Graphic Artist who designed the look of the site constantly bugs the web developers with their mac bugs. Otherwise, a company would say "I'm not paying 2x as much for a website just so .5% of my vistors can see it". It's their decision. That's their right.
    Well except that you can't code GUI and Database which makes it just about useless outside of .NET
    oh really?
    And the windows forms may not be complete yet, but they will eventually: here
    But who wants ugly window forms on linux? Use GTK
    When you are talking about the character of somebody it's perfectly OK to point out evil acts in their past. Should we ignore the past records of child molesters, murderers and rapist because "they are not doing it now"?.
    First, it's a corporate entity, not a human entity. If you take into account the turnover rate, it's a completely new MS from back then. Infer from that what little there is, but you can't say it's the same company (is IBM the same company it was 30 years ago? what about the ma'bells?).
    As for child molester, rapists and murderers, I take it you're of the mindset that believe once you commit a crime, you can never truly repent and make up for. Scarlet letter them for ever and such. No point in debating that with you, it's an intrinsic belief that won't change.
    During the communist regime in the soviet republic people stood in bread lines but there were always a few who made out like bandits.
    You don't really want to compare MS v Communism and OSS v Communism do you?
    Sure you made money but a bunch of people paid to buy crappy shit that broke, were coerced into buying shit they did not want, were denied competing products, yadda yadda yadda
    Well, I guess here's where I simply have to agree to disagree. As someone that's built many a companies IT networks, and large software solutions that run on top of those networks, I have to say I never had that experience. All my clients have been happy, all still are. The software works, the networks hum, and databases purr.
    Granted, I'm not the founder of Dr. Dos. And I'm not saying predatory tactics weren't employed and shouldn't be reprimanded, but again, i don't think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. Even if there's lots of starving kids in the world who I could adopt.
    MS is an American company, and like most (if not all Fortune 100) companies they play for keeps. they are aggressive, they think out strategies and plans and use tactics more similar to fighting wars then what many would consider 'doing business'. this is the nature of free enterprise. We don't own castles anymore, we own companies. And as head of your own company, you pretty much feel like a king.
    Survival of the fittest. Attack with the sun at your back, and from high ground. Don't expect this to be some sort of British battle where both sides line up in equal numbers in the middle of a large field and get to take turns shooting or stabbing each other.

    It's corporate Darwinism. No matter how well seated you think a company is, they are always 1 week away from chapter-11.

    -malakai
  10. Re:No personal use of .NET or Mono by MagPulse · · Score: 2, Informative · on Mono and .NET - An Interview
    "I think that the whole Mono project will turn out to be a major debacle ... MS will release new .NET crap every year and Mono will play catch up..."
    Miguel replies to this in his FAQ on the Mono web site:
    "Question 37: Do you fear that Microsoft will change the spec and render Mono useless?

    No. Microsoft proved with the CLI and the C# language that it was possible to create a powerful foundation for many languages to interoperate. We will always have that.

    Even if changes happened in the platform which were undocumented, the existing platform would a value on its own."
    Mono will be useful no matter what Microsoft does. Mono is taking Microsoft's expensive, paid-for research and applying it.
  11. Re:No personal use of .NET or Mono by MagPulse · · Score: 2, Informative · on Mono and .NET - An Interview
    "I think that the whole Mono project will turn out to be a major debacle ... MS will release new .NET crap every year and Mono will play catch up..."
    Miguel replies to this in his FAQ on the Mono web site:
    "Question 37: Do you fear that Microsoft will change the spec and render Mono useless?

    No. Microsoft proved with the CLI and the C# language that it was possible to create a powerful foundation for many languages to interoperate. We will always have that.

    Even if changes happened in the platform which were undocumented, the existing platform would a value on its own."
    Mono will be useful no matter what Microsoft does. Mono is taking Microsoft's expensive, paid-for research and applying it.
  12. Re:One question... by n1k0 · · Score: 1 · on Designing a New Version Control System?

    Yes, it runs on Linux: 1, 2

    niko

  13. Re:Java is Beautiful by --daz-- · · Score: 2 · on XML and Java, Developing Web Applications

    First, .NET was designed to be platform independent. Win32 specific stuff is contained in specific assemblies prefixed with "Microsoft.", such as "Microsoft.Win32" which contains a whole slew of Windows-specific stuff like the Registry.

