Slashdot Mirror
DotGNU and Mono Continue
saurik writes "After what has been a strange few weeks of converse between the DotGNU and Mono teams (including a small PR SNAFU that involved the banning of a member from the DotGNU mailing list), DotGNU has now announced that they will be forming a partnership with Portable.NET." Frankly I like that there are 2 efforts going on. Maybe one will succeed.
Do you ever wonder if these open source projects are actually helping Microsoft? I mean Microsofts coding standards are pretty low (check out Windows ME, IIS, well, everything from Microsoft)... They are probably studying the source code from these two projects and stealing ideas from them as far as better ways to implement the same frame work. Implementing any large scale project (and this one is big) raises many technical problems, and there are many different approaches to solving them. I wouldn't be surprised if MS is looking for ways to improve their own code by reading the source from these other projects.
Can you count, CmdrTaco? Guess not, since that would imply that you passed grade 2. Including Microsoft, and the companies you mentioned, that's *three* efforts, not two.
If you use squeak as your ST implementation, it wouldn't be too hard to beat it.
Squeak is the retarded, inbred bastard of the smalltalk community.
One article I've seen was this:
Comdex Canada: No Web Services 'Revolution' for IBM.
The article indicates IBM is going ahead with its strategy to enable interoperability between platforms by the use of XML and Java.
HAHAHA, you mentioned Cloudscape in the same sentance as Oracle, Sybase and SQL Server? that's rich.
What would it take to push apple into making NeXTStep a truly cross-platform development environment again? If they did so, would anyone actually use it? (i.e. which is greater: the dirty feeling coming from using an MS platform, or the dirty feeling coming from using an apple (NeXT) platform.) Or is .NET better than *Step/Cocoa anyway?
Apple currently needs Microsoft for Office. Microsoft would not like Apple invading Windows by putting Cocoa on Windows or giving Linux a boost by putting Cocoa on that.
So Apple needs something to replace Office to get out of under MS control. The only real possibility is OpenOffice, but of course there is no Mac Version of OpenOffice and they report they need help porting to Mac OS X
I alternative to Word that could actually defeat .doc as the "standard" format is AbiWord free and small, so it is a easy download. But, it has the same problem OpenOffice has no Mac Version.
I think these two programs have no chance becoming wide spread without a Mac Version. Because basically anyone using any Macs can't use it. It is not "cross-platform" to them. Also us Mac Users would be very likely to go preaching the OpenOffice-Abiword gospel. We hated Microsoft before Linux existed, and I believe there are more of us then there are Linux users.
people here thing dotGNU will be as wildly successful as GNU Hurd?
You know if this .NET thing works out it could lead to truly cross-platform apps. That could realistically lead to it backfiring on Microsoft and allow alternate systems like Linux, like FreeBSD to come in and steal MS's pride and joy, the Windows Market Share. So think about it that way when criticizing Mono and DotGNU.
As sometime user of my SuSE distro (no net access but still fun) and avid fan of Linux in general I have to agree that the a big problem for Linux in general is the highly divided internal life of the community. I feel that some sort of "united front" or clearinghouse would simplify accessibility for non-Linux literate souls who are interested. Lost Archivist
You know a holy war has been worth it, once it gets turned into a slashdot banner ad.
Make the community look like a bunch of childish "I can do that too" people
I agree that this seems to be what the DotGNU people are seemly try to do. Mono, on the other hand, is more looking at having alternative langauges, etc, on the *nix based OSs. Porting the CLI means nearly everything else can be ported with ease. They are looking to actual WRITE most of the infrastructure in C# after all, after getting a decent CLI up and running..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Thats correct. And specially when its not very clear what the final outcome is supossed to be.
Reg Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the
Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
PFJ Yeah
Judith Splitters.
Francis And the Judean Popular Peoples Front.
PFJ Oh yeah. Splitters.
Loretta And the peoples Front of Judea.
PFJ Splitters.
Reg What?
Loretta The Peoples front of Judea. Splitters.
Reg We're the Peoples front of Judea.
Loretta Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
Reg Peoples Front.
Francis Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
Reg He's over there.
--------[A single old man sits on a lower seat.]
--------{Some POPULAR front, eh?}
PFJ [To the old man.] SPLITTER!
Not to mention the potential etymological shift (say in 5 years) caused by the almost subconcious association of "mono" and "two". I suggest they change the name to bino, or something.
Alternatively, for example, the KDE and Gnome projects seem to spur each other to develop faster.
// TODO: fix sig
For those who didn't read it through, here's some scoop from the Portable.NET faq:
.NET-capable framework that works well with GNOME. This means that their system is unlikely to work well with any other desktop environment, or with PDA's that don't feature GNOME.
.NET development toolchain on Linux.
.NET does not create needless desktop dependencies, so more power to them. I am a bit surprised at Ximian's attitude at the whole thing though, where is the logic? To read the full faq go here:
3.2. Why not co-operate with Mono?
I tried suggesting that we divide up the work to prevent too much duplication of effort, but Mono seems set on re-inventing all of the wheels that I already had several months prior. Mono's idea of co-operation at the moment is "do it our way or no way". Therefore, I will co-operate with Mono when they start co-operating with me.
3.1. Mono
The Mono project that is run by Ximian has many of the same goals as Portable.NET.
Mono is oriented towards building a
Portable.NET is designed to be more general purpose than that. It has very few dependencies on other libraries so that it can be integrated with any desktop or PDA operating environment.
Mono's C# compiler and other tools are written in C#. While academically interesting, this will incur a severe performance penalty on the toolchain compared to Portable.NET's use of C. It also means that it will be longer before Mono can natively host a
Future versions of Portable.NET will also support compiling C# to the JVM, which isn't something targeted by Mono as yet.
