Slashdot Mirror
Mono Project Releases Beta 1
AArnott writes "Ximian has just released beta 1 of its open-source implementation of Microsoft .NET platform. Mono allows .NET applications to run on Linux, Mac OS X, Unix, Windows. Mono 1.0 is slated for release on June 30, 2004."
sjanes71 adds "The first 'beta' always gets heaps of attention, and this is the first of three planned for the Mono project. Some of the new features touted for this release that updates Mono v0.31 include a faster interpreter, a global assembly cache, support for the StrongARM and HPPA platforms, generics support in the VM and C# compiler and an early alpha of System.Windows.Forms. C# and .NET is Microsoft's answer to Sun Microsystem's Java platform and Project Mono aims to create the Open Source, cross-platform version of Microsoft's new development environment."
now we can all run .exe files on our linux machines.
was this a step forward?
So you are talking about a big E-level release? That's a Sigma, friends. Not a Beta. (damn /. doesn't allow Greek chars)
I have been pwned because my
We need interoprability with everything else to keep LINUX viable.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
http://www.go-mono.com/archive/beta1/beta1.html
/. I doubt it is the latter.
The generics compiler is called `gmcs' as opposed to the standard 1.0 compiler `gmcs'.
I assume this is a typo.. or I am working too hard.
As I am reading
I didn't have the occasion to use Mono yet, but I'm very interested in this project. .NET framework offers most of the power of the J2EE platform, but is also way easier to use. To me at least, I'm not trying to lauch a flamewar. Being able to use the framework without having to buy vs.net or use iis would be neat. I know, arguably one can already do that under windows, but it ain't half as productive.
To me, to
Je n'ai pas d'avenir Je n'ai qu'un destin Celui de n'être qu'un souvenir C'est pour demain
Now GNU/Linux users can enjoy .DLL's as well!
Gnusay -- for all your talking gnu needs.
They got generics working in a very short time, this was quite an achievement.
Mono is a sophisticated development platform, and it will provide a easy transition route away from Microsoft technologies
I really look forward to seeing a day when you can take almost any modern application and run it on pretty much any machine. Now that Microsoft is moving over to a platform-independent, bytecode-based system for most of their applications (well, at least Longhorn) and are encouraging their developers to do so, that day seems to be getting closer.
.NET code with no changes on Fedora or SuSE.
.NET developers out there, and being able to share a codebase between Linux, Windows, and PDAs would probably be a pretty convincing benefit. Sure, there's the .NET Compact Framework, but that basically only works on the most recent versions of WinCE.
It's also slightly encouraging to see Microsoft adopting the use of technology like XML and moving a bit closer to standards with their software... their new vector language is very similar to SVG, and their new forms design language is XML-based. Both seem to be pretty clean and generally simple, which means that at least theoretically it would be possible to convert these formats to truly open formats, and to open them easily in open-source software. It would be really cool to be able to just convert a Windows-oriented XAML file to a Linux-friendly format and then run the associated
The fact that Mono even runs on mobile platforms is nice, because in my opinion J2ME is one of the most horrible APIs I have ever had the misfortune of using - some solid competition for J2ME is definitely needed in the mobile sector, and I think a solid platform based on Linux and Mono might be able to deliver. There are already plenty of
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
The Mono project is an open source effort sponsored by Novell to create a free implementation of the .NET Development Framework.
Does anyone else find this interesting? We have Microsoft "creating" MS-DOS, Digital Research creating DR-DOS, Novell creating Novell Netware, Novell buying Digital Research, Microsoft creating Windows 95 and NT and killing DR-DOS and Novell Netware, Microsoft creating .NET and basing their new Longhorn OS on it, and Novell creating a free version of .NET specifically to run .NET apps on non-Microsoft platforms.
Can anyone guess what happens next? Anyone?
Novell, you had a good run. We shall miss you.
maybe now i'll be able to convince my employer to switch!
|plastic....or gasoline?|
At the moment, MS is in the top position with the tech and the money and the market share to dictate terms to almost everyout out there in the business community / Enterprise sector.
Mono is a step in the right direction ( various Querries about the legal viability of mono still being an issue ). A good c# platform on Linux will encourage a lot more of the enterprise sector adapters to think about Linux in a positive frame of mind - and might even encourage cross platform development. ( apart from QT there isnt really any alternative at this time ).
