Slashdot Mirror
Mono - 'Breaking Down the .Net Barriers'
ceejayoz writes "MSNBC has an interesting article about the Mono project, saying that the 'volunteer effort
could oblige Microsoft to work with Linux'."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Microsoft benefits from anything that expands it's market potential.
IMHO mono has been a great asset for .NET adoption: Previously, one of the primary "sales" problems in encouraging .NET adoption was the fear that it ties the customer to a single vendor solution (and this is often heavily played up when it goes against Java, for instance). Mono offers one the ability to offer a rapidly developing alternative in case of ridiculous FUD circumstances often imagined in efforts to detract from Microsoft products (i.e. "What if they withdraw all their products and you have to give your firstborn to use it! Then what!").
"That [.Net works with Linux] could be a big breakthrough for Linux..."
At the price of killing Java...
Nobody could reasonably expect a project like this to have significant impact on a behemoth like Microsoft, but at least other platforms won't get shut out of a developing market. I'm glad Miguel at least has this realistic view.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
> saying that the 'volunteer effort could oblige Microsoft to work with Linux'.
And look what happened to all the companies Microsoft saw fit to "work with" in the past.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That quote makes no sense. Mono is free software yes? How can it end up in the hands of anything. It's X11 licensed now iirc, which unfortunately means it could be hijacked, but as there is already a .NET implementation I don't think that matters.
Anyway, Miguel is the coolest guy. I wasn't at all sure about Mono to begin with, but reading the arguments he put forth and talking with him and the rest of his team on IRC has convinced me that he's got the right idea. It's basically a win/win situation, we need a .NET implementation for running Windows apps in future, and if we can use it for writing good apps ourselves then so much the better. I have yet to hear concerns about patents that are actually concrete.
Do you really want microsoft in your backyard?
Please think a bit about everything that happends when you get this, and figure out if maybe pushing the giant hard and fast will get you what you want. It might just get you everything you ask for, which might not be the very best thing. Microsoft has a very interesting way of taking over something and making it work just well enough to kill what spawned the idea. Granted linux is not you average everyday software package or bottom rung OS so this may not happen as fast or with as much fanfair. All I can say is if you look at the past you will find they are good at at least one thing. Making the masses think they have the best goods. If they switch gears on the Linux community and grab it with both hands and say "We are sorry, we like it! Lets try to work together" don't be surprised when they take over. The Microsoft juggernaut is not something you want hanging around in your backyard sniffing at the roses. Losts of money to force the issue, and enough very smart people to make it happen.
Again I have been known to be wrong....
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
Part of the skepticism comes from fear Microsoft will co-opt the technology. Icaza acknowledges some think he's sold out.
But he denies Microsoft is funding the project, and says there is no 'official' relationship.
In a gesture of refusal, Icaza rotates his head 360 degree to the left.
(Heh just kidding)
In other news, nVidia will be helping ATI develop the latest Raedon drivers, and Apple will release OS X for the PC. Also, the XBOX will now offically ship modded to work with XBOX Linux, and will even include a bootable Linux CD. Yeah... right... ;)
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
It seems to me that in Microsoft's position, they are not obligated to do anything. They control the biggest monopoly in the computer industry and they are in the habit of making companies/projects obligated to make their systems work with Microsoft systems. There is no reason for Microsft to be obliged to do anything with a port of their CLR.
(MSNBC is a Microsoft - NBC joint venture.)
Im almost suprised that they would publish a story on Mono, and I didn't even see a huge plug for Microsoft in the article....aside from all the banners spewed across the page.
This is a weak story. A point is made about MS being forced into compatibility, but no facts to back up the claim. Journalism at it's finest. I'll make my own conjecture: Microsoft will put out a compatible/standard product when they see SIGNIFICANT decrease in market share or lost revenue. They haven't got X-Box right, nor Windows CE, but a few billion dollars later, a few strong-arm deals later, a few revision later, they'll have a story and a product and the sheep will make it a standard.
Religion and science are both 90% crap..but that doesn't negate the other 10%.
Mono is doing very well indeed as a platform independent of .NET or the tie-ins that Microsoft is traditionally associated. There are already several independent Gtk# applications popping up and the ASP.NET implementation is showing real promise. There's a new page of screenshots here. The Gtk# debugger and documentation browser are fairly complete and have been developed in a minimal time-frame thanks to C#. Other pages worth looking at are gsirc and Platano.
Basically, what these pages show is that Mono is less like Wine and more like a complete new development environment for Linux that also has cross-platform ties. There's lots of innovation going on in the Mono community and that's filtering down into projects like GNOME and KDE through Gtk# and Qt#, for example. I say it's all good.
If successful, Mono will allow .NET programmers to write software not just for Windows computers and gadgets but also for those running Linux and other variants of the Unix operating system.
:/
It also will simplify the process, allowing developers to use multiple programming languages to write applications that work in many different software environments. Ask Sun about this!
Historically, I'd rather think that MS will use Mono for a "switch back to Windows" campaign
Microsoft could adopt Mono as a kind of super standard of its own.
MS could have adopted Java (or any other standard MS has embraced/extended) as a kind of super standard of its own...
Uh.. well... this article comes from MSNBC
Microsoft is in my kitchen! I don't even run *nix at the moment but will soon, thanks to Mono. Does that make me 'the enemy' around here?
If MS does 'embrace' Mono and decide they can do it better, then it will only help me more, because it will either a) be better or b) I'll still use Mono. That's the joy of open source, right? Freedom of choice? This just gives you more freedom and more choices.
Rejoice!
The truth doesn't care what I think.
Mono turns .NET into a commodity - so you won't have to bow to the altar of Microsoft in order to use it. That doesn't sound like a bad thing.
.NET get more early adopters - in which case it does seem to benefit Microsoft.
It looks like just another tool for the developer; don't think its going to make java go away anytime soon...