---------------
I think it is really interesting that Portable.NET intends to target the JVM. Now we are getting somewhere. Also their version of
http://www.southern-storm.com.au/pnet_faq.html
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
I know this is a trite argument, but it is appropriate (and no, I'm not trying to flame anybody, or even single you out or anything):
If you really think another way is the way to go, please start doing it. You don't even need to be a programmer yourself; write up a paper detailing the failings of the current efforts and propose a better way. Disseminate this text, and persuade other coders to join in and implement it. Even if you do not succeed in getting your project started, your work will not be wasted as your analysis will be helpful in guiding the current projects.
The people working on Mono, DotGNU and Portable.NET are all doing it because they believe their project is the right way to go about it. Any productive feedback - in the form of a design document or a competing project - is very helpful for all involved. A random 'I don't like this', on the other hand, is likely to be ignored.
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
> And what is an objective criteria?
How fast is it, how fast is it at xxxxx clients (where xxxxx is a big number), how much memory does it take up (and at xxxxx clients), how much code has to be rewritten to support it, how much support does it have for future target platforms, how many platforms require admin intervention to roll it out on (usually in the form of installing dependencies). How many existing technologies in use does it integrate with, how many technologies will have to be migrated to something else?
A java platform may win on some of these points, and I'd really appreciate seeing those points argued, not vagaries like the Betterment of Society. That along with spelling "Microsoft" correctly, or at least the two letters MS. C'mon, you can do it if you try (though perhaps there's a certain Randroid charm in M$)
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
..why I couldn't care less about the efforts to duplicate .NET, or .NET itself. I'll stick to my Smalltalk, where various implementations manage to remain civil with one another, and Free Software flows freely from one to the other.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Frankly I like that there are 2 efforts going on. Maybe one will succeed.
A brilliant commentary by Mr. Taco. Thank you sir, for gleaming such insight upon us inferior souls.
Or a single-threaded version of .net for Gnome. G.String.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Yes, my friends, fight against each other. If you don't agree the way a project is running, leave the project and make another one by your self!
That's the spirit of Variety. That what keep our Freedom of Choices. I like to choose Window Maker, and I also like that my pal prefers Gnome. That's the variety that I love to see!
Imagine a world where there are no differences, where all window managers look the same! This sux! I prefer to see a good fight, I prefer to see people getting out of a project and building their own. But I'm sad about that horrible happening about baning (too sad...)
Of course, freedom is hard to manage. Ditatorial government are much easier than a real democracy. Be fair is much more difficult, look all around is much more difficult, but IMHO is much much much better!
Let's fight and build several .NET projects. Can I see a third project in the horizon? Maybe I'm right, maybe it's just a dream, maybe everybody fits into dotGNU and Mono. That's ok too, the point is, we still have a choice!
FREEEEEEDOOOMM!!!
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
I don't like it admins on lists that feel like they need to exercise power over the list in the name of "harmony". You see it all the time on IRC.
Whether Martin Coxall was being an idiot or not
isn't really the point. Everyone should be entitled to read what he has to say, and killfile him if they want. Afterall that's what killfiles are for. I don't like it when someone makes decisions like that for me.
Also what's the point of "nonpublic" lists when the whole process is supposed to be "open" and allow anyone to join?
It's this hypocracy that keeps me from joining
the selfrightous schlong measuringfest that is IRC, or any of these projects.
That's one of the reasons C++ and PHP seem to work just fine for me. A bunch of shell scripts to pack it up, ship it over and unpack it. Or for UI updates, just ship new FastTemplate pages and presto! New look n' feel.
I guess I can understand that using app servers provides some scalability features, but you can do a lot of that in C++ using the ADAPTIVE Communications Environment (http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html), which has been around for a few years now.
freedom, choices
if you replaced redhat with slackware
I would be a very disapointed campter, I do not like redhat, or anything about it. I do however like slackware, and the only distribution of linux I would use besides one I make myself is Slackware. Your rant is irrelevant.
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
This exact same troll post has been cut and pasted into every single article or thread mentioning BSD. It's mere crapflooding, and idiots like you who, after six months of this post being circulated, still reply to these messages only serve to encourage its continued use.
Bill is smart. MS wins again! AC
I've been trying to persuade my company to start using open source products. My company will eventually move to .Net, I would love to get them to consider open source alternatives, but how can I convince them that open source can produce superior products when pointless arguments like this contiue and make open source look childish. I'm sure bickering goes on at Microsoft behind closed doors but we don't have that luxury. Come on guys get it together.
Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
All I have to say is read the link. Really.
After reading the link, unless you are socially brain-dead, you will see that Martin Coxall (the "banned" member) was being a total ass. No really--read it yourself. Keep going until you get to the end of the thread. You'll see. Unfortunately, the dotGNU people felt they needed to defend themselves on the mono list--and with people like this guy, that is only adding fuel to the fire. He's definitely a Tireless Rebutter.
Note of clarification: he was put on manual moderation after stiring up trouble on the dotGNU list. Not banned, moderated. Now before you cry "Oppression!", remember that this is exactly what moderation is for. If you don't understand what I am talking about, read the thread and imagine a constant onslaught of email coming from Martin Coxall sniping and being a jerk--as a developer, it would make you pretty upset.
