Mono Beta 2 Released

A little birdy writes "Less than a month after Beta 1 was released, Mono Beta 2 has been released. See the Release Notes, or go directly to the download page. It includes a C# compiler, an implementation of the Common Language Infrastructure and two stacks of APIs: a Unix, Linux, GNOME, Mono stack for APIs that takes the most advantage of your Unix server and desktop and a set of APIs compatible with the Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 that provides support for ASP.NET (web services and web forms), ADO.NET and many other components." And in a related story: darthcamaro writes "The drive to develop a FOSS implementation of Microsoft's .NET framework by DotGNU and Novell's Mono project is being painted as a contest between the Free and Open Source communities in an article on internetnews.com. The article details the running argument between DotGNU's Norbert Bollow and Mono's Miguel de Icaza on the issues of commercial involvement, software patents and all the 'religious' stuff that the Free software community holds against the open source community."

Comments

What applications are there

[barcodez]

Does anyone know of any significant applications developed using the Mono Linux API stack yet?

Also will the applications I write with this stack work on Windows?

Re:What applications are there

[NanoGator]

"If I maximize the window, I want the toolbar to stay the same size, but the text area to get bigger... just scaling everything won't work."

I don't think he meant rescale in lieu of resize. No reason why you couldn't have both. The simple fact of the matter is that you need your toolbars at etc to be resolution independent.

Re:What applications are there

[metamatic]

Why, it's almost like .NET is designed as a trojan horse to get people to build supposedly multi-platform applications which actually depend on WIN32 APIs!

Re:What applications are there

[joeljkp]

"So, if you are writing a .NET application you are best advised to use GTK# - this is true even if you are writing a program meant for Windows..."

But won't your app just look like a GTK app, not a Win32 app? I despise things made with GTK on Windows, simply because they don't blend in to the look-and-feel I'm used to.

Java can re-use native widgets, so Java apps are becoming less of a problem.

Real-world examples of tangible benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to see an example of what this has enabled that can't be done with Microsoft's tools, even if it's just doing it for cheaper. I will never buy into this project based on the idea of interoperability. Look at the DOC format and how even slight inconsistencies can prevent other technologies from getting past .5% market share. Basically, if you want to support Microsoft and interoperate with Microsoft, you have to go the Microsoft Way.

So, I think the only chance for this project is if it produces tangible benefits beyond integration and support with Microsoft technologies on another platform. If this just enhances the Linux platform or turns into a platform itself, it may have a chance. However, once it becomes a platform, if you think MS won't try to demolish it the way it has done to every other platform, you are mistaken, especially since the project has shown no leadership and is essentially a clone of what MS is doing. Microsoft is still in the driver's seat, and given the attitude of Miguel, I doubt they can establish themselves as true *independent* leaders in the IT community, even if everything up until now has been an example of extreme bootstrapping and supporting things for highly strategic purposes only.

Supporting MS is a slippery slope, and before you know it, one decision to cater to MS technologies leads to fifty more, and all of a sudden, you have basically enhanced *their* platform and ensured your own long term destruction. These people that are rabidly anti-MS aren't just sour grapes party poopers. They are often astute observers. Every other person MS has reamed had the same idea before they got a taste of the wrath.

Re:Real-world examples of tangible benefits

[dekeji]

I would love to see an example of what this has enabled that can't be done with Microsoft's tools, even if it's just doing it for cheaper.

You can deploy your ASP.NET applications, developed with Microsoft tools, on cheap Linux server farms.

Look at the DOC format and how even slight inconsistencies can prevent other technologies from getting past .5% market share.

Problems with DOC compatibility are a network problem: you aren't there when the recipient's attempt to open your DOC file fails. However, even if Mono.NET isn't 100% compatible, since all the development is happening in house, you can fix it pretty easily.

If this just enhances the Linux platform or turns into a platform itself, it may have a chance.

Mono is that, too. In fact, Mono is two things: an entire environment for writing Gnome and Linux applications in C#, and an implementation of Microsoft's .NET platform. The two things are pretty much completely independent. One, or the other, or both may catch on.

