Slashdot Mirror
Mono and .NET - An Interview
all-of-the-dot writes "Would you use an open-source implementation of the .NET Framework? Ximian's Mono project enables you to build .NET apps that run on Linux and Unix as well as Windows. Check out the story from .NET Magazine's interview with Miguel de Icaza, Ximian cofounder and CTO" Added to which, AirLace writes "The Mono project has just achieved full self-hosting on Linux. While the C# compiler, itself written in C#, has been able to compile itself since March, Mono can now compile its own complete set of class libraries too. This announcement closely follows the release of the Phonic media player, the first .NET application for the GNOME desktop."
No...they'll go ahead and change their infrastructure so that it doesn't work with open source code.
.net (the concept) makes alot of sense, its just whether or not you trust M$ to implement it. (No prize for guessing my opinions on that one).
.net has the potential to be one of those things, and as long as mono exists also, I look forward to it.
Well, sometimes this works, and sometimes it fails.
Despite numerous attempts to redefine HTML, its still a fairly broadly defined language, irrespective of what IE will render.
But M$ do do some things right (Office apps and development suites).
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Two of our developers just came back from a .NET training session and were wowed beyond belief. (Note: This session was put on by a private company, not Microsoft). These guys were hardcore Linux/Java hackers working on our latest web based application. What changed their mind? It was the tools. The code had *NOTHING* to do with it as far as they were concerned. I told them there were OSS alternatives that pretty much replicated all of the .NET functionality. They still shook their heads saying it's the tools they were introduced to that made the real difference, not the code. One small example they used was that the MSFT tools allow you to backtrace a transaction all the way from your HTML front end clear on in to the database with a simple click of a button. There were a lot of other examples, but that was the one that stood out in my mind the most. It was the fact that they could write code faster and worry less about the crap that tipped the scales.
The thinking progresses with the argument that since we're developing on Microsoft tools we should be running a Microsoft OS on our servers since no two JVM's 'er I mean CLR's are alike...
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
There was an article just the other day on here about how web developers are designing for Microsoft now and ignoring standards. Though Microsoft is never going to make themselves fully incompatible with other browsers, they have continued to distinguish themselves from the competition by their "innovations". The result is that while I can surf websites on linux using mozilla, I will be given a decidedly different experience doing so. Some sites will refuse to let me in all together, and others will just break horribly.
Now, you might say the reaction to this is that those companies will suffer from losing my business. Yeah, so they are losing what, 5% of the market? Ooooo, big deal. This causes people who don't have a tolerance for these glitches to go with a windows platform out of their lack of patience for that stuff.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I guess I have to make my obligitory post on this subject:
As a technology person, I like the .NET framework, the web services aspects, the runtime, and I think C# is infinitely better than C++ (then again, what isn't...). I'm looking forward to playing with C# on my Linux machine.
But I'm just a little creeped out by the idea of using Mono for anything important (business-related), such as deploying services or products. I really have trouble figuring out what Microsoft has to gain from allowing Mono to exist indefinitely. They have plenty to gain from a sweeping, cross-plaform, bait-and-switch ploy.. they can just wait until Mono is somewhat established, apps are built and deployed... then break it and wait patiently for the inevitable migration back to Windows.
I would like to hear from Microsoft that they won't sue any Mono developer (or user) for patent infringement. I'd like to hear that all relevant APIs and specification are public and open and will stay that way. Miguel's attitude seems to be one of "hope", quote:
Now, I could be all wrong, Microsoft actually might not mind that we will use their technology and not their products...but...this is Microsoft we're talking about here.
Sure this sounds like fear, uncertainty, and doubt, but that's exactly what I feel whenever I think about Mono......
How does .NET prevent you from using a good text editor and command line tools? All the files, including forms, code, resource, and project files are simple text/XML files. That means that you can use any text editor, then use the command line compilation tools, which are vbc for VB.NET, cs for C#, etc. And as others above have pointed out, C# has been approved by a standards body, so unlike Samba, there are not going to be issues of trying to integrate with something the vendor (MS) does not necessarily want you integrating with.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
We need to have microsoft constantly chasing after US
.NET offer, really? "Portable" code and remote apps? Java has offered portable code for about 7 years now, and remote apps predate Unix.
They are. Can you name a single "technology" MS has announced recently that *nix hasn't had for years (if not decades)? What does
All MS has done since they started developing NT is chase *nix. The only thing I can think of that they might have had a head start on is the GUI, but I have my doubts about that, too. What OS was Xerox using at PARC, anyway?
The problem for *nix is that the general public isn't aware of that fact.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Mono is a stupid reason to switch from Gnome to KDE, in that the Gnome project has not accepted Mono. It's a proposal from the Ximian folks that Gnome eventually accept Mono. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Gnome project split if Mono were forced on it in a central role (rather than as an optional add-on), as many Gnome developers are not fans of it at all.
What will you do if some KDE developer says he wants to support .NET in the KDE framework? You'll then have to drop KDE, since you drop platforms based merely on proposals that they go in a direction you don't like.