Moderation is in place on lists to keep flame wars to a minimum. Martin Coxall was just sounding off and got moderated--that's internet life, kids.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
What would you say if asked to justify the idea that creating two different .NET implementations is a more valid use of manpower/volunteer time than devoting that same time to the Linux and Windows versions of GNUStep, with the goal of getting them to the point where GNUStep can be presented to corporations as something to develop for one platform & compile for three OSes? The head start given by the work already done on the Foundation would be enough that if the Community was to try to help GNUStep, they would probably have the time to add support for the java and python programming languages. (Cocoa supports java already.)
.NET -- a VM that is designed to be compiled to from any programming language, things being seen as slightly more "open", a thought-out system for meshing different object-oriented programming languages-- and move to fix these things?
.NET better than *Step/Cocoa anyway?
.NET is vapourware and will fail, and pretend it isn't there?
.NET? Or is java just inherently doomed because it was the first product of its type, and microsoft is able to learn from Sun's mistakes with 20/20 hindsight?
.. here goes nothing.. *submit*
Is the c#/.net framework really any better than gnustep would be with a slightly updated objective c or java?*
Why accept Microsoft's conception of the universe and bring it to linux when you can bring your own conception of the universe to Windows with about as much work?
And do you think that Sun will recognize the two or three tiny valid threats in
What would it take to push apple into making NeXTStep a truly cross-platform development environment again? If they did so, would anyone actually use it? (i.e. which is greater: the dirty feeling coming from using an MS platform, or the dirty feeling coming from using an apple (NeXT) platform.) Or is
Will apple or sun actually move to ensure that they remain with products that are better than microsofts', or will they just assume
In the upcoming war, which product is X and which is NeWS? Is that an appropriate anology? Are there any third alternatives outside of java/.NET?
What would it take to get the universe to a point where the API and VM for the next generation of operating systems (as well as a system, such as c# offers, where objects can be inherhited across operating systems-- CORBA generation 2, maybe, except actually usable?) is determined by a truly open, inclusive board of experts representing the entire industry, along the lines of an idealized version of the w3c or opengl?
What would the software industry be like *right now* if at the time that Sun began to release Java, they had had the money, resources and ability to get products installed on consumers computers' "by default" that microsoft has right now? I.E., how much better would java be if Sun had been able to rapidly mature it the way Microsoft will be able to rapidly mature
Is microsoft doomed because rather than attempting foresight, they're just trying to replicate java, slap on an authentication mechanism, with little attempt to do more than fix sun's mistakes?
What the hell is going on?
I'm going to go curl up now.
(please do not respond to the following. i am just trying to explain where i am coming from in wondering these things:)
*(I would honestly like to know the answer to that one. I have used Cocoa and love it to the point i would make my OS choice based on it solely. I haven't looked at C#/.NET because i don't trust MS and believe that if they are given power, any kind of power, they will abuse it. This is nothing more than internal bias and i am not attempting to justify it as "true", or start a discussion on that subject. I just want answers to the questions above. And i am secure, because after programming some Cocoa i know that NeXT will never die the way that the Amiga will never die.)
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
so wish the competitor to M$ .Net was called .Org
A gcc front end and back end is certainly a part of the goal of DotGNU. This means both a C# front end that can generate native binaries like was done for Java, as well as potentially a back end tool chain that can generate common runtime out of any gcc supported language.
What this does not mean is a gcc compiler that can parse source secret binaries into native code (such as bytecode) for that would allow one to create source secret applications compiled thru gcc.
Here's the one thing I take away from .NET that looks like new technology to me, and it looks like a good idea that wouldn't be super hard to do: .NET lets you provide a public interface for VB and C# objects ("Windows services", web services - guess they haven't thought of an acronym for it yet) without adding another compile/curse/compile step. That is, the interface you write for the C# class is publicly available without writing a separate IDL.
This is a good thing, as I'll bet a large chunk of most development projects is spent writing/debugging this damn translation layer. App servers like Resin let you run applets, but you've gotta set up an agreed upon message format, parse some XML/HTML/binary message format, and do reflection (if you're doing Java).
Why not write a module that maps a XML DTD to a Java interface, then does the RPC for you?
IMHO, this is what .NET is trying to do. For all the marketing BS in there (the whole certified email thing seems hokey - PGP gives you the exact same functionality now), the general idea seems to boil down to be something small and simple.
As far as C# goes, the standard MSFT development practice seems to be "prototype in VB, ship in VC++" because of VB language restrictions (OO in VB looks like a whole lotta duct tape). I'll bet C# is an effort to address these restrictions, while continuing to use a VM, which makes it much easier to tie the whole shebang together:
Note that using a VM also makes it easier for MSFT to restrict developers to use only published API calls - no more hitting the hardware. :)
One could hope. But that may be unlikely. Again, "Not Invented Here" -- the developers who left the dying project might not go to the surviving one. They'd probably be sick of the whole thing and move on to something else entirely.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Go ahead, mod this to hell, but it's the truth.
MS is betting the company on C# and .Net, which means they will do whatever is needed to make it succeed. They'll swat Mono, dotGNU, and Project.Net like flies if they have even a hint that it will help them.
I'm still wondering why people need .NET, let alone any open source alternative...
IMHO, wouldn't it be better for the community to create a "internet service" solution (if we even need internet services) that works, rather than try to duplicate the work of Microsoft?
Yes, but Microsoft's strategy here was perfect, because they know it's too much of a gamble for the open source community NOT to make an open source version of .net technology.
Certainly if we did nothing Microsoft would have to work that much harder to gain universal acceptance of .NET, but if we have an open source alternative at least nobody has to be under the iron grip of MS. That's not too high a price to pay to avoid MS dominance even if it plays into their hands to an extent.
If we really believe in the whole 'Open Source Community' mythos, then we shouldn't need another company to jump in and help out.