Now, Microsoft may look at this from two different perspectives: historically, it has been Microsoft that commoditized other people's standards and reaped the benefit - they might not take to having the roles reversed very well. On the other hand, this could help
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
volunteer effort could oblige Microsoft to work with Linux...
:)
Well, "noblesse oblige". But is Microsoft really noble?
Why not do the same thing, but don't cater it to .NET specs?
Make the Linux equivalent (or better). Granted there are software packages that are "*nix only" but Soooooooo much time is spent making stuff to conform to MS specs , or "just like..."The more that things like that are done, the closer you become to turning linux in a windows re-write IMHO
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
What is this!?? Now Microsoft will be laid up in bed for 6 weeks.
But they already work with Linux - didn't someone, at LinuxWorld, say that they sell Linux to Microsoft? And they weren't obliged to buy it...
I'm taking part in a Microsoft sponsored contest at my university currently, the rules dictate that we have to use one of the .NET technologies (ASP.Net, C#, VB.net etc). However the rules specifically state that we cannot use open source CLRs such as Mono and/or Rotor. I just find it odd that the article talks about how Mono may help gain MS support, but at the same time MS seems adamant at keeping us from using it.
:)
Then again, I go to Ohio State. What do people out in Ohio know
That [.Net works with Linux] could be a big breakthrough for Linux...
.NET for a few months here. As far as I've seen, it doesn't work on Windows. They took VS 6 and decided to get rid of anything that WORKED and replace it with non-functional things. I think that .NET is something we really don't want or need on linux. I'm far happier with Java and tcl/tk and c++.
At least it would work somewhere then. I've been trying to develop with
the above was the opinion of a pissed off developer, these views are not necessarily the views of the slashdot.org editors.
This space for rent, inquire within.
Sorry - why do we need a .NET implementation again?
In fact, why do we need to have anything to do with Microsoft?
The only sensible thing to do is to ignore Microsoft and all their EVIL works!
Microsoft isn't obliged to do anything.
Or Mono could end up in the hands of a rival like IBM that could use it to undermine Microsoft's power.
Having someone other than Microsoft to back Mono would help the project immensely, otherwise it will get lost in the shuffle at Microsoft. We all saw what happened to Java when Microsoft released their version. No matter what though, Microsoft will adopt Mono and then release their own version of it. I just don't understand why they can't see the bigger picture, maybe Bill needs to get his glasses checked again.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke
The only people from microsoft who will be working on Mondo is the legal Staff. .net that it is worthwhile to even look at mondo.
Thier is noway that microsoft is going to allow mondo to duplicate enough of
Look at IKVM.NET for an example:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0109845/
GNU Classpath meets Mono!
We can run it under Windows NT running in Bochs under Linux running under VMWare in Windows 2000 running in VMWare under Linux, right!?!?
A company sponsors a contest to advertise themselves, not their competitors. If you were to do something on a Linux box that you couldn't on a Windows machine, and then you won... You would basically be advertising for Linux over Windows.
When a company offers to give you something for free in return for your efforts on their platform, you can either enter the contest or not, it's not a big deal. When I send in Campbell's Soup labels, they don't allow me to substitute other companies' soups, even though they work together very well.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
we gnow what you/robbIE/lairIE/?eugenia?/etc,... et AL are ALL about.
Typical. The author must have contacted the security team instead of the .NET team. (Seriously, though, you'd think an MS-NBC reporter could get a little more than that!)
.sig: file not found
I'm so tired of seeing articles like this. If Microsoft didn't intend to work with the Linux community, they woudln't have put out the shared source CLI. This shared source was intended to provide the knowledge needed for other developers on other platforms to make .NET work on other languages. But like with most other products Microsoft indulges in, they want someone else to do the hard work first before they get their hands in. Microsoft , from what I understand, already has an internal team designated to help with cross-platform ports of .NET.
SL33ZE - Artificial Intelligence is No Match For Natural Stupidity -
Ok, we all know that's the instinctive reaction of many linux users when someone mentions The Beast but keeping it simple for developers (and dummies like me) by turning .NET into a cross platform standard is no bad thing. Aside from killing Java (not a troll, Java's a nice idea but both the MS and Sun VMs suck) it will provide a platform to build on for future integration of MS products with linux. I'm not talking about MS Office on KDE nor do I mean MSLinux2005 (steady, it's not real!), I'm talking about ways to make linux and Windows work together and MS WILL eventually have to take that into account to maintain their margins. If a big fish like IBM gets behind the Mono project this could be just the thing to start that process off.
We have a "Scorpion and Frog" story brewing here. The Mono Project is basically a case of flirting with disaster. "No guys, it's okay! He's a nice fire-breathing dragon now! He wants to play nice!" Yeah right... >
I don't see why you couldn't do that with C#... You can also use the TCPClient base class and implement call backs to handle multiple listeners on the same socket. For example:
r l= /library/en-us/dnadvnet/html/vbnet08142001.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u
whoare, buy they weigh, NOT iNTerested in yOUR well being at all. just yOUR monIE. trollon.
For the most part, MS doesn't care about the Mono project, but if they do, it's a win by letting it procede.
.NET, some developers in the the Linux world may still find that the Mono c# compiler is better than using Tomcat and Java. They might stop innovating for the Java world.
.NET and so the main purpose of Java, which is cross-platform, "seems" to go away.
.NET is a better implemenation of the Java concept. I can use multiple langauges (VB.NET is much nicer for string handling crap, C# is better for syntax, Perl.NET for regexp) and it all works together whereas in Java, there is no reuse at all. You have to _rewrite_ everything. Heck, there's even a COBOL.Net (http://www.netcobol.com/IBuySpy/).
.NET does clients _and_ servers both very well.
.NET!
Even if Linux has a weaker implementation of
Then, MS can combat Java directly by saying, here's a Linux implementation of
Any effort that sneakily moves the focus _away_ from Java is a good thing for MS. When they have to compete with Mono/Linux, they win easily, because their implementation will _always_ be boatloads better.