    The .NET CLI and C# language spec are open standards, which is more than anyone can say for Java. Sun has twice attempted to standardize Java, but pulled out. They want to keep a tight noose on Java because, presumably, they wish to charge licensing for it in the future.

    Go-Mono is an open-source, GPL implementation of the .NET CLI and C# for Linux (on several hardware platforms).

    Microsoft had Corel and some of their researchers in Cambridge, UK, develop a clean-room implementation of the .NET CLI and C# for FreeBSD and Windows called "Rotor". They have released it as Shared-Source (meaning you can view the source, but not use it) to demonstrate that it is possible to make .NET cross-platform.

    MS has said that it will discuss commericial licenses of Rotor.

    If there is sufficient demand, .NET will be ported to other platforms by MS or 3rd parties (since it's a standard).

    I don't think .NET will kill Java, that would be absurd. In fact, I hope it DOESN'T kill Java.

    A software world where your main choices are .NET or Java is a very good world indeed!

    But, it's equally absurd to think that Java will kill .NET and .NET will fade away. .NET is poised to sweep through the MS development community, after which it will have as much or more deployment than Java. It's a force to rekon with, whether you like it or not.

  14. Re:new MS initiatives like .NET by njm · · Score: 1 · on DotGNU Meet-a-thon

    No they are trying to implement C#. Which will never happen.

    Never happen, eh? Might I direct your attention to the Mono project, on which Ximian is currently working. They've had a self-hosting C# compiler for quite some time now running under Linux.

  15. Proprietary solutions will always lose by AirLace · · Score: 0, Flamebait · on Eclipse 2.0 Released
    Why use the proprietary Java runtimes and Eclipse when Mono and gtk-sharp are prograssing so nicely?

    IMO the worst thing that could happen to the Free Software community is the situation where the bulk of user-layer applications are dependent on a non-free platform. SharpDevelop is coming along very nicely too. Support .NET and the Mono project!

  16. open IDE for Windows/.NET by fiffilinus · · Score: 2, Informative · on Extensible IDEs?

    As you work on Windows systems, you might look at #develop which is a very flexible open source IDE for .NET. I presume you are running .NET anyway by now, as that is where VS is at now. It has among other nifty features a completely plugin-based architecture (see the SODA document for details) and user-definable backends, i.e. you can switch the compiler (and language of course) to whatever you like. Currently the MS.NET compilers and the SUN Java engine are implemented as backends, but if you want to use MONO for Windows, GCC or whatever, you can do it. And as you might guess from the last bit, porting to Linux is planned as soon as dotGNU and/or MONO are up and running :-)

  17. open IDE for Windows/.NET by fiffilinus · · Score: 2, Informative · on Extensible IDEs?

    As you work on Windows systems, you might look at #develop which is a very flexible open source IDE for .NET. I presume you are running .NET anyway by now, as that is where VS is at now. It has among other nifty features a completely plugin-based architecture (see the SODA document for details) and user-definable backends, i.e. you can switch the compiler (and language of course) to whatever you like. Currently the MS.NET compilers and the SUN Java engine are implemented as backends, but if you want to use MONO for Windows, GCC or whatever, you can do it. And as you might guess from the last bit, porting to Linux is planned as soon as dotGNU and/or MONO are up and running :-)

  18. Re:Cool! by ryanvm · · Score: 1 · on Win32/Linux Cross-Platform Virus

    It's called .NET (Mono).

  19. Re:start with development tools by innate · · Score: 1 · on What's the Business Case for Microsoft and Open Source?

    C# is an ECMA standard. How much more open can you get? Download your copy of C# for Linux today.

    Now if you were talking about the .NET Framework, then you'd have a point. While much of the Framework is standardized, many things (esp. the GUI stuff) is not. If you have FreeBSD try Microsoft's release of .NET for FreeBSD, which includes the standardized portions but not the rest.

