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). "
first post, biatches! Give it up for Houston Red heads!!!
Mono? I don't feel well.
I am fat and have acne.
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.
Mono is some great stuff, but it's going to take some time before .NET matches up with J2EE on Windows, let alone on the UNIX platforms.
Gtk# is more interesting, I think.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
In Soviet Russia, mono kisses you!
http://www.bidstrup.com/
Coudlnt resist.
no other possibility.
Is it just me or is anyone else having trouble accessing all of the Microsoft sites? I know this is off topic, but I mean, .Net, Microsoft, Online services, all their sites down, I dunno. Maybe a router between me and them is dead. But I can get just about everything else.
I don't see anything about a port for Darwin/MacOS X on the Mono web site. A full Aqua-# project would of course be a lot more work, but it would be fun to see it started in console mode or X-windows.
Has anyone tried building Mono on MacOS?
I think this is terrific. I know very little about the fine details of coding for .NET, but I understand the significance of this project to the community of open source and non-windows users. Good job folks. Keep it up. =)
I send you this message in order to have your advice.
Hell has offcially frozen over.... ;]
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Further proof that more is accomplished through innovation than through litigation.
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.
A few hours later, I got dressed and decided to go over to Eric's place,
because I called him a few more times but he didn't answer. As I was
approaching Eric's driveway, I saw a few police cars blocking off the
entrance. I also saw an ambulance parked inside Eric's driveway. Now,
immediately I became concerned and then frightened at the scene I looked
upon. I prayed hopelessly that nothing had happened to my Eric. A lot of
people were standing around just watching something I was trying to see. I
couldn't park too close to Eric's place because the police had that blocked
off. So I pulled over and parked to the nearest spot I could find. I
hurriedly jumped out my SUV to see what the commotion was all about. My
heart was racing so fast, and my knees buckled so much, that I thought I
was going to fall out.
From what I could see as I shakily walked up towards the driveway, Eric's
car was parked across the lawn and I figure he must be home. As I drew
closer, I saw droplets of blood on the pavement. I stopped breathing for a
second or so, because I couldn't stand the sight of blood. I started to
push my way through the crowd calling out Eric's name, but he didn't answer
me. A policeman tried to hold me back and calm me down, but it was
useless. I just got radical and pushed even harder. He let me go and I ran
to Eric's front door. When I got there, I saw a white sheet covered with
blood. It looked like a body was under the sheet, but I couldn't bring
myself to believe that that was Eric's beautiful body under that bloody
sheet.
"Where's Eric?" I shouted tearfully, at one of the paramedics.
"Who are you?" Asked an overweight policewoman.
"Can you help me find Eric." I cried, profusely.
"Calm down sir and tell us your name and relation to Eric." Said the
policewoman.
"Shit! My name is Taylor Hastings and I'm Eric's best friend." I told her
in a shaky voice. "Now can someone please tell me where I can find Eric?"
The policewoman looked at me with so much grief in her eyes and I knew what
she was going to tell me, but I didn't want to hear her say it. My wailing
began to escalate as she began to tell me what had happened to Eric...
"Sir," The policewoman started. "I'm so sorry to be the bearer of such sad
news." She paused again shortly and continued. "Your friend Eric was killed
during a struggle with an intruder early this morning. It appears your
friend met the intruder inside when he came home..."
"Shut up! Shut the fuck up!" I cried, interrupting the policewoman at the
same time.
"Sir, I know this is hard to accept, I'm truly sorry for your lost." She
tried.
This woman was just pissing me off and I didn't want to hear a word she had
to say. I tried to ignore her, because every word that came out of her
mouth about Eric was breaking me down inside.
"Not my Eric, oh my goodness, not my Eric." I wailed. "Why? Why now...."
I couldn't stop myself from loosing control. I just couldn't believe Eric
was dead and I will never see him in this life again. It was no use for the
policewoman to talk to me because my cries drowned out her voice. I dropped
to the ground, shaking in disbelief. It felt like a big piece of my heart
had sunken in. I looked at the form that was under that bloody sheet and I
wanted to pull back the sheet to see if it was really Eric, but I was
afraid to see the lifeless body of my dear friend and lover. Who could have
done such a horrible thing? What did they want from him? I questioned the
police and myself over and over again, but the answers were not given.
As they carried Eric's body out to the ambulance, with the sheet over his
head, it really hit home that Eric was gone forever. I started crying all
over again. The tears was flowing copiously and it I could feel my breath
began to shorten. Oh Eric, why did this have to happen to you? Memories of
the time we shared began to flash across my mind. Especially how I made him
laugh all the time. He was my friend from high school and this was such a
horrible way for him to die. I couldn't get his warm smile out of my
mind. I thought about how my body quivered at his gentle touch and then I
thought about how I would never feel him touch me that way again. I was a
total mess, I didn't who to call or what to do with myself. I just sat on
the pavement, shaking.
This elderly lady came over and put her hands on my shoulder. I knew she
was trying to help, but her words just pierced my heart even more.
"Oh dear, you must have loved him a lot." Said the elderly woman. "Baby,
life is filled with so many heartaches and so much pain. I lost my husband
two months back in a boating accident, and I still haven't recover from
that. I know it's hard to accept death, but we must and find the strength
somehow to move on."
"But he was so young." I said, broken down in tears again.
"Oh baby, death has no respect of persons." She told me. "It comes to all,
young and old alike. But, that's what happens when you use that god-forsaken
OPEN SOURCE software like he was using. Especially that shit from the
MONO PROJECT!"
I cried myself to sleep that night.
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.
It's just amazing how Miguel and the hordes of coders he has summon to pull this off. I feel confident that whatever Microsoft and the "bad guys" come up with, the Open Source community will launch a counter attack. Shoot to kill. Kudos to Miguel and the rest of the Mono coders.
Hmm, I think I must bring up C# on my next performance review. =P
Girls are strange. They don't come with a man page.
-- Michael Mattsson
The new version of Mono includes database providers for Oracle, MS SQL, Sybase, ODBC, OleDB, Gnome Data Access, SqLite, MySQL and of course, Postgres. ...but no DB2? I guess you could code it through ODBC, but given the native support for other less commonly used databases it's a little surprising. Did IBM do something to piss the developers off?
It doesn't sound like much, but for porting a lot of business logic to Linux, this is a potentially huge development.
Another thing that's needed to get this project up to par with MS .NET is an IDE. Fortunately, the SharpDevelop
folks are working on that...
So far this project has been very impressive. Kudos to the Ximian folx.
Finding God in a Dog
Still can't decide if I love it because it dilutes the strength of MS's .NET server initiative, or if I hate it because it reeks with the stench of Redmond.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
The Mono project and Parrot project began at roughly the same time - and look at all the things Parrot has that Mono doesn't: a "life" sample program as well as mops.pasm. Object support and threads are just overrated! I want raw VM speed at all costs - even if I can't run any real-world applications. Perhaps by next year Parrot will even have working exceptions. Parrot in 2010 WooHoo!!
Now where can I get me one of them free money Perl6 grants?
I'm going to enjoy watching the Mono developers catch up, then pull ahead of the Microsoft developers -- on Microsoft's own pet project.
.Net had to be written from scratch.
.Net developers. Well, that, and the fact that Microsoft's management, up to and including Bill Gates, are probably interfering in the project, especially rushing the early design phase. I think I'd hate working at Microsoft.
Bye bye lock-in fees for Microsoft. Bye bye forced sign-ups for Palladium.
All those years of putting features and lock-in ahead of quality and good design are coming back to haunt Microsoft. Mono is able to build on top of a modular platform, while most of Microsoft's C# and
That's how the handful of Mono developers are able to keep up to Microsoft's hundreds of
... that Germans love David Hasselhoff.
what good is ASP or ASP.NET if we already have PHP you might ask. Well, firstly, ASP is a Microsoft product. If you don't know, Microsoft is a reputable software company that has been in business since 1975. PHP is just some silly freeware ASP clone hosted by a buch of computer geeks and hackers on some obscure website. Clearly a product from a major player in the software industry will be a better product.
Looks like Jimmy plugged the cable he tripped over back in....