Gnome desparately needs a better programming platform than C/C++, and Mono provides it.

However, once it becomes a platform, if you think MS won't try to demolish it the way it has done to every other platform, you are mistaken, especially since the project has shown no leadership and is essentially a clone of what MS is doing

Currently, Linux apps written in C/C++ are competing with Microsoft apps in C/C++, and Microsoft does whatever they do to compete. With Mono, Linux apps written in C# are competing with Microsoft apps written in C#, and Microsoft will still do whatever they do to compete, so nothing much changes.

One thing is for certain, howver: Linux apps written in C# are much more competitive with Microsoft apps written in C# than Linux apps written in C/C++. Developing apps in C/C++ is just way too much of a drag on any group of developers. Microsoft saw the light and moved on to something better, and it is high time that Linux developers do the same thing.

Re:Real-world examples of tangible benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the parent poster. Thanks for the information. I guess I'm saying I would drop the support for the Microsoft stuff.

Microsoft is in many ways successful. If you take away the predatory aspect of their business practices which I personally think are totally reprehensible and inexcusable, you will see an attitude that is some combination of "not invented here" plus "it doesn't matter until we do it". The good thing about that, is that it represents leadership in some way. They basically stay focused on the cool stuff they can do, and won't cater to other technologies that don't represent the greatest level of advancement of their own agenda.

Again, I think this can be taken too far, and they do, but why anyone would try to make life easier for Microsoft, I don't know. Maybe it's out of pity for the people that are stuck developing for their platform when even those people would really love to see a superior, open, stable, and powerful alternative. If those people wouldn't want that, then they have no vision and you are obligated to lead and not follow in that instance.

The problem is, the way to accomplish the creation of such an open platform is to focus on creating it significantly more than interoperating for the sake of pragmatism. Every single instance of that pragmatic attitude ensures that Microsoft will continue to have it's way and prevent true competition and the flourishing of tremendous creativity in the IT community.

Some people think they have to interoperate with Microsoft and continue to push the whole standards thing while Microsoft bastardizes every one of them they get their hands on just to take the higher road and set an example. Why don't you just lie down and make yourself a doormat at the gates of 1 Microsoft Way.

What I am proposing is to innovate and screw the standards the way Microsoft does, but not do it on purpose like Microsoft does. There is a lot of truth to the tension between innovation and standards. Then, once the innovation has occurred on the Linux platform first, let someone else work to create the standard with Linux as the defacto reference implementation.

So, if Mono wants to succeed, develop as many hooks and tie ins to the Linux stack as possible and refuse to support as many hooks into the MS stack as possible, not out of some anti-MS principle, but knowing that each effort to provide such a hook would be better spent developing another hook on Linux. That is how you establish leadership that other people, MS included, will be wise to follow.

That said, if this happens MS will likely flex its muscle against it. If you thought SCO was bad, wait until this happens with MS, regardless of the merits and whether a single MS product manager wrote something on a website. I wish it weren't so and the geek in me loves the idea of seeing some advanced tools on Linux that aren't available anywhere else for some time to come. That exclusivity and and first-run advantage is what has put and kept MS in the position it's in. Still, it would be great if such a thing occurred from the ground up in that manner. I understand true creativity is often a matter of discovery in addition to invention (such as with HTML) and it can't always happen that way, but it would just be so much greater if that creativity were coming from a group other than MS, if you value that creativity to such a level as you have demonstrated.

Any news about the patent review?

[mrright]

The only information that is needed for the success of mono is the following: are the relevant ECMA standards 334 and 335 and just RAND, or are they really RAND and royalty free as miguel and others have claimed?

If it is really RAND and royalty free, it will become my favorite development platform. Working with .NET is really very nice and productive. Microsoft will finally have made a valuable and lasting contribution to computer science.

If not, it is just another poisoned fruit by microsoft.
--

Re:C# compiler

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Anonymous Coward, did you write TreeCC?