    Nate

  20. Microsoft .NET and UNIX by coryboehne · · Score: 0, Offtopic · on Debian And WineX

    Funny enough even the .NET framework, in particular the subset of the CLR (Common Language Runtime), CLI (Common Language Infrastructure). Check out go-mono.com for more info on this, in addition to this microsoft and corel have announced plans some time ago to make and implementation of the C# (C sharp) and the CLI available for BSD. Microsoft and open source, who would have ever guessed?

  21. Slashdot munged my post by AirLace · · Score: 2 · on Alan Cox talks about laws... and Linux
    Last paragraph should read:



    Any legal objections are simply false. Eben Moglen, professor of Law and Legal History, and the Free Software foundation's top lawyer, has already given the go-ahead for the Mono , therefore I can only explain Alan's anti-.NET arguments to be either misinformed, or written to misinform. I hope he will redirect his efforts to more worthy issues in the future; he will then once again have my full support.

  22. Re:OK, C# is an ECMA standard by Jon+Pryor · · Score: 1 · on Jordan Hubbard moves to new OpenDarwin.org

    As someone else stated, it's a standard, not a product. The C# Standard merely describes the C# language.

    Where are the APIs? That's a different standard. ECMA-335, to be precise, and it describes a set of APIs to program against, as well as what the intermediate language is, the semantics the the IL, how it should be executed... In short, most of what you would need to know in order to execute a .NET program.

    The one downside is that ECMA-335 doesn't define the entire library to .NET; it's missing Windows Forms, ASP.NET, and other large parts of the library. But that doesn't prevent the developer community from re-implementing these libraries. In fact, people are working on these libraries as part of the Mono Project.

    - Jon

  23. Re:the .NET SDK is a free download. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Salon Goes Inside the X-Box


    Free !

    http://www.go-mono.com/

    you really need to get out more instead of player hatin'

  24. Re:Looking for a consistent Mono story by Samrobb · · Score: 4, Informative · on Nat Friedman talks of Ximian, Gnome, and Red Carpet
    ...neither Ximian nor anyone else has plans to clone the rest (Windows Forms, Dotnet ADO etc.)

    FUD.

    It took me just a few moments browsing through the mono project plan to come up with this:

    Using existing components from GNOME.

    Our current plan is to implement the GUI tools on top of Gtk+. The only obstacle here is that applications from Windows might expect to be able to pull the HWND property from the widgets and use PInvoke to call Windows functions. Class Library and Win32 dependencies.

    There are a few spots where the Win32 foundation is exposed to the class library (for example, the HDC and HWND properties in the GDI+). Casual inspection suggests that these can be safely mapped to Gdk's GC and GdkWindow pointers without breaking anything.

    The only drawback is that support for PInvoke of Win32 code won't be available. An alternate solution would be to use portions of Wine, or even to use Wine as our toolkit.

    Initial GDI+ and WinForms implementation

    The initial implementation will use Gtk+ as the underlying toolkit. Since GTK+ has already been ported to many windowing systems other than X (including frame buffer, Win32, and BeOS) its use should cover most applications for most users.

    Database access

    We will implement ADO.NET functionality by reusing GNOME-DB. This is an ideal choice, since GNOME-DB was implemented precisely to provide an ADO-like system for GNOME.

  25. Mono and Windows compatibility by AirLace · · Score: 5, Interesting · on Learn About Ximian and Gnome From Nat Friedman

    Ximian has explained that it is developing the Mono .NET runtime and C# implementations to provide a modern development environment for the GNOME / Linux desktop. Of course, a pleasant side-effect of writing future applications in C# will be that it's easy to make them Windows compatible. Do you see a future in producing cross-platform software solutions or will Ximian remain devoted to the Linux desktop? Will Ximian use Windows.Forms (in conjunction with a GTK# compatibility layer) or will GTK# be used directly by Ximian programs? After all, the two toolkits have fundamentally different philosophies behind widget packing/placement etc.

  26. Re:.NET is actually pretty sweet by daytrip00 · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Gives Up on Hailstorm

    I can run .NET compiled programs on Solaris, Linux, Windows, MacOS?

    Well, let's first be honest. People say with java, "write one, run anywhere", and you couldn't run Java 2 apps on FreeBSD, Mac OS, HP-UX or many other OS' either.

