Slashdot Mirror
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). "
It's a weird experience to run the same exe in Windows and Linux with the .NET or Mono runtimes. When Mono supports WinForms (by translating them to Gtk#), so GUI apps written with Visual Studio .NET's GUI builder work on Linux, that will be significant.
.NET Doesn't need to match up with J2EE in terms of features or performance, all that will matter will be whether Microsoft's marketing department can outspend Sun/IBM/Bea.
All signs point to yes.
Although there is prior art examples of individual technologies such as the JVM etc, Microsoft patents such as the one mentioned, define and claim the interoperation of the components, in such a way that any re-implementations will be sure to be covered by the patents. This remains true even for the Microsoft specs submited to standard
In comparison, Sun has granted the Apache and all open source developers FULL access to the specs, test kits and granted the full rights to develop competing products under the JSPA . Sun has also fully pened up the Java development standards process under the new Java Community Process (JCP). Even to the point of granting full open source re-implentations of J2EE such as JBoss...
There those that claim that .NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any .NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.
Just like Microsoft is outspending the Apache Foundation?
Sun/IBM/BEA/Oracle/Apache.. Microsoft may well pull it off, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Microsoft isn't really good at explaining itself in a rational manner because Bill has his head up his ass, and will not let his technical team talk. Instead his marketing team is in charge of explaining to the world what they do. As a result, .NET to me is something as low-level and small as a binary format specification (similar to COM objects), and as high-level and strategic as 'the end of non-distributed computing, and the emergance of <ooooh>Web Services</ooooh>'. Something that is so broad in breadth is not a clear definition in my books.
Is there anyone out there that knows why .NET should supercede COM or CORBA? Why the functionality of Web Services isn't merely provided as an implementation in COM model?
COM is a beautiful specification and model (so is CORBA - and the two are almost identical in fact)... they are compact enough to actually be usable in kernel mode (WMI providers in Windows are COM interfaces). So what is our eternal ass rash that makes us want to get the better suped up version of the same old shit?
I don't know about other programmers, and how they feel of all of this, but a new standard evolving every 5 years is way to much for me. And as such, I have yet to be convinced I should start learning anything in .NET. What have you, comrades, to say about this? Have you started using .NET, and have seen fundamental differences in principle that make obsolescence for COM a MUST?
On a side note, kudos to Mono for doing this work.
Hmmm... Have you used COM before?
STDAPI CoCreateInstance( REFCLSID rclsid, //Class identifier (CLSID) of the object
LPUNKNOWN pUnkOuter, //Pointer to controlling IUnknown
DWORD dwClsContext, //Context for running executable code
REFIID riid, //Reference to the identifier of the interface
LPVOID * ppv //Address of output variable that receives
);
Can you tell me where you see the registry in there? Even malloc is shielded behind an IMalloc interface for crying out loud. The implementation of the runtime happens to use the registry, but that is COMPLETELY hidden to the actual spec of what COM is.
A bunch of web pages do not constitute a legally binding contract.
IANAL, but in the case of Sun making these statements regarding open source Java and J2EE implementations, I believe those who make investments (both in time and/or money) do have a fairly solid guarantee that Sun will be held accountable for these statements even if they decide to "go back on their word."
I'm very curious to know whether these pages could constitute a legal contract. They have consideration, in that Sun receives more developers and more implementations of its frameworks in exchange for more liberal licensing. The pages makes an offer that is accepted by parties developing implementations. The documents are official and exist for the purpose of informing developers of their rights.
As far as I'm concerned, both Sun and Microsoft are greedy and untrustworthy, and the open source community would be foolish to throw their lot in with either company.
I don't think any open-source developer in his right mind would "throw their lot in with either company." However, open-source developers are more than willing to support open technologies, even if they are backed by big mean corporations whose executives vacation at retreats where they club baby seals, if they know they are developing on an open platform and they can develop software to provide benefit to themselves and others.
Mono implements a piece of technology offered by Microsoft. There is no innovation there, at least not on the Mono part. Nothing wrong with that, but please, stop briinging the 'innovation' term into the discussion, since Mono is not about innovation.
