Slashdot Mirror
Mono-culture And The .NETwork Effect
Sun Tzu writes "This article discusses the dangers posed by a very successful Mono project. Microsoft has several means at their disposal to effectively shut down Mono if it should ever gain critical mass. Unfortunately, Linux would be the big loser if that were to happen."
"Unfortunately, Linux would be the big loser if that were to happen."
Linux would be at exactly the same spot in which is started. Mono is a work in progress and really isn't embedded itself into Linux yet or probably will for a long while.
Linux's strength lies in its variety, not everyone will commit to developing with mono.
.net.
There will always be alternatives.
Whereas with Windows development everyone and their dog are jumping into
You don't have to use mono on Linux, on Windows this is becoming less of a choice.
The parts of .NET that are standard are safe.
The parts that aren't standard aren't required to Mono and can be replaced with other libraries.
Sure MS can keep changing APIs, but that will hurt them and their customers too. But even if they did, Mono is still a big gain as a Linux development plateform.
The people from Mono explain this at Mono / FAQ
Microsoft has several means at their disposal to effectively shut down Mono if it should ever gain critical mass.
.NET compatibility and that Mono applications are .NET applications. That's, in fact, just false. Most current uses of Mono are based on ECMA C# and Gtk#, not .NET. In fact, one of the big strengths of C# is that, unlike Java, C# makes it easy to reuse existing C and C++ libraries; in that, it is much like the relationship of C++ to C. If you already know Gnome, you can start using C# to develop Gnome applications much more easily than picking up Java and Swing (and the Mono/Gtk# applications will work better, too).
.NET, just don't use .NET. In fact, I wouldn't touch .NET simply because I think it's technically not very good. But you can still use Mono, which is shaping up to be a great, general-purpose programming platform. And because existing open source libraries, like Gtk+, Gnome, expat, X11, etc., is so easily accessible, it's very easy to start using Mono--it's just a nicer version of C++.
Those claims are based on the inaccurate perception that the success of Mono depends on
The company to worry about is Sun: open source Java applications do use all-Sun APIs; interfacing with native libraries is just too much hassle, and that's no accident: Sun wants you to use their APIs and give up on the free, open source APIs. And, despite all the JCP mumbo-jumbo, Sun has a lot of control over the Java platform, through numerous patents, through owning key parts of the actual implementation of key parts of the Java platform (e.g., Swing), and through their ownership of the specification and the certification process.
So, if you are worried about Microsoft's ownership of
It's not about the domination of net via .NET, it's about a true, open source virtual machine project with a proper, OO language to go with it. Java is not open source, but Mono is. And Mono happens to be a superset of the Java functionality.
That fact that it lets you take Windows code and run it faster, better, more securely -- that's just icing.
To think that this is supporting Microsoft is to think that Samba supports Microsoft just because it implements protocols that Microsoft uses.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Let me change the example:
Well, it did change things. Java has lots of problems on the "run anywhere" side of things as it is, and when major java programs were written with MS-only APIs, cross-platform dreams were totally over.
I suspect that .NET will also have major Win32-only parts. If a goal of mono is just to be a development platform, fine. If anyone thinks that apps written for MS .NET will be cross-platform, then they haven't been reading their recent history.
And if Mono is just about a dev environment, then why bother? I can't really see why I should switch to C#.
No, no, no.
.NET is MS reading the writing on the wall: namely, that Windows is a dying brand, that will not be relevant in the long-term future as a major cash cow.
.NET is a 10-year hedge against that. Thanks to .NET, MS has the ability to ditch Windows in the future. As Windows fades, MS can be assured that its other cash cows - MS Office, the backend products, etc are still viable and dont need rapid porting to a new platform.
.NET ensures MS's relevance even if Windows fails. Virtually all of the Windows software developed in the next decade will be developed with varying degress of support for .NET. Even now its starting to trickle into the marketplace. Desktop software, server-side software, everything. Even games will soon be enginered with maanged C# code. MS has started using it for their internal development of various products. As hardware adapts and as performance is tweaked and improved, everything MS writes will be done with .NET. At that point - 5 years, 10 years, etc - in the future MS will have successfully allowed themselves to be #1 regardless of hardware vendor, architecture, operating system, and even written language!
.NET around, healthy, and adopted for alot of software development is currently in MS's best interests. It means that even if they are directly profiting they will be relevant no matter what happens in the industry.
.NET now will be seen by analysts as MS's most brillant move. Windows decline has begun in ernest. Linux is on the rise. Apple is on the (modest) rise. But yet MS will continue to thrive. And be poised to be viciously competitive regardless of what the "next big thing" is.
You are bigtime wrong.
"Little" OS's chipping at Windows: Linux, MacOS, etc will eventually force desktop OS's to be commoditized, and MS knows this, and realized it a long time ago.
Look at it this way:
Sun is virtually a solved problem: they are sick company who cannot continue to compete with MS in the fashion it has been. COntinued massive losses pile up to spending cuts and focusing only on profitable products. McNealey already is having to focus on profitable businesses at the expense of "long-term vision". Shareholders won't tolerate the types of losses that Sun has posted recently for very long. As it is Sun isn't even profiting from Sun as much as other major players: that's a bad thing from a business perspective.
It all boils down to this: keeping
In another decade moving to