Slashdot Mirror
Mono and dotGnu: What's the Point?
joeykiller writes "The Register features an opinion by Neil Davidson, asking 'Mono and dotGnu: What's the point?' Some of the points he raises may seem irrelevant for open source supporters (like why make a C# compiler while Microsoft's is free anyway), but others are thought provoking and maybe a little bit controversial. You may not agree with his opinions, but it's an interesting read anyway."
Last I knew, the .NET framework was only available for Win32 and FreeBSD. Has this changed recently? I dont really see a problem with Mono. If they can make it so that System.Forms works with GTK/Qt, that would be rather nice. I would imagine this would lead to tons of portable apps. Of course .. Maybe i dont understand .NET
It reads like a troll. A software company directory who doesn't "get" why you need to
bootstrap a compiler.
Right after we see the releases of Duke Nukem Forever and Doom III.
It's not really free if you are using Microsoft, because they anticipate that in order to use C# compiler, you will need other Microsoft products that cost money. They aren't a non-profit organization! That's a great reason to make YAC#C.
stuff |
Although their time might be better spent in designing a true alternative to Java and C# instead of a copy that allows you to write a GNU application that runs everywhere, it's hard to fault Mono for recognizing a market niche and running with it. For example, maybe they'll make C# work on Linux embedded devices where Microsoft wouldn't go?
Someone should tell him that there are other processor architectures than just x86, processors that aren't supported by MS ...
codegolf.com - smaller *is* better.
... doesnt always mean it makes sense from a resource point of view or from "the big picture". But that is the price with people giving up their own time.
I, myself, am happy to have the chance to sample some of this work for free. Who am I to judge since I'm not paying?
Neil wants to give up implementing .NET for MONO and dotGNU because neither project will have all the features.
I think that it is likely that Novell or ?? may pick up the pace..
All the worlds indeed a
We know that Slashdot posts these kind of articles as bait for the meatheads who think that being against Micro$oft makes everything they say correct. Microsoft bashing is no substitute for thinking. Be free! Think, think!
that C# and IL are an international standard (at least in ECMA's eyes) and MS has absolutely no control over the language right? Not just that there are several other compiler for C#, made by german firms i think.
.net = european standards camp
FYI, basically it boils down to this:
Java = american standards camp, though not fully done yet.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
As a .NET developer, frankly, I don't care what the motivations of Mono develoers or dotGnu developers are. Maybe I should be, but I'm not. I'm building an open source project in .NET and I want Linux, BSD and Mac OS X support (the latter two, hopefully with the help of SSCLI), and frankly, whatever other platforms I can include.
.NET is a really nice development environment. As much as I don't care for Microsoft, I have to admit that since I adopted C# about a year and a half ago, my production has roughly tripled, maybe more. I've never had ANY technology have that kind of impact on my development before, unless it was the reverse (making me 3 times LESS productive).
I don't want to use Java. First of all, I've never used it to develop software. Second of all, every user interface I've ever seen done with Java stinks. Maybe I've been seeing bad examples, but the windows, buttons, and other contols of the Java apps I've seen have an old fashion look and feel to me and I don't care for it. My personal opinion, but for me, that counts for something.
So, whatever the motivation of Mono or dotGnu, I simply want to develop my cross-platform C# apps. That's MY motivation, and that's what matters to me.
We read with interest the piece from Neil on the purpose of Mono, and
.NET software; You would think that the use of Mono would help
I wanted to clarify a few things, because Mr Neil does not seem to
have looked at the Mono Roadmap, nor tried a recent release, since
code signing (authenticode and strongnames is implemented, remoting is
completed (soap, binary, http, tcp transports) and most of the
side-by-side assemblies work is done, and will be part of 1.0).
The Mono Roadmap (www.go-mono.com/mono-roadmap.html) contains the
release time frames for the various features of Mono and will help him
and other readers understand what exact plans are: no speculation, and
no half-cooked facts.
I am surprised by the motivation to do so little research on our
project given that Mr Neil is the technical director of a company that
sells
him reach customers using Linux, using mainframes or MacOS X.