What is the point of all the effort and argument over .NET? Its to Microsoft as Java is to Sun, Java has the ability to do everything that .NET can, what is the point? To me this just seems to give microsoft a ton of help for free supporting non-microsoft platforms in some ridiculous plot to overthrow the internet.
Serisouly though, what real plus or feature does it have over existing things like java? It's got explicit memory management, networking, security and garbage collection, well whoopdie-do so do 50 other languages. So what is the point of all this? People are still capabale of doing everything with existing software - a new language is not a magical tool that suddenly is making the impossible possible.
I take as a prime example the issue of the simple email client for GTK/GNOME. A glance @ the gnome software list shows 25 email clients. Do we really need that many? And are ANY of them solid/robust enough to put on someone's desktop and say "you can do anything you want with this that you could do with Outlook, and at the same time be safer than Outlook".
My opinion: no.
The "Not Invented Here" syndrome is still pretty rampant, and I feel it'll be the same between these two .NET clones as well (as the "PR Snafu" demonstrated), and that will likely kill both projects in the mid-range, so that neither survive in the long term when M$ really gets version 3.0 of .NET going (knowing again, that their 3.0 is always the first version of any M$ product that really actually works...).
Then again, by that point they may realize .NET is a crock of crap and have moved on completely -- .NET is a strategic move to take on Sun and J2EE and ONE, not an effort to really change the world for the better).
It would be better for OpenSource to stop cloning stuff that already exists (or doesn't exist and has no real driving need to exist) and come up with its own killer app. Apache as a spokesman for OpenSource originality only goes so far. The world is waiting for something new, not a rehash of what's old, or a clone of something that isn't even done yet.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Unfortunately Microsoft has all the leverage in this particular case because they control the client. We could come up with something a hundred times better than .NET and .NET would still win because the client bits of .NET will be on every new PC firmly embedded into Windows.
The Samba developers really have the right idea. Instead of creating a network file system and then trying to create a Windows client (which Microsoft could break at every .dll update) they instead took the route of emulating Windows servers. Even with a crufty protocol like SMB this turned out to be the easiest route. Microsoft doesn't want to break their own clients, and so they are limited in what they can really change.
One of these days Linux (or some other open system) might very well have enough client side market share that the Free Software folks could create a client side standard and actually have some weight behind it. The closest we have ever come was with browser based applications, and even that was marred by Netscape-isms and the even more overwhelming IE-isms that are cropping up more recently.
Free Software is getting closer, however. My guess is that it is only a matter of time.
Make the community disperse its efforts on copying what is little more than vaporware
Make the community look like a bunch of childish "I can do that too" people.
The only thing that comes to my mind when I look at the mono and dotGNU projects is "monkey see, monkey do". One of the projects can't even come up with an innovative name for itself. Well, I'm sorry but copying .NET is just dumb and it plays in favor of Microsoft, who looks like the real innovators that legions of unimaginative free-software geeks always try to copy.
In short, the community has to stop copying and being toyed with by Microsoft, and begin innovating and proving that there are much better things than what Microsoft comes up with.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I'm just so involved in evangelizing for vi vs. emacs and gnome vs. kde I just don't have the time to get involved in another holy war. so you guys fight it all out and let me know in 20 years what you came up with.
-
Yes, it does. And that's a good thing. I agree with the writer of the linked article that .NET is superior to JAVA (for the language interoperability as a major factor) based solutions. So validating it is not a bad thing, as long as MS doesn't get a lock on it.
That's why it is important to have a .NET implentation for Linux early in the process -- if people program for the .NET standard that Linux, MacOS, etc will support, it will reduce the possibility of Microsoft changing and locking the standard. But if there is no other version but the ones supported by MS, then people will program with the win32 libraries, and we are no closer to an open standard.
In summary -- keep .NET open by supporting the standard from an early date! Then everyone will win.
You're kidding, right? The whole Sun ONE pipedream wasn't even announced until this past February. If you know anybody actually excited about it, please let them be heard, because they're pretty hard to find. Sun's nursing some pretty bitter feelings right now after watching the developer community scramble to support .NET while for the most part having given Java the cold shoulder. Heh, think Sun's now regretting having pulled back so many times from submitting Java as a standard? 'Cause I guarantee you, that's what's caused the big upswell in .NET plans. There are a ton of people working on .NET projects now who would have totally written it off as a Microsoft-only technology if not for Microsoft submittting this stuff to a standards body.
Seriously, Sun's got a lot to worry about. Where's the excitement about Sun ONE? What happened to the "web tone," the "big freakin' switch," JINI, and JXTA? Most importantly, what happened all those dumb Java-enabled rings that Scott MacNealy used to wear? Anyone actually miss 'em? Sun's just become a follower, finally coming around to SOAP, UDDI, etc., after getting over the bitterness of adopting technology that Microsoft developed. Not sure why they mind now, though -- J2EE's just a Microsoft Transaction Server ripoff, and it's not too hard to guess where JSP and JDBC come from.
Trivia time: Sun is on ECMA Committee TC39 Task Group 2 (TG2), as well as being on TG3. The purpose(s) of these two bodies is to:
If you chose B & C, you're absolutely right! Now remember players, you must've chosen them both to win. Don Pardo, show the people what they've won! :)
s in. I generally screw up at least one thing in any post I make to Slashdot.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
.NET? Mono? DotGNU? WGAF.
What the hell are you talking about. Yes, they have different goals, but DotGNU/Portable.NET do not want to make things harder for anyone. AND, there are very valid uses for a Csharp compiler written in C, namely to compile Mono's compiler written in Csharp. I for one do not want to work with any binary compiler which was compiled from Microsoft's closed source compiler. It is insecure and also presents licensing issues.
