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."

Comments

Well done guys!

[supersnail]

We need interoprability with everything else to keep LINUX viable.

Re:Well done guys!

[TeJo]

Mono attempts to provide a viable alternative to Microsofts .NET stack. IIRC this is the first time opensource project has attempted to compete with Microsoft before the technology gets mainstream. .NET is will not be mainstream until longhorn comes out. It gives the Mono developers the time to get the stack that is not only complete but may be tested as well.

Mono and dotGNU guys are trying to take the wind out of Microsoft's sails for what could become a ubiquitous platform for developement (at least on windows).

Had opensource developers done this for Java we wouldn't need Sun's stewardship (being a coporation they did a fine job in that role, so no complains from me!).

Re:Well done guys!

[dasmegabyte]

I disagree with the parent's tone. Mr. Tejo seems to be acting like Mono is a competetive product that Microsoft is frightened of. I'd like to remind him that Microsoft created an industry standard for the core technologies used in the .NET platform. What the Mono project is doing is exactly what Microsoft wanted somebody to do.

Why? Well, I dunno. Maybe to appease the Monopoly watchdogs. Maybe to bury Sun (I picked C# over Java and haven't been let down yet). And maybe -- just maybe -- to make it easy to use Microsoft products on alternative hardware and alternative Operating Systems without Microsoft having to worry about supporting all the obscure Linux builds of the world.

Incidentally...I too like Sun's stewardship, but it existed despite a big clean room open source intiative to reproduce Java. I remember playing around with it in college to compile somebody else's object code into native code for faster execution (our mainframe was slowwwww and at the time, running Java was like a snail on a turtle's back).

Mono is a step in some direction....

[kbsingh]

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 ?

Intellectual Property Issues

[amitofu]

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.

I have said it once

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Simply put, .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".

It is even worse, because it gives the impression that .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!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Um, why??

[benjiboo]

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...

I'll name you a few.

Money has already been spent designing the application for windows.

Money has already been spent training users of the application.

There is a huge base of trained developers, administrators, documentation and off the shelf software available that could be leveraged on a cheaper Linux desktop.

More web applications are likely to incorporate web controls designed for .NET (cf XAML).

The MS alternatives to corresponding Linux apps are better/faster/more mature/more stable. (Either generally, or in a specific instance.)

That'll do for now.

Re:Sure, it's here now...

[rabtech]

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.

Microsoft's new propaganda line for Mono

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears that Microsoft's new line of propaganda, when it comes to Mono, is to emphasize "compatibility with .Net."

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 .Net version 2.

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 .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.

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 .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.

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 .Net secret and patented, but Mono doesn't use those parts.

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 .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.

Anyway, that's enough rambling. Congratulations to the Mono development team.