Slashdot Mirror
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."
Is this the same as Stereo Alpha 1?
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?
----
The mono C# compiler is a work of engineering genius.
It uses a program called TreeCC which goes beyond the Lex+Yacc model and provides an aspect-oriented tree programming model. This makes it very easy to write visitor patterns on your tree, and you can do syntax and semantic analysis with ease.
The resulting source code for a full working C# compiler is minute. TreeCC expands it into the real code.
Check it out!
It will be interesting to see what the performance comparisons of MSNET/MonoNET and MonoNet/LinJava. I would also like to see the CLI for Java project gain steam to take over some MS mkt share on the Winserver side (and allow seamless upgrades to Lin/Unix for those). Since C-pound is much like a C++/Java mutant it is not hard to transfer to the language.
I'm quite interested in seeing the first tools to take advantage of System.DirectoryServices, as this should enable us to manage a windows Active Directory natively from Linux.
I agree with Bollow's reasoning and reality, but I fear that his sentiments may fall far short of his dream. He'll have to cope with
With that said, I think it's a very good idea to try to slowly nudge Microsoft developers over to other platforms, particularly if we come out with more advanced and/or convenient features than Microsoft's own standards. Nevertheless, time will tell whether this project pans out or not.
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?
.NET is really very nice and productive. Microsoft will finally have made a valuable and lasting contribution to computer science.
If it is really RAND and royalty free, it will become my favorite development platform. Working with
If not, it is just another poisoned fruit by microsoft.
--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I would highly recommend you actually do some research for yourself rather than forcing /.'ers to do it.
.Net as an ECMA standard, they were forced into giving out the patents as RAND: royalty-free and non-discriminatory licensing. Non-discriminatory does not _necessarily_ mean GPL compatible, which is where the problems could arise. However, other people have noted that Microsoft does not generally use _patents_ offensively, and thus the threat is probably non-existent.
However, for those who were wondering:
When Microsoft got
Ergo, there _could_ be a problem, but Microsoft would probably have to be VERY desperate to attempt to squash Mono, since they have no prior record of using patents offensively.
That's how I understand it, anyways.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
We do support two stacks of APIs today in Mono: the Microsoft compatible stack (ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms) but we have been investing heavily in taking advantage of our own set of libraries that Linux, Unix, Gnome, X, Mozilla, CORBA specific.
For instance, Microsoft uses XmlSchema, Mono supports it, but distributed RelaxNG support as well.
We are working on Windows.Forms, but we also have strong bindings for Gtk# to build native applications. In fact MonoDevelop (www.monodevelop.org) is fully written using this stack.
We support the Microsoft database APIs, but we ship providers for all the open source (Postgress, MySQL, Sqlite) providers and other third party databases (DB2, Sybase, Oracle).
Tao is a backend agnostic set of 3D graphic APIs (OpenGL, Cg, SDL) while we still plan on supporting the Direct3D managed APIs.
Our set of APIs is what has allowed us to build things like MonoDevelop: a fairly complete IDE for Mono for developing Linux-based applications.
I was under impression that mono has switched to a modern generational garbage collector, the Intel ORP GC. But the current beta uses the conservative boehm garbage collector.
A conservative GC is nice for a quick hack, but it really does not cut it for a modern VM.
So which one will it use in mono 1.0? Boehm or ORP? And if it is the boehm collector, what plans are there to switch to a modern GC?
By the way: the conservative garbage collector is the only real technical flaw of mono. Other than that it is quite a modern VM. Quite amazing for this short development time...
--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
"I would highly recommend you actually do some research for yourself rather than forcing /.'ers to do it."
Well, quite.
RAND != Royalty Free and Non-Discriminatory
RAND == Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory
So, in fact, they *can* and *do* charge money to licence patents under RAND. RAND is not good enough for any Free Software, GPL or otherwise.
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
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.
... let's see those windows.forms! By the release notes it sounds like progress is being made but they said what's shipping with 1.0 will be pre-alpha.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Ive seen MonoDevelop and SharpDevelop and am not impressed with either. The day Novell is able to churn out an IDE like VS.NET for MONO is when Mono will be really able to make waves.
Read this
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.
.5% market share.
.NET platform. The two things are pretty much completely independent. One, or the other, or both may catch on.
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
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
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.
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?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Not in the case of MonoDevelop.