However for the Open Source community to really achieve something great and be able to lead 'from the front' - we need to innovate, create better and more adaptable technologies not just play 'follow the leader'. Some people might say that we need to catch up first before we can lead, well - Mono should help in the catchup situation - but then what ?
Are there enough people thinking, developing and colaborating about where to go from there ?
Actually I think that .NET has a very long way to go before it comes close to being an alternative to Java.
.NET wrappers for old COM stuff.
The biggest problem I've had with C# development is that many standard classes are declared final, which means they can't be sub-classed. I assume what has happened is that MS has taken short-cuts and has simply written
Free Firefox news reader.
At the rate that Microsoft is applying for patents, I can imagine Microsoft being in a position like SCO--except with evidence on Microsoft's side.
It seems like a lose/lose situation for GNU/Linux. If Mono doesn't catch on then it will be tough for the free desktop to compete with Longhorn. If, however, Mono does catch on and becomes a major development backbone for GNU/Linux, then we risk having Microsoft Intellectual Property embedded deep within a lot of free software projects.Maybe now, MS has a strong interest to promote the .NET platform, but when (or if) it has reached a certain market penetration, what keeps them from changing the protocols (or whatever-- I'm not into this thing) every few months?
Or, if this dosn't help, declare it's all copyright protected and sue Mono? DMCA, anyone? Or at least prevent them from continuing their work?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the guys at Ximian have done great work, but you can't trust Microsoft. This is not MS-bashing, this is a lesson many companies have learned in the past-- learned the hard way.
I don't need a signature.
and I will say it 1000 more times if necessary. Mono should not in any way associate itself with the term ".NET". I think it is a worthy project and a great effort, but it is incredibly irresponsible and stupid to use the ".NET" moniker.
.NET is a marketing term. If Mono wants to say that it is an open source implementation of the CLR/C#, FINE! That's what it is. However, what Mono is doing would be as if Wine called itself an "Open Source implementation of Windows".
.NET is cross platform, but I would argue it's just as cross-platform as if people were like "there's wine, see, Windows is cross platform!" That is my gripe, and I will continue until Miguel et all STOP CALLING MONO AN OPEN SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION OF .NET!!!!!!!!!!!
Simply put,
It is even worse, because it gives the impression that
You might also want to check out MonoDevelop v0.3 which was released to take advantage of new features in Mono Beta1. .NET development in Linux and rival VS.NET in Windows.
While it's not quite up to the task of stable work yet, it will become a great IDE for
But wait until 'Longhorn' comes out, and watch those Microsoft legal storm troopers pound poor little Mono into the ground. Or the 'compatibility' of Mono hit a brick wall faster than you can say 'General Public License'. Or both. Probably both, as a matter of fact.
/. the other day on the Longhorn patents that Microsoft is very busily filing... Something like 5 or 6 per day. Of course, right now, they are playing nice with Mono... But make no mistake: .NET and C# are Microsoft properties, and they are not very well known for letting others use their little toys.
.NET has filled its purpose -- which, let us be honest, is to destroy Java -- it will either get dumped like a hot potato or it will become another patent-protected, 'sign on the dotted line with your blood and give us your firstborn child', closed source heap of MS trash.
Think I am joking? There was an article on
Ask the Samba team how much support they got from Microsoft. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. At one point, with every new Windows release, Microsoft was actually actively introducing incompatibilities with Samba. And Longhorn is supposed to be end of Samba.
What makes you think they will play fair with Mono? Nothing. Once
These are my 0.02 US$, but I'd really like people to tell me why Mono is such a great thing...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Because it is a syntax error. Sorry guys. I didn't resist ;)
I heard in some news that Microsoft is applying something like 10 patents a day. You could say that all that effort in acquiring patents is just for psychological effect, but should they change their mind...
Beta 1.0 is currently only available as packages for RedHat 9, Fedora Core 1, SuSE, SLES and as an installer for Windows - there currently isn't an OS X installer or .pkg as the story seems to imply. Infact, there doesn't ever seem to have been a packaged release of Mono for OS X.
The Mono status on the front page says that there is a JIT but no Interpreter currently for OS X. It seems that OS X users should compile from source if they want to use Mono...