What he is actually doing

[SuperKendall]

Here's what is actually happening. When companies are deciding on .Net or other technologies, these projects are held up as examples of how choosing .Net will not lock you into Windows. Then they go ahead with buying the Windows servers and developing the half working .Net app.

He may think he's giving companies choice to move to Linux. But what he is really doing is providing justification for choosing Windows.

Developers, Developers, Developers

[WombatControl]

This seems like a legitimate set of concerns, but I think the ability of Microsoft to change the game at this point is severely limited.

The reason why Microsoft can't radically alter .NET is because of the existance of legacy apps. The company I work for has thousands of man-hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars into our ASP.NET applications. Microsoft can't break these applications. The .NET API has to remain consistant or they'll lose that legacy application support and lose customers. The fastest way to piss off an IT department is to make a change that breaks their apps. Believe me, I know...

So, if Mono can get the .NET 1.1 standards done, they can support all those legacy apps with few changes. Even if/when Microsoft introduces some spiffy new libraries with .NET 2.0, businesses can still say "it's cheaper for us to get off the forced upgrade wagon and move to Mono as a platform for .NET and we can keep our legacy applications." Unless .NET 2.0 comes up with some massively useful new system, there isn't that strong a reason to upgrade.

Granted, Microsoft can still pull out a patent and try to shut Mono down, which remains a threat, but I don't see them as doing that. All Mono has to do is use that as a talking point - don't develop for .NET because of patent issues. This hurts Microsoft by slowing the adoption of .NET. The worst that happens is that Mono has to fall back on its own libraries, and given that things like Gtk# are useful on their own they still have something to show for their work.

The more I think about it, the more I think Mono is in a strong position. I'd be more worried about Microsoft unleashing a patent infringement case than I would about them changing the APIs to shut out Mono. If they did that, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

It's as if Linux were able to run all Win95 applications just as Windows 2000 was coming around. Yes, Windows 2000 was infinitely better than 95, but if you're a PHB and you have a choice of moving your legacy apps to an expensive proprietary system or a free open one, you're going to be more inclined to do the latter as it makes your bottom line better. Legacy app support is absolutely crucial and right now Mono can do something that not even Linux can do - support Microsoft-based legacy apps with a minimum of changes. That gives Mono a big advantage in the marketplace, and while it helps Microsoft move developers to .NET it also helps make Linux a more attractive platform for enterprise development, especially on the backend.

Re:Developers, Developers, Developers

[Flexagon]

Microsoft can't break these applications.

Are you serious, or in denial? There are precious few interfaces in this business that are so carefully and completely defined that they never change, or that are so absolutely backward compatible over time. (The ones that are, are a wonder to behold). For history, look at DOS to Win16 to Win32, or HTML support in IE, all claiming some measure of backward compatibility but with gaping holes. Look at the list of software that breaks when a major OS release comes out, or a service pack, or even a security update. Can you be absolutely certain that you're not depending on any undocumented or risky behavior (that may change later), or some interface that will be found to be a big security problem and have to be closed or changed, or a company with a long record of backward incompatibility (and there are many more than just Microsoft)? The better companies supply notice, tools and support to help deal with the changes, but changes there are, and you have to deal with them.

You can argue whether the primary reasons are conspiracies, innovation, or just thinking more clearly today than yesterday. But the result is the same. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:Developers, Developers, Developers

[goodviking]

The reason why Microsoft can't radically alter .NET is because of the existance of legacy apps. The company I work for has thousands of man-hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars into our ASP.NET applications. Microsoft can't break these applications.

Really? VB.net is not backward compatibile with VB6. How many millions of man hours were spent writing VB code that now has to be rewritten to play in .net? Microsoft is concerned with their own position. You will be screwed over insofar as you are still willing to buy the product, and it forwards their aims.

Re:Developers, Developers, Developers

[WombatControl]

Granted, specifications do change, but:

• In order to break Mono, Microsoft would have to break many apps using the current MS.NET implementations as well.
• This would require every .NET application to be rewritten to the new spec.
• If people are going to rewrite their applications they're going to be far more likely to switch to a new platform, especially if they've already migrated to an open platform with .NET.
• Legacy applications are a fact of life. There are tons of applications build for Win95 that are still used every day. Windows 98 still has considerable marketshare in the business world.
• Breaking legacy applications is a good way to go out of business, which is why Microsoft bends over backwards for compatibility wherever they can.