.NET when Yukon (SQLServer 2003) comes out, late 2003, which will have generics support). However I don't see this happen soon.
It CAN be about innovation by implementing generics into the Mono runtime before MS does this (MS will release the updated 2.0
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
This guy is 100% correct.
.NET/Mono, Microsoft turns around a sues them for royalties.
I talked to my high school buddy who was a patent attorney, but who quit the business because he hated the whole business of IP law because he was morally against it.
I asked him what could happen, and theoretically, depending on the strength of the patents, Microsoft could sit back and wait for Mono to be developed, wait until a critical mass of applications gets developed on it, and then start charging royalties to anyone using that technology.
Unless someone clarifies the legal status of Mono in regards to Microsoft's patents, this is 100% definitely the situation that will occur.
Think about it, it is exactly what Rambus tried to do with SDRAM. Microsoft is a business and looks to Linux as a major threat. It is a jackpot for Microsoft in two ways:
1) They get the Open Source schmucks to do their work for them
2) Once a bunch of businesses have implemented their business on
We need to get a legal clarification of Mono before any real development starts occuring. My guess is that it is stepping on a whole shitload of Microsoft patents, and it is the onus of the implementors (ie. Ximian) to make sure that they develop around those patents, or 1) be prepared to try to quash the patents or 2) pay whatever royalties Microsoft charges.
Yes, People Should be doing new development in something else.
That said, there are a couple of reasons to support .NET on other platforms via mono::
.NET (hard to imagine with it being so new).
.NET anyway for business reasons or lack of knowledge about other options. That same codebase may not be ported to other platforms by the authors or others, so the only way to get it outside of windows is to move the entire environment out.
1. There is already some old code out there for
2. There are plenty of developers who will go ahead and develop in
Mono makes it possible (or will eventually make it ppssible) to take complete .NET applications and run them on something other than Windows. This will end the Windows Lock-in factor for a lot of one-platform applications.
A Lot of business decisions are based on the application software, not the OS platform. The software is chosen first, then the platform is brought in to support it. By making the platform choice wider, businesses can opt for something other than Windows to support their .NET applications.
The ultimate goal is to simply have all developers develop for something other than windows. But it's a long slow process to change that mindset and technical merit often has an alarmingly low priority in that process.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
From a technical perspective, .NET might be a very nice platform. I'm certaining hearing that it is. The speed with which the Mono team formed and started executing was impressive.
.NET. Mono copies that design. If Microsoft's patents were not enough to stop people using .NET apps on non-MS platforms, all MS has to do is CHANGE THE DESIGN.
.NET apps will be TRULY portable, something MS DOES NOT WANT because it makes their platform inconsequential. In fact, if they did not defend their platform, this would be the death of MS.
People, you need to wake up. Stop being technophiles and think. This is Microsoft we are talking about here. They do NOTHING for the benefit of their customers. They do EVERYTHING to gain market share and ensure the domination of their operating system.
MS is playing "nice" now by not serving legal injunctions based on their patents. Will they continue?
Let's say some of the people that reply to this post say "The patents are irrelevant blah blah blah blah". OK, fine. Let's say they are. That doesn't even matter, here's why:
MS defines
Remember when OS/2 had win32s compatibility? Remember Microsoft's response? IBM took the win32s distribution from MS and binary mapped it into a valid set of OS/2 libraries and programs. Within a very short period of time, MS released a NEW VERSION OF WIN32S TO BREAK IBM'S USE. Analysis at the time showed that the changes, which were few, were gratuitous and the only conclusion was as I've stated it. I did some googling and this is a good summary.
If Mono is too successful, this will happen again. "Too successful" means that
Let me put it another way:
Microsoft is enabling, for the first time in their history, users to write portable programs and that portability could kill or severely damage Microsoft. Microsoft knows that they will be able to prevent this, if need be, and they will only show that card if they need to. After all, no need to give the conspiracy theorists ammo, right?