MonoDevelop is focused on being a great Unix
IDE which means integrating with the base OS as
much as possible: use the underlying widgetry,
use the Unix conventions (create makefiles,
configure scripts).
It is a fork of an IDE from the Windows world,
SharpDevelop: a fairly good tool, that integrates
into Windows, and we did not want to run only
a Linux version of a Windows tool.
We wanted a Linux tool for Linux.
Miguel, have you guys been significantly more efficient developing MonoDevelop in C# using the Mono class libraries than you were writing Evolution in C? In other words, is all the work that has gone into Mono worth it in terms of application development?
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.
I am biased, but I would say yes, we are more
efficient.
That being said, I recommend you ask the question
to third parties that are using Mono/Gtk#: gfax,
beagle/dashboard, MonoDevelop
Hello,
;-)
Yes, thanks to the work of Carlos Guzman and
Sebastien Pouliot we now have support for TLS and
SSL (it is a fully managed implementation
miguel.
Although those benchmarks were done against
our first JIT. We redid our JIT to address that
(and many other issues), so the data is relatively
old (one year+)
Although the official reason that GnomeBasic was dropped was because of "stagnation", the real reason that it died was because Mono was supposed to take it's place.
If that happened, I've seen no evidence of it.
While you can write Mono code in Java, PHP, Logo, Oberon, Pascal, Forth and Lisp, VB is still unavailable.
It's a pity such a popular language appears to be entirely ignored.
I'm sure it is heresy to ask, but am I the only one who's confused by the Mono and DotGNU difference? I read the internetnews article, and the controversy is still pretty opaque. I don't use .NET, and don't have any imminent plans to do so, but if I did, why should I prefer one implementation over the other? Is it purely a religious issue?
To paraphrase Life of Brian: The only people we hate more than Microsoft are the f*ing Mono developers. Or the f*ing DotGNU developers. Take your pick.
Splitters!
I don't know
which is worse,
reading or
writing comments
for slashdot on
my cell phone.
Keep up the great
work Miguel.
Do not presume that MS's past use of patents for defensive purposes only means there is a low probability of threat to the Mono project...
MS has hired an IP manager who not only believes in but has spearheaded IP rampages.
"Marshall Phelps has long been a vocal advocate of the need for companies to take IP licensing seriously."
"...he inspired at his previous company, IBM, which is now reaping almost $2 billion a year from licensing its patents."
"At IBM we did a lot of it. We had lots of lawyers doing preparation and prosecution around the world. At Microsoft, we don't have anyone doing that, but we are going to start."
"According to Phelps, managers too often fall into the trap of seeing patents as a purely defensive measure, a tool with which to stop the competition in their tracks.
Phelps says he is pleasantly surprised by just how understanding Microsoft's executives have been. "On these IP issues I don't have much of a problem getting anyone's attention at Microsoft. It starts at the top, and if you've got a guy like Bill Gates who's really concerned about IP and really likes it then you don't have much of a management problem."
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft has learned to do business by using its capital to get what it wants. Microsoft cannot buy out FOSS but they sure as hell can litigate FOSS directly or indirectly to "stop the competition in their tracks."
As most everyone here knows, FOSS has been on the Microsoft radar for several years now and they have been very active and very unsuccessful in halting the progress of FOSS.
This is the last ditch effort on Microsoft's part to stop what is becoming an unstoppable force. It will not matter if the FOSS community produces a better and more technologically advanced product because Microsoft will not be competing based on the merit of their products.
Whether or not the patents that are filed are frivilous and ridiculous, they will be used offensively to diminish the threat of FOSS to the Microsoft revenue stream.
Be prepared, there is more of the SCO syndrome to come.
burnin
I too am fixing to being developing a new desktop gui app. I first thought 'Java' because I like cross platformness, however, working with Swing is a bitch. So, my idea so far is to take C#, develop on the logic and db access etc. in it (using the ado.net sqlite dll), slap it into a dll. All of a sudden all of brains of my app is crossplatform from Windows to Linux/OS X. Then, all one has todo is reference the dll and build a gui in Windows.Forms or GTK# etc. I will be doing a seperate gui in Windows.Forms and one in GTK# at a later date since windows support is needed first. The above solution would allow you to use Visual Studio to create apps that should run on mono without any problems (assuming you don't take advantage of any windows specific features in the logic dll).
Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
Mono mmap()s the files it loads, so that shows up
on the VSIZE; The RSS is mostly Gtk/Gdk/Pango/X
libraries and libc.