Businesses tend not to be early adopters. I still use Office 2000 at work. My boss uses Windows ME (ugh, I know...). Our apps are designed around ASP.NET 1.1 on the server side. If Microsoft started forcing us to upgrade everything, we'd have to tell them to kiss off. Our IT budget doesn't support forced upgrades. Believe me, we're not alone in that, and that's why Microsoft can't suddenly start breaking widely-used libraries to kill Mono - it would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:Developers, Developers, Developers

[Anonymous Coward]

Been there, done that, was almost driven out of business. -- Ray Noorda

Re:C# compiler

[albalbo]

Are you sure TreeCC is used for Mono?

It is on the same website as Portable.NET, the C# compiler for the Dot GNU project, not Mono.

Is the MONO project a ticking bomb?

[Eric Damron]

MONO is a very exciting concept. Having some degree of compatibility with Microsoft but with the current SCO-like strategies of litigating competition out of the picture and with the general feeling that Microsoft will use patents as a way of stifling it's biggest threat why should I feel good about the project?

Maybe someone can help me out here? What is going to prevent Microsoft from playing the patent card when it suits them?

Re:Is the MONO project a ticking bomb?

[RdsArts]

In like kind, I pose a question to you:

If patent problems exist, why go looking for them?

Could Python, Java, et al have patent problems? Maybe. Does Mono have patent problems? ABSOLUTELY. It is a known constant. The others are variables, they are wild-cards, they are unknowns.

So, at that point, it becomes a question of which is a lower risk. Anyone can see that a 1:x chance is a lot more less likely then a 1:1 chance.

Re:Is the MONO project a ticking bomb?

[Chester K]

What is going to prevent Microsoft from playing the patent card when it suits them?

Microsoft has never used a patent in that manner. Nor do most companies, actually -- patent portfolios are built more for defense than for offense. Making money out of patent litigation is something that fly-by-night vulture companies do, not blue chips like MSFT.

Second, Microsoft has much to lose themselves from shutting down Mono. They often point to Mono as an example of the flexibility and interoperability of their platform, and in fact they even have an interview with Miguel on MSDN to help convince developers of the same thing as well.

Microsoft would seriously have to be pinned against the ropes before they'd make such a desperate move. In fact, I'd be willing to venture that they'd embrace Linux wholeheartedly out of desperation before they'd resort to using patents in that manner.

Re:Is the MONO project a ticking bomb?

[Chester K]

So there is nothing preventing them from doing this. Are we are just hoping that they act like a grown-up, blue chip company?

Their legal commitment to their stockholders to keep their stock values as high as possible is preventing them from doing this. If Microsoft starts making acts of desperation, they'll be seen as a desperate company, and a desperate company's stock prices aren't as high as a well-off company.

While you could make the argument that that's no assurance they won't do it at all; I could point out that there's no assurance they wouldn't incite legal action against just about any open source project for any of the patents in their portfolio, since they have patents that cover just about everything.

And then there's also the fact that they gave up to ECMA what's arguably the part of .NET that would have benefited the most from patent protection, MSIL, which was very cleverly designed to JIT code as optimal as a native compiler would spit out from the same source (as opposed to say, Java's bytecode, which doesn't JIT very well at all due to the complexity of the opcodes, among other factors). The bulk of the Framework classes aren't really much more than a collection of well-known, pre-existing algorithms and concepts (there's not much patentable ground in regards to a String API, or a Stream API, etc.), so even if Microsoft did want to rattle the chains about Mono in that respect, they'd be fighting a weak stance -- they can't just intimidate Miguel de Icaza into giving up on Mono since Novell's got his back and enough money to stand up to Microsoft.