You reminded me of a cartoon I saw in Car&Driver years ago. It had an image of a screaming woman going over a cliff in a car, with the caption "Definition of Mixed Feelings: Watching your mother-in-law go over a cliff in your new Ferrari." Watching Mono develop is the geek equivalent.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
IANAL, but don't you lose your rights to a patent if you don't aggressively defend it?
Microsoft has publicly admitted their knowledge of Mono through publications such as MSDN and other places. They can't claim they haven't known about Mono, known its aims or known anything about what the project was capable of. I don't see how they can pursue a patent claim now - 12 months later - if my first paragraph is true.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Oh please. Lets not forget altavistas attempt to patent indexing and searching. And what stance does a US patent have on an open source product anyway?
the same Miguel who writes the lovely commentary at this website? If so, I am a fan of your work.
.boring
C# has a worthwhile purpose!
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
dear reader the gnome armageddon has started,
first of all i want to clarify that this text was meant to be a source of information otherwise i wouldn't have spent so much time into writing it. belive me it took me a couple of days writing this text in a foreign language. even if you don't care at all for gnome, you may find some interesting information within this text that you like to read. please try to understand my points even if it's hard sometimes, otherwise you wake up one day and feel the need to switch to a different operating system.
on the following lines i'm trying to give you a little insight of the gnome community. the things that are going on in the back, the information that could be worth talking and thinking about.
many of us like the gnome desktop and some of us were following it since the beginning. gnome is a promising project because it's mostly written in C, easy to use, configurable and therefore fits perfectly into the philosophy of u*nix. only to name some of its advantages.
unfortunately these advantages changed with the recently new released version of gnome. the core development team somehow got the idea of targeting gnome to a complete different direction of users. the so called corporate desktop user. in other words they're targeting people that aren't familiar or experienced with desktop environments. usually business oriented people who are willing to pay money for getting gnome on their computers.
having this new target in mind, the core development team mostly under contract by companies like redhat , ximian and sun decided to simplify the desktop as much as even possible by removing all its flexibility in favor of an easy clean simple interface to not confuse their new possible customers. so far the idea of a clean easy to use desktop is honourable.
some of the new ideas, features and implementations such as gconf , an evil windows registry like system, new ordering of buttons and dialogs, the removal of 90%-95% of all visible preferences from the control center and applications, the new direction that gnome leads and the attitude of the core development team made a lot of users really unhappy. these are only a couple of examples and the list can easily be expanded but for now this is enough. now let me try to get deeper into these aspects.
you may imagine that users got really frustrated because their beloved gnome desktop matured into something they didn't want. during the time, the frustration of a not less amount of people increased. more , more and more emails arrived on the gnome mailinglists where users tried to explain their concerns, frustrations and the leading target of GNOME.
but the core development team of gnome don't give a damn about what their users are thinking or wanting and most of the time they come up with their standard purl. the reply they give is mostly the same. users should either go and 'file a bug' at bugzilla or the user mails are being turned so far that at the end they sound like being trolls or the user feedback is simply not wanted. whatever happens the answers aren't really satisfying for the user. even constructive feedback isn't appreciated.
if you gonna think about this for a minute then things gonna harden that they are directing into the commercial area. the core development team actually don't care for the complaining home user. it's more important for them to reach the customers with the cash. it seems that this has been told to them by the company leaders. everything about gnome has been decided already, a way back or direct communication isn't possible. don't get trapped by sentences like 'we listen to our users'. they listen to you - yes, to make funny silly jokes about you afterwards.
i thought that everything was build up on friendship, build on programming for fun, build on understanding each other. but the reality looks like it's all for the big money. the cash is what matters everything else is a lie and a dream. time for people to wake up.
not long ago they threw one of the most important long year core developer martin baulig out of team. a guy who worked really hard on getting gnome into the right direction. a nice friendly person who put all his time into gnome. but narrow minded gnome elites such as havoc pennington were responsible that he left the gnome project. the trouble and the pressure that was put on him was to much.
with the new gnome desktop a lot of user interface changes happened such as button reordering . needless to say that this confuse people who are used to the 'right' button ordering for ages. even our fellow linux guru alan cox wasn't thrilled about this idea. but the gnome elites such as havoc pennington, seth nickell, calum benson and dave bordoley knew it better. why following the road of any other desktop that exists ? why not doing something that don't confuse their users and still stay usable ? well it seems to be too easy. gnome needs to be different than anything else so they changed the button order which was one of the reasons that users became unhappy. they said that there was a hard fight about this and the decision was made to change the buttons. but i belive they simply copied the behaviour of macos because most of the gnome developers use a macintosh as either laptop or desktop. sad that they forgot to keep in mind that users tend to mix applications and that this will lead into weird button searching and clicking.
but as if this wasn't enough the same people decided that the new gnome human interface guides were the ultima non plus ultra in human interface guides. the announcement contained informations that the kde usability people got initiated into it. unfortunately the kde people heard about it the first time when seth nickell went to the kde mailinglist which happened after the announcement. you can imagine that they got highly pissed off about this attitude. you can read more on this link . to summarize it, the kde people clarified that gnome should care for their own business.
the problem that came with the new interface guides was, that every little gnome hacker started to become an user interface expert over night. a lot of gnome programs that we like to use matured into a disaster over night. hackers that never programmed correctly for their life started to blindly follow the hype of simplification. for an example look what happened to galeon's interface (pay attention for the last paragraph). even philip langdale a long year galeon hacker got highly indignant by the target that gnome leads and wrote this email to the galeon mailinglist.
here another reason why users became angry. the elite assumes, that the user knows nothing about their system. you find a couple of heavily insulting mails on their mailing lists containing sentences like the quoted ones.
"the user don't know what a window manager is",
"the user don't know what themes are",
"the user don't know what a homedir is",
"the user can't compile a kernel",
"the user don't want to customize their desktop",
"the user shouldn't see preferences which purpose they don't know"
you may imagine that a lot of people are being offended by such lines because it's exactly these gnome users who are meant by these phrases. to read more such lines on the gnome mailinglists, simply click on this link and grep in their archives. be said that most of these sentences are coming from havoc pennington.
such evil practices shouldn't be tolerated by the users and need to be fighted. u*nix users aren't stupid people. who actually gave havoc pennington the rights to decide what the user wants and what not ? various users told him that people who use a u*nix like system are well aware of their capabilities dealing with such a complex system. there's a reason why people are switching from alternative operating systems. they want to learn, they want to use the full power of the system, they want to change everything they like.
to top all this, look at the future plans of nautilus . the current maintainers got the idea of changing the whole nautilus concepts into an object oriented user interface design. you may be highly interested in reading the exact words of alex larsson's vision for nautilus' future direction by clicking on this link .
to summarize it, it's assumed that the user don't need to deal with his homedir or his whole filesystem because it may confuse him or because he don't understand it. the new concepts of nautilus should be that the user deal with symbols in the nautilus view. e.g. you get a cdrom symbol and by clicking on it you see the directory of your cdrom, you get a photo symbol and by clicking on it you get a list of all your pr0n pictures, you get a music symbol and by clicking on it you get a list of all your mp3's. you don't know where all these files are located because you don't deal with the bottom layer of your homedir or filesystem anymore as mentioned earlier.
the question is why are people that know nothing about their users, that know nothing about correct user interface design destroying gnome ? the users don't deserve all this specially those that backed gnome for all the years. even sun threw a bunch of so called user interface experts together and have them work on gnome. don't forget that sun are the creators of the common desktop environment . we don't need another cde clone named gnome. even havoc pennington author of the good user interfaces text isn't able to get his own written software following his rules.
not long ago there was an report about the 'two captains of nautilus' where the reporter (uraeus a gnome contributor himself) reported alexander larsson and david camp. you may imagine that such a report can't be taken serious because it's done by their own people. we here have a saying that sounds like this 'one crow doesn't hack the eye of another crow out'. now you can click on this link and read more. it may be interesting to read the replies from various users all over the globe of what they think about gnome and nautilus in general (please pay attention to the listed ip's there). another nice and informative reading can be found by clicking on this link .
the fileselector problem was a long discussed issue in the gnome community. finally they came to an solution for this and have decided to go for this ugly fileselector instead going for this one which was developed by a free volunteer for a long time and in general looks and behaves better.