Mono is based on the ECMA 334 and 355 standards. We like the C#
language and its runtime (as does Mr Neil's company) because it
increases our developer productivity, reduces the time to market of
our new products, this despite the fact that we do not implement Code
Access Security, which will only be used in embedded situations, a
segment that we are not ready to address in Mono 1.0.
We want to improve the productivity of developers in Linux, mainframe
and OS X developers by brining this unique platform to other
platforms. Just like Borland, SGI, Sun and IBM provide compilers,
runtimes and tools for other languages, we provide such a piece for
C#/.NET.
Mr Neil does not seem to understand why bootstrapping a C# compiler is
important, so let me explain this in terms he would understand: it is
important because:
* Using C# to write a C# compiler means that it improves our
development speed.
* To be able to harvest the benefits of productivity of C# on
Unix, we need a bootstrapping system.
* It allows us to write software on Unix without and be
self-sufficient to develop software as opposed to require
a Windows machine to develop software, and another to run it.
* It means that we trust our technology enough and it is solid
to the point that a relatively complex piece of software not
only runs, but is binary-compatible with the Microsoft
runtime.
Mono's objectives are not "To break Microsoft's monopoly". We do not
define ourselves in this way, there are more important social causes
to fight. We look at the ECMA 334/335 standards as a solid foundation
to improve Linux and bring more software, more quickly to it, and make
the development process more fun.
There is a lot more about this on:
http://www.go-mono.com/rationale.html
And a few other interviews
Could it be that we want to run .NET programs under Linux? Or, better than that, that we (linux using programmers) would like to be able to write .NET programs without booting into windows? His points about mono and dotGNU just replicating features already availible in .NET is irrelevant... because they aren't availible on our platforms. Sure, there would be nothing great about windows.forms in X, if we already had a way to do windows.forms stuff in unix. We don't. And his points about microsoft adding all kinds of features to the languages and the .NET library is pretty irrelevant: a) mono is probably going to add those features to the compiler and libraries as soon as possible anyway b) in the state mono is in right now, it is possible to do just about anything you would need to write any possible .NET application c) as long as ms's .NET compiler still generates the same CLI, it would be possible to run the programs in mono (assuming it is something that doesn't have huge chunks of embedded C or anything).
In the end, I feel like I've been ASTed.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
A bit late to be controversial on this. I assume that he also thinks that WINE (which allows windows binaries to be installed and executed as if it was Windows) is also a bad idea, and that the idea of doing everything windows does and more besides is either not feasable or not a good way to attract users. If he believes it is feasible, then I further assume he believes the same thing is true of Microsoft's Embrace and Extend strategy.
.NET to the Mono environment in such a way as to be unencumbered from any patents, as a proof of concept, and as a much needed Linux IDE for C#.
The threat of patents makes his a valid view, that has been well elucidated some months ago. I would have preferred if the article had broken new ground, and used all the prior conversations as a jumping off point.
An interesting analysis would be what is thought about Mono's preparation for the threat of patents. They are developing a completely seperate and patent free stack of libraries using GTK#, etc. rather than Windows.Forms, etc., etc. for everything not submitted as royalty free to the standards body. The upcoming MonoDevelop project is a port of SharpDevelop from Microsoft's
As a comparison, he might wish to bring up the GCJ project, which native compiles Java code, and the Gnome Java bindings. (or Eclipse + SWT)
Either effort could stand to attract greater resources. For instance, if Sun + IBM seriously got behind GCJ + Gnome Java bindings, or if Apple got behind Mono.
Anyway, the Register is usually wonderfully edgy, bitingly sarcastic, and controversial. I was very disappointed with this article.
"There's so much left to know/ and I'm on the road to find out." -Cat Stevens
"Enemies"? "Extending monopoly?"
I think the author has missed one of the points about .NET: it does have some very attractive features that certainly could be useful in any environment, not just Windows. Automatic garbage collection and rock-solid typing are valuable assets. Just-in-time compiling in the runtime environment can provide extremely fast running code. (Not that it always does, but it has the potential in some situations.) These are benefits that there is no reason the GNU community can't share.
There's also another benefit: it's a two-way street. Having dotGNU might provide a roadway for Windows developers to leave the Windows platform.
He has interesting points, and they're worth discussing, but it's way to early to pronounce dotGNU or Mono dead.