Where Microsoft is going to fight is on the integration with .NET into Windows itself. Longhorn will provide a managed API for everything, and the new features will only be exposed through managed APIs. Avalon and WinFX will make writing .NET apps even easier. They'll always be able to out-.NET Mono, but at the same time they'll reap the benefits of increased interoperability which they'll eventually try to use as leverage to get Windows into more server rooms -- the frontier that Windows is the minority in currently, and the only room for Microsoft to grow into.

That's why Microsoft's not going to take out Mono. That's why they're even plugging Mono on MSDN.

Please do not lie

[Anonymous Coward]

"We do support two stacks of APIs today in Mono: the Microsoft compatible stack..."

Please do not lie. Mono is partially compatible with MS stack and will never be fully compatible . That's a huge difference.

Re:Please do not lie

[miguel]

You are correct.

If we want to be 100% pure we will never be fully
compatible. But neither is .NET 1.1 100% compatible with the .NET 1.1 service pack 1.

Are we damn close? You bet. Are we exactly
the same? No.

Miguel.

Re:Please do not lie

[miguel]

Dude, if you fix a bug, and software depends on a bug, you are no longer compatible.

If you introduce a bug, and software depends on that, but its not on the earlier version, you also introduced an incompatibility.

workable stack?

[BigGerman]

So if I am to start developing a new desktop GUI application, what should I use to make it cross platform? And don't say "java" or "wxwindows".
It cannot be C#, Windows Forms combination because Mono does not have real support for Windows Forms yet.
Would I be able to package GTK# in some kind of installable form for distribution on Windows so I can do C#, GTK# on Mono? Is this the right way to think about this?
Can I use Visual Studio to develop Mono, GTK# applications?

Re:C# compiler

[CommandNotFound]

...from your description, it sounds like TreeCC is the work of engineering genius, not the C# compiler.

Diversity

[ChaoticCoyote]

I've written free, open, and closed software; I've accepted money from companies big and small, and I've also been paid to work on non-commercial free projects. I try, very hard, to be an agnostic when it comes to conflicts of religion -- such as the debate of Windows vs. Linux, or KDE vs. Gnome, of C# vs. Java. Tools are tools, and it is how they are used that matters.

And given that case, I do not like how Gnome is being used. Money drives everything, so Novell's involvement only bothers me when I consider their past history of screwing up good things like WordPerfect.

Foremost among my concerns is how Mono can be used as a wedge by Microsoft; if they can not "beat" free software with legal trickery (e.g., SCO), they can slip behind the lines via involvement in Linux via proxies. Microsoft has proven itself untrustworthy, in my personal dealings with them as well as their highly-publicized run-ins with anti-trust law.

I'm not against .NET or C#; I've written some C# code, just as I've written Java and C++ and Python and Fortran and COBOL over the years. I dislike proprietary standards (like .NET and Java) because they trap people, limiting choices and input form the community at large. Give me the chaos of C and C++ over the corporate machinations of C# and Java; I will accept a bit of chaos if my tools can evolve based on conceptual and community diversity.

'religious' stuff

[dijjnn]

The article details the running argument between DotGNU's Norbert Bollow and Mono's Miguel de Icaza on the issues of commercial involvement, software patents and all the 'religious' stuff that the Free software community holds against the open source community.

You know, it's funny, but all things considered i've noticed more ire coming from open source people towards free software people than the other way around. I've heard at least seventeen thousand rants on slashdot regarding the 'utter flaming stupidity' or 'rotten worthlessness' of RMS, but very few free software 'zealots' as they're so often called blasting the open source community for their beliefs, or lack therof. I've never heard anyone on slashdot call Linus a wanker.

why is that?

i'll tell you why, it's actually very simple. open source advocates are hobbyists at heart. It's true. even if your job, career, whatever focuses on OSS, you're almost inevetably doing it because you enjoy playing with computers. And i mean that in the most positive way; i enjoy playing with computers, i think they're very fun and interesting things. But the software... doesn't really matter as long as you can play with it and do something interesting -- usually meaning that you can see the code. but either way, you're good, as long as there's something interesting to mess around with.