Right, Microsoft, AOL, and Oracle present a big unified, organized front for proprietary software. In other news, the Yankees and Red Sox are merging to defeat the hated Blue Jays...
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
...it's hard for people in business to Open Source seriously.
.NET-clone projects get off their high horse and just merge the projects together? All this stupid in-fighting just goes to show that Microsoft has nothing to fear from Open Source.
This is no different than the Gnome vs. KDE debate, or Debian vs. RedHat, or hell, even Linux vs. BSD. We fight amongst ourselves so much that we can't present a unified front against (much more organized) Closed Source efforts.
Will somebody at one of these
NO CARRIER
Mark my words and I'll even save you from the 'I told you so'.
Sorry, there are 3 efforts going on. You neglected to mention the MS .NET effort.
.NET
You are correct in thinking that one of them will win. Sadly The One will be MS
Life sucks, don't it?
Nice Post Limey.
Mono is a GNU port of C# and the CLI runtime. What people think this has to do with authentication, I have no idea.
Porting a language means making it available to another platform. With mono, you can develop C# on gnu/linux. Why is this such a terrible and confusing thing to so many slashdotters? Is the availability of another development platform a bad thing? The only thing that would really bug me is if the KDE team decides to write their own separate implementation. The fact that Mono will be tied to Gnome is iffy, but what are you gonna do? Gnome has to make strides of some kind or another to stand out.
When Gnome says they have customers, I believe them.
I don't give a shit if my Mono applications don't even work on Windows. I'd like an alternative to Java that doesn't feel like a toy.
I don't know if dotGNU is needed. I guess if it means I only need one username and password to log into any sites that have accepted their standard, then that's just super.
But wether or not I am going to be able to go to Amazon.com and identify myself with a dotGNU login, I don't know. Frankly, I don't care.
Mono interests me, dotGNU doesn't.
It would be really nice to see other companies such as Sun invest in Mono and push it far beyond what .NET plans to do.
For once, open source can publicly set the standard and let Microsoft catch up.
A bunch a primadonna uber-elite developers/hacks/etc who have the social skills of a six year old, unable to come to any sort of agreement.
Sounds rather a lot like the proprietary software "community".
Nice Post Martin...
And I didn't mean only Sun. Other companies have much to gain from forcing their own method though, making Microsoft adjust instead; it'll keep them in the running.
passport is not part of .net at all. you obviously have no idea what .net is about. it is a framework for app development, letting you combine languages in ways never imagined before, and speeding up developement 10x.
Moron.
Mod the reply with the 'WTF' _UP_!
Rat shit, bat shit, dirty old twat. 69 assholes tied in a not. Yaay, lizard shit. Fuck.
At least using weblogic, it is nowhere near that simple.
Deploying a new app requires adding a new context, and your choices for that are: use their aweful swing GUI, or modify the config file and RESTART the server (this loses all active sessions).
I hear they have a command line tool to do this in their newest release, so you'll at least be able to script it.
"Frankly I like that there are 2 efforts going on. Maybe one will succeed." Well in a sense it is good that the projects have comed together specially when the outcome seems so young. Later on when the technology does become usable there will be other similar projects even based on the original.
Dan,
I couldn't agree more with you. It's disheartening discovering that many people in the Open Source and a great many in the Free Software movement lack the maturity to approach this as a real-world problem. They don't realize that they could take the cause further by showing some restraint where appropriate and focusing their energy in their creativity.
I personally agree with the term and precepts of Open Source rather than Free Software. There is a rather childish quality to their public announcements (tantrums?) that I don't see as often in people adhering to the more open-minded people in the OSS movement. In general I can present something produced by a non-GNU but open sourced group to a customer and have it accepted. I cannot always do that with GNU products, Linux itself included. I think it's a shame that hollering distracts the intended audiences from the substance.
Thanks for your response to my comment.
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
High profile and public to the Slashdot crowd [who already hate Microsoft], not to the actual general public.
2. Pervasive Object Model. Looking at the ActiveState site, you can see the power of being able to bind to .NET services written in any of the supported languages. Yes, you can compile Python to the JVM, but Sun won't officially support this type of activity - Microsoft on the other hand is funding cross-language support from ground zero.
3. Mostly open architecture. C#, SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI are all open specs. Some of .NET is not open, such as the source of the compiler, but at least with a spec you can write your own, and perhaps even influence the design.
4. A nice OO language. You get this with Java too. Hopefully memory-managed languages can become the norm for application development with all these tools available.
DotGNU? Come on guys. .Net was a stupid marketoid wet dream. If people are going to chase after tail lights, the least they could do is try to come up with a decent name.
But hey, what do I know. I'm not working on the project, and I guess if I'm not part of the solution then I'm part of the . . . (fizz)
andy
Life is life . . . everything else is just a stupid T-shirt slogan.
What's up with that list admin? Pushing people away that want to help, yeah that seems like a great idea to succeed with an open source project!
I forbid you to use the term 'we' from now on... What a joke!
If you haven't read the conversation between the admin and the guy who got kicked off, do it! It's so unbelievable it's hilarious.
Replace that admin immediately for god's sake! He is a danger to any project...
Seriously, how do you expect any open source project to succeed if there is such hostility within the project (against people offering to help) and between projects?
Well as the subject says, I would like to people :)
to guess how many times will MONO need to be
re-written before it "looks and feels" even
remotely decent given that it is led by
GNOME ppl???
Person to guess closest, wins an Authentic
.NET client brought to you by none other than
M$...
Does anyone know how e.g., IBM plans to approach C#/CLI? For example, are there plans on the part of IBM to create JIT compilers for the framework as they have with Java?
