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.
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 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.
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
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! :)
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.
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.
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.
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 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
OTOH, by infighting, the end products are arguably better than if there had been only competition against M$, Sun, etc.
Exactly. Why is it that the Open Source market is being "anti-capitalistic"? I mean, besides the utter absence of money, i see there being more of the spirit of capitalism in the open source world, where different products arise on a whim and compete with each other to the death based on individual merits, than i do in the closed source world, where the platform is decided by whoever has the most money. (with the exception of those rare cases where several groups of people with lots of money decide to work together on a platform-- i.e. OpenGL. But those are rare cases. As a rule, people with money don't play as well with others as people without do.)
In a shoddy high school microeconomics class i took, they told us that you can't call it a state of pure competition if there are high barriers to entry in the market...
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!