Mono Ships ASP.NET server

Miguel de Icaza writes "We have just released the new version of Mono the new version includes a working version of ASP.NET. The release includes a sample web server that "hosts" the ASP.NET runtime (it can be hosted anywhere, for instance in Apache, with mod_haydn). The web features of ASP.NET would not be very useful without the support of a backing database. The new version of Mono includes database providers for Oracle, MS SQL, Sybase, ODBC, OleDB, Gnome Data Access, SqLite, MySQL and of course, Postgres. The C# compiler is now 37% faster due to some nice optimizations on the JIT engine and in our class libraries. You can use it to develop GUI applications using Gtk#. Screenshots for mPhoto and the GUI debugger (which can debug both JITed apps and native applications). "

Comments

What, no COM support?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still no support for COM, eh? I guess you open sores zealots are still playing catchup. So sure, you can write .NET but you're all alone. For example, there is no directX native .NET SDK. No windows media .NET native SDK. All that shit still uses COM. Fuck I hate zealots.

Re:What, no COM support?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait? What cocksucking cum guzzling moderator abused his privilege and marked my cocksucking post down as flamebait? I'm simply laying out the god damned cocksucking facts (colourful metaphors do NOT make the thesis of an argument any less relevant, so suck on THAT, you fuckface moderators! See you in metamod, fuck-faces!)

Anyway, directX is not just about graphics. It provides intrinsic support for audio/midi/video/and 2D/3D graphics. If there was an open source alternative that offered the same, and worked as well as directX does, I'd be there. Basically, you validated my parent (cocksucking) post. COM is not compatible under Linux.

Quite frankly, there's a sizable investment made already in MS-oriented technologies (DirectX for one). It's used by nearly all Windows platform games, and the entire Xbox development. I don't want to have to rewrite my shit not knowing wether it will work or not, just to support another platform that our clients don't use on the desktop. It simply doesn't make sense, cowboy.

The other thing to note is that MONO is not a 1:1 transfer of the .NET framework. It's got much of what's in there, but not all. That means you have to code that much more cautiously if you are already developing on .NET and want to switch over to MONO. It's one thing to start with MONO - but switching is a completely different story. Will I be there when MONO is tried and true? Absolutely! Until then, I go where I've got the best functionality, efficiency and support. But so far, you open sores zealots are way behind the 8-ball here. Let's face it - Windows isn't for everyone - but neither is Linux.

So once again, my parent post stands, and whoever moderated it as Flamebait deserves to be incinerated by a suicide bomber in a tropical nightclub.

P.S. Fuck yourselves and die, you moderator-privileged, zealotted, bearded, unbathed, stinky, open sores zealots!

Re:What, no COM support?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever modded you down obviously had more brains than your dumbfsck.

Re:What, no COM support?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, spoken like a true zealot. Thanks for proving my cocksucking case.

Re:I AGREE WITH THIS POST

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes fuck all sense. For mono to kiss you in Soviet Russia, you would have to be able to kiss mono in the real world. Given that the damn things are even more microscopic than Dubya's brain, that just ain't happening.

Try "...mono gets infected with YOU!" instead.

Re:/home/linuxuser$ mint myapp.exe

[Binarybrain]

Ask for your money back.

Re:That's nice

[g4dget]

before .NET matches up with J2EE on Windows,

J2EE is a mess. Whether .NET matches up with it or not doesn't matter.

Re:COM, CORBA, J2EE, .NET...

[Anonymous Coward]

Soo.... It's like Java then, only much less mature.

Great.

Me, I just use Common Lisp.

It sucks less.

What a tremendous waste of time

[Alex Belits]

Making a port of a system based entirely on mental masturbation. Java and .NET were based on mental masturbation, but they served a purpose -- Java to make applications inefficient (so Sun can sell large servers) but easy to develop for inferior developers (so all kinds of crashy crap will be written for it), .NET -- to create a large and convoluted infrastructure that is even more inefficient (so Intel can sell new hardware incompatible with Linux drivers) and is tied to the design of Windows-specific software (so future developers will learn Windows-specific programming techniques and will be incapable of writing Unix software).

But why do we need to spread the monstrosity is beyond me.

I'd rather have a PHP.net

[Anonymous Coward]

as ASP sucks donkey dong, I would rather (if I needed .NET services) continue to use PHP. Hell I can use ASP.NET using visual studio but why would I want to switch from PHP? Just let me use PHP and Python and no one gets hurt! LOL

The Mono crowd is tremendously naive

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems obvious that the Mono crowd is tremendously naive to believe that Microsoft has laid .Net technology into their hands without any strings attached. At the very least the open source movement is going to spend a tremendous amount of energy "chasing" standards and implementation that are defined by Microsoft(ala Samba but a lot more complicated). .Net on Linux/Unix et al will always be a second class to .Net on Windows. At worst, M$ will flex their legal and marketing muscle to ensure that .Net on Linux/Unix is partially functional but crippled. The only reason that Microsoft has opened .Net at all, is to deal a blow to Sun and Java. I am not convinced that there is anything of significance that can be done with .Net that can't be done with Java. It seems obvious that from a business perspective Microsoft sees Mono as an ally in its battle against Java. However, don't be confused into thinking that they want to support open source/linux, etc. In a classic "Art of War" like move they are just using one enemy(the open source movement) to fight another enemy(Java), leaving each too weak to fight with M$.

If I were the CEO/CIO of a company why would I base my technology on Mono who basically copied the spec's given to them by M$ when I could get a fully supported version of the technology from M$. It seems interesting that none of the other big tech firms that have the wherewithal to "nudge" the direction of technology in a broad sense ie. IBM, Oracle, BEA , etc are doing anything in the .Net space. They realize that competing with M$ on .Net in the space that M$ created and controls is a losing proposition. Say what you will about Sun, but they have clearly supported/financed open source as much as any company with the possible exception of IBM. The acceptance of the Apache group in the JCP process, the recent decsion to certifying JBOSS has also proven that they are susceptible to being nudged by the open source community. Can the same be said for Microsoft?

In my opinion the focus of mono is a misguided effort that distracts the open source community from creating a truly competitive OS platform to Microsoft. You may disagree, but even though the desktop platform Linux has improved dramatically in the last couple of years it is still a long way from competing with Windows for Joe User in terms of comfort and ease if for no other reason than intertia. No matter how vast the open source community is, we can't afford to spend all of our energy chasing each technological whim developed by M$ to combat other companies and the industry in general, with their $40 billion war chest.

- Rodney

Re:/home/linuxuser$ mint myapp.exe

[cayenne8]

What's the big deal of downloading 100mb of something?

static typing versus dynamic typing

[Tablizer]

I agree, strong typing always _seems_ like a less risky way to go (catch problems at compile time, not run time).

This is one of those topics that creates huge debates and flamewars.

There are tradeoffs to both approaches (static typing versus dynamic typing or type-free). Which tradeoffs weigh more heavily seem to be a personal preference. Scriptish languages produce less cluttered code IMO, closer to psuedo-code and with less formalities to slow your eyes down.

I myself started out with static/strong typing but have gravitated toward preferring scryptish languages over time, although a lint-like "warning system" would be nice for scriptish languages. Microsoft seems to have abandonded scriptish languages/features in order to fend off Java. MS's technologies at any given time reflects their perception of their top enemies. Appearently they don't consider PHP a threat. Probably because they are targeting larger companies who are more likely to waste big bucks on PHB-ware, and PHP does not fit the image of PHB-ware and bloated consultant budgets.