When Microsoft finally bites the dust or finally changes its business model to adapt to the times (when, not if), that won't be anything to worry about. And all those .NET-specific XML files will still be plain text, easy enough to read and convert... which means people stuck with legacy .NET techology and software won't be stuck. They'll have a relatively easy way to move away from that technology.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
The write up says "Mono allows .NET applications to run on Linux, Mac OS X, Unix, Windows."
The FAQ page says:
"Question 52: What operating systems does Mono run on?
Mono is known to run on Linux, Unix and Windows systems. "
Then later they admit to running on FreeBSD:
"Question 54: What architectures does Mono support?
Mono today ships with a Just-in-Time compiler for x86, PowerPC and SPARC-based systems. It is tested regularly on Linux, FreeBSD and Windows (with the XP/NT core)."
Someones doing a VB Compiler in Mono
that would be an interesting thing should it ever produce binary compatibles.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
This is different: it's the kernel of the project.
Aka 'mono-nucleus'.
When Microsoft finally bites the dust or finally changes its business model to adapt to the times (when, not if), that won't be anything to worry about.
you open sourcers and your naivete are SO cute
I haven't enabled all experimental features but winelib support is there. I'd like to hear some feedback for it.
You probably read it here.
It gets interesting now, though. This guy at eWeek has a theory that MS is putting all it has onto Longhorn to steamroll Linux.
If that's the case, then projects like Mono (or anything that consolidates and professionalises Linux) takes a larger sense of importance and urgency (well, kind of: MS won't release Longhorn for another decade or so...)
Why would I want to run an M$ .net or any other M$ app on my Linux box??
Name me ONE good reason why I would need to do that...
One of the things that MS promised with .NET was that it would do first-runtime compiling to native machine code optimized to each individual machine. No need to set flags for processors, etc. However, I am not sure much of this has actually been implimented on the Windows side of things.
.NET exe and dll files are called "assemblies" and are basically java style byte-code. The first time one is used, it is compiled by the framework, and the machine code is cached for all future uses. The DLL remains intact with the byte code (or IL), and the next time it is changed a recompile occurs. The cached machine code can be, at compile time on each individual machine, optimized for the config and hardware of that machine.
.NET app (with C# in my case) and build it on my Windows machine, then take those exe and dll files and copy them to Linux, AIX, Mac, etc, etc. I know the Java crowd is going to say they are already cross-platform. But an OPEN SOURCE platform like Mono could really turn .NET into a very cool, cross platform tool where the code could be optimized for each config. There is a lot of potential here.
;-)
It would be nice if the open source community could take Mono and optimize for various chips and cards. As you may or may not know,
It would be great if I could write a
I could see Novell optimizing for one particular distro
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
A much better option for Linux development than Mono is SWT, from IBM. It leverages all the power of Java, but replaces Swing with a new GUI library that is both great from a performance standpoint, and 100% free as in speech and beer. Not only that, it allows access to all sorts of native stuff if you want it in a way that is much better than .NET even. Eclipse is an unbelievable IDE that blows VS.NET out of the water, and is on its way to surpassing Emacs in the hearts of developers.
Let's put it this way, you can write 100% free applications with GCJ, and there is even a way to compile Java applications for Windows that don't need a JVM installed to run!!!
http://thisiscool.com/gcc_mingw.htm
This is great! I've had to turn down a few customers because I cant run .NET applications on my web hosting, this will give me that ability! Perfect!
-Imidazole2
It is great to see that the Open Source community "innovates"!
You need to install an RTFM interface.
Is there a point? It is my understanding you can't develop cross-platform applications with MONO yet (well for Windows anyway). I guess people can learn C# on linux. Tell me if I'm wrong, I know you want to...
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
Thanks for the link... .NET platform with copyprotected parts? This way they could slowly make the Mono-made software incompatible. .NET Xtreme Platform (C) but if you use Mono, you'll be locked out... /. in a few months advising just that. I wouldn't be surprised.
Yet, what keeps MS from extending the
On the MS side, simply re-compile your stuff and it will run under the new, improved
I'm probably paranoid.
But maybe we read about a secret MS strategy email on
I don't need a signature.
can you spell delphi.net?
it is MUCH better than visual studio (which is neither innovative nor brilliant)
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
I know this is slightly off topic, but I can't believe that when Dot Net came out, all the hosting companies with blah.net domain names didn't get together and do SOMETHING about M$ appropriating what is essentially part of the branding of many companies. .net domain is running their code on their servers!