    Oh yeah, and uh, http://www.go-mono.com/.

    So 3 out of 4 ain't bad.

    m

  27. Re:Microsoft trying to lure people away from Java. by brunes69 · · Score: 2 · on James Gosling On .NET And The Anti-Trust Trial

    Fortunatley, you are wrong. .Net code runs on FreeBSD, using M$'s own implimentation. And come soon, it will run on virtually any platform, using Mono.

  28. Re:"relieved that it wasn't creative" by brunes69 · · Score: 2 · on James Gosling On .NET And The Anti-Trust Trial

    Where do you get the dea that Microsoft has a "copyright" on .Net? They do own soe patents on the way the technologies work, but that is nowhere near a copyright. .Net has been submitted to the ECMA, and if M$ has it copyrighted projects like Mono, which already has a working C# compiler, wouldn't be able to exist.

  29. Re:Differences in schools by Osty · · Score: 1 · on MS: Use the Source, Luke!

    Not that it's worth the expense of moving to Microsoft software....

    Assuming by this you mean "moving to the Windows platform", why bother? When Microsoft said they want the .NET CLI to be cross-platform, they meant it.

  30. Re:Gotta represent (er, maintain) by Carnage4Life · · Score: 5, Interesting · on More Marcelo Tosatti

    Does it strike anyone else as strange that the Linux kernel is still run by a small monarchy?

    Actually the truth of the matter is that most successful projects are run by a small group of people (e.g. one to four) with absolute say and complete CVS access with a smattering of others who submit patches on and on and a number of others who submit bug reports. I've actively monitored Open Source projects of various sizes including Scoop, JDEE, Mono and Xindice where the general case seems to be that core development was done by one to four members of the team who controlled most or all of the project with token contributions coming in from a few more.

    In fact the recent Slashdot article on KOffice did nothing but reinforce the notion that I've long since suspected that most Free Software/Open Source projects are primarily the work of a small, autocratic team regardless of the size or scope of the project.

  31. Re:Gnome can't die by jdavidb · · Score: 2 · on Could Mono Kill Gnome?

    Well, you can read the docs (somewhere on MS's site; I'm not going to search for it), or you can go check out the mono project, or you can go check out dotGNU, which is somewhat larger in scope than mono but also implementing a .NET runtime, or you can go read O'Reilly's books on the subject, some of which are already in their second editions.

  32. Re:GPL Java Replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on The Apache/Sun Relationship Worsens

    > I wish the Free and OSS software communities would put the energy being wasted on Java and .NET into our own GPL-ed platforms.

    They are

  33. Re:.NET good, not evil by s0l0m0n · · Score: 2, Informative · on What is .NET?

    The biggest problem I see with .NET is that the apps that get created with it will only run on Windows servers.

    I think that this is in refference to the programing language c#, which is a component of MS .net, right?

    ximian is working on a linux port of .net right now. Currently they are up to version 0.8. Looks like new versions of Gnome will be written for mono, at some point. Of course, if you'd read /. in the past weeks, you would know that. You can read up on it or offer your assistance at Go mono

    and here are Miguel de Icaza's comments concerning Gnome and mono.

  34. Parrot? by ClarkEvans · · Score: 2, Interesting · on One Runtime To Bind Them All

    I'm curious to hear what others have to say about Parrot? This VM seems to be optimized for Perl, but will probably be able to handle Python/Ruby rather well. I would be interesting to know why Miguel's Mono chose to back Microsoft's C# instead of our core open-source langauge's Python, Perl, Ruby, etc.

  35. Re:Joy FUD Club by borgboy · · Score: 1 · on Bill Joy's Takes on C#

    hmmm... beginning to suspect you have no idea what you're talking about. it was hard getting past the hard-as-nails part. i have a new computer in my lab right now that won't install win2k and is locked up in the (default) install process where it thinks it's already installed but it really isn't.