John
just now El Reg published some of the angry letters in defence of .GNU:
.GNU, just presenting a counterpoint.
http://theregister.co.uk/content/35/35557.html
not that i'm trying to defend
Kaffe is a free java vm, why they did it? Because now, if you want free java on ipaq, kaffe is a good solution. Also because kaffe is open source so its chanches of porting are better. And sometimes is quite faster then sun vm.
Mozilla when was started it wasn't as good as explorer, or opera, both were free, so, why start another project? Now, a lot of people thinks mozilla is the best browser.
Mono and DotGNU, if nothing else, are good contingency measures if .Net happens to crush Java in the realm of web apps (not likely.) I'm half suprised at the rush to implement forms, as web apps seems to be what .Net was intended for, though the Gnome guys are the ones driving development...
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
You can download the Rotor source free and compile/run it on Windows XP, FreeBSD and Mac OS X. Or maybe you meant on Linux.
Theoretically you could write C# applications for those platforms just like you could write C, C++ etc. applications for them. I don't see how you would need any other Microsoft products to use their C# compiler, though obviously Microsoft currently produces the most comprehensive development environment for C#.
Despite the fact that this guy doesn't seem to understand or appreciate Mono and dotGnu acheivements, I still pretty much agree with his conclusions.
Let's look at Java. How many professional/hobby/academic Java developers use Sun's SDK?
How many use Gnu classpath with some other VM?
Have you ever downloaded an app or library that was developed and tested under SableVM/Gnu-classpath but not Sun's SDK?
-... ---
While providing freedom of choice might be reason enough to justify a project, practical programmers could be asking: What's the point?
.NET framework on Linux be good enough so that people will actually want to use it? That's a very real question, but it's not the main one he's asking.
Linux, maybe? Mac OS X? Free BSD? I see getting C# programs to run on other platforms as a practical purpose. Later on in the article he acknowledges that you'd be able to run these programs on Linux, but that's more like a throw away concession he makes. He plays dumb in the beginning, and makes himself look silly.
How is making C# a standard on Windows and Linux going to hurt Microsoft?
I think that the people behind the project have better goals than that - namely, getting a particular tool to work on Linux. People use Linux for a variety of things. It would be nice if C# - just another tool - worked under it. What's the big deal?
There is an obvious practical purpose to getting C# programs to run on Linux. The real question, however, is will the
Hey all,
.NET the better. I, for one, am glad to see that the effort is being made and that .NET is not going to become yet ANOTHER MS only technology. If you think Java has merit (and it does), then you can't reasonably believe that .NET has nothing to offer -- they're conceptually the same thing, skewed in slightly different directions. Java is bent more towards security, while .NET is bent more towards flexibility. It makes sense to bring it to Linux: it's useful (really!).
It seems to me a little hypocritical to complain about MONO and dotGNU when there's also WINE out there. What's the point of getting Win32 Apps to run natively under Linux? We'll never keep up with MS adding things to the API...
The point is, the more implementations there are of the CLR for
On the flip side, why isn't anybody complaining that there's an abundance of Java VM implementations out there?
C
The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
If Sun and Java die, MS will be free to add proprietary bits, and we'll still want a free version.
Also, although there are some nice things in C# (such as being able to work with arbitrary C pointers and data structures returned by C functions), we may want to tweak the design a little, or extend it to work with python or lisp or other languages. The idea of a "glue" language that can call routines written in many languages is very appealing. Sometimes you might want to have one program that can deal with low level data structs like C, handle resolution theorem proving like haskell, and maybe strings like snobol. With a good glue language, yuo could write each routine in its appropriate language, then glue them all together.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
As someone who contributed a little code to gotGnu, I kinda started thinking, what's the point? What is the point of running .Net on a non-M$ OS?
;) Java developers over to a real platform.
.Net are playing with fire. If Mono or dotGnu were wildly successful, then M$, owning all the patents, copyrights, and trademarks, would pull the legal card and shut them down or just plain not interoperate with them - yes, I know portions of .Net are part of ECMA. However, this isn't the days of the 80's or 90's where you could reasonably get away with this stuff and everything under the electronic sun wasn't patented. Nowadays the control and nastiness in the business software world is unparalleled - just look at that guy that patented the concept of 'web stores' for example. So, while my hat is off to all the people who have really busted their ass on Mono and dotGnu, I ultimately feel that it will be a lesson in frustration and disappointment.