Personally, I think
So in the end, Mono is an excellent diversion for Java developers to stop innovating. And besides, using Java on the client side has never been very interesting or usable.
MS doesn't care because they've built a better platform than Java and they throw $5 billion a year at R and D. No one comes close to that number.
Go Miguel and go
David C
http://chicagodave.wordpress.com
Maybe I'm being a bit dense here, but I can't figure out what that code is intended to do, so I doubt any real compiler could do the same.
It looks to me like you're trying to bind an array of 512 sockets to listen for incoming connections on port 0 of any address.
Now, first of all, TCP port 0 is reserved - you can't use it. Any attempt to use port 0 gives an error in any correctly written TCP/IP implementation.
Second - why would you want to bind 512 sockets all to listen for connections on the same incoming address? I don't think this is at all sensible.
Also, what's this 'for each y in socket[y]' business supposed to mean? It doesn't make much sense to me.
Just what are you trying to achieve?
Microsoft has many reasons to support Mono:
I respect Miguel and his efforts; it is a shame that he and his talented followers insist upon cloning dubious Microsoft products. Nothing about .Net is innovative or new; it is merely a rehashing of existing ideas for the purpose of expanding Microsoft's influence.
We make fun of Microsoft's use of the word "innovation" -- but where is innovation in the Open Source / free software community? All this talent, used to copy designs that are dusty with old ideas and solidified paradigms... somehow, I find it all a bit sad.
All about me
With all these articles, books, quotes, speeches, and industry pundits yammering on about .NET, I still have no clue how .NET, or any related "technology," (since they all seem like vaporware and/or "it just sits there, doesn't do anything"-ware) is supposed to benifit me in my everyday computing experience. Or anybody for that matter. It keeps passwords coordinated, sets up a "secure" computing environment, and allows access to all data via a "software cloud?" Sounds like PR-ware to me.
I have no tag line
In the story, if the scorpion killed the frog, the scorpion was in mortal danger.
This note was originally published at John Munsch weblog on January the 14th.
.NET to fail and fail badly
.NET "rebuttal" that I linked to above, "For non-profit use VS.NET can be had pretty cheaply, especially if you know anyone that is in college somewhere." Pretty cheaply? For a non-profit (that means charities, churches, universities, the hobbiest who is going to give away his work for FREE)... pretty cheaply? Wow. That is well and truly pathetic. To try and justify it, and say, oh well, you can try to scam an educational discount so it won't be so dear, is even more pathetic.
.NET commercials with William H. Gacy telling you how great it is without really ever telling you anything about it? Microsoft doesn't trust .NET to stand on its own technical merits and it knows it may go like cod-liver oil down the gullets of a lot of people who have seen how the company works behind closed doors even if it were the tech shiznit.
.NET just in case there wasn't any grassroots community who actually wanted to do it. Or maybe just in case there was and they couldn't control it.
.NET for other platforms? If those same people were working on giving us new libraries and new tools for an already existing language instead of pouring in the thousands of man hours it's going to take to build a copy of the C# compiler or a .NET version of Ant and JUnit?
Lots of reasons why I want
It's benefits a criminal organization. Not one that's been found guilty of crimes once or maybe twice, but lots and lots of times. Those crimes are many and varied, but here's just a few of them: Stac Electronics v. Microsoft, DOJ v. Microsoft, Sun v. Microsoft.
P.S. If you want to split hairs, Stac v. Microsoft isn't a criminal action, it's doesn't stem from a criminal abuse of their monopoly like the other two cases. Instead it was just a case of a small company being driven out of business by willful patent infringement, theft of trade secrets, etc.
Microsoft isn't just one thing anymore. It's too damn big for that. I'm sure even Bill himself knows better than to think that he truly controls the whole ship because it's become big enough that he can't possibly know all the projects, people, etc. anymore. But even a really large company still has a kind of collective personality that it exudes and a large part of the personality both internal and external to Microsoft for many years now is that of a total control freak.
If they don't own it, if they don't control it, if they didn't create it, if it doesn't have a broad stamp from Microsoft on it, then they don't want it. Sometimes it's sufficient for the thing to merely exist and they'll refuse to acknowledge it, other times they need to actively stamp it out because they can't control it.
When was the last time you can remember Microsoft saying they supported a standard? That is, not something they invented and submitted a RFC for, an actual, take it off the shelf and re-implement it without renaming it or "improving" it so it doesn't work with anybody else standard. C++? Basic? HTML? A video or audio codec? Java? Anything?
I'm sure there's something, somebody will point out their excellent support for TCP/IP or something and I'm sure that's true. But if you were to look at Microsoft as a person in your life, you'd wonder what was wrong with him or her such that so much had to be controlled by that person.
When your business is selling the operating systems that 90+% of everybody uses, software development tools should not be a profit center.
Why should I have to plunk down a couple of thousand dollars for a "universal subscription" in order to have access to compilers and basic development information? Sun doesn't have to do that? On this point I'll quote from the
Marketing. Have you been "lucky" enough to catch one of the
So they are going to pull a page out of Intel's bum-bum-buh-bum "Intel Inside" playbook and try to sell the brand like it's sneakers and cola. Trust us, you'll look cool if you use it, and we'll keep hammering the brand on TV so somebody who doesn't have much tech savvy in your organization will ask you if you are using it, or have plans to port to it, or whatever, even if he hasn't got a clue what "it" is in this case.
They don't trust you. They don't like what they can't control and they can't control you. They can try and they always will keep trying but ultimately you are going to see them keep trying to do things and always keep a step towards the door just so they can bolt if they have to. Want to see what I mean? Go visit GotDotNet sometime if you haven't already been there. It's the grassroots community website that Microsoft put up to support
Ever been to SourceForge? Of course you have, everybody has because that's one of the hubs of all open source projects. You can go there and get the source of thousands of cool open source projects and it really serves the community well. There's even hundreds of projects now that list C# among their programming languages. So why did Microsoft feel compelled to create their own GotDotNet Workspaces that is clearly just a ripoff of SourceForge?