I'm sure Microsoft is quaking in their boots at the prospect of facing off against DotGNU's five core developers. Scary.
Nice Post Norton.
Doesn't having two open source versions of .NET validate Microsoft's .NET strategy?
'Same speed C but faster'
But it sounds like the DotGNU camp (or at least the list admin) is a bunch of assholes.
Judging from your previous posts you're obviosuly a die-hard Microsoft supporter, but even so this statement:
.Net yet. (Do you know any Java developers to start with?)
.NET and have a clear strategy of running legacy .NET code in the Java VM.
"Given Java the cold shoulder"?
I was with you on most of the rest of the post (SunONE? Who Cares?), but I can't see that. I've seen a lot of people switch to Java development and a things like a myriad of J2EE app servers. I personally don't know of any Java developers jumping to
I think the battle will be lot more evenly fought than you make out, and not based at all on which one submitted something to a particular standards organization. Frankly, the ECMA origazization seems about as good as the Java Community Process stuff to me. Also, for all of those interesting standards like SOAP and UDDI Java provides the leading implementations at the moment (and Sun is the company heading the UDDI effort!!). JSP and JDBC are indeed similar to MS counterparts except that they work and are pleasant to use (OK, actually JSP's suck as much as ASP and neither should be used by anyone). As for J2EE being a Transaction Server ripoff, I don't know where you got that from but you'd better buy a new J2EE book and re-read things a bit harder.
.NET has a long way to go over ground that Java, J2EE and other standards have already broken - the winner is my no means predetermined yet, either way. At this point Sun is pretty much obviously the leader and MS is struggling to keep up or overtake them. Just because Sun is helping them define the language and common set of libraries is no reason to think they are even close to abandoning Java - more like making sure that the final standard can be easily implemented on top of the JVM so they can dump
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
- Reinforce
.NET and Microsoft's position
- Take talented developers who could be using their time on better tools and putting them to work helping MS.
I cannot possibly see how this will help. All it will do is put Microsoft-compatible software on all OSes, then Microsoft can run the world. Hurray.Your post actually suddenly enlightened me. This is it. That's why they do it! The only reasanoble explanation is that they hope MS will finance them down the road (if not buy them). That's why it becomes a dog fight at this point. The squirels fight for the tiger's attention. Miguels' tail points to the sky and we the fools look up - trying to swallow his higher technical/political arguments for Mono.
Sorry if that was disilusioning
HF
Please moderate the parent post up, it's sad news, but true nonetheless. It should be spread in the hopes of picking up momentum before it finally stops.
Wasnt Mono supposed to work together with DotGNU?
Or do we lack the intelligence to come up with something unique and inspiring?
written by someone with the nick "gillbates". oh, the irony!
For instance: What compelling features does it offer the customer? Why would I want those features, as a customer?
Miguel seems to think it's a way to escape the GTK/GNOME/Bonobo architectural limitations, from what I've read -- but so what? Why not fix GTK/GNOME/Bonobo instead?
Seriously, please clue me in, cause I don't understand the fuss.
KDE and GNOME have a genuine competitive spirit between them. However, the free .NET replacements are not competing against eachother; the are competing against MS. In this, they somewhat dilute the Open Source side's efforts in the matter.
If the different Open Source efforts cooperate to reduce risk of failure rather than dilute themselves to increase the risk of failure, everything will be fine. Cooperation doesn't necessarily mean consolodation but reinforcement. They need to reinforce eachother.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I still think this is a good idea. Eventually MS will make a huge public blunder by trying to stomp out MONO. Unlike the Bristoll case (and countless others) MS has entered a very high profile and public 'partnership' where EVERY move will be watched.
Sooner or later MS will eat crow or this.
Open source software has lost its creativity and usefulness. DotGNU and Mono are just clones of a bad design in the first place. Must the OS community copy everything that Microsoft does? Or do we lack the intelligence to come up with something unique and inspiring?
It is rather unfortunate that nothing new and interesting has come out of the free software movement. It seems like open source projects are nothing more than cheap knockoffs of existing commercial software.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
It won't work out because of things like this. Everyone wants their piece of the glory of being the next 'big thing' by being able to replace .NET, but because they are greedy, they lose sight of the real purpose and try to twist is to their personal gain instead of trying to write code that will actually help users and developers
A bunch a primadonna uber-elite developers/hacks/etc who have the social skills of a six year old, unable to come to any sort of agreement.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I have just one word for both projects:
Seriously, target the porn web-sites with their technology first to get established. I'm sure more money is spent on porn sites and more sites using authentication are porn sites. Get a foothold in porn and work from there.
the basic basic thing: i think it's great that a major project is getting a lot of counter-steam fFom the linux world. and two or more groups working on the same thing can be potentially bad, but often quite good. i worry about the duplication of effort, and the dividing of resources .. but 2 against 1 is a good thing.
but i still say picking this, of all M$ products, only adds fFuel to M$'s fFire. it allows them to say "Look at this product! it's so good of a communication method, even those who outright oppose us want to adopt it! See?? it really is the best possible way to go!" I can fFeel ol' billy smirking now.
A better idea would be to fFocus efforts on mimicking every proprietary MS fFormat, such as the outlook *.msg and generally anything else required to get people out of outlook, and into linux.
yes, obviously that this is indeed a MS fFormat .... but it's a fFormat built to be compatible. what if no-one cared to be compatible with it in return?
MS designed .Net to fit into its own software framework status. It retained all its strongs features and corrected its weakness.
So why is Open Source coping the .Net ?
Open Source has a totally different background !
