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)
"That [.Net works with Linux] could be a big breakthrough for Linux..."
At the price of killing Java...
> 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
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.
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.
Microsoft Sales Rep to Middle Manager: "Ahhh, I see you are using Mono on your servers. You do realise this Open Source stuff is totally unsupportable. Of course, Microsoft have the solution, you can switch to our .Net architecture which is 100% compatible, and we will support you with any problems."
Middle Manager: "Sounds good, who do I make the cheque out to?"
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
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 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... >
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
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
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).
System.Windows.Forms and they will need Wine....
Why? There may be some quirks in the assembly that cannot be directly supported by QT or Gtk, but why can't a smart coder work around these? To be frank, I would rather the developers work on getting the System.Windows.Forms assembly functionality working on Linux using either toolkit than for people to invent new assemblies from scratch. Compatibility first, then efficiency; we need to move developers from Windows to Linux first, then we can move them to more efficient Linux implementations. But to expect a Windows developer to move to Linux by having to support two branches of his code is not realistic.
I don't see things in black and white; I see the gray. Heck, I actually see in color, which makes things more difficult
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.
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
I am speaking as a recovering VB programmer, and the way that I see .net is as a way for MS to lock developers and their companies into Windows. Frankly, I can't understand why Ximian is wasting their efforts on Mono; it would be better spent improving GNOME and giving Linux/Unix a superior desktop. One change in APIs that Judge CKK allows MS not to document and, POOF! Compatibility disappears.
As for your comment that Mono might be a useful tool for helping Windows programmers move to Linux, it might be so for C++ developers, but IMHO, for VB hacks, .net, and, by extension, Mono, are a whole new ballgame. Previous editions of VB abstracted away a great deal from the details of applications, and .net involves getting more involved with the nitty-gritty. It's more "C++ like", and the approach to building programs through "assemblies" is different as well. But this is not the real reason I chose not to adopt .net...
I see where things are going on the server side, and my preference is to migrate to open source tools that will allow for real multi-platform development-- Python, Perl, and Java. While it essentially means that I had to retool, I would have had to do that anyway if I moved to .net. I would have chosen C# as primary language since it is a standard and there are third parties that plan have released C# compilers . But by choosing true multi-platform tools, it makes the choice of OS irrelevant to my skillset. With .net or Mono, the choice of OS drives the decision to use one or the other, or vice-versa.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
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
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
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
I'm starting to doubt that there really is any compatibility here. Everyone is going to be doing their own thing - which is going to leave plenty of room for innovation but will make .NET as a "platform" an impossibility.
.NET has a certain level of maturity it won't have the same level of portability as the now-mature Java, so while Mono might be a platform the MS .NET implementation won't be a platform for quite some time.
And even more unfortunate is that many of these assemblies must rely on native code. Until Java worked out many of its kinks, there were native method classes used to solve these problems. Until
IMHO, MS should have provided a GDI spec that others could plug into. So if someone did decide to implement a Gtk assembly it would be pluggable.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
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!
Yes.
.Net: it likes to handle remote invocation as Soap messages over standard http at port 80. The whole idea of this is, of course, to bypass firewalls.
.Net indeed should become popular). Imagine that there's nothing the firewalls of the world can do to stop the worm from spreading.
Even worse is the prevalence of "web services" in
Just imagine when a worm is written to exploit a hole in a popular web service (assuming
Imagine fear...
Blindsided how? How can someone be blindsided by something you have to invite into your house?
.NET compatible at all?
.Net binaries.
:). Whether or not C# applications compiled under linux will run on Windows (or viceversa) without a recompile isn't nearly as important as the ability to compile those C# applications under linux in the first place.
Well, I meant it in terms of developers (see below)
If compatibility is not the point, then why make it
Because it's easy. You really have to go out of your way to make things incompatible (after all, the ECMA specs are fairly thorough, and just following them makes things fairly compatible). This may or may not be true in the future.
flies in the face of those who say that Mono: can lure Windows developers, can interoperate with Windows, can promote reuse
Not necessarily. I obviously can't speak for everyone.. but I think it's far more important that C# exist on linux. Binary compatibility isn't nearly as important as language compatability. Code reuse and luring developers for Windows all depend more on the availably of C# on Linux than the ability to run
Developers are going to learn C#. Many of them are going to like it. They're going to be wondering why Linux doesn't have a C# compiler (or not really wondering, but more like complaining
So, to sum up:
Things are binary compatible right now because it's fairly trivial to do so.
I think being able to develop software using C# under linux is important.
If MS decides to make things incompatible for the sake of incompatiblity, things will really be no different than the gcc and VC++ incompatiblities.
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