I can see one value, which is it allows those 'stuck' (I don't really believe in that concept, but whatever) on Windows to migrate off it. But in the same line of thought there's also this huge issue which is M$ and they way it trys with all the power of the universe to prevent that. Whether it be licensing tricks or slashed pricing, or plain 'ol FUD - in the end, they'll do whatever's possible to keep people locked in.
And honestly, I have to raise an eyebrow to anything M$. I mean, C# is a specific jab at Java. Java wasn't built to wrestle control away from M$ C++ and their dev tools. So something that is made to ward off something else that, in my book, is a pretty good thing for Internet developers, is pretty sketchy. Not saying Java is the king or anything, but the underlying reason for C# is: we (M$) can't control Java, so screw you, we'll copy and extend, build the concept of a VM (CLR) into our OS, and then woo all those productive
Lastly, any Open Source/Free versions of
And also, for me, there's just something filthy about the M$ development universe. I find their tools are kludgy, bloated, and too foofy. And I don't like having to install five thousand libraries and integrated-this or integrated-that, plus an update here and an update there - I'm not a fan of everything integrated into the OS. Granted, Net Beans can have a huge footprint and I didn't say that it is a great app (don't care for IDEs either), but there's just a something about M$ tools that I just don't and never have liked - this naturally extends all the way through their whole stack. So seeing a HelloWorld VB app running on Linux kinda makes me shutter and just kinda think why? I'm sure the natural answer for some will be - because. Meh..
Ok, so the article is a bit harsh. I agree with a lot of what he said but he missed one major point and is just plain wrong on a number of things. I don't think Mono is about destroying Microsoft or providing choice. It's about using a nice(*) language like C# on Linux. That statement alone kills his whole argument.
.Net libraries.
He missed a very important problem though. Performance. I admit that I haven't played with Mono in 6 months or so but last time I tried it the Microsoft runtime/compiler/JIT/whatever was hella faster than Mono. Several times faster.
I'm not sure if the Mono developers will be able to achieve the sophistication required in the compiler and runtime while still doing all the other stuff that needs to be done. Time will tell.
(*) I like C# better than Java. Especially the interface to native DLL's (not perfect but way easier/simple than Java). Plus C# was designed from the beginning to have things that Java only recently got (generics anyone?).
With that said, I still think C/C++ are just as portable, much faster, and don't require stupid memory sucking VM environments. If only we had C++ equivalents to the huge Java and
The ratio of people to cake is too big
It's a more established framework and a lot more cross-platform.
From what I understand, the Mono project pretty much has a complete implementation of both the ASP.Net and ADO.Net libraries, and that will do for the vast majority of web applications. Therefore, I completely disagree with the author's comment that "even if Mono or dotGNU gets 99 percent of the way there, that's not enough." His analysis might be more accurate if your talking about desktop applications, but I don't think his arguments really have any relevance to web apps.
At the very least, Mono and dotGNU will give Java/J2EE a little healthy competition on some different platforms.
I think the real point that he's missing is that every project undertaken on Open Source that's a direct response to something that Microsoft is doing is a step in the direction of eliminating barriers to entry. Anything that can be done on an Open Source platform that could previously only have been done in a Closed Source environment is a good thing.
Mono is not compiled as a Windows app. It does use WineLib for providing certain APIs for Windows.Forms. Using WineLib is no different than using GTK+ - they're both just APIs/libraries. Mono *is* working on Windows.Forms, using several different backends - WineLib, Cairo and GTK+. I believe the Cairo one is what they plan on using "officially" when complete. DotGNU and Mono can and do share code/assemblies, btw, so if DotGNU does indeed have a WinForms assembly, Mono should (theoretically) be capable of just using that.
...
On a side note, I just love how posts (like the parent) which are half-guessed speculation and mostly false manage to get "+5 Informative"
So, while I love and use Linux, and even lead an OSS project on sourceforge, I have to admit that Neil is right: the .NET clones are only helping to establish Microsoft in a leadership position in enterprise infrastruture (which will drive sales of their software). And that's precisely the place they want to be.