With M$ Dot Net technology out there, it's as if any
Open source .NET IDE:
And I ask this question as a recent graduate with a degree in MIS/CIS who's only real development expertise is in the .NET framework? I'm all about open source and I use nothing but Linux at home, but at my place of work I double as a sys admin and a developer of online webforms using microsoft OS's and languages exclusively. Does the release of mono now give me the ability to port my web apps over to Linux servers using apache? Do I now have a development environment similar to Visual Studio or Web Matrix for the Linux platform? The big question though, is mono going to be beneficial for me to try and learn to use over the long term?
It was actually the first of two beta's so it would be the gamma release? :) Anyway, it's whatever they say it is--from my experience, Mono apps on Windows (SharpDevelop) look pretty damn good, run fast enough and the language seems to be elegant. Even if Microsoft tries to kill .NET's portability, Project Mono may grab mindshare of programmers with massive support for GNOME via C#.
The ECMA spec or Microsofts implementation? No, they are not the same. Microsoft have addd functions to some classes.
> I know the Java crowd is going to say they are already cross-platform. But an OPEN SOURCE platform like Mono could really turn .NET into a very cool, cross platform tool where the code could be optimized for each config.
I was under the impression that the likes of Kaffe and Blackdown JRE were OPEN SOURCE. Was I wrong?
The .net framework specs are open to implemintations, there is a "Open Source" (Non-Comercial Use) version of .net framework from MS Shared Source Common Language Infrastructure. I don't think MS will want to stop things like Mono, essentialy Mono is giving MS software bigger target market.
Were you trying to imply that a RAND license is somehow compatible with GPL? Even Royalty-Free, which is a small subset of RAND not, is frequently not compatible with GPL, and RAND usually means with royalties of about any possible size (which can be zero, but there is no reason to believe it will be). RAND does not mean that the royalties will be reasonable to you or most developers who need to use it.
Is SWT free, so that it can be distributed with GCJ?
All Mono had to do was get it working.
:-/
Microsoft, on the other hand, had to think about the future.
In everything Microsoft does, they have to think about questions like:
- How can we make this work better for us than for anyone else?
- What hooks can we add so we can torpedo our competitors later?
- How can we make this seem cross-platform, while really tying it to Windows and Palladium?
- What can we do here to tie it to a Microsoft patent?
And so on.
Those extra considerations really slow a project down, but it's worth it. Just look at Microsoft's bank balance.
I'm curious about the camparison.
.net apps are running on win2003 on new hardware therefore gaining significantly from improved memory speed, scsi speed, cpu speed, multithreading, etc., whilst most java apps are running on existing platforms?
Could it be that most
Not trolling, so please correct me if i'm wrong, but have their ever really been like for like comparisons?
At least as close as you can get a like for like between two distinctly different technologies.
"goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?" - AC
I assume that most Linux distributions will rollout Mono out of the box, but has there been any distributions that actually confirmed that Mono will be part of their distribution? Which version of the outcomming distributions will come with Mono?
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
...would you like to come in?
The only difference between a "defensive" patent portfolio and an "offensive" patent portfolio is that they haven't used the patents offensively yet.
FAT patents anyone?
--
Simon
Seriously, with the way things are going in the DMCA world, and with Microsoft patenting everything that isn't moving, how long before Microsoft comes out and stops this?
Since they own the rights to the underlying standard, ( if i remember right, it was patented early on, not just copyrighted ) they can reach out and slap Mono down..
Currently its in their best interest to let the project continue, to get more programmers on board to corrupt more people, and OSS projects.
But how much longer i wonder.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Who documented an 800% performance increase by switching from Java to
What components/technologies did the Java application and the
while (!asleep()) sheep++
Some how I found this to be funny....
It appears that Microsoft's new line of propaganda, when it comes to Mono, is to emphasize "compatibility with .Net."
.Net version 2.
.Net is a secondary goal, and one that is unlikely to be fully achieved. They know that Microsoft will lie, change the rules, keep some things secret, and so on. Also, the Mono developers refuse to tie Mono to Microsoft's Internet services. That, if nothing else, is an obvious difference from Microsoft's own .Net, which "strongly encourages" the use of those services, especially Microsoft's authentication services.
.Net that will allow Windows developers to switch to Linux. Think of the relationship of Mono to .Net, as being similar to the relationship of GCC to Visual C.