most users have no problems with the idea of keeping things simple and clean. removing some not needed preferences was indeed a good idea but it doesn't stop. people started to remove everything from their apps. you're forced to use dubious programs like gconf-editor which basically works like the windows registry editor, to tweak uncommented preferences. i don't think that this is an advantage. even the possibility to tweak preferences with an editor was taken away with that ugly implementation of gconf. all your preferences are stored in a directory tree with an unknown amount of *.xml files. even if you delete programs their keys are still remaining orphaned in these trees and finding them is like playing trivia. at the end it's worth a discussion if a system driven by a single home user needs such a registry like system. we didn't need such a system for over 30 years but the gnome development team got the idea copying one of the most retarded systems from windows to u*nix. not to mention that the copy is more retarded than the original.
it's a shame to see how such a nice desktop got thrown into the trash by such people. but there is a lot more behind the scenes that i don't know about. everything around gnome is a big marketing strategy. poor people are working the hell out of gnome for nothing and companies such as those mentioned above are getting the big cash. for sure you could say - go and fork gnome - but seriously how can you go and fork gnome ? such a big project which needs a bunch of people to keep the code alive and compatible. well you know it's all about open source the code is signed under the gnu/gpl or gnu/lgpl, you can't own it. even the companies are aware of this. but if you can't own the code - go and hire their developers. you can direct them like puppets in any direction that you - as company - like. exactly this is happening with gnome.
well you could easily come up and tell me to simply not use gnome and let them do whatever they like. well, you are right with that but things are more complicated nowadays. gnome is influencing a lot of third party projects such as xfree86 which recently added a lot of gnome components into their cvs repository. please know that with the next coming xfree86 version you get a lot of gnome components without even knowing it. code like, gnome-xml , pkgconfig , fontconfig , xcursor and xft2 were mainly written by people who're heavily involved into gnome development. also the gimp is maturing more and more into getting the look and feel of a native gnome application. the cvs version of the gimp has a lot of gnome pixmaps inside and they are heavily working on integrate the gimp into gnome. if not today but the direction is sure and i fear the day this gonna happen.
it's ok that these things exist and it's ok to see xfree86 and the gimp are beeing hacked on. but please think about the people that don't like or use gnome. what about them ? why force them to have gnome components installed on their systems ? why can't gnome go the same way that kde went e.g. doing their own stuff without infecting other projects like aids. seeing more and more libraries and applications that were in no way related to gnome jumping on the pkgconfig boat which's really not needed. look what will happen to solaris, the world famous operating system on u*nix used by big companies and long years experts. they really plan to replace cde with gnome. i know that cde wasn't the best invention of desktops but it rarely crashed and it fits far better into the philosophy of xfree86 with their configuration system than gnome. you know the good old way having your settings defined with .xdefaults and all nice
default configurations are going into /etc/x11/app-defaults/ and so on.
understandable that the good old way may be blocking the future of applications
for multiusersystems - but why must it have to be a windows registry like
system that replaces future configuration ?
well to come to an end i personally don't like many of this stuff. i can't stand the button reordering, i don't like the gconf system and even more i don't like the commercial outsourcing of gnome and the bad influence that gnome has on other applications. the bad attitude of some gnome developers is another story since we are all different reacting humans. luckily there are people sharing some of my thoughts otherwise i wouldn't be able to proof my text with so many links. even amongst the gnome developers there are silent voices of people that hate many of these decisions and silently use something else. right now if you checkout the gnome cvs repository every day you find out that the whole gnome development seemed to came to an halt. the contributions to their cvs are poor. while projects such as kde are reaching easily 10-20k commits per month - gnome is getting around 1-2k per month on it's best times. it really looks like the situation of gnome is unclear so it would be better to have it not influence so much other programs or at the end we deal with an disaster.
now i hope this text was informative for you. i hope that you start to think about the situation and the global direction. the situation of gnome is unclear, their target is groggy too since i can't belive that the users that they are targeting ever heard of u*nix or linux. they plan to get out of the 0.05% desktop niche but this will for sure not happen if they continue their current direction and their bad ugly attitude.
IANAL, but don't you lose your rights to a patent if you don't aggressively defend it?
No. You're thinking of trademarks. If you let a trademark get diluted in the marketplace, your claim to that trademark grows weaker, or even goes away entirely. Patents don't work like that.
I write in my journal
Actually MS has a spec' for non-Windows versions of .NET. This is what is to be used for the FreeBSD and Mac versions of .Net that MS is backing alreay. It is a subset of the CLR that needs to be supported.
No. That is for trademarks, not copyrights or patents. This is why xerox is a verb but Unisys was able to sue creators of GIF files.
Forum. Messages such as 'Why GConf' and 'GNOME Armageddon'.
(It was meant to reflect the GNOMESUPPORT.ORG forum)
here, here and here
First I was a bit
sceptic while reading them but I quickly found out that the writers of these
Messages are totally right in many of their points. This encouraged me to start
the 'GNOME Resistance' because of the ugly attitute of some people here on this
Forum. As many of you probably read - some people have tried to ask and point
out, why they don't like the GConf Registry mechanism by writing some feedback
but people like Iain Holmes (One of the major GNOME contributors) was as
usually able to turn the good Thread into some worthless object by turning
facts, by not listening to users, by ignoring facts and by staying hardheaded
and narrowminded. He also wrote that one of the writers is the ONLY one that
doesn't like GConf but that's definately and prooven not the case. At the end
the Thread got locked because the Forum maintainer was disagreeing as well.
This really confirms what's written in the Armageddon text. Unforunately I have
seen such behaviours on many other Forums, in the IRC-Channel and on
Mailinglists. The developers of GNOME don't give their users a chance to
explain their concerns because it usually ends in flames. It's happening over
and over again. What options do we user actually have ? We are only allowed to
bravely write bugreports to GNOME to help their companies getting all bugs
fixed as quickly as possible. For these tasks we are good enough but as soon as
we want to discuss some serious things, the comments are being ignored. We
can't even contribute one serious comment how we users like to see GNOME if we
don't agree with the developers then we are trolls. We are getting already
decided things thrown infront of our faces that we should report bugs for but
comments are not welcome.
If we start some serious feedback on the only few places we could do it then
our feedback will turn into flames, get Modded down or they get Locked. What
do you people think about all this ? We have absolutely no other possibilities
than writing what we think. If even this isn't allowed then the only solution
for us people is to FIGHT BACK. Comments are not welcome, feedback is not
welcome, we can't even convince the developers because they don't like to
accept compromises.
This encourages me to call all people outside that made the same experience to
stand up and FIGHT BACK, what do we people lose ? We are getting ignored
anyways. Stand up and make GNOME look bad in the public, that's what actually
GNOME is. GNOME 2 had a lot of weird changes that probably will not get changed
with GNOME 2.2 or any future versions. Let's face the truth as much as we wish
things to change, as much as we belive that things will settle down - it's an
illusion. The GNOME that we all liked is no more. Some things with GNOME 2 went
for the better but a lot of stuff went bad.
Thanks for all the development GNOME developers but for me it is no more. I
hope that enough people have the courage to stand up and hit hard back. I know
this all sounds unfair and trollish but what you do to us is unfair too so I
can't see any big difference here.
(gotta ac this, but --)
:P
:)
:)
shameless karma whoring
as we see here, you already posted this before
Dangerous Because of Microsoft Patent Claims Trap Saturday November 23, @06:51PM Replies:6 Score:5, Interesting
attached to Portable.NET Now 100% Free Software
an interesting comment though, so i guess i cant get too pissed
Read here about why people think there are so many disadvantages withing GConf. If you hated Windows Registry then you hate Gnome GConf Registry even more.
why isn't this JBoss news on the front page of /. ? this is important breaking news... whereas mono.net is .not
men pay to have sex with frenetic3!
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
The patent above does not describe any technology related to the .NET Framework, but instead it seems like it might *remotely* talk about Passport, which is something that Mono is not really involved with.
Interesting comment nonetheless, but the link to the patent might have been to `method to defibrilate cows' and might have been slightly more on-topic.
Not to detract from Miguel and the Mono team here, but I can't help but think that there has to be a hidden message in the image he used for a screen shot... I can't quite put my finger on it...
Oh well <whistles>
Unisys were well aware of the widespread use of LZW GIF image compression in many vendors software, so it's better to use PNG.
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.