    Anecdotal points about specific hardware combinations failing to install/run a specific OS that fail to mention that the combination is in fact supported by the OS developer are rather worthless. For example, I have a particular model of IBM destop pc that signal 7s every time I try to install Redhat or Suse, but then, I never bothered to see if all the hardware in those pcs was supported by either distro. The same machines run Win2k just fine. So what? It proves nothing. My anecdotal experience with our servers is that Win2k on supported, properly configured hardware will typically have very little if any unplanned downtime.

    dominant in marketshare only... i find it endless frustrating and difficult to use. Macs are infinitely easier to use and as far as I'm concerned, so is KDE. I used to use Win9x/NT before I found linux.

    I'm glad you have a choice to make. I do to, and I happen to find Win2k/XP the easiest to use.


    Java - multi-platform
    C# - windows only (you don't think MS is going to extend C# like they tried to extend Java for windows?)

    Huh?

    Now, you'd have to be insane to use windows as a production-level server.
    Lots of insane people make their living off of windows as a production-level server
    Unix is the only way to go... thus, Java.
    What happened to choice? I thought GNU was about choices? What if I gasp> don't like to code in Java? Heck, what happened to OS/400 or BSD? You can have your choices. If you are more comfortable with Unix environments, then they will typically be cheaper for you to operate. But if you don't understand how to acquire quality hardware for Windows, and you dont know how to administer it, then you hardly have any room to cast stones.

  36. .NET and Mono: What is standard and what is not by GrayArea · · Score: 5, Interesting · on RMS Asks Miguel to Explain Himself
    Well, I decided that, instead of perpetuating the /. tradition of shooting out of my ass without doing my own research, I'd see for myself which parts of .NET API's were in the ECMA standard, which parts were not, and how much of it Mono is implementing. So, after downloading the ECMA documentation, I compared it to Microsoft's .NET Framework SDK docs and Mono Class Status page. Here is what I found:
    1. The ECMA standard includes a total of 249 types (classes, interfaces, etc.) as the standard library. .NET Framework SDK has approximately 3500 classes defined according to Mono Project, and they claim they have implemented or currently implementing 900 of them. Their status page shows 540 classes as work-in-progress, though that might be out of date.
    2. There are missing classes, interfaces and even methods and properties from the ECMA standard. For example, out of the 120+ types in the System namespace, only 100 of them makes it into the standard. Of the 100 or so methods in the String class, more than 20 of them are not in the standard, including a few constructors. This doesn't seem to be an exception, most (but not all) of the classes have missing members. The SDK documentation doesn't give any special notice about members or types missing from the ECMA standard. I am assuming Mono is implementing the full Framework SDK versions of these libraries.
    3. The ECMA standard libraries define a feature set that is somewhat larger than the C runtime library, the most noticable additions being the network and XML processing libraries. There is a lot of stuff left out, both additional libraries and functionality inside existing libraries (as outlined above).

    After this, it is kind of easy to reach to the conclusion that the ECMA standard has major deficiencies, that there is no way (apart from custom tool support) to tell if the code you are writing conforms to that standard and that Microsoft is most likely just paying lip service to the standards process, at least as far as the core .NET API's go. Java and Sun do a much more complete job of defining and sticking to specifications if the ECMA work is any sign.

    Personally, I don't plan to touch .NET API's to develop open source software after this. My opinion is that Mono would be much better off if they develop their own cross-platform class libraries instead of using .NET API's. There is nothing preventing them from using CLI VM and multiple language support with their own class libraries. They are already writing everything from scratch, they might as well use their own design rather than playing catch-up to proprietary Microsoft API's.

  37. It's the licensing issue by rootmon · · Score: 0 · on RMS Asks Miguel to Explain Himself

    If Miguel hadn't moved MONO to the X11/MIT license last week, I don't think RMS would be so upset. We're talking about GNOME, the biggest GNU project since HURD being based on an API that is Non-Free-As-In-Freedom, only a portion of NET has been submitted to ECMCA. With the concern the GNU community had over KDE, this would make the GNOME community look like hippocrites (GNOME was started because KDE used to be based on QT, which was not released under GPL.)

    FYI I submitted this same story about 5 hours ago. Hmmm.

  38. double standards by spongman · · Score: 3, Insightful · on RMS Asks Miguel to Explain Himself
    If anyone's smoking crack here, it's RMS.

    How is this situation any different from free software projects using Sun's Java technologies? Isn't this just two sides of the same coin?