A few reasons are fairly clear: First, at many of their workspaces you don't get in unless they know who you are. Ever been stopped at SourceForge and asked for a name and password to look at a project? What about download binaries or source? No? At GotDotNet you will, lots of projects are marked with a lock. Second, forget about all those messy licenses that Microsoft might not approve of, you don't need to worry your little head about BSD vs. GPL vs. LGPL. You've got the one true workspace license that you have to agree to, or else you won't be putting your project there. Lastly, well it's kind of obvious, but it's really all about control isn't it. After all, if you aren't under their thumb, that has to be a bad thing. So a SourceForge that they control is pretty much a requirement, isn't it?
It's a really sad way for a lot of people to waste a whole lot of time rebuilding that which already exists. Wouldn't the whole computing world be a lot better if there wasn't a team of people, maybe a couple of teams of people building complete copies of
In the end, we'll all just be left with another way to do the exact same thing only in a different language. Lord knows the world benefits now from being unable to share media between France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the US, and Japan because we can't all speak the same language. I benefit every day from the fact that I can't read a Japanese manga I might enjoy or understand a TV show from Europe. Once you are done building this tower, go build a few more right beside it using Perl, Python, and Ruby too. They're all trailing behind in certain areas, we need to make sure the same set of stuff is reinvented and rewritten for all of them too.
What will happen is that MS will figure out if a program was compiled using their .NET or mono. When a user tries to run a mono version on Windows, a dialog will appear saying that this program may not run correctly under Windows. MS will also figure out how to make Windows versions of .NET programs run poorly or not at all under non-Windows OS's. They did the former with DR-DOS and the latter with Java.
Only if you develop on Mono and deploy (or maybe not) on MS.
Otherwise Mono is only of marketing value (which is probably exactly what MS wants).
What? Not hard to blame them for patenting some twiddling thing and then charging other people for those people's creations? They're fucking assholes. What's sad and absurd is that it never occurs to anyone just how sleazy, reprehensible and disgusting practices like this are.
We don't need prior art. We need firebombs.
From CNET
It's not that MS is now 'obliged' to work with Linux -- they proactively encouraged the development of Linux.NET from the very beginning, long before the actual release of .NET.
.NET is *so* much better than Java as a framework, and with any luck the Linux versions of it won't have all that rubbishy 'everything's a web service, and all the world uses ASP' layer on top.
And a good thing too --
It's all good news, folks! Until Palladium destroys us all, that is.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Mono and Portable.NET really shine in allowing former Windows developers to get involved with Linux and still have a comfortable and semi-familiar place to start.
.NET are enthusiastic about Mono, but the higher-ups (see: PHB's) have no love for Mono or Linux.
I don't see Mono or Portable.NET as cross-platform technologies (unless you mean cross-platform across Unices) because Mono and Portable.NET grew up on Unix and will be used here the most. Besides, Microsoft has simply created too many API's and hence the barrier to a *quality* cross-platform development environment is too great.
Rather, Mono and Portable.NET will be good for rapid prototyping and as a conversion tool for Windows Application developers. Is also important for providing an alternative when the great migration begins of Smart Clients begin from Windows to Linux.
As for the rest of the article: Yah, I'm sure the Microsoft developers who created
In the end Microsoft will still weild terrible power. Microsoft will continue to spread across the lands of Earth, engulfing small and large business alike, admin and developer, open and closed source. The only way to find peace is to toss Bill Gates into the fires of Mount Doom.
Oh and there's more. The threading model allows you to enter a sync block and futz around. Sure this makes sense in a client environment, where you're writing pure client apps, where you want that ability, but for a server environment that is rarely the case. Therefore the only way to have robust scalable thread pooling that isn't limited to 25 threads (ie System.Threading.ThreadPool) is to implement strong monitoring using the monitoring class. But that is not a real solution to the problem, since it should be at the VM level. In all likelihood, the default ThreadPool class is limited to 25 threads because beyond that it causes instability and performance hit.
They say this as if it's negative for Microsoft...
Mono seems to be Microsoft's best, perhaps only, chance for implementingUnfortunately that probability will exist until the issue of encumbering patents is resolved. So far there are just vague rumors of oral promises not to use submarine patents to the disadvantage of non-MS tools. Look at the disruption caused by Unisys's LZW patent used in GIFs. Look at Sendo to see how Mono will get treated if Bill G is done with it.
Until then, Java is much further along.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Its .NYET
"Want to use .NET but afraid of catching viruses that afflict Microsoft software? Expose yourself to Mono."
I have to say I don't know much about .NET or Mono. I have carried out significant amounts of Java developement and embedded C/C++ development.
.NET and Mono? Ignore the Sun and MS JVMs, there are some extremely lightweight and efficient Java VMs out there in embedded land. Insignia's Joede is one example. Add to that emdedded processors which can run byte code natively. I don't think .NET will kill off Java that easily unless it can succeed in this arena too.
.NET in phones, set top boxes and the like, and if so, when.
Everyone here is talking about Windows vs Linux. What about other OSs, OS-X, the BSD variants, IRIX, Solaris, vxWorks to name a few. Is Mono *NIX software or Linux software as so much development now is? All to often lately software is advertised as *NIX but try compiling it on something other than Linux. It should be described as Linux software.
Also what's the over head of
Will we see
IMHO Microsoft allows the development of Mono for the purpose of changing the license terms of a later version of the .NET platform in a way that will not allow Mono to coexist with other open-source software.
.NET as their Linux development platform.
Imagine the harm done if this happens after many developers adopt
Well, rather than slamming .NET without actually tinkering with it, I thought it might be neat to install it.