.Net secret and patented, but Mono doesn't use those parts.
.Net were developed in Borland, and Microsoft gained those concepts when they hired away large numbers of Borland personnel, including the original creator of Delphi. This is similar to the way that Microsoft hired a VMS development team in order to create Windows NT. Thus, while Microsoft itself may be too centrally controlled (by Gates et al) to allow much creativity, they have always been able to copy or buy good ideas from elsewhere.
That way, it puts the focus back on Microsoft, and it makes Mono seem like a runner up. It also acts as a set up for future propaganda, when full compatibility is not achieved, and when Microsoft changes the compatibility rules in
You can see the propaganda reflected in timothy's lead for the story. That's not to say that timothy is part of it -- after all, he may simply have been affected by the propaganda himself.
But Mono developers have always stated that compatibility with Microsoft's
On the contrary, Mono has always stated that their purpose is to provide a C# development environment for Linux (an enhanced environment, in fact, considering its support for Java and other languages). This has two benefits:
1. C# is a good programming environment, providing a good object model, multi-language support, and so on. For some types of development, it provides solutions that were previously lacking on Linux.
2. Even if it's not fully compatible, Mono provides an alternative to Microsoft's
As to the patents concern, Mono developers have stated from the beginning that they are avoiding anything that smacks of being patented/patentable, and are sticking to the open and documented C# Standard. Microsoft went through the standards process for C# in order to give the illusion that they intended C# to be cross platform. Microsoft never intended anyone to call their bluff, and actually create an alternative C# platform, but Mono did. Of course, Microsoft kept the network services and authentication parts of
As to the fact that C# appears to be a good design, that shouldn't surprise us. According to the rumor, the original concepts for
Anyway, that's enough rambling. Congratulations to the Mono development team.
What really concerns me is that MS may actually be waiting patiently and allowing mono to become stable and inturn, allowing developers to invest considerable time and effort into developing apps that use it. Once companies have an infrastructure and vested financial interest in the architecture and applications, it will be prime time to pull out the patents and do exactly what sco is trying to do, only for real.
If someone isn't paying VERY close attention to those patents MS is filing, mono could do massive damage to the open source community.
The Mono project is huge, and looks like it is very close to becoming production ready.
.NET generated so much interest in the Open Source community? Java has been around forever, and hyped beyond belief, yet for all the talk about needing an open-source java vm and class libraries, it looks like open-source .NET is further along than open-source Java in much less time!
What I have been wondering, however, is why
Can anyone offer any insight? Is it because most people considered the Java license 'good enough' and didn't bother re-implementing it, while Rotor was so restrictive that a re-implementation was necessary?
Here's a tip for tech companies, then: make your software so proprietary open-source developers have to reimplement it to use it, thereby assuring the dominance of your technology!
with mono u have true x-platform for win and linux so why needs java? this is the power of open source. sun keeps java close source and DIES! phear teh penguin!
Only until the point that some one stands up in front of an honest judge (if they still exist) and claims that any fee is discriminatory to the vast army of open source developers.
I've tried getting Mono 0.31 running under OS X 10.3.3. I downloaded the Boehm GC, everything seemed to build okay, but when I tried mcs (running on the mint interpreter, not the not-ready-for-primetime-PPC-JIT) on a simple "Hello, world" app a System.NullReferenceException gets thrown:
Looks like something is fundamentally screwy to me. Has anyone had success with Beta 1 on OS X?
They are shipping both CLS and Microsoft compatible implementations. The basic idea is that new applications for Linux can use CLS plus the Mono stack (i.e., UNIX/Linux intended assemblies, like gtk-sharp, various DB libraries, POSIX wrappers, etc) and legacy or cross-platform apps can use the Microsoft stack (Windows.*, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, etc).
;-)
For example, a GNOME app written in C# for Mono would not use the Microsoft stack at all. So even if Microsoft broke/changed/patented the Microsoft (non-ECMA) stack, that would have zero effect on the tons of Open Source/Free Software apps developed using the ECMA and Mono assemblies. Thus, Mono provides both a great set of languages (C# and anything else that can run on the CLR), a good solid runtime (Mono+CLR stacks), an efficient and cross platform interpreter and JIT/AOT compilers, and so on.
The only thing Microsoft can kill is Microsoft compatibility. Which really isn't all that interesting to most FOSS developers.