We are aware of a bug in the JIT compiler in the PPC,
something that we are actively fixing.
(We do not officially support the MacOS X for this
very reason: we are not done yet with the port,
the technical detail has to do with the patching
of generated methods to point to new methods that
are JIT compiled on demand, and the issue there
is that the PPC needs more room to do calls that
span the +32/-32 meg barrier, so you need to build
some thunks, not hard to fix, and on our todo list)
The Mono C# compiler works on OS X, we use it to
build all the class libraries and Gtk# as well.
Miguel
I don't know why everyone in the open source community feels compelled in chasing behind Microsoft technologies, whether it be Mono or Wine. When I talk to people about the benefits of Linux and open source; I always seem to always mention Apache, Perl, and MySQL. I mention these products not because there based on or copied from Microsoft technology. It's because they are innovative open source projects. These open source projects do well not because there open source; but because there BETTER then there closed source counterparts.
.NET our own technologies, and make them BETTER then their closed-source counterparts. That's the only way we win. You cannot win a race by chasing your enemy. You must pull ahead.
We shouldn't lag behind and chase Microsoft's coattails. We should instead innovate; create our own
Neil is the type of person that would argue with the mountain climber about whether there's a reason for climbing the mountain. I imagine him saying, "But Why!?!" For all the other programmers out there, continue honing your skills and techniques even if the apps you create aren't appreciated or widely acknowledged
C# is a nice language, it's free, open, and standardized, and it's good that there are many implementations of it. All those other points don't matter.
.NET remains proprietary, all the better as far as I'm concerned: I like the language, not MS libraries.
What MS does or doesn't do with C# is their business. And if
What's the point of Microsoft making a web browser? They obviously can't keep up with all these standards like CSS, XSL and XUL... I think they should just quit.
It cuts both ways.
it will be next to impossible to write Windows software in the future without embracing .NET
this is such horsecrap !
you mean that any old app written in C or C++ will break ? that gcc won't compile anymore ? FUDFUDFUD ! amazing this shit gets moderated insightfull !!!
this is so much alike 8 years ago when everyoner was yelling that soon MFC would be the only way out. guess what ? I still write non-mfc c++ code. you might want to look at this site. are you suggesting that none of these will run/compile anymore under longhorn ? dude : it's JUST AN OS on JUST A CPU. it runs machinecode. that's all
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
To my mind, it all comes down to the Office.NET test. That is, at some point in the future (if MS sticks with .NET), Microsoft will release Office.NET (the Office suite rewritten for .NET). The test is: will Office.NET run, off the shelf and without any major crashes or missing functionality, on a non-MS .NET framework.
.NET as the greatest cross platform programming environment in the universe and hold the developers of the non-MS .NET frameworks up as champions of the open source world.
.NET frameworks as a waste of the open source community's time. And while, of course, programmers are free to waste their time if they want, don't expect me to be interested and contribute.
.NET apologists might claim that the Office.NET test is unfair. That there are many useful things that can be done with a partial implementation of .NET. To that I say, you're deluding yourself. If the best that we can hope for is a two .NET world (MS .NET and the open source .NET ghetto) then, as a professional programmer, it's not something I'm going to use. My time is important enough that I'm not going to waste it trying to remember what bits of .NET I can and can't use when I use Mono or dotGNU.
.NET framework. They'll keep back just enough to insure that their Office cash cow continues.
If it will, then I'll be happy to declare
But if it doesn't, then I judge the whole effort to produce non-MS
Now,
Now, as you can probably tell from the tone of my post, I've more-or-less concluded that there is basically no chance that MS will ever allow Office.NET to run on any non-MS
No idea why this was rated, "insightful". I suggest you go read the article again. Or, prehaps you're missing a very basic set of commonly accepted facts. Microsoft doesn't own patents on C++ technology. In fact, C++ does not originate from Microsoft. Microsoft is also not using C++ to leverage their monopoly. Microsoft would be unable to leverage C++ to leverage their monopoly because C++ isn't their technology base.
/dev/null. It adds no value to the discussion.