.NET framework, my little hello.exe worked perfectly. Granted, less than half the .NET spec is implemented yet in Mono, but performance was quite good. It took approximately 5-6 times longer for the equivalent program to load and execute using the Sun 1.4 JVM (no performance tuning with either).
On a Linux box with Mono and a W2K server with the
If they can continue to maintain this edge, Mono will be quite attractive once completed.
With that said, I'm concerned about Windows.Forms being dependent on WINE. While it's great they can leverage another oss project like this, it makes me wonder how solid the MS Windows.Forms assembly specification really is.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
Even when Mono becomes a mature product, if a customer asked me to write a .NET application and then asked if it would run on Linux, I could never honestly tell them yes. Why? Because Microsoft is a moving target and they always throw a wrench into something like this. I would never trust an application I wrote for Microsoft.NET would run 100% in Mono. For that reason alone, Microsoft will continue to hold their monopoly. The monopoly isn't because they have a great product, it is because people fear Microsoft will change gears on them. Microsoft can write code faster than any of us and nobody wants to be playing catch up by supporting a different OS. There is absolutely no motivating factor that Microsoft will play fair with .NET and the only chance the Mono project will succeed is if a major competitor like IBM takes over the project. Personally, I would love to see someone like IBM back Mono. It is going to take something like the success of .NET and its cross platform ability to Microsoft in its place. But that is so unlikely to happen, just like Java because Microsoft will drag out the problem so long, new technology will come along and the problem just goes away. If IBM could find a way around the patents, I say they should take up the Mono project and dump millions into advertising .NET! People are so confused about what .NET is anyway, they probably wouldn't even notice IBM stealing the brand name... :)
http://www.askthevoid.com
Some people from Microsoft gave a talk on Shared Source Implementation of .NET in Linux Bangalore 2002, a conference abt linux related technologies held in bangalore. You need to appreciate their balls. The presentation is in star office format.
> Forrester Research has reported that just 10 percent of 3,500 top companies have implemented Linux for any tasks at all.
we-go-we-fly
Miguel de Icaza himself says that the reason Mono is thriving is that "There are very very very hard parts in .NET...extremely hard"
Something I have been dying to say.
.NET app written for Windows will work for Linux, but that one can make one for both Linux and Windows if they are willing to. Mono sort of lowers the barrier of entry. Make it for Linux, and tweak it slightly and it works for Windows.
1. I am very suspicious of this MS shared source initiative. I read somewhere, don't remember where, that if MS lets you look at the code, you are not usually allowed to work on competing products. This could have major implications for their 'partners' who might have considered developing for open source.
2. I think the issue is not so much whether a
3. Mono also helps people develop faster. Even if it eventually becomes incompatible with the MS one, Faster development is always welcome, by me at least.
And you wonder why support for Sun's competing Liberty Alliance project has not gone as well as Sun has hoped.
.NET framework at GPL prices using Mono? Imagine Windows users and Linux users all using .NET services--Sun's project will be left holding the bag.
Since Microsoft has pretty much allowed Mono to proceed, this is actually VERY bad news for the Liberty Alliance project because why would you want to pay Sun licensing fees for Liberty Alliance code when you can implement the
Quite Frankly .NET is dead!
Java is the way to go.
"Miguel de Icaza - whos that guy anyway. Kick him out of the Linux Community, hes microsoft trojan".
You have quite a jumble of buzzwords there, too bad they don't belong with each other.
.Net and Liberty Alliance have about as much to do with each other as my computer and a furry kitten basking in the sunshine. Actually, they are not even that similar. Mono .Net is basically like trying to write a new JVM and libraries (the CLR). The Liberty Alliance is a scheme for large scale authentication. I won't say which one is the kitten.
To start with,
So to say the Liberty Alliance will be hampered by a GPL mono... is pretty ill-informed as anyone can put together a liberty-alliance program on top of Java, which is also free only it works on many more platforms - today. There are no fees that I'm aware of, though if you know of any for implementing the Alliance stuff I'd be interested to see a link. But even if there is a licence fee you've still got the core problems with Alliance all wrong.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Mono sounds great, but one of the biggest things that has isolated Linux from Windows-based viruses is that they're incompatible. Adding .NET to Linux means that every Linux box will now require very sophistocated anti-virus software.
My company's main problem with .NET is THE COST HAS NOT YET BEEN DEFINED!! Microsoft is holding on (RC2) to the .NET server and WAITING to see what they can charge for it.
Sorry for all the shouting but MS has really been pissing me off lately.
Now if I could find an IDE on Linux that worked as well as Borlands, oops I mean Microsoft's, for web development then I would be stoked.
Congratulations. I hope everyone eventually sees your post, because you won.
.NET works on the LINUX platform. MS makes its money selling the software attached to .NET which only run on Windows and will always only run on Windows.
.NET on Linux. Mono is C# and runtime environment for all platforms. And when I code in Mono I code in Mono, GTK# and other Mono things. I do not even consider what MS is doing since trying to keep up is futile.
Lets be very frank here. MS does not give a rats butt if
MS is counting on having enough extra functionality on Windows versions that it will be enticing for developers to be creating Windows only versions. Exactly like Java. The plan with Java was that developers wouldn't even realize that they were creating windows-only versions until they tested on other platforms.
ECMA... not everything has been opened. Just the basics. Microsoft is embrace-and-extending their own standard to ensure that there will be no cross-platform compatibility, unless it's Linux applications working on Windows...
Seriously though I like Mono and use Mono. BUT Mono is NOT a
You win.
The article states at the bottom:
--
© 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
--
Well, the web is a publishing forum, and they are just not allowed to publish it. Stange world you US guys/girls live in.
It's a really sad way for a lot of people to waste a whole lot of time rebuilding that which already exists. Wouldn't the whole computing world be a lot better if there wasn't a team of people, maybe a couple of teams of people building complete copies of .NET for other platforms?