Free Software 'zealots', on the other hand, are not hobbyists, they are activists. They want to change things for the better. They are very serious, and operate on principle, not interest. That is why they don't flame the slashdot trolls, because the real FS guys -- they're to busy trying to enact permenant change for the better.

So, the next time anyone (you) talks about, 'oh, the free software people are such a bunch of zealots, i wish they would just calm down'... i hope they think about that ire and from whence it really comes. And then i hope they tell me, because i don't know -- i wish i did. What i do know, is that you're mad, but it's not me you should be mad at.

Re:Benchmark: Mono vs. Java vs. C++/C

[Decaff]

Funny, I've never seen Java perform anywhere close to the speed of C and C++ and that benchmark is quite believable.

This would definitely have been the case 4 or 5 years ago, before hotspot compiling. Java was then typically 10%-20% of the speed of compiled C++, but there is good reason why Java should be pretty much the same speed as C++: All good Java VMs now produce not just native code at runtime, but highly optimised native code resulting from profiling analysis. Java 1.5 even caches the native code to disk, so you are running a pre-compiled binary the next time you start an application - there is no interpretation phase.

I use Java for numerical work and have found that some math routines run up to 10% faster (on the IBM VM) than the same code compiled with optimisation using GCC.

disagree

[dfghjk]

You don't have to look to hard to find FS rantings. Just look at the FSF's pompous, obtuse description of the difference between FS and OS or RMS's silly rant on why Linux must be called GNU/Linux. I don't recall anywhere in the GPL where it says that RMS reserves the right to approve of the name of your product. RMS is called a kook because he is one.

Perhaps the thousands of rants targeted at RMS are simply reasonable observations or your perception of imbalance reflects your own biases on the issues. One thing's for certain, your characterization of FS contributors as "serious" as opposed to OS "hobbiests" is absurd. I wouldn't characterize BSD contributors as any less serious than GNU people. I would say, though, that they feel their OS license should not be burdened with a political agenda. Quite the contrary, I think many that most support the concept of the GPL are ones who don't contribute at all but like the idea of a license that burdens future software with RMS's personal idealisms.

Re:Mono vs. Java

[Anonymous Coward]

You're serious, C# better than Java. The 5% difference is hardly anything to claim superiority. If anything, in my mind many of the features are questionable. For example, the threading model in .NET is GUI centric and isn't really well suited for server processes. Another big limitation is .NET still is bogged down by DLL hell. It's also primarily focused on static models and static applications. It is still very difficult and painful to build dynamic applications that load objects dynamically, which are extensible.

Re:Why?

[PCM2]

Looking back on twenty five years of computing, I cannot recall any language that has EVER had this much hype behind it. Not even Java. It suddenly appeared out of nowhere and five hours later there are job listings specifying ten years experience.

Because .Net seems to offer the language and environment benefits of Java while supporting Windows-specific technologies that, let's face it, 95 percent of the computing world can take for granted. Cross-platform portability just isn't that important for a lot of people. On the other hand, being able to drop into "unsafe" code to leverage your existing investment in legacy COM objects does matter to a lot of people. Or, being able to repurpose your existing Visual Basic code into managed Visual Basic.Net with a minimum of re-engineering, then having that code talk to your new, "more sophisticated" C# code, sounds even better. If you can do all of the above with a language that seems to have actually addressed some of the deficiencies of Java at the same time, you get some fairly excited people.

But they do not want to develop only for Windows

[SuperKendall]

You are not fully understanding the issue. If something were only Windows, they would not go for it. They do want some portability. Mono gives the illusion of such portability, thus they move forward with projects which in the end are really stuck on Windows because of libraries and tools and experience.

Then of course it only half works (have you seen what most ASP.net projects end up looking like?), but all of the people of any skill have moved on by the time anyone knows that and it's left for some poor fool to keep it all working and adding what changes they can, until they get fed up and quit or convince someone else to take on the old man.

I have made it my mission to never to be that fool, and have made quite a success of it so far. But I still feel great pity that the whole cycle ahd to happen and lead to this horrible result which easts people up. It doesn't have to be that way.