In Soviet Russia "the stupid ass "IN SOVIET RUSSIA" POSTS" stop you!
microsoft violates mono's patents
...what the heck is .Net? Now, before you drill me as a moron or a troll, hear me out.
.Net is and what it is supposed to provide (XML web services... OK.), but can anyone point me to a good primer on the matter?
.Net (WTF kind of name is that anyway?). I've got enough to keep me busy without having to worry "the next big thing".
I've some vague understanding about what
I've never even tried to keep up with
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
It almost seems like blasphemy to be able to compile and run Visual Basic in a linux environment. Yikes! What is this interoperable world coming to? What next, a paperclip for emacs? ;)
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
At 1:27 AM????? And I'm supposed to go to BED now????
geez.
this is better than J2EE in /native/(os of choice) because? or Asembler? wake me when slashdot doesn't have monkie for brains posting lame shit.
I believe that under such level of development, soon we will see the real juice of these new technologies. And, soon, we will see how they can whitstand against serious attacks, exploits and break-ins. The more foggy and loose ideology of .NET may bring a new golden era for hordes of black and grey hats. I wouldn't be admired that we will see a revival of the 80's soon. But, then, we had only hundreds. Today, "We are a Legion!..", can only sound as a joke... What will happen when .NET gets loose in the wild is completely unpredictable.
I always say, "I'll have a glass of your fine tap water." That usually gets a laugh, and some free water.
I agree, strong typing always _seems_ like a less risky way to go (catch problems at compile time, not run time). But I'm starting to do more work with Ruby, so maybe that'll convert me.
mahlen
Sleep is for Amateurs - Barrington Hall grafitti.
Yes but are those specs covered by a patent and will microsoft publicly state they will never pursue any lawsuits.
War is necrophilia.
Well I don't. Setting aside the "issues" with Microsoft. In an interview, Miguel says that he can program an app much faster. I believe the examples he gives are the Evolution mail app, and a camera app that he wrote on a plane trip. So my question for him is. How is Mono/.NET different from the way we all typically develop apps?(pros/cons) And what makes him think that this isn't just a flash in the pan considering Microsoft's previous record of "innovation"?
in comments or article, or at go-mono, why?
...the "in soviet russia" jokes piss you off!
...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
Is the performance still acceptable and can compatibility be guaranteed? Chillisoft ASP is great if you're a commercial ISP or otherwise make money from hosting ASP stuff, and therefore can afford the price. But for the little educational student webserver, it's out of the question.
Can this compete? Or do the users have to learn a whole new brand of ".NET ASP" to do anything useful with it? I never knew anyone who uses ASP, so I never looked -- are there other free ASP-on-Linux solutions out there?
There are so many things wrong with that that it's hard to know where to begin:
Sun has renegged on several previous promises regarding Java: they failed to go through with standardization, twice, and they failed to deliver lots of functionality that they promised (e.g., value classes).
If Sun wanted to open up Java, they would go through a standardization process, identify all the relevant patents in question, and make a legally binding commitment as part of the standards process. Instead, we are just getting fuzzy promises while Sun keeps filing Java-related patents.
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.
This may be a stupid question but does mono work on windows? Everything seems to imply it will but then the downloads section all seem to be for linux. I'd be interested in having a play with it on windows as it's the only environment available to me most of the time.
Sig is taking a break!
one useful feature mono will hopefully provide is the ability to run .net programs on older _windows_ systems.
:) - microsoft doesn't support .net on windows 95 (presumably as part of their overall strategy to force upgrades by making their old os versions obselete).
.net applications (ones that don't call the win32 api and are thus potentially more portable) - the inability to do any multimedia stuff (even a simple beep) without resorting to win32 calls, makes it pretty much impossible for any reasonably large application :).
thats right
having written a windows forms application (the decision to use windows forms based on the fact that it really is one thousand times nicer than win32/mfc to create gui applications with), i was a bit shocked to find out that my application won't run under windows 95 at all, and that for other old microsoft OSes a TWENTY megabyte download is required to support it! (a bit of a jump from the one or two megabytes for the visual basic dlls).
and one further note - about 'pure'
Sun's patents, if anything, look much more worrisome. For example, patent 6,477,702 patents the basic Java bytecode architecture and can be used by Sun to shut down any competing implementation. Furthermore, despite lots of cheery announcements, there is no indication that Sun has made a legally binding commitment to license this patent freely for open source implementations, let alone competing commercial implementations. The way it looks to me is that Sun is just stringing the community along with promises, and they will change their tune when they feel that they have established a secure enough market position. Sun has broken lots of Java-related promises; they are not to be trusted either.
Myself touches I.
I just got an assignment to research mono's ability to serve ASP in linux. Ten minutes later decided to browse /., and *BAM* it's right there on the front page.
By the way, how well does mono deal with C# programs writen specifically for Windows? My research group has a lot of Windows stuff, which we'd like to port over. Theoretically it should be trivial, but I'd greatly appreciate a comment from someone who's actually done it. Any hitches I should know about?
Thanks!
Does mono ship with a VD-compiler ?
Thanks for both updating us on the status of Mono, and patiently answering all of the questions.
Forgot to mention, specifically, we'll be porting to Linux (RH), not over to mono for Windows.
Let me start by saying that programming COM objects is the most retarted way of programming functionality. True, using VB or Delphi, it is easy, but using f.e. C++, it's not. Read Don Box' book Essential COM to see what I mean.
.NET is kind of like the enhancement of what automation was set out to be: a common way for any COM object abiding to automation rules and specifications to be able to use the environment (such as data, variables etc) of the application without doing 'marshalling conversions' when switching between languages? (for example: using variants and safe arrays to access data both in C++ and VB). .NET is the replacement for the VB runtime for VB programmers, the C(++) Runtime / STL / Win32 lib for C/C++ programmers etc. It's the general target platform for _ALL_ CLS compliant languages (C#, VB.NET, J#, JSCript.net etc. C++ is partly CLS compliant, if you want to use templates or multiple inheritance, you can't).
.NET. The objects you create, run inside application domains, which is totally different than COM objects do, in relation to the SCM.
.NET, but its harder). Webservices is not a 'part' of .NET, you can build webservices WITH .NET. That's a different thing!
.NET api is the key of its success. Add to that the wonderful ASP.NET functionality (which is really years ahead of anything else) and the very good documentation of the API and you're set.
.NET and the amazing security featureset available to a developer and 2) that COM IS one of the causes of security leaks and DDos attack possibilities, simply because people forgot to use smartpointers and kept memory nonfreed. This is over now.
COM as a functionality is great, but it should have been more transparent for the developer, like VB did this: you just program classes and hey, check it out, they're COM objects now!. Using Visual Studio, creating COM objects was (at least using ATL) a bit painless, but don't try it using f.e. UltraEdit32 and no helper library.
So if I understand you correctly,
No.
The multi-language part is not a result of 'making it a better marshaller' or better 'automation platform', but simply a result because now all languages have the same API, the same functionality on board: it doesn't matter which language you pick, you can target the same API and use the same cool functions with ease in VB.NET as you can in C++.NET.
As a result of this, the code you compile will run in a VM. This VM, the CLR, is the heart of
Webservices is a term for a piece of 'logic' as I call it. Functionality. It's not 1:1 projectable on a piece of code, like 'that class can serve as the base class for all webservices'. This is due to the fact that a webservice, when you use SOAP f.e., depends on a lot of tiny building blocks to do whatever it should do. That's why it couldn't be another Interface. (I also doubt what that would have brought to the plate, you can create webservices using the new ATL extensions and using plain C++, thus not
About the productivity: Now people can use a language that suits their needs and preferences (f.e. I prefer C# over VB.NET, while I've developer a lot of COM objects for n-tier systems in VB) and use a much richer API than they ever could. It doesn't depend on MS' tools. Sure the new VS.net is great, but the rich
Also I don't see your kick in the balls towards IIS style security. To me this sounds like you really do not understand 1) the power of the strong typing inside
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
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.
Did anyone else get the 'Visual Studio .NET' advertisement with this story? A stroke of marketing genius to get the timing right on that one.