.NET is going to have a lot of apps developed for it. Mono allows .NET apps that in days gone by would run only on windows(often written in VB) to be run under Linux.
.NET apps are available. This in my eyes is a great stroke of foresight by the Ximian team. This kind of look ahead approach, instead of playing catch up, is precisely what it'll take for the open source community to threaten MS down the road.
Although I harbor no love for MS, I take issue with this remark. In fact, my lack of love for MS spawns my affection for Mono, and the developers working on it. Like it or not,
Mono undercuts one of the biggest barriers to Linux acceptance by mainstream users, support for windows programs. Not today, but down the road when more and more
Projects like WINE are great and seek the same goal, but in many ways it's too little too late. A fully functional WINE available before users switched to XP could've easily drawn a lot of users to linux instead. The problem is WINE is on a tight time line to implement a monumental task before users already have a license for XP anyway. Mono is effectively starting it's development at the same time as MS, with much of the standard already documented for them, all things WINE had working against them. I believe these are good reasons Mono is a tremendous asset to linux. Let's give these guys some credit and take some joy in their efforts, not sorrow.
Here are a few terrifying things I see popping up in this debate:
.NET must be too, right?
.NET is under dubious patent protection and doesn't have a real compatibility/performance adherence test suite like Java. Microsoft already screwed Netscape this way with Javascript (submitted to ECMA as ECMAscript) and then simply changed it to screw up their browser efforts. The Mono guys are simply not paying attention to history here.
.NET is a way of playing Microsoft's game. Why dedicate all or your efforts to a strategy that your competitor and enemy controls? (Note to purists: you may not be into Linux to compete with Microsoft, but if you think that MS is not your competitor and enemy, think again. . . or just ask them)
.NET programmers, folks. . . Is the platform even out of beta on windows? Windows people are still learning .NET and there isn't much software even out for it. On, Linux, we've got an IRC client and a media player (that most of us wouldn't use over XMMS). .NET adoption is marketing, not reality. There is a huge difference (and a lot of trolls/astro-turfers trying to confuse the two).
.NET praying for some kind of compatibility that won't happen), they'll thank us by killing Linux by enforcing their patents and control of the Forms and Windows API as soon as sun is out of the way. I guarantee that this will happen.
1) I'm a little concerned about the dependence of Windows.Forms on WINE
Well, be a lot afraid. Microsoft is tricking you into writing native apps for GNU/Linux and making them dependent on the WINDOWS API (Windows.Forms are part of the new Windows API). . . and the mono guys have fallen for it hook line and sinker (and are helping).
2) C# has been submitted as an open standard, so
Wrong! A majority of
3) Mono is helping Linux compete.
Isn't anyone looking at the scoreboard? GNU/Linux is already competing and is kicking Microsoft's ass (and everyone elses for that matter)! Microsoft started with a huge lead on the desktop and server and GNU/Linux has had a faster adoption rate than any OS in history. Why? Because GNU/Linux changed the game into one where we build an OS that we want, unfettered by the dubious interference of monopolists and people with ulterior motives.
4) We will get Windows converts to GNU/Linux this way. . . and make great apps.
What great apps and what converts? There aren't many
5) "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."
There is a business history-lesson in the making here. If we help MS kill Java and our own platform efforts (by switching to
If we like their platform and research, we should be incorporating the best ideas into our own projects (like Parrot), Qt, Gnome. . . but not at the risk of binding our code to the Windows API (WINE and Windows.Forms anyone)?!*?
Miguel de Icaza is a good programmer with a lot of charisma, but he is doing a very dumb thing by leading a lot of people down the wrong path. Judgment in engineering and judgement in product/legal management aren't the same thing. Didn't we just get that harsh lesson over the dot.com fiasco the last few years?
I never thought I'd have to say this, but: why is Richard Stallman so silent on this issue?
The Microsoft version of .NET for Linux existed at least a year ago!
.NET's.. basically they are saving the "big guns" for when they are in a shoot out, and if by some unrealistic miracle, they actually surpass java without any problems do you see them EVER needing to release the ports? Hell no, they already have the lock in, so why make their product line weaker by alowing non-Microsoft platforms to use it?
Have you seen it? No. They need the manuverability in the market that hey if all goes to hell on the platform wars, jump ship and start marketing for a newer open systems microsoft using microsoft components. Java kicking in MS's teeth? Open other platform
Bye!
it is a shame that he and his talented followers insist upon cloning dubious Microsoft products
.NET, and a lack of a lot of benefit to using it instead of a lot of existing alternatives, there are other reasons for mono to exist. Availability of .NET apps on linux under Mono is parallel to development work on WINE. From a perspective of allowing a more competetive linux, Mono is quite important. I think the main benefit of Mono lies in portability of windows apps to linux, not in being able to use c# for linux development.
Is it also a shame that the WINE team insists on doing the same thing? Now, as much as I agree about the lack of innovations in
NO NO NO .NET is a reactionary technoloy (to Java) MS aims to recreate some of the magic of the java model (large set of useful APIs, JIT virtual machine), but the ugly cousin that is .NET will by OWNED by MS. MONO makes it appear to the casual observer that .NET projects are fully portable... that aint so (even miguel agrees this) so Windows will always be the preferred platform for .NET whereas in java there really isn' even the notion of a platform to be prefered ITS FULLY PLATFORM NEUTRAL which is why gates is afraid of it!
mono = bad
i still don't know. of course i don't think anyone in redmond knows either. i keep thinking of the SNL bit,
"it's a desert topping, it's a floor polish"
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
You could: 1. Write for Mono, which would mean it should work on Windows. 2. Implement the Class Libraries you need on Mono that aren't available.
Absolutely true,
I personally think that it is a bad idea to develop Mono, and think that in the long run it will only help Microsoft.
I guess I could list all the ways that Mono would help me, personally, but I guess you already know those and don't want anything to help me (via Microsoft).
so I ask again... does that make me the enemy?
