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
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.
-
...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
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.
This has a lot of potential, and I see "internet services" as a small part of it, at least in the way it effects me.
Then again, I'll probably never bother using it, unless there's Smalltalk and CL implementations as good as or better than the ones I use now. :)
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
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.
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.
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