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
IE runs on a COM support layer, ported to Mac OS X and earlier version, plus Solaris/ HP-UX. The COM Specifications, written by the Open Group, is os/platform independent. It's the implementation which has to retrieve the CLSID to read the actual binary from disk (i.e. where it is located). But that moniker logic can be done without a registry entry on windows as well: a file moniker. (i.e. at runtime binding of a com object located in a file).
.NET. All MS and others (like Oracle has done with their System.Data provider) have to do is release .NET assemblies now.
I agree that there is no need for porting COM to Linux. COM was a great technology to provide functionality to a wide spread of languages. That is now taken care of by
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Do you really think that an editor that includes the mayan calendar by default wouldn't ALREADY have had clippy created.
Of course in Emacs he is called Pinhead and is much more helpful.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
we see no purpose for any kode that infects the hobbyist dogooder's work with that whoreabully disgusting payper liesense BugWear(tm) from the ill eagle kingdumb of stock markup FraUDs...
around here, you can hear, "quick, disable the cd drives, before megel gives US m$mono, AGAIN".
It is superb technology: a combination of many of the best features of Java, Delphi, C++, and Perl. It doesn't "reek" of anything. (Well, maybe of Java, if you think Java reeks.) Mono will make it possible to use the excellent ISO C# language, the excellent ASP.Net, and the excellent .Net class libraries, without ever leaving the excellent Linux platform or having to use any product from MS.
On the other hand, if you are less of an ideologue and more practical about technology, Mono makes it "safe" to use MS technologies when they are the best choice, because you don't have to make everything MS. You can order a la carte.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
everybody's a professionull FUDgePacker nowadaze, gnow?
fauxking payper liesense stock markup FraUDs, YUK!@#$%
is it really better with the butturdflIE, megel? or, are you just saying that, over&over&over&over? some of you should WINd dupe in fuderal prison.
J. Publick gets to be shoveled/herded from one set of FraUDs. to yet another?
And if you're less concerned about portability, ISO C# will make it possible to do some really powerful, native things on other platforms, such as Linux or Mac OS X (Cocoa).
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
cheapest form of water come from waiters bladder
You can use ASP pages on UNIX now if your really want to. Just look up Chilisoft on Google to see how.
The soon-to-be ISO C# language is wonderful to work in. The cloning of the full .Net system may be entirely successful, or some substitutions may be required for legal reasons.
Either way will be okay with me. Yes, I'd like to be able to run unmodified Windows apps on Linux, but there will be enough local platform (P/Inovoke) stuff used in most major GUI apps that binary portability won't be likely anyway.
It doesn't have to be like Java: obsessively the same -- at the binary level -- regardless of the costs.
A little bit of porting work in exchange for access to some local platform features and potentially a better end product -- I'll take that tradeoff.
I think Mono will provide it, regardless of what MS does.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
hey mIguEl, after the fuddites
have you heard about the efforts of the .gnu initiative? some say that's how you got your foots in the dour over at fudville. yuk. almost nobody types .GNU every sentence or so. maybe they should. maybe they should get fuddles&fudstorm, the giaNT ?pr? ?firm? to write some .CATCHY .PHRASES for them? do you know when the completion of their deletion is anticipated?
God save the innoceNT gnomes. mod me up robbIE, IT's getting even thickerer DOWn here.
Does anyone know if winelib works on Mac OSX or any of the earlier Macintosh OSs. It would be great to be able to write a gui app using Windows.Forms and have it running on Windows/Linux/Macintosh. Even though java already lets me do this, i feel more partial towards .NET.
No laughing, but is there going to be COBOL ported to .NET?
Yes, I heard you, down in the cheap seats. I am being serious. Being an old, cynical fart who doesn't like this new fandangled technology, it would be nice if I could still stay in my rutt whilst still moving forward.
If it isn't complicated, it isn't worth using
I hope Open Source Mono is so successful that Microsoft is forced to keep compatobilty, or to lose Market share!
Since I'm a Java developer, I would prefer Java to to be more successful than Mono - at very least to be able to co-exist.
But above all, it would be great if the Open Source movement can use Microsoft's strategies of embrace and extend against them!
every day. so what's so special about you threadbear hobbyists? get in LIEn, or face deletion.
go get 'em mighoul, take those penniless whiners to the next level, DOWn.
reminds me of some slymebawl trying to sell discouNT passage on a sunken ship. God save the innoceNT gnomes.
mixed feelings? :)
:)
What is it that so frightens people about educated-sounding words to top them saying things like 'Ambivalence' or 'Philosopher'?
ambivalence:
n : mixed feelings or emotions [syn: {ambivalency}]
"Philosopher's" was taken out of the title of the first harry potter movie, iirc, and replaced with "Sorceror's". Just like "License to kill" which was originally going to be "License Revoked."
strange
Where is the hell is the Gnome2 Ximian build? It seems to me that Miguel and company have decided to cast off the product that made them (Ximian Desktop) and have decided to concentrate on suckling the teet of Microsoft with MONO and Ximian Connector.
Thanks for sticking with us Ximian Desktop fans! (end sarcasm)
I don't drink because I have to, I drink to stop the voices in my head!
ASP != ASP.NET
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Rubbish. I can't speak about the java/network security half of that comparison, but the main problem with C as a network programming language is the potential for buffer overrun exploits. Environments like Java, Python and
You don't have the foggiest clue what you are talking about.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
I really don't understand this. I'm not a biassed fight tooth and nail OSS freak but this stuff seems just soooo lame. .Net thing seems to me more like a joke than anything else. I know NOBODY exept one (and check they Site to see they can't even do valid HTML -> www.q-in-media.de ) in the industry actually using it - but then again that might be a different story in the US. So at least M$ wants us across the pond to believe.
ASP sucks. Period. It has sucked, it sux and it probably allways will suck. This
It costs a zillion Euros, isn't even plattformindependent and, well ok, Mono is it's OSS counterpart and probably gonna be something usefull in the future. But what is the big deal?
Understand me:
I'm currently doing a little Python project. Python seems to be a very cool PL. It's interpreted, OOP, GPLd, runs on just about anything that runs on electricity, has TKs for all major OSes and, shure enough, it works! And it cost me nada.
There's an OSS Appserver done with it called Zope that comes with a Webinterface for all your servicing needs, sort of installs in 2 minutes on any given OS (4 minutes if you're of the not-so-savy type) and suits 99% of all Inet related Tasks that you might ever want to do.
Anything else I can get Java and a zillion OSS things, from JBoss to Cocoon, for it or I pick C++ for speed in 3D and grafical stuff.
Now once again I ask: Please someone tell me what's the big deal of all this crap?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
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.
<Sigh>... Now why doesn't that surprise me in the least. This is probably intentional and an indicator of the way Microsoft will try to restrict the so-called platform independance of .NET to its own implementations and operating systems...
The mono project is very exciting. I'm looking forward to installing ASP.NET on Slackware and see how well my existing apps port over. My .NET user group will certainly do some open source projects on the platform and demonstrate how well (or not) it works.
.NET "clone" if you will, for the Linux platform. It's doubtful that lawsuits / litigation will arise because C#/CLI is an open standard (ECMA). However, after recently speaking at a Linux user group on .NET many were very frightened that MS might have something up their sleeves. I guess only time will tell.
One thing that really excites me is that Mono could be sort of a "bridge" of technology. It can bring Windows developers to linux, and linux developers to windows. And no worry about the platform. Of course, Java attempted to do this, but lawsuits prevented it from really going forward on the Windows platform (couple that with the marketing machine). Now we have the "reverse" situation that we had 5 years ago. Mono is attempting to produce a
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.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Background: I've been an IT contractor for 7 years, mostly C++, Windows, Unix... I don't really care about the whole Linux vs MS thing, more about job vs no-job
Anyway I recently started looking at C# and .NET for a few months, and here is my take.
It scares the hell out of me, because the language and library is much better designed so you can be twice as productive... which means there is half as many jobs. D'Oh!
Seriously, it's a pleasure to work with compared to C++. The analogy is like,
c and stdio.h == flint rocks .net == flame thower
c++ and iostream == matches
c# and
I guess the fact that the mono people have been so quick to produce is good evidence of how productive this development system can be.
Now, for you Linux vs MS fanatics who are unsure whether this is good or evil: I don't know, but I do know that the technology is a great step forward (imho) and an art worth your learning
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
A very succinct explanation I got while on a .NET training course was that .NET reversed something that Microsoft got wrong:
COM: A very lightweight wrapper for intra-machine communication. Low overhead and fast. Forces programmer to handle all other issues like memory management, implementing interfaces etc. etc.