> What I have been wondering, however, is why .NET generated so much interest in the Open Source community? Java has been around forever, and hyped beyond belief, yet for all the talk about needing an open-source java vm and class libraries, it looks like open-source .NET is further along than open-source Java in much less time!
.Net framework, C#) fills a slightly different niche, with its strong emphasis on multi-language support. This is attractive for developers who already have a lot of code written in other languages.
.Net, and the discussion over strategy for preventing a Microsoft Internet monopoly, and you get a lot of buzz factor.
I can understand why you might have that impression, but I don't think it's true.
I think both Java and Mono have a place on Linux.
Java provides an excellent cross platform language and runtime environment. In terms of number of job listings, it is currently the most popular languge used in business, having surpassed C/C++. And Java is well supported on Linux -- there are Open Source JVMs, the GCC supports Java bytecodes, and the Sun Java Desktop Linux distribution is finding a lot of support.
Mono (i.e. the
Of course, other languages can also be compiled to Java butecodes, but that aspect of Java has never been emphasized much, so it didn't really mature.
Java is good for downloadable Internet applets, though Microsoft has used their control of the PC desktop to stunt Java's growth in that area, by sabotaging the compatibility of the Java clients (i.e. "polluting" Java with J++, then removing Java support altogether).
C# can also be used for Internet applets, and Microsoft will try to use their desktop control to ensure C#'s success in that area. Microsoft intended to have a monopoly in that area, but that may not happen now with Linux and Mono as an alternative.
So I think both Java and Mono/C# have roles to play, and I think they will both succeed.
As to your suggestion that Mono/C# may be gaining greater interest on Linux than Java, I think that is a false perception.
Instead, I think it is simply that Mono/C# currently has more buzz factor...
I think that Java is simply accepted, and growing quietly. As I said, the popularity and support are both there.
Mono/C#, on the other hand, is very controversial, being a Microsoft-originated technology. Thus, it makes the headlines. Add to that the Microsoft propaganda, the Microsoft-forced "success" for
Overall, I would say not to worry. In its usual open, free-market style, Linux is trying all possible avenues to success. And it will succeed, even if we can't predict the exact mix of technologies for the future.
It's funny laugh
Another OSS project that is a clone of something Microsoft did, while the community bitches about Microsoft.
10 Bitch about something Microsoft did.
20 Clone it like hypocrites.
30 Goto 10.
Is there a single original thought in the entire OSS community? The power of volunteers the world over, and we make a clone of UNIX, then we make a clone of Windows on top of it. Nice.
Please note that SWT is available for MONO/.NET, too! It is part of #Develop. In fact the IDE uses SWT too be platform independent.
Please also note that the parent is wrong in comparint SWT with Emacs. SWT is only a toolkit. The Eclipse IDE, which is indeed light years ahead of everything else available today, also runs on top of MONO/.NET.
However, the parent is right that Eclipse does not yet support a good C# mode which supports standard techniques such as delta-compilation, live compilation during debugging, refactoring etc. This is currently only possible in the java mode. But this isn't a problem because MONO/.Net is language agnostic, you can write java code and execute the code within MONO, there is no need to write in C#.
> http://thisiscool.com/gcc_mingw.htm
Sorry, but due to the thread problem, gcj on windows is unusable for real world apps.
Even Boehm's gc does have issues in this environment
I would love to use linux on a daily basis, but can't because I actually make a good living in the MS world.
Mono is the enabler for me, and most likely many others, to take that step.
Why must you guys fight this kind of stuff? You sit here and advocate Linux all day long, and then whine when something comes out that not only will bring TONS of users to your platform, but gives YOU more options in your coding.
Slashdot group frenzy is all too funny sometimes.
Free, full featured IDE from.....MS
I have this (now open-source) source of a VB program I'm trying to convert to Java. Right now I get difference in calculations on same input. It would have helped me a lot if I could single-step through the original code. Would Mono (with mbas) as it is now allow me to do that? I tried to compile the VB program with the mbas of Debian unstable and so far failed miserably.
Hmm. Ximian plans to release Mono 1.0 on June 30, 2004, while the U. S. Government plans to release Iraq 2.0 on the same day. Coincidence? You decide!
Mono is supposed to support ASP.NET, so theoretically, you should be able to port your app. In practice, I don't know how far along this is, or how difficult it is to "port" it.