The truth doesn't care what I think.
The don't want stuff to work on non-MS implementations. That's the point. The libraries you want to use only work on MS products. What would the point be? That way they wouldn't be able to sell copies of windows. Which is the goal -- to move product and have everyone use your stuff.
As yet another Ohio State person, I wonder why no one seems to have linked to the contest in question yet. I'm not too worried about OSU's bandwidth since I have some idea of their network topology (multiple backbones, etc.).
Personally, I've always wondered how NTsig (the group running the contest), can claim "not to be fully funded by Microsoft(tm)". Even when charging $5 per year per person, NTsig will be giving away over $10,000 in prizes for this contest, has regularly handed out thousands of dollars worth of MS software, and gave out a few Xboxes last quarter too. Furthermore, it is known that at least one NTsig officer is paid by Microsoft to run the club. Hence, I cannot say that the club is unbiased.
I attend a class at OSU where the professor teaching it has a large Microsoft grant. He has more MS servers than he knows what to do with (one hit by the latest SQL worm), a Tablet PC, a video projector, etc. -- all allegedly paid for by Microsoft. While he seems to be teaching the course fairly, he did add .NET alongside the Java portions this year. The same professor freely admits he still sees plenty more Java than .NET use, however.
Just to be fair, I'll link to the Ohio State Open Source Club too, although on a $300 per year budget, they can't be that significant, can they? :)
And exactly which Windows apps do you expect to port to Linux?
As it stands now, not one of Microsoft's flagship products is written in C# (or any other .Net language), beyond some parts of Visual Studio (which is now a dog, in terms of performance and features). Implementing Mono will not aid in getting Office apps running under Linux.
People are not going to rewrite millions of lines of established C++ code in C#. So the only apps that will be ported to Linux through Mono will be those that originate in .Net.
If I want to run Windows programs, I'll run Windows. I never saw much sense in emulators, other than in desperate circumstances or embedded work.
All about me
Using wine to support windows controls dooms mono to be buggy forever. The wine project is an excellent example of how not to do a large complex software project.
They release a new version every two or three weeks, people test it on their computers with random versions of distro, kernel, windows dlls, configuration and software. The wine project could progress 100 times more quickly with an automated test setup where they could compile a new version, click "test" and come back a few hours later to a list of result and immediatly see what they broke in the new version.
People are not going to rewrite millions of lines of established C++ code in C#. So the only apps that will be ported to Linux through Mono will be those that originate in .Net.
I agree completely, but I think your underestimating just how many applications there are being developed with c#, especially how many will be down the road.
If I want to run Windows programs, I'll run Windows. I never saw much sense in emulators, other than in desperate circumstances or embedded work.
Which is why I feel Mono is a step up from WINE, it is not an emulator. If you can develop for Windows, or develop for both windows and linux, which would you choose? Specifically if the linux support was trivial to add to your product. Mono should be able to make a linux port as simple as ensuring you use api's available under Mono. How many contractors\consultants would like to save the MS license's for x users on the solutions they develop?
sees a big wooden horse outside the walls of Linuxtown with an 800 pound gorrella hiding inside when they think of .net??
.NET products only run on the Microsoft flavor of .NET?
I wish that we could trust Microsoft. I really do. It would be a wonderful computing world if we could all work together. But, there are just too many examples of Microsoft holding out a fig leaf in one hand while hiding a big club in the other.
Let's proceed with the Mono project but let us do so with our eyes wide open. Let's consider all possible ways that Microsoft could torpedo our effort and give themselves a big advantage. Are they suckering us into yet another 'standard' that will then be extended in a propritary way?? Is there anyway that we can ensure that this does not happen?? Are we being duped into helping Microsoft convice the world that using this new platform is wise only to find that Microsoft later twists it so that 98% of
I wish that we could trust Microsoft, I really do...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
That is only if Mono can keep up with Microsoft's changes. Believe me, I'm pro-Mono but I just don't see projects being cross platform in the short term. For example, Mono doesn't even have .NET 1.0 implemented 100% yet; what are they going to do when Microsoft releases 1.1? 1.1 isn't 100% backwards-compatible with 1.0 and I'm already expecting to rewrite several areas of a large project (1,000,000+ lines) so it works on 1.1. I don't even think Microsoft is going to be fixing bugs in 1.0 anymore (hearsay) and everyone is going to be forced to upgrade (i.e. rewrite parts of their code) to 1.1 or work around the bugs for their 1.0 projects. Sure, Mono has a great code base, but I can't see them leveling the playing field, especially when the tools (Visual Studio.NET) don't exist for Linux yet.
http://www.askthevoid.com
(why make it
You really have to go out of your way to make things incompatible (after all, the ECMA specs are fairly thorough...)
Whoops!
Straight into trap number 1 (Dotnet is not an ECMA standard). And you're an early Mono developer... hate to think how many less well informed people are going to follow you.
That should have been:
So what's the point of making MS bundle it with Windows?
you are now my enemy
Quit Slashdot Today!
have just been reading your past posts. LOL :)
Quit Slashdot Today!
Agreed, it does not cease to amaze be how companies (and individuals) continue to make faustian bargains with Microsoft. They've been sidling up to competitors, and then squashing them in a manner not unlike the iron kettle in that old fable. Siebel recently made a bargain with M$ to port their CRM to .NET. Seems crazy.
Now they've found their senses, and I see they will be working with IBM to port it to a J2EE platform.
Umm...you might want to rethink what you just said.
"Supporting Linux by developing these drivers, no matter that they are closed source or "unstable" (I have had zero issues with them), it will help push Linux as a gaming platform and a desktop OS. Isn't that what we all want?"
If the drivers are unstable (your one point experience nonwithstanding), then it will not push Linux as a gaming platform, or desktop OS. In fact it will give a negative impression of Linux as a platform, period. Now is that something "we all want?". There's little difference between "don't have exist at all" (blech) and it's unstable from the standpoint of someone trying to get work done.