COM+: A heavyweight framework for inter-machine (remote) execution. Tries to do all things and as such suffers from being ghastly to set up and use
In short
COM: Light for local machine execution
COM+: Heavy for remote execution
Microsoft decided they got this completely wrong and have reversed it
dotNET local machine: Uses a CLR and common type system. This handles all memory management etc. etc. inside a virtual machine making things easy for the coder (with overhead of course)
dotNET remoting: Has become very lightweight. You just send XML soap messages over TCP. That's light and that's also what web services are based on. Can you imagine even considering web servicse with COM+ ?
So that's what they've changed in terms of COM/COM+. Having used it, I'm glad I never have to touch COM+ again and I'm glad that Microsoft have realised that a java style CLR/VM works well for general programming
What are the plans to make this a better platform than MS.NET? Because if it is going to be an exact replica and I want to code on .NET, why wouldn't I go with the company creating the code as opposed to duplicating it. As a developer working for a company, the price I have to pay for Windows is negligible.
.NET, the approach seems a little naive. It is trivial to accidentally use some native library and tie yourself to Windows permanently, and I suspect MS will encourage such behavior.
If this is just meant to allow linux users to be able to write applications targeted at Windows and written in
*shrug* you started out discussing (in a loose sense of the word) C libraries etc. Go read what you posted. I did, just to check. What I brought up is buffer overruns, as I think it's a most important security topic. Of course you seem to think that the equivalence of code and data is *far* more important. Why? BTW, can you name one major recent exploit in software in the wild that involved this 'flaw' in processor architecture but was not a buffer overrun fo some kind?
C, Basic, Java or even
Well, here's the thing. AFAIK, buffer overruns happen a lot in C programs but very seldom if ever in Java, python or
And while we are at it, do you feel that the presnece of mere JNI makes Java as insecure as C? Bear in mind that unmanaged
Can you comment on how the
Or not, as you don't seem to be making any coherent points anyway.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
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
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?
You guys are acting as if you are PAYING for this software.
Ximian sells copies of the Ximian distribution of the GNOME desktop on CD for only $30.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Is it not going to be open source as you are not allowing people to contribute openly?
"Release early, release often" does not mean release the product of one day of planning. Good free software projects start with the cathedral model, with only one or a few engineers working on the thing. Then, once there's enough architecture in place to sustain the beginnings of a bazaar, the developers produce a first milestone release.
Will I retire or break 10K?
go to msdn.microsoft.com, finding reams of extremely technical writings, videos, slideshows, pre-recorded webcasts, upcoming webcasts, etc, etc, etc, is pretty simple from there. If you've only read the marketing materials, then you've heard the marketing team. The tech guys have said a LOT about .Net and it isn't hard to find.
.Net Show". 60+ minutes of geeks talking .Net to each other.
my suggestion is go download a few episodes of "The
You just don't take the point. We are talking here about corrots and apples. Your ideas and considerations are purely based on the fact that you ignore the fact that code is all equal for machines. You make such remarkable distinctions between languages but forget that the machine, doesn't give a Hell if you write in C or Java. C, Java and most languages are not insecure by themselves. There is nothing in C to make you automatically fall into buffer overflows. It is the way the machine processes the code and data that creates it.
.NET, the code would be quite full-proof. Correct. But does anyone think that 99% of developers would be able to do that? Without an HOWTO-MAKE-SECURE-.NET-APPS-FOR-REAL-DUMMIES we will see sure trouble arounf here. Besides, even if that HOWTO existed, 90% of the people would not give a dman about it.
.NET and its interaction with the most raw of all things - the binary code.
And remember. C is just human macro-assembler. You can make even more pretty buffer overflows in Assembler or machine code.
Your opinion for the irrelevance of the real machine is not perfectly correct. First note the overblow of putting a virtual machine over the real one. Second, the insecurity of the real machine remains at the same level. The problem of security in Java is that is quite difficult to go all the way down to explore something in the border between JVM and the host machine.
The use of JNI does weak Java security. Frankly this could rise serious problems in the future. But comparing it to C is something I wouldn't risk to do. C code, done the right way, can be a lot more secure than any Java code. I have seen such pieces of code. Gigantic marvels where speed is combined to nearly military security. However it costs a lot more to create such code than using Java. Choosing each of the ways depends highly on the priorities, guarantees and needs you have for the code. Claiming that one piece of code is far better than other, here, is very difficult.
Here one may ask. But if one combines real ironmade C with
And, once again, if you read me well you may see that I don't give a Hell to C libraries.The problem is on the freedom to code
If you let a trademark get diluted in the marketplace, your claim to that trademark grows weaker, or even goes away entirely. Patents don't work like that.
It works for patents as well, just not as strongly. Look up the laches doctrine and see how it applies to patent infringement lawsuits. Quick summary (IANAL): If Alice harms Bob in delaying legal action for an infringement, then Alice loses the right to collect damages for infringements that happened before she filed the lawsuit.
Will I retire or break 10K?
so it's better to use PNG
Unfortunately, PNG doesn't support animation, IE doesn't support MNG out of the box, and users may be unable or unwilling to install MNG4IE.
Will I retire or break 10K?
patents and copyrights do not require a contract to use -- they only require a licence.
However, in the absence of a contract specifying otherwise, a licence can be revoked at any time, and it's your word against theirs whether or not you actually had a licence.
Will I retire or break 10K?
> If you don't know, Microsoft is a reputable software company...
.Net, Palladium, and anything else that comes from Microsoft.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
You're hilarious.
Microsoft is a criminal, and everyone knows it.
Microsoft has more in common with organized crime than with reputable companies.
Microsoft has been caught red handed defrauding the public and sabotaging other companies' products.
For example, regarding Java, Microsoft's internal documents said the following:
> "Strategic Objective . . . Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market"
> "at this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."
From: http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/051498.unfair.html
The first is sabotage. The second is fraud.
No one should trust Microsoft, and everyone should be avoiding
Dude, just give it a rest. No amount of prodding on your part is going to get them to see your points. They just see you as an offtopic troll now and will not listen. I am not saying I agree or disagree with your posts, but you're not getting anywhere and you're getting really mad over this when you don't have to be. If .NET isn't anymore secure than the next programming language, then I guess you'll be rather happy to stay with your current one and know that you didn't have to put the extra effort into learning a new language. As for myself who sees the benefits of the language (and it also landed me a nice job), I'll be using .NET.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
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$.
.Net space. They realize that competing with M$ 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?
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$. It seems interesting that none of the other big tech firms that have the wherewithal to "nudge" the direction of technology in a broad sense ie. IBM, Oracle, BEA , etc are doing anything in the
In my opinion the focus of mono is a misguided effort that distracts the open source community from creating a truly competitive OS platform to Microsoft. You may disagree, but even though the desktop platform Linux has improved dramatically in the last couple of years it is still a long way from competing with Windows for Joe User in terms of comfort and ease if for no other reason than intertia. No matter how vast the open source community is, we can't afford to spend all of our energy chasing each technological whim developed by M$ to combat other companies and the industry in general, with their $40 billion war chest.
- Rodney
While you're description is very accurate, your assuming the person knows what the COM+ framework J2EE, BEA, Runtime Layers, Frameworks, and Web Services are...
.NET is basically a Java clone. Like Java, .NET runs all of it's programs in a virtual machine. Unlike Java, you can write .NET programs in 20 programming languages (now including Java). All of these languages can talk to each other pretty seamlessly. .NET also has a lot of new tools to make your programs connecting/communicating with other programs on the net a lot easier using a technology called SOAP.
To put it simply and all semantics aside,
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
You allude to Java needing a standards process - have you read or looked at any of the Java Community Process stuff? What is your problem with a system that lets companies and individuals besides Sun propose and comment on enhancements and additions to Java?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is it just me, or were the comments in this story like getting a free interview from Miguel on the .NET/Mono topic? :)
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Just so people know, there's been much concern that the CLS will take languages that are paradigmatically different from the C/C++/C# family of langauges (like Haskell, which is a functional language) and strip away the syntax that makes them powerful in their own way (closures, continuations) until they're basically C/C++/C#, differing in syntax only.