Rewritting everything its just stupid. Its trowing
thousands man-hour of designing and debugging.
Open Source must use what its bigges strength, the open source code.
It has to make stimulate and make it easy to integrate other peoples source. Maybe using xml to map the object models.
The good thing about c# is its INTEGRATION capability, that is the only thing that open source should persue.
You are uniformed sorry. The framework SDK is out in beta. It's gonna happen. simply because there's a lot of steam behind this. MS is betting the farm on this, it's not just another software release. And the fact that someone outside of MS is trying to replicate it gives the idea even more credibility. At the very least know the target you attack.
I code in Java and C# by the way and I know one thing..computers suck.
The funny thing is that most of their comparisons with respect to saving time, development productivity, etc., seem to stack .NET against the current MSFT web development practices.
For example:
Of course, you could also be using C++/Java server-side stuff, in which case you write a script to push a tarball to the server, untar, setup permissions, etc. Deployment on the last project I worked on was one command that pushed everything instantaneously.They also talk about IDLs:
One of the nightmares that .NET is supposed to make go away is the whole COM/COM+/ActiveX/DLL rat's nest that makes MSFT development a headache.
It was never open, and never will be as long as Sun remains in business.
8/31/00. Judge Hall issued a ruling giving Bristol an award of punitive damages of $1,000,000 and an injunction. 2/21/01. The parties announced a settlement, but did not release its terms. read: MS WAS GUILTY
article
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Choice quote from the troll in question:
"Morally, I believe that using a closed standard (Java) is wrong. You and your control-freak cronies tried to ban me for expressing this position."
Seems as though the list manager was just doing his job by stomping out erupting flamewars, and the troll (quite typically, as trolls go) can't seem to deal with that, so he's trying to make trouble everywhere else.
If I'm corp x, the only reason I care is because I want the apps I write on KDE to work on Gnome and vice versa. I don't care if there are two desktops so long as they have a common API I can code too. They should cooperate at least that much. After that, let them do whatever the hell they want so long as they don't break my apps.
Lib.BENCH the only site you'll ever need!
Am I the only one that thought of the gladiator scene in the Monty Python's The Life of Brian when I read that? The bit where they are bickering over the 'splitters' and changing their names from the Liberation Party to the Party of Liberation or some such nonsense. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled /.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
> it's probably a _lot_ simpler to write a GCC
> frontend.
If you go look at the dotgnu.org website, you will see a plea for a volunteer to write the gcc bytecode backend for a stack-based vm.
This is not a simple problem, and no one has volunteered to date.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Is their name--"Mono". At least it's not G.NET or Portable.NET or Opensource.NET or Somethingelse.NET.
.NET is a huge cloud of MS initiatives, some of which I am interested in, others of which I consider dangerous.
.NET?"
.NET as a vague entity, I believe, will fail.
.NET initiative, on the other hand, might work well. A good open source CLI implementation, for example, seems great. So does a good authentication system. But trying to do everything at once in one project I have problems with.
The name might seem like a lame reason, but to me it makes all the difference in the world.
The choice of name, as far as I'm concerned, says a lot about the mission and mindset of a project. I'm much more interested in a project with a function goal than an emulation goal. "Mono", to me, would beg the question, "what are they trying to do"? X.NET would beg the question "how are they trying to copy
Trying to emulate
Trying to emulate or provide alternatives to elements of the
Maybe I'm wrong here, and maybe I really don't know enough about the projects (I _know_ I don't know enough about the projects, actually). But I'd rather see one project trying to accomplish X, another trying to accomplish Y, etc. than one huge project trying to copy MSs latest vision of world domination.
For those who are keeping track, that's two (2) Wayne's World references. Thank you.
2 things:
1. Isn't the parent off-topic?
2. Isn't BSD the core of MacOS X?
WTF?
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
Frankly I like that there are 2 efforts going on. Maybe one will succeed.
I disagree. I liken the phenomenon of having 2 major versions of Mono in the open source community to, say, splitting the vote within a political party. It's just not smart when we know that the Open-source share will likely already be less than Microsoft.
I hope the consolidation of these projects benefits the effort on a whole, and, if people do it right, it will.
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
Why are open source helping MS ? .Net was create with only one purpose: kill competitors.
In order to kill its current biggest competitor Sun's Java, MS is using its own .Net and Mono.
so what happens if it really kill java ?
will it be benevolent to the Mono ?
wake up guys !!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For those mistaken enough to think that Java the language and VM are not open, take a look at the Java Community Process.
Are you saying there can only be one standards body? Personally I think the important aspects of a standard are that a consortium of many different companies and people from all over (including individuals) be involved, true of the JCP. The Java bytecode is a standard, and other VM's have been written by many people. The Java langauge is a standard, anyone could write a compiler and feel safe knowing what to expect.
What is the difference to you between the JCP and ECMA? Why do you consder changes through one body open and the other not?
At JavaOne, a speaker was moaning about an aspect of the language not going in until later than Sun wanted (Generics - not out until 1.5) - but he was also happy that the JCP was working in that it was going against Sun's wishes on the matter and the community process was in control.
Those of you siding with MS and imagining it will be more "Open" than Java are in for quite a rude shock!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
why all these projects seem hell-bent on writing thier own C# compilers, when it's probably a _lot_ simpler to write a GCC frontend.
Now I know, GCC is not perfect (by a long shot...). But it seems reasonable (to me) that C# be part of GCC. I mean, not all compiled languages are supported by GCC, but it seems to do a decent job of supporting C-like languages, C, C++, Java, Objective-C, plus odd and ends like Fortran, Ada, Pascal (?), etc. And as a bonus you immediately get native code generation.