Monodevelop is a Mono version of Sharpdevelop, an IDE similar to VS (yay, intellisense!). It is still very early in development, so I doubt you would want to use it on production software.
Right now, I'd say that you should hold off on Mono because it's still very young. Remember it, and keep an eye on it, because I think this project is going to "turn the corner" real soon.
The VB and ASP.NET aspects of it have gained my attention. Too bad they still lag behind what Microsoft has. If they develop more of it, I may try to develop for it when the VB and ASP.NET parts are done enough to be useful.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
This is why the binary is called "kava" and not java.
I used Kaffe for a project, and found it to be quite stable.
My only gripe was that the project wasn't keeping up with the latest versions of Java. Some of the work in later versions of Java made a LOT of coding easier (SSL, Encryption, Networking, etc). For a while I was able to get around it by developing & compiling on one system, moving over the jar file & executing under kava, which worked fine until late in 1.3.x.
It was for FreeBSD and not Linux, and perhaps the linux version was more up-to-date.
OT: Happy Cinco de Mayo. (Cinco de Mayo)
> Slashdot is dead. As long as you post here, not
I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
fir mono to be finished MS has released the source for its .net system (command line only). You can download it here. then type make to build it on your favorite OS. Just as opensource, just as free.. who would have thought that would happen?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
.NET seems to be a nice development platform and all, but the one thing I've never seen the point of is Microsoft developing Windows Longhorn using .NET. The whole point of .NET was cross-platform compatability right? Last time I checked, Windows only ran on x86. Am I missing something?
everyday is another shooter.
From this story:
"Non-discriminatory" means everyone pays the same thing, not that someone doesn't want to pay.
Patent licenses are incompatible with the GPL because the GPL explicitly makes them incompatible. That's the choice of the GPL developer, not the company with the patents.
Besides, Mono is Ximian is Novell. There's something that could be worked out, esp with an anti-trust judge twisting MS's arm to licence their tech.
the standards bodies require fair and non-discriminatory licensing of any and all IP associated with standards.
So-called "reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing" isn't.
Add a generic term behind it: .net framework
where is the open source cross platform java VM?
> 1) Students can learn most of J2EE in half a .Net guest taught
.NET programming in half a semester of a 3h course, so the fact that your colleague is incompetent is irrelevant to this discussion.
.Net was easier for the students to create .Net
.Net is only easier if you use the non-MVC
.Net occassionally, so I would be .Net.
x
> semester of a 3h course (up to Message Driven
> Beans) with difficulty. The
> only dynamic website creation driven from a DB.
You're comparing two lecturers, not two programming platforms. I can teach your students most of
> 2)
> simple dynamic web sites, but they didn't have
> the restriction of asynchronous processing of
> requests. In the real world, the
> applications they wrote would have required
> more than twice the horsepower.
That's utter rubbish of course. Making silly claims like 'it requires more than twice the horsepower' without backing it up is not something I would expect from a lecturer (with professional experience, I assume).
> 3)
> graphical development tools. Think front-page
> style generated html that hardly works in most
> browsers, and definately doesn't pass any kind
> of standards.
There's nothing in the runtime that's keeping you from using the MVC pattern in your (web-)applications. In fact, searching in Google for '"Model View Controller" C#' returns thousands of helpful hits.
You mention struts, but struts isn't exactly part of J2EE, or is it? Fact is that most companies wouldn't touch struts with a ten-foot pole because of the same reason most companies prefer WebLogic over JBoss.
> I have to use
> very much interested in some book
> reccomendations and some pointers to making a
> real database driven application, web or
> otherwise, in
It's not a book of course, but take a look at Microsoft's pet shop: http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/compare/petshop.asp
Actually... Scott McNealey would have to use the patents... .NET falls under most of the Java VM patents.
Somewhat true but, unfortunately, irrelevant.
Sun and Microsoft Settle Litigation
Posted by michael on Fri Apr 02, '04 11:20 AM
from the I-guess-we-can-all-just-get-along dept.
spurious cowherd writes "According to The Register Sun Microsystems & Microsoft have reached a settlement in their several lawsuits against each other. Sun gets $2B and both parties agree to share intellectual property." There's a press release to read as well.
Also Update: Sun, Microsoft settle suit in billion-dollar pact