The truth may "annoy" you, but then I've yet to run into anyone, who didn't want to hear the truth, say that the truth made them feel good either. Human nature and all. Fact is the recent Nvidia drivers have been having issues, both Windows and Linux. And last I checked they didn't work with the latest Xfree so the fact that they even exist is irrelavant.
If Microsoft were to try to create a .NET for linux they would have to: spend a lot of money (who is going to volunteer to do anything for Microsoft); deal with an operatins system that they are not that familiar with; handle an embarrasing PR situation; deal with constant accusations that they are not supporting the Linux version as well; and wind up with something that would not be widely accepted or trusted since the Linux community is deeply distrustfull of anything that is Microsoft, not GPL, and not from 'the community.
On the other hand if Mono creates a credible .NET implementation Microsoft looks like they are accepting of standards without having to waste any money and they chip at Java's dominance, and one thing that really irritates Microsoft is having the language standard be under the control of Sun.
That is only if Mono can keep up with Microsoft's changes. Believe me, I'm pro-Mono but I just don't see projects being cross platform in the short term. For example, Mono doesn't even have .NET 1.0 implemented 100% yet; what are they going to do when Microsoft releases 1.1? 1.1 isn't 100% backwards-compatible with 1.0 and I'm already expecting to rewrite several areas of a large project (1,000,000+ lines) so it works on 1.1. I don't even think Microsoft is going to be fixing bugs in 1.0 anymore (hearsay) and everyone is going to be forced to upgrade (i.e. rewrite parts of their code) to 1.1 or work around the bugs for their 1.0 projects. Sure, Mono has a great code base, but I can't see them leveling the playing field, especially when the tools (Visual Studio.NET) don't exist for Linux yet.
.NET. Which ones are requiring you to "rewrite several areas of a large project"? There are about 1000 new class members added, so that's a bit of work for the Mono guys to do, but you don't have to use them if you want to keep compatibility with Mono.
Bullshit. According to this there are a grand total of 24 breaking changes in all of
1000 new classes is cool but you haven't considered the fact that they are going to FIX the ones that don't work. Developers have been working around several bugs for over a year (i.e. ASP.NET controls that don't maintain state and through the event cycle like each other (i.e. DropDownList and TextBox)). When you fix those problems, although simple, it is going to change the way developers process the postback cycle in existing forms which is going to extremely time consuming considering the debugger crashes 10% of the time. My question to you is although they have documented 24 breaking changes, have you actually tried to migrate a 1.0 project to 1.1 yet?
A rumor I heard from someone that could possibly know what they are talking about says that MS is planning to open a Linux division at their Redmond campus. Apparently there is a new building in the works which will be devoted to this. From what I understand the current goal is an MS Linux distribution. Apparently MS considers Lindows in particular a real potential competetor on the desktop and wants to be sure they don't loose that foothold.
If these asertations are true, things could get interesting in the near future.
NR
My mistake, i meant 81 or something.
Second, duh... to handle multiple connections.
Third, never tried that in C? It's a basic nested loop. (not so sure if that's the proper syntax however)
nVidia takes the time and effort to develop something for a free operating system that, right now, has very little effect on their sales. They could drop driver support for Linux without any major backlash (especially if people like you insist that the drivers are irrelevant). I applaud their work.
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
You'd need someone that wasn't so intensely focused on Java - someone like Borland. They are working on a
The principle is simple. Write using mono, and it will run in both (or otherwise Microsoft will take a huge PR beating by not complying with the standard they ensured to create). Write using Microsoft's
Mono will never ever match the Microsoft implementation (that is ecma standard + microsoft patent bits). Its legally impossible in the current patent climate. The more Microsoft relies on this "patent-protection", the further away from cross-platform
Mono doesn't suffer if
Mono is free software yes? How can it end up in the hands of anything?
The owner of the software controls the license. If Microsoft wanted to own Mono, all it would have to do is buy it from the contributors. Once they own the property, they can re-license it any way they wish.
There is the matter of the existing code which is out there under the old license (they couldn't do anything about that), but if they felt it was an issue, they'd move before Mono was reasonably complete, thus leaving someone else a lot of work to get it up to speed using the old code.
Mono doesn't have to keep with Microsoft's changes. Multiple versions of the framework can exist side by side, and the 1.1 version of the framework allows 1.0 programs to continue using that version. Check out the second paragraph of the overview here. If you're really expecting to have to rewrite several areas of your large program as soon as 1.1 is released, you haven't done enough research.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
There is running joke between me and my kids where I will claim to own, or to be first, or to be intimately involved in things that I can't possible even know about. Bear with me when I say that Microsoft employs this as a philosophy of life. When I overview MS PR and marketing messenging over these past 6-8 months, it is amazing the number of times I have seen the literal or implied: MS = Zenix = we invented *nix. As stated by another /.er, MS is a moving target and often uses short-term projects to build initiative teams. They also use them to divert attention from new initiative: best place to hide is in plain sight. Doom theorist that I am, if I didn't know better(?), I would say that it appears that MS is repositioning to claim control of *nix. At your conferences and working tables over the next 8 months, count how many times a project manager says: 'you know, MS began as a *nix company...'
You make a good point. The problem is, we aren't expecting any fixes for .NET 1.0 framework or any fixes for Visual Studio.NET 2002. The larger our project gets, the more .NET and Visual Studio crashes (there are some severe bugs and memory leaks out there). If I want to efficiently maintain this product, I want to do it with tools that work which will require upgrading to 1.1.
http://www.askthevoid.com
The salubrious competition - it's nice! The young talented programmers - it's nice! But Miguel with his programm is nothing as compared with such monster as Microsoft is. If Linux wants to be a real rival to Microsoft, it should accept for employment such people as Miguel as soon as possible. Because Microsoft will done it first!
With the best regards, Masik
too late now