And the whole idea of writing a C# compiler in C#... I mean... c'mon people. Must we repeat the lesssons of Sun's JDK and Jikes once again?
I image that the (hypothetical) C# GCC frontend and the (already existing) Java GCC frontend could probably share a pretty decent amount of code, as well.
The dotGnu folks seem to want you to have as little exposure as possible to .NET but, as one
who has had zero exposure to .NET, the dotGnu web page tells me nothing about what the project is about except that it's kinda like .NET but it isn't.
.NET, what is the dotGnu project about?
Infrequently asked but apparently difficult to answer question number 1: Without any reference whatsoever to
You clearly don't have much of a clue about:
.NET
Microsoft Passport
DMCA
I'd suggest doing some reading. There's plenty of freely available information about all of these topics.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've been looking at the DotGNU projecft recently, and something occured to me..
.NET or Mono doing anything that
.Net framework at a low level and distribute the entire thing with
.Net infrustructure to be entirely
They're not interested in anything their doing for technical reasons.. They just want to build something simular to snub their noses at Microsoft, and prove a point. This is absolutly the WRONG reason to be doing this effort.
Proof is in the pudding. Heres some excepts:
This list (the DotGNU "arch" list) on the other hand is about
creating a something much more powerful than what Microsoft has,
something that Microsoft cannot easily copy because it is
totally incompatible with the business model they've chosen for
.NET
Mono will have a place in DotGNU for providing ".NET emulation
functionality", but I don't see
comes close to the Distributed Execution Environment that we've
been talking about for DotGNU.
Oh, and heres something where they aren't quite getting this, I think:
Microsoft has an advantage over us at this point because they hold the
keys to the client OS. This allows them to insert their authentication
and
their OS. This allows the
transparent to the user. Dotgnu, by it's very nature, will not be
entirely transparent to the user because we don't have access to the
source code - and because of the increased control we're going to have
to give the user.
I mean common, someone has to send a message, tell them that theirs are quiet long enough, and they can stop it with the rulers.
They're not looking for a good, sound, technically superior product. They're looking to prove their right, and someone else is wrong. I truely hope it succeeds, but at this rate, we're gonna end up with the Windows Terminal Server of the Open Source world.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Not only that, but Objective C is apparently pretty bad-ass. It already runs on more platforms than C# is planned to run on, and C programmers apparently like it.
I love the idea that OS APIs be defined by a standards body, but I don't know how it would apply the same way as HTML or XML or OpenGL.
Still the W3C has made the web suck a whole lot less. Maybe it would be worth seeing how a standards body could be applicable.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Portable.net and Mono don't validate Microsoft's .Net. They are a reaction to it, and perhaps the only chances we've got to wrestle control of the Internet from Microsoft.
Many Open Source projects tend to be re-implementations of someone's commercial products. In this case, Microsoft designed a framework that is likely to become the standard in years to come. It's not a matter of whether we like it or not. It's simple economics. Microsoft has the following advantages going for it:
Rather than complaining about "validating Microsoft's position", we should all take this as an opportunity to do what Microsoft does best: Embrace and extend. The products from DotGNU meta project, and every subproject or related effort, can be leveraged by us to wrestle control from Microsoft.
It won't be an easy battle, but we may win it. We need to achieve the following:
Remember also that this is not only a technology fight. Hailstorm/passport are services. That means that, after we implement the technology, we must convince real world organisations (businesses, non-profits, government, whatever) to adopt it instead of .Net et. al.
Let's charge on!
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
troll or not.. I'm sick of slashdrones. If you have a better idea than Mono or DotGNU then stop talking and make it or STFU.
Wanna innovate? Put your money where your mouth is and do something!
Marketing dollars and a virtual monopoly provide pretty much all the validation they need. There's no point in waiting for it to succeed before implementing it, you'll just give them a bigger head start. Better to start early and have something credible to show earlier.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Even if ximian is hoping to get finance/bought from ms down the lane as you suggest , this wouldn't be a problem - from what i have seen on the mono list most of the developers are not even employed by ximian so this wouldn't be a problem!, though my opinion about why they are doing this is that they found out that the .NET
environment is the future ( well i thought so after hacking on it for a couple days anyways) , it resembles java alot , but one thing that differed from java was the speed of the thing, you actually can make desktop applications that is infact usable , this is not the case with java
( try out JBuilder to see what i mean! ). well anyways you all should test .NET and make up you're own opinions about it , please disregard that it comes from redmond and think that this is an open ECMA standard, i think you'll all will be surprised :-)
hehehe
When will you people wake up and smell the coffee?! Just because .NET is supported by Linux doesn't make .NET any better than what it really is, a huge venture by M$ out to eat up the rest of the competition INCLUDING LINUX..
Dump their technology and support Java instead!
isn't it true that no matter who provides the front end, the back end authentication will be done with microsofts passport? isn't this a bad idea? is everyone hoping that an open source version of passport will be available at some point? doesn't anyone else feel that if someone designs an open source passport app that microsoft will sue using the DMCA?
i mean, things like the samba project cannot be done anymore, thanks to the DMCA.
please, someone correct me!
Is it just me or is .NET the most amorphic peice of vaporware shit to come out of Redmond since, well, ever? Seriously WTF is it? All we ever get is soundbytes from Gates and Co. about "framework" etc. AFAIK, it's a suffix to append to existing bad software, such as ASP.NET and VB.NET (which I hear is even WORSE than VB!!!). Seems like the OSS Community is wasting our time even being worried about it. And now we've got inner battles because of it? Come on, who cares?
We dance to all the wrong songs.
--Refused.