    On one side you have Gnome intending to use Mono, a cross-platform language and runtime environment based on open standards,
    and on the other you have projects such as Apache's Jakarta using Java, a cross-platform language and runtime envionment based on almost open standards.

    I don't recall seeing RMS bitching too heavily about Sun's absolute control of the Java language and runtime.what it was that RMS didn't like about it. I wouldn't be surprised if he's just being reactionary for the sake of it.

  39. Re:slashdotted... and my opinion by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1 · on RMS Asks Miguel to Explain Himself

    They are not reverse engineering MS technology. They are using the technologies that have already been submitted to the ECMA for standardization.

    All the info about the Mono project is available here and it is not slashdotted.

  40. .NET: The power of Java, and Free Speech too by AirLace · · Score: 3, Insightful · on RMS Asks Miguel to Explain Himself

    Yesterday, I was sitting at a Microsoft Windows workstation researching something on physics, when I came accross a Webpage with an embedded Java applet. I was dumbstruck; what a fabulous idea! From what I can gather, Java applets are quite prevalent in education circles and other applications where user input can be taken to produce a visual representation of the result.
    .NET and C# are basically a reimplementation of Java. Sure, they add new features like cross-language support, and finer grained security context. These mean respectively that I could call a perl function from a python script inline. The latter means I could create software that has extensible input and output filters for program data, where the filters are trusted to convert data but never write it to disk.
    So, why then do I think .NET is the best thing for GNOME? It's really very simple: The Java runtime environment is non-free. Certainly, Free Software Java interpreters like Kaffee came a long way when they were actively under development, but what was really missing was a complete set of class libraries.
    Ximian Mono is writing a complete cross platform development and code exceution platform which includes a complete set of class libraries, and a JIT (Just in Time) interpeter for .NET bytecode that allows the code, once compiled, to be run at almost native speeds.
    Finally, .NET is an open standard; Java is not. It's been submitted to the ECMA which means that you, I and Miguel are free to make an open implementation of it, explicitly. Sure, some may worry that Microsoft have subversive motives in doing so, but the fact remains that they've released a technology that's at least as good as, if not better than Java.
    I don't know about you, but I want to see the day when I'm doing research and I hit a page with an interactive demonstration written in .NET and I can view it in Mozilla, or in Konqueror, without having to install Sun or IBM's proprietary Java runtime. It's all about the technology, only in this case it makes sense not only to pragmatists but Free Software enthusiasts too. In fact I bet that most of the anti-Mono trolls are the very ones that have those proprietary Java runtimes installed on their systems.

  41. Re:Follow the Rules of New Software Projects: by rjkimble · · Score: 4, Insightful · on Designing Multiplayer Game Engines?

    If you program in C# you're limiting yourself to an untested, almost unportable language and to the Microsoft platform. I would think that if you were serious enough to waste all of Slashdot's time with this question, you would be serious enough to choose a real programming language, not some Microsoft marketing scheme.

    I don't think this is particularly true. For one thing, Ximian/Mono are developing their own C# compiler. They're also developing their own runtime.

    Another point is that Microsoft's operating systems own 90%+ (probably more than 95%) of the home computer game market, so it hardly seems to be a limiting choice, even if the Mono project fails. And no matter how much you dislike Microsoft, I think you have to admit that their notion of a "common language runtime," which makes it rather trivial to integrate components from all the supported programming languages, is a brilliant concept. It may take Microsoft to a whole new level of domination, but that hardly makes the idea some sort of evil.

    For the record, before you label me as some sort of Microsoft shill, I'd like to point out that I'm composing this response using Galeon running under Mandrake 8.1, and my company bases all its software development and web hosting on Linux, Apache, Tomcat, and Java. I'm one who believes that the main reason that Microsoft is where they are today is because they actually respond to their customers and most of their competitors behave like morons. Ever try to use Solaris without installing all the GNU versions of the standard utilities? The Sun versions are generally inferior and an outright PITA to use. Microsoft doesn't force that on Sun -- hell, they could just use the GNU versions.

  42. Re:Follow the Rules of New Software Projects: by rjkimble · · Score: 4, Insightful · on Designing Multiplayer Game Engines?

