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
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?
... 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
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
And that's why you use Java instead of .Net.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
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.
He understands why you need to do that, at least he says so. It's just that he doesn't see the point in the compiler in the first place.
As for me, I think it's a cute project, but it's only use I see is cross-platform GUI applications. (a good thing for Linux adoption by the masses) And Mono is way off for doing that.
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#.
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!
I don't care, you might not care, but for FREE/Open Source zealots it matters.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
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.
Java is available on many more platforms though. And the JVM spec is open, plus all classes are available in source code.
.net, only parts have been opened. Large and essential parts are closed and subject to change. Its potential for "run everywhere" is much smaller, and danger for vendor lock in much higher.
.NET/C# is just like JVM/Java. Except that Java is older and more mature, which has advantages but also some disadvantages (cannot break backwards compatability). Many of C# extra "features" are unnecessary "syntactic sugar", some are superfluous and harmful, and those that are truely useful appear in JDK 1.5 soon. Plus, in JDK 1.5 gets features such as generics which are coming in .net as well, but at a much later time.
.net languages are fundamentally equal, just the syntax is different.
As for
Technically,
You can also compile many language in JVM, but SUN has never used that as a selling point since it is pretty silly. All
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
The language is an ECMA standard, but the runtime libraries are not. Without those, C# is pretty useless.
BTW, ECMA accepts all standards that companies care to pay for, they are hardly neutral.
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
I'll sum up the article: It'll be a really long an arduous task to be fully compatible with Microsoft's .Net stuff, so don't even try.
.Net and a X11 implementation of Windows.Forms, then the article might have a little more validity. At least then there would be a choice of OSes.
I'm sure Linus would have gotten the same sort of flack when making Linux. But he started the project, and look what it is becoming.
I think what the guy doesn't see is that not everyone 1) wants to program/compile on Windows (let alone whether they have a copy) and 2) wants to run this supposedly cross-platform language only on Windows.
It's okay to have dreams of bringing down a monopoly, but the point of an open source project is to have other options. Even if it is a long and arduous task, it still has merit, and should still be done, even if for just another option.
Now, if Microsoft makes a Linux compiler for
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 ?
Java is available for MS Windows (95,98,ME,NT,2000,XP,CE), Linux, Apple MacOS, FreeBSD, IBM AS/400, IBM OS/390, IBM AIX, IBM OS/2 (yes, some people are still running it), Sun Solaris, SGI IRIX, PalmOS, Nokia cell phones and numerous other embedded devices. I'm sure I've missed a few but that's just off the top of my head.
When .NET allows me to run a program on everything from a mainframe to a cell phone then I'll be impressed. I doubt that will ever happen because Microsoft is too afraid to put .NET on any platform it can't dominate.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
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
All declarative languages are fundamentally equal, just the syntax is different.
Many of C# extra "features" are unnecessary "syntactic sugar",
There was a decent "article" a few days ago that linked an "interview" with the head of the C# group who "talked" about some interesting things and "addressed" a few of the "syntatic sugar" discussions. It also addresses why a number of decisions were "made" contrary to the way Java does things and why those Java "things" were considered "bad".
I'd like to see some "information" on what you think are "superfluous and harmful" in C#.
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
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.
As for me, I think it's a cute project, but it's only use I see is cross-platform GUI applications. (a good thing for Linux adoption by the masses) And Mono is way off for doing that.
.Net.
.Net applications to Linux faster.
.net on Linux. I'm not gonna sit here and ponder the what ifs the article author ponders. He is just a troll seeking eyeballs and a clue.
And that "cute" use is enough to get Microsoft developers like myself actually interested in Linux development.
1. So Win32 developers can create applications in a high level environment similiar to Java on linux. Java is great. But so is
2. So we can port
I want to use c# and
In Mono we took a different approach, we created, integrated and built our own standalone stack ;-)
Look at: http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/tmp/map2.png to get an idea of what we have to offer today
Herpes is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
This is exactly the point. I'm a Java developer and I wanted to learn some C# and ASP.NET. Didn't really want to go buy Windows to do it, though. So I installed Mono and next thing you know I can do 99% of what I want and need to do to learn ASP.NET and move the files directly over to a Windows server running ASP.NET and they work fine. So THAT is the major benefit of this project to me. I can do ASP.NET programming and do it on Linux.
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.
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.