At which point, the CLS would no longer be a good thing.
That's definitely a worthy answer!
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.
Table-ized A.I.
One last caveat though, the VS.NET IDE makes a world of difference, and save a lot of time (I've used emacs for php and java coding in the past). Without the IDE, I don't think I'd be much more productive in .NET than any other environment, and .NET as a framework doesn't really have many features that you can't get elsewhere
.NET that you have to pay for (aside from perhaps the MS server software).
I have heard this also. Ironically, the IDE is the only part of
You will be glad to know that we are busily working on a version of Gnome2, but since Gnome2 is very good on its own, we wanted to make sure that there was a reason for people to upgrade to Ximian's version, so we are spending quite some time in addressing the needs from our users.
;-)
The wait will be worth it. I can not talk about release dates. I can tell you that a number of previews has been sent to alpha testers for evaluation, and we will have to incorporate their feedback before we are ready to release the new version.
Now the right person to talk about these things is Nat Friedman who is in charge of the desktop work. He has quite a few new tricks for the new release, but I wont spoil his debuting new desktop here
miguel.
Petshop with 224 lines of code. Java RAD.
Very misleading article title. The web server is nothing more than a very basic and somewhat broken web server used to test ASP.NET classes. While it can serve ASP.NET pages I wouldn't say they have shipped a server.
'Same speed C but faster'
However, the ability to write scripts whether for web specific events, user preferences, or any other aspect in which it is foolish to hard code actual solutions... then I would like to be able to interface with the data and logic of the rest of the suite. As for PHP vs. ASP to me it is really just a personal preference and not an issue of debate here. I simply believe that since ASP.NET is already available then it would have been nice to provide a PHP solution. Actually I would also like Python, as to make it that much easier to stick with it instead of having to use VB.NET on windows platforms. A Python.NET solution tied in with PHP.NET could allow existing servers using the "non .NET" versions of those languages to be extended in the event that some part of the enterprise is moving to .NET.
The idea behind .NET (common data regardless of actual language) is sound and I think that Mono and dotGNU could go a long way towards actually making this happen.
I like the ability to not use strong types with scripts. Sure that extra freedom can cause problems, but we are talking about a very high level (from the executable point of view if nothing else) language and process here. Typing _should_ be allowed but be optional and only loaded if needed. Otherwise you sacrifice performance for a little extra bit of error checking. My solution would be to go ahead and write in a strong typed manner and run that as a debug mode. When actually deployed however, the types could be ignored. This would go a long way towards improving the catches of the inevitalbe stupid mistakes while allowing the end product to be much faster. After all, do you simply allow the native and default type verification methods to take care of say, wrong data entered in a form or other data submittal/reading? Of course not, most would use some error trapping code to ensure the system doesn't melt as well as a wise front end person would ensure that there is a valid explanation of why that error occured. So either you are writing your own code to verify and act, or you enjoy letting your Joe User stare at the screen's output of "Error STL:1004 blah blah blah" and confusing him.
The alternative to that is to write session specific rules for handling any and all errors that allows the specific portions of your code that do indeed check for types to be done automagically.
There's a heap of "should-a" and "could-a" out there with .NET which is still difficult to clear up with facts since it is still evolving rather drastically in some circles.
Hell, this all really goes back to the fundamentals of abstraction. If you change how something is written in order to achieve your ends then you failed if your stated intent was to make them all work together. Its sorta like the Soviet Union, they all had peace and harmony with the same set of rules and they all were soviet citizens... in theory. In reality that was nothing but a third rate, bureaucratic dictatorship with crap for economic possibility and everyone under the iron fist... but at least it was the same iron fist. Its this liberal ideology of redefining "diverse" into the PC crap we have now that should be avoided. Different code exists and will continue to be written for reasons ranking from security to just plain ol emotional bias... live with it instead of trying to squash it like it seems .NET is doing (based on comments here, I haven't done much with it myself). Hell, even Java folk will admit that there are times that another language should be used that should also be able to interact with Java's classes and data. If I have to rewrite code it will not be for .NET, but it will be to make things work together.
it was my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that C# was less a .NET driven element and more of a fix of what was seen as C and C++'s bad parts. Of course, knowing MS I figure that their actual reasoning was to push .NET more, but that is another matter. C# is supposed to be an evolution of C++ not just C++.NET which exists now.
PHP is much better for working with various aspects of the network, Operating System and even other languages. PHP is to ASP as a remote controlled car using standard parts is to a Radio Shack special that welds and glues all the proprietary parts together... that and it only turns in reverse and only a right hand turn at that. YAY!
It's not yet clear when, in what version of .NET, that becomes available... though it may be there sooner then JDK1.5 is released (and no one actually confirmed that 1.5 will have generics included).
It's hardly a Java clone.
.NET.
Imagine what Java would be like if it had been designed correctly from the ground up, instead of developed as a series of kludges upon kludges over the course of 7 years as it struggled to find a niche in the universe where it would be useful.
You have to remember, Java was originally designed to be used as an embedded language for television set top boxes.
There are many lessons learned from the Java experience that Microsoft applied in
Take a look at that! (quite messy huh?)e cond.pn g. png
http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/shots/s
http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/shots/third
Or just take a look in here: http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/shots/
(i think he likes it!)
It is a better designed Java having learned from the mistakes Sun made (and thier own Java implementation), but it still is derivative of the Java design (Virtual Machine + Language(s) + Runtime Library).
Everything else is just gravy...
If you're so bent out of shape over no Mono->COM support, and you are such the expert, why not do us all a favor and write it yourself?
Perhaps a sample application with source code, hosted on Apache?
Ideally something like Brinkster.com where you can have your own site and play around with Mono on a web server?
Cheers
Gordon Staines
HOWTO-MAKE-SECURE-.NET-APPS-FOR-REAL-DUMMIES
They sort of have that. If you stick to managed code, you get the much vaunted "XCOPY deployment" -- compile, deploy, run.
If you use PInvoke in your applicaiton, you get to learn all about code signing, assemblies, 3-levels of security policies and all that jazz.
The deployment side looks like it was designed from the ground up to to scare the Real Dummies away from unmanaged code. They don't even trust network shares -- which almost by definition, you've authenticated against.
Furthermore, they removed all unmanaged code functionality from VisualBasic! Your "Dummy" VB app is conceptually much safer than VB6, where the l335 v33b33 c0derz prided themselves on their Win32 skilz.
(Of course, the std libraries all talk to unmanaged code, but that's another issue.)
It's a tad late to get into this discussion now, but I'll add this thought (tired as I am):
Microsoft doesn't care about Mono as a competitor; in fact, I'm pretty sure that, internal to Microsoft, Mono is seen as a Good Thing.
Because it is another Java killer.
Sun has dropped the ball on Linux Java so many times and in so many ways. Slow implementations, poor visual quality, and a general attitude of "okay, we did Linux, so quitcher bitchin'".
I've developed large apps in both Java and .Net; in my experience, Java is the more comprehensive and stable option. But Java suffers from poor implementation beyond Sun's favored Windows and Solaris platforms. Mac Java is always one generation behind; Linux Java is rough at best.
The entire point of Java is portability -- the quality of the Java experience is directly tied to the quality of the Java implementation for a given platform.
Now enter Microsoft, which has been limited to the world of Windows. Until now, Java could boldly claim the high moral ground of portability (albeit a dubious claim; in fact, Java is "Write once, test everywhere.").
But if a reliable, free version of .Net is available for Linux and other platforms, Java suddenly loses one of its reasons to live. Why develop in unreliable Java when you can write a portable app in .Net?
Microsoft has every reason to support Mono's success -- because, in the end, it legitimizes their new "platform" at the expense of Sun's Java.
I'll bet Gates has a copy of The Prince (by Machiavelli) on his shelf.
All about me
You can always use Red Carpet to get a GNOME 2 snapshot. This is what i did for my Red Hat Linux 7.2 system.
It's a great language to work in. If MS makes it impossible to have a full .Net clone, I would still be delighted to have a good ISO C# compiler (even a native compiler), a runtime (which could just be a library that links to native code, like the GC libraries for C++), the subset of libraries included in ISO CLI, GTK# for GUIs, and whatever other libraries the OSS community develops for various useful things (like CPAN, but for Mono).