    If you program in C# you're limiting yourself to an untested, almost unportable language and to the Microsoft platform. I would think that if you were serious enough to waste all of Slashdot's time with this question, you would be serious enough to choose a real programming language, not some Microsoft marketing scheme.

    I don't think this is particularly true. For one thing, Ximian/Mono are developing their own C# compiler. They're also developing their own runtime.

    Another point is that Microsoft's operating systems own 90%+ (probably more than 95%) of the home computer game market, so it hardly seems to be a limiting choice, even if the Mono project fails. And no matter how much you dislike Microsoft, I think you have to admit that their notion of a "common language runtime," which makes it rather trivial to integrate components from all the supported programming languages, is a brilliant concept. It may take Microsoft to a whole new level of domination, but that hardly makes the idea some sort of evil.

    For the record, before you label me as some sort of Microsoft shill, I'd like to point out that I'm composing this response using Galeon running under Mandrake 8.1, and my company bases all its software development and web hosting on Linux, Apache, Tomcat, and Java. I'm one who believes that the main reason that Microsoft is where they are today is because they actually respond to their customers and most of their competitors behave like morons. Ever try to use Solaris without installing all the GNU versions of the standard utilities? The Sun versions are generally inferior and an outright PITA to use. Microsoft doesn't force that on Sun -- hell, they could just use the GNU versions.

  43. Re:Headline misleading? by J.+Random+Software · · Score: 4, Informative · on Ximian to Change License for Mono

    "On behalf of all contributors"? Does Mono require copyright assignment of all contributions, or did they actually manage to persuade every contributor to subsidize non-Free Mono implementations? Their FAQ still says they'll generally accept GPL'd contributions (which implies they don't insist on the right to relicense).

  44. The clean break is already on its way by Oink.NET · · Score: 1 · on Security Community Reacts to Microsoft Announcement

    Microsoft's clean break is their new "virtual machine" which is about to be unleashed on the world, AKA the Common Language Runtime [PDF]. It's basically a whole new platform riding on top of Windows (and maybe others if things like Mono pan out), and this time security is supposedly built into the architecture from the ground up.

  45. Re:It's all about fighting .Net by dzym · · Score: 1 · on AOL in Negotiations to Buy Red Hat?
    I read a research report by Gartner that labeled Linux as the most serious impediment to the success of .Net, since it runs on Windows servers.

    Mono ring a bell?

  46. Mono will implement the entire .NET framework by yerricde · · Score: 1 · on First (proof-of-concept) .NET virus

    Mono is an implementaion of C# that is it. .NET is a platform and an archetecture.

    Not so fast. Mono will implement the runtime, using a JIT compiler on some platforms (e.g. ix86) and an interpreter on others. They're working on the class library.

  47. Mono will implement the entire .NET framework by yerricde · · Score: 1 · on First (proof-of-concept) .NET virus

    Mono is an implementaion of C# that is it. .NET is a platform and an archetecture.

    Not so fast. Mono will implement the runtime, using a JIT compiler on some platforms (e.g. ix86) and an interpreter on others. They're working on the class library.

  48. Mono by halftrack · · Score: 1 · on First (proof-of-concept) .NET virus

    What I'm worry about is this phrasing: ... the Framework will be available on most systems. This means Mono, which means Linux, which is bad. Today there's round 20 or 30 known viruses on the Linux platform, 20000-30000 on the windows platform. Although a more rapid spread of won't give MS an edge it sertainly won't hurt them.

  49. Mono / .NET by paulywog · · Score: 5, Interesting · on Talk to Sun's 'Open Source Diva'

    Articles keep comparing J2EE and .NET. One of the unquestionable advantages of J2EE in an enterprise environment is its cross platform capabilities (specifically the ability to run on powerful high-end UNIX servers). With the Mono project building an open source, cross platform, .NET compatible framework, do you have any fear that the .NET style framework for web services might become more of a competition to J2EE than without the Mono project? Would Sun ever consider supporting Mono to enourage interroperability between J2EE and .NET components, or is this an example of an open source project potentially damaging Sun?

  50. Ximian? by horati0 · · Score: 1 · on Portable .NET Reaches A Quarter Million Lines

    So how does Ximian's Mono project fit into this?