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."
We need interoprability with everything else to keep LINUX viable.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
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 ?
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.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
Care to explain why running VS.Net under Windows to compile a .net app "ain't half as productive" as running a beta CLS that doesn't emulate all APIs of .net and probably never will? Also, the "J2EE platform" is easy to use as it is, many people think it's easier than anything out there bar python scripts but perhaps you could qualify your opinion...
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
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?
.NET, because big business won't upgrade all their machines on the day the new version comes out, they'll want to spend a month or two evaluating it first.
Maybe something like "they don't want to piss off every single business in the world that uses MS software"? You can change the protocols on an IM client because IM clients are only used casually: you upgrade when a new version comes out because there's nothing mission-critical about it. You can't go breaking anything as fundamental as
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?
The worst they can possibly do is force Mono to stop supporting System.Windows.Forms, and it's not clear that they could even do that. Microsoft can't do jack-shit about Mono using C# or the CLR, because those are international standards, and the standards bodies require fair and non-discriminatory licensing of any and all IP associated with standards. That means Microsoft have to permit anyone to implement them.
If you want to play the reasonable onlooker, please get clued up first. Splashing out with the usual FUD that we've seen - and had demolished - in every single Slashdot article on Mono is MS-bashing, whatever you like to think.
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...
You're a liar. He isn't. Big difference...
Why it's here... ROTOR
What's the matter? Cat got your tongue?
ROTOR is a toy. It has zero support and does not include basics like ASP.NET or WinForms.NET.
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
C# and the CLR/CLS are documented open standards, certified by ECMA. In fact, for v2.0 Microsoft had to submit their planned changes to C# to be approved by ECMA.
Secondly, there is no such thing as a "compatibility" issue with the CLR. Old versions of classes/assemblies/interfaces continue to run side-by-side with the newer versions. If Microsoft makes a breaking change, it won't hurt existing implementations and applications.
Besides - everyone always overlooks that the CLR + Base Class Libraries (WinFX) are THE supported API for Longhorn. This means if Microsoft fiddles with anything, it hurts their own apps AND their 3rd party developers.
This isn't like the CIFS where only Microsoft deals with it; this is the API which everyone has to use. They are two totally different beasts. Microsoft never said CIFS was an open protocol and never promised it would stay stable. But they have delivered on the CLR+C# being a documented system and they do promise it will be stable.
There is absolutely positively no way to "harm" mono unless Microsoft shoots themselves and all their 3rd party developers in the foot (and those developers writing hordes of applications is what gives Windows its staying power - not something lightly abandoned).
As for the patent issue, we discussed this already. It is what is called a "defensive" patent portfolio. We've already seen Microsoft get submarined by little companies coming along and claiming patents on things like browser plugins. You think that won't bring Mozilla down too? Think again.
Microsoft is patenting anything/everything so no one can come along and try to shoot them down with insane obvious patents later. This is a result of a broken patent system and we all know that.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
You're trolling, right? I'll bite.
.net on your current platform. Idem for AIX, HP-UX. Bottom line: there is more need for changing your entire platform when you use .net.
.NET (...)
.net framework is by no means covered under that standard. It is Microsoft proprietary stuff. When Microsoft uses that load of patents agains mono you are once again locked in by your vendor.
(...) change your entire platform as you do for Java (...)
If you have a Sun shop, you can use java on your existing platform. Idem for AIX, HP-UX, Microsoft, linux. If you have a Sun shop, you cannot use
Also, ironically with the ECMA standards for
Wake up: the ECMA standard covers c# only. The
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
I've never found fragile base-classes to be a problem in Java, where it's a lot easier to override a method than in C#. In Java, by default all methods are virtual, and therefore can be overridden. In C#, however, a method has to be explicitly declared to be virtual before it can be overridden by a derived class.
It is generally much better to favour composition over inheritance unless a class specifically documents that it is intended to be subclassed - eg/ abstract classes.
I think that you're wrong here. There shouldn't be any reason at all to favour composition over inheritance, or vice-versa. Both approaches are equally valid, depending upon the circumstances.
In college, many moons ago, I was taught a simple rule for determining whether to use composition or inheritance:
Always favouring composition over inheritance harks back to the dark days of COM, where inheritance was a no-no.
Um. Throughout time that has been considered Good Development... by every language for every purpose. Even MS's MSDN tech articals and teching try to tell you to develop .Net apps this way. No big project uses ASP.NET data bound controls. They are slow and tie your data layer DIRECTLY into your presentation layer, ruining future expansion totally. Doesn't mean you CAN"T do it though.
J2EE is the same way. Nobody is forcing you to use more than JSP and JDBC on the same page, but doing so is pretty fucking stupid. :)
Who documented an 800% performance increase by switching from Java to
What components/technologies did the Java application and the
while (!asleep()) sheep++
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.
Patience. Some of these slashdot kids, they have a long standing genetic hatred of Microsoft, leading back to high school when gangs of Microsoft employees used to shake them down for their modem money. Even the things Microsoft does right are wrong in their eyes. Only time will heal the intolerance.
.NET in particular)
(Incidentally, in a company with as many employees as Microsoft, there's bound to be a number of really great ideas that sneak through the layers of paralyzing marketing like background radiation escaping from a black hole. It has been my experience over the past three years that all of the great ideas that have achieved escape velocity have been formed in the belly of the developer's network, and
Hey freaks: now you're ju
MS XML is really proprietry code. Look at that proprietry code. Oh wait it looks like any other xml document.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
10 Bitch about something Microsoft did.
20 Clone it like hypocrites.
30 Goto 10.
You're forgetting that the people who "clone" and the people who bitch are usually not the same persons.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Apparently you don't actually use Eclipse/GTK on Linux.
The performance is abysmal.
Eclipse/Motif is much, much faster, but unfortunately it's Motif. On Windows, it absolutely rocks.
Until SWT's GTK performance is usable, it is not a viable alternative.