In fact, if MS starts suing people to prevent them from implementing an ISO standard, the ISO committee would lean strongly toward making this OSS alternative the basis for the next version of the ISO standard.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
ISO will take a dim view of MS suing people to prevent implementations of an ISO standard. If MS sues anyway, the OSS community will create alternatives that ISO would take very seriously as the basis for the next version of the standard. MS doesn't control the votes of the national representatives on the ISO committee, nor does an ISO standard control MS, but there are powerful commercial incentives for MS to avoid losing control.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Microsoft claims that the CLR bytecode is designd for JIT. Java bytecode was definately originally designed to maximize portability of interpreters (as in there are JVMs for 8-bit microprocessors and 64-bit "big iron") rather than for optimal recompilation to native code.
To what extent is this true? Please tell us about features in the bytecode or the class file format that are optimized for efficient recompilation on the fly. I've read Ken Thompson's paper at Bell labs about the design of the DIS virtual machine. It would seem that a stack-based virtual machine is much less suitable for JITs than a memory based virtual machine. Cam you refute this, particualrly on non-register-starved platforms (PPC, ARM, Itanium)? Granted, memory machines much more complicated in concept than stack machines. However,for optimum register allocation in the native code, you need to basiclly undo the stack machine's register allocation (to two GP registers, the top of the stack) before doing register allocation, while memory machine bytecode is basically ready for register allocation with little preprocessing.
You must have some gripes about MSs VM design. What are the main ones? What about the VM imposing C#s object model at the "hardware" level instead of using constructs written in bytecode and using privledged VM modes (analogous to privledged CPU instructions on a real machine, but perhaps much higher-level instructions) to enforce security restrictions? (This seems to be one of the main gripes of enthusiasts of non-ALGOL-descended languages on the .NET platform.)
While you're at it, can you point to features that indicate MS really wanted a VM that worked elegantly with languages very unlike C#? I've heard that a main deterant to Stackless patches being merged into the main Python distribution is the changes necessary are very ugly to do in the JVM and would probably cause a major split with the Jython people. Would it be easy to get efficient handling of tail-recursion and efficient implementations of Stackless Python? How badlymangled internally are Perl.NET and Python.NET?
Thanks for all of your hard work, and good luck in the future.
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
What I ment was: .NET.
;)): 2 months ago I was hired to help with a project that was about an intranet application build with .NET. It had to have print functionality, for letters, generated with data from the application. How to print the letters with templates that can easily be changed by the customer? We choose for word, since it has a COM interface. Now we managed to build .NET code which instantiated word on another machine which was the letter machine (old win32 box with a dedicated printer for this) and which was able to generate the letter on that machine from the intranet webapp. Now, if the webapp was moved to Mono, it will fail, since mono doesn't support the instantiating of COM objects on other machines. And believe me, allthough word is heavy for this usage, a lot of intranet applications use it for printing and generating letters. This is just 1 example of using a COM object on another machine in a .NET application, but I'm sure there are more. Mono will not support these structures. True, it would be great to just keep everything 100% .NET code so the transfer to mono would be free of pain, but in the real world this is hardly the case. At least for some time.
Windows (the server variants) are designed to be application / functionality servers, that is: they provide functionality to others, be it clients or other servers. Now, when you have functionality build into com objects, you can now instantiate, as you know, that object from another server, by using DCOM. You can use this same functionality from
When is this useful? Well, f.e. in the following scenario (don't bug on my that its a sucking solution, I didn't cook it up
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
What difference would it make if they publically stated something? PR releases aren't necessarily legally binding. And look who you're dealing with...
If you think this is good news for free (as in speech) software, you're wrong.
:developers, developers... ? .NET Thats right you're working for microsoft miguel.
.NET may be an open standard, but the bulk of it is not. Regardless of the standards body Microsoft will inevitably leverage their position as patent holder and dominant monopolistic supplier to control the evolution of this technology to their own ends (to crush all competition to their desktop monopoly and extend that monopoly to the server, PDA, mobile phones etc. )
.NET world. Think about that! .NET, because Microsoft are steering this ship. The mono community will be in a perpetual chase.
.NET to a huge pool of developers who would otherwise just say no.
Remember (a sweating) Balmer on the stage chanting
anyone who touches mono or deploys it on a server has just added to the bullshit marketing hysteria surrounding
A tiny fraction of
Even if mono is faster, better and more productive, microsoft have spent billions on PR ensuring any contenders ( especially unendorsed, patent violating, free implementations) will be considered as 2nd class citizens in the
The mono community won't be able to innovate or differentiate with
Its easy to argue that free software is the best in many server categories apart from serving windows clients. Despite having to contend with chasing a moving target, SAMBA has come to be regarded as "good enough"But, this situation isn't like WINE or SAMBA because of the timing - I doubt many developers have ever thought "hey the WIN32 API is pretty good, I'll develop my Linux targeted app with visual studio". However, mono is a ringing endorsement of
'Be the change you want to see in the world' - Al Gore
I agree with your sentiment. But at least saying things out loud might discourage them beforehand and shame them afterwards. I am not implying that these people have any sense of shame however.
War is necrophilia.
The recent accord for acquisition of Rational from IBM for a "few" billion$, just show that the perspective claimed by MS for its newby platorm are nothing but virtual !
.net this would never be a viable solution, just because it is not directly done within the same context as the real .net framework.
.net platform, they just did it for pretty unsightfull things (CLS/CLA,...) and not the complete platform and a complete reference implementation.
.net version they plan, there is no way to ensure that things you will develop on mono (supposing it work) will actually work as expected.
.net is Borland, which has proven to be a MS satelite, but it is not so sure that they will take active part to the fight for .net survive. Just because they've just manage to survive themselves, thanks to the JBuilder goldmine with aggressice licensing model.
.net codamn ?
.net is the future, i do think you will be quite disapointed. But if you think, that .net will be nothing more that the new MS suffix-brand, then you might get the idea !
.net as a platform is dead .... at least virtually ;)
As an explanation, MS have never manage to build a success story in the past without ally on the ground.
The problem is that even if Mono success in porting part of
Another point, is that event if MS has manage to go for a STD process at ECMA for core part of the
In english, this means that whatever change in next
The loss of Rational as a ally put pressure on Microsoft side, just because they are now almost alone on this technology!
The only player on
So what, is
Has a platform that plan to kill Java, yes. But has a product no.
What does it means for me?
Just that if you think that
Anyway,
4R34'.
... Linux is :o)
Come on, forget about Mono, this is only a "alkabout" project, that plan to divide the openmind community ! Go Tux !
4R34'.
First about Java, you assume that nothing is open. You must be kidding ? Just look at Kaffe (an independant VM implementation) and Classpath (the official GNU Java project) ...
.net plans. Event if they were plan do standardize the CLS/CLR, there is no plan to open the source of the whole .net platform !
.net. Anybody that prof'test .net agree now that the MS FUD job are failing ...
.net is not open standard, no C# is not open standard ! CLS/CLR/CLA are defined under ECMA but closed to modification. On Java ground, you can post modification as a JSR and then it will be vote to be the new standard, there is a huge difference babe ...
;-)
Specs in Java (thanks to the JSPA : the "Java license"), are publically available and anybody who want to implement them, go the the www.jcp.org . There, (thanks goes to Apache for fighting for it) you will not only get the spec for free if you are any kind of non-profit organanisation, but will also get the Reference Implementation (ie, source code from the working version that define the spec to help you design yours !).
Sorry to tell you, but Mono is a dead-end project, just because there is no plan nor fact for any kind of open attitude in
Do never forget that MS was part of the Java success with the best VM and the most famous IDE. They've messed up with Sun, because they were trying to force people to adopt a new technology without any notice and agrement with other parties. Sun sued them for trying to split Java in 2 camp (MS and the rest of the world), as soon as th've lost they get angry and decide to build their own platform they could 100% control !
Event if Sun, conceptualy rules the Java universe, in fact they have very little power when the developper community or IBM decide something.
And the Apache Agrement on JSPA just proove this to us !
Mono, is a aliby for MS portability assertion of the
No,
Anyway, no technology is 100% Open, event C or C++ if you thing of it
Plz, do not trust MS, trust facts !