Now that you know even the most basic of facts, perhaps now you'll understand why your posting belongs in
I'm seeing alot of people complaing about how mono is a waste of time because MS can pull the carpet out from under everyone with proprietary library updates that will prevent .NET apps from running on mono. That is entirely probable and it is most likely beyond the ability of the mono team to keep up with such changes. Let alone the time to ensure .NET to mono compatability. But give the mono team some credit, don't you think they too might know this? I ask this question to all the waste of time whiners: What can MS do to stop mono to .NET compatability?
.NET, without any rewrites, and with a consistent feel. That is the point. It would speed the cross-platform development of projects like Mozilla and OpenOffice that both windows and linux users alike are trying. What better way to transition users dependent on windows apps(not windows itself) to a linux environment, one app at a time. Forget about allowing the commercial .NET programs to run under mono, think about replacing them with equivalent Open Source mono apps.
That's right, open source projects written in mono will have the ability to run under both linux and windows, mono and
* GNU was based on a proprietary technology. GNU is a free re-implementations of Unix. Linux is a re-implementation of the Unix kernel. Before the advent of Linux and the Berkeley Unix, Unix was a proprietary technology, built by ATT (which back in the day, was a monopoly). Still, developers took what was good from Unix, and reimplemented a free version of it. Down to the Unix programming language: C (which was also invented at ATT). Even C++ was invented at ATT. Think of Mono as following the same process: we are bringing the best technology out there to our beloved free software platform. And at the same time it serves to be a magnificent upgrade on the development platform.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
There is an easy way to get relief over the controversies with Mono. Since Microsoft owns it, (only the C# spec is ECMA) someone should ask Microsoft if we can use it. . .
Novell should ask Microsoft to issue a statement or enter into a contract that they won't pull the rug out from under Mono by enforcing patent/trademark/etc. protections and adversely affect the Mono community. If they refuse, then you know Mono is doomed. If they comply and their answer is legally binding, then have at it.
Mono is excellent technology but it is in a very dark shadow. I wouldn't base my software on an architecture that is under patent threat by one of the most powerful companies in the world -- What's the point of speculating since all we have to do to verify its safty is ask Microsoft ?
This is only proper. . . most of the runtime and forms libraries are proprietary property of Microsoft -- we need to ask them if we can use it if we are worried about backlash.
Please do not reply with anyting about GTK# not being property of Microsoft. . . the "#" trademarks and the runtime technology (CLR) certainly are their undisputed property. Playing games with their IP without asking their permission is unwise.
The grandparent is correct to complain that it is an unstable mix due to the fact that both Wine and Mono are under rapid, and asynchronous development.
About 6 months ago, when I gave up on using Mono for development, the Windows.Forms implementation required applying custom patches to a specific nightly build of Wine which was so old that Mono was the only place to get it from. So maybe if you were successful in getting your patch into the main Wine tree, and maybe after Wine matures a lot, Mono will be worth another look.
Also, I understand that the Mono team is aiming for complete compatibility, but I'd be tempted to declare that platform-specific hooks are unacceptable in a VM. After all, SWT seems to have achived fine graphics control with a much more abstract solution.
Huh. Looks like they . It's at the very bottom. Cool. And yes, my real first name is Steve.
"There's so much left to know/ and I'm on the road to find out." -Cat Stevens
It's not like computer resources are expensive these days. Who cares if you think it's "heavy" ... it really isn't. Applications written in .NET and compiled are typically small and easily distributed.
.NET (yes, I like it and I'm a hard-core linux guy!) to develop the app in half the time, with the result being twice as good.
.NET, you should keep your yapper shut.
Who cares if you can write a "CGI application" in C. Can you write an enterprise level software application? Authoring enterprise software is an expensive proposition -- and why not use
Until you have some first hand experience with
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Somehow, someone in Ximian needs to really dig into the legal and patent issues that the article brings up.
.gnu/mono are doing is playing into MS hands...and that hand will put the smackdown when and if these libraries become popular.
The ecma standard is not the problem. The compiler and clr are not the problem.
It's the libararies, dude. So many people say this guy is on crack, but he has a valid point that all ximian and
Finally, I think a lot of other people bring up a good point...maybe some type of GNU language, a sysnthesis of Java and C#, would be better than the aforementioned projects from a purely political point of view.
Really, Miguel and RMS need to sit down and have a few beers with PJ at groklaw and come up with some theories on all this stuff.
Herpes is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
I am not the biggest fan of C# or .NET and would rather see this community work together to design and specify a next-generation free and open standard for Cross-OS/Platform/Architecture "virtual machine" and language allowing for a single portable executable binary. I'd like to see RFC's and IRC conferences, papers being passed back and forth, live conferences and formal specifications.
For too long has the opensource community nipped at the heels of the closed-source technology leaders. It is time to innovate, time to design, time for change. I do think having an opensource C# compiler/framework/CLR is a good thing, but I believe this is only secondary in importance to having a truly free and open solution where all voices are heard and designs are not made to accommodate a particular OS's limitations or benefits.
Further, we only need to find one practical use of mono to demonstrate that the conclusion is categorically wrong. That mono ships with commercial products such as Virtuoso suggests that there is at least one practical use of mono.
On Davidson's second point, I think he misunderstands patronage. Microsoft does not currently fund mono in any way in which I am aware. They do fund some competitors to mono such as rotor and (at least at one time) Corel's attempt to bring dot net to Linux. His only example of Microsoft being a patron consists of a hypothetical chain of events that is exceedingly unlikely. I suspect that perhaps Davidson meant forbearance instead of patronage. If he did, he would do well to explain exactly how Microsoft's patents threaten mono because some people (including people far brighter than me) do not see any clear and present danger.
Aren't what they are doing is creating "their own .Net"?
.Net"? What if the steps taken by Mono are the logical next step?
.Net) were a just a copy of Java (the JRE, the intermediate language, everything). But maybe Microsoft didnt' jsut copy. Maybe they conceded the fact that the idea of having a a platform and intermediate language was the next logical step in software development.
.Net offers (easy and more powerful web development).
And if not, what does it mean to create your "own
Think of it this way. When C# was released, everyone said that it (and
Perhaps Mono sees the same thing with the unique features that
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
I work on the Portable.net project
.net gui exe compiled in Windows, copy it to a Linux machine and run it and it works!
http://www.dotgnu.org/.
Ive written a large chunk of the System.Drawing and System.Windows.Forms namespace. We currently have two "toolkits" that means our SWF copy will work on Windows and X Windows (using Xlib directly). Mac OS is thus supported.
C++ improved on straight C, Java improved on C++, C# improved on Java. C# is becoming an important standard.
We want to reuse software. We want to take existing software that is built to only run on Windows and run it on Linux or other platforms.
We have much of the framework built to write gui applications using System.Windows.Forms. Despite peoples initial suspicions, what we have done works. We already have most controls completed, including textboxes, treeviews, comboboxes, tabcontrols etc.
See http://pnet.homelinux.org for some screenshots
You can now take a
The technology is excellent and open source. We need people to help us finish it off.
Mono & dotNet appear to be good technology, but that's already been discussed enough.
So...
With regard to Mono, Novell must either:
(a) have done a complete legal analysis of what will happen when MS doesn't like Mono anymore, or
(b) believe that Mono will always be acceptable to MS.
The fact that they haven't told us about (a) makes me fear that the truth is (b).
Novell, if you are listening, please tell me the answer. I'm a developer and I like the dotNet technology, but I need to know where you are going with this, and I need to now whether it is 'safe' for me (and my conscience) to use Mono and, for example, your windows forms library.
For those of you who do not use an IDE to write code I can see why you'd embrace mono. But:
Without Visual Studio.NET I would never have learned C#.
Without Visual Studio 6.0 and prior I would never have learned Visual Basic.
Without Eclipse I would never have learned Java.
Without an integrated IDE for each of the above languages my productivity would be so low as to render my consulting practice null and void.
For main stream adoption of mono - how will the mono developers address this lack of a quality useful IDE for writing C# on linux/mac?
And as an aside, when the perceived ROI on mono begins to dwindle what will stop Novell from pulling the plug on funding? All those mono engineers have to feed their kids too and how will they make money quiting Novell and dedicating all their time writing code for a free non-paying mono product?