Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mono 1.0-beta3 Released

Posted by timothy on from the oneness dept.

steve_deobald writes "The Mono team just released Beta 3, the final beta before we see the 1.0 release candidate and final. Binary packages can be had for Red Hat, Fedora, and SuSE. Although not officially released, the new website is up and running. Also of note, MonoDevelop 0.4 was recently released, and has RPMs available for the first time."

38 comments

  1. fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Microsoft loves you, Mono team!

  2. A great achievement by vbweenie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think Miguel's made a great play for the future of applications development on the Linux platform and I hope it pays off. Anything to wean Linux developers off C/++ (not kernel developers, obviously...). The only other project that shows anything like the same promise, IMHO, is Parrot and the great assortment of "dynamic" languages that are being ported to it.

    Let a thousand flowers bloom!

    --
    Experience is a hard school, but fools will learn no other.
    1. Re:A great achievement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, I am on a first name basis with one of the developer's of Mono. His name is Miguel.

    2. Re:A great achievement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [nitpick]developers not developer's[/nitpick]

  3. Contrats to the Mono team by nelsonal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A year ago in January I brought Mono up to MS execs who were talking about the portability of .NET (except to Linux) and they stated point blank that the project would never finish. Good on all of you.

    --
    Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    1. Re:Contrats to the Mono team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A year ago in January I brought Mono up to MS execs who were talking about the portability of .NET (except to Linux) and they stated point blank that the project would never finish. Good on all of you.

      Whoops, I nearly flamed you there, because I mistook your post for one of those "MS will break the APIs or sue Mono out of existence" trolls who crop up so frequently. Luckily I read your post twice and realised that you were, in fact, merely pointing out that Microsoft hadn't expected the Mono project to make such good progress, and that you were impressed too.

      Moderators take note, the parent is not a troll, even if it looks like one if you read it carelessly.

    2. Re:Contrats to the Mono team by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was trying extra hard not to make it look that way, too. From what I understand mono impliments the C# standard that is published and presumably not patent encumbered?

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    3. Re:Contrats to the Mono team by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, it's important to distinguish between a language and an API. Everybody and their dog implements C, for example, but that, in and of itself, doesn't help Microsoft's competitors be any more compatible with it.

      I don't think MS will attack Mono, but I base that on their not having attacked Mono, WINE, or anything similar in that way yet. It gets harder to kill Mono with each passing day, so if Microsoft wanted them gone they'd be gone by now. Mono's safety doesn't lie in mostly-open standards, it lies in numbers.

    4. Re:Contrats to the Mono team by The+Bungi · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The core product groups never doubted for a second that Miguel would pull it off, mainly because Don Box and other architects working on .NET told them he would after they looked at the first alpha.

      There might be some "static" coming from the evangelism or strategy folks; I don't know. My perception of this is mostly positive.

      Microsoft, believe it or not, is happy (at least at that level) that Mono exists. There is nothing like having one of the main figures in open source sit down and implement a technology they opened. And I don't mean that with an evil or snickery undertone (and they don't, either) - they like it, just as they like all the SSCLI initiatives people have started to do since they released it.

      They've learned that you can be successful without closing up the specs, and those of us who write software for Windows for a living have benefited greatly from this.

      If Mono does nothing else it has already succeeded as far as I'm concerned. Microsoft has changed enormously since .NET was released.

    5. Re:Contrats to the Mono team by bay43270 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, it's important to distinguish between a language and an API.

      Microsoft has released both the language and the core APIs as standards. 'Core' doesn't include winforms, but that's what gtk# is for.

    6. Re:Contrats to the Mono team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've learned that you can be successful without closing up the specs, and those of us who write software for Windows for a living have benefited greatly from this.

      They've also learned that E^3 is a succesful business strategy.

  4. Woot Mono Team!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good job boys/ladies I can't wait tell 1.0

  5. explain Mono by acomj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've visited the website..
    I can't figure out if mono is.

    1) A c# compiler? (bytecode??)
    2) A api library the is kinda like MS C# libraries
    3) An api library that had been developed from scratch.

    Or any combination of the above.

    Does it compile and run native or does it use bytecode like java?
    Can I build cross platform apps in it? (like java was supposed to be)

    I'm looking for a cross platform application building toolkit. I run OSX and linux.QT/GTK and C are some options I'm looking at, so far it looks like java/eclipse is the way I'm leaning, but this looked interesting and worth considering.

    1. Re:explain Mono by genneth · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the .NET framework, but cross platform. It currently consists mainly of a C# compiler and the .NET framework libraries. Several GNOME related libaries (think GTK+) have had bindings made for it.

    2. Re:explain Mono by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From the FAQ linked off the front page:

      Mono contains a number of components useful for building new software:

      • A Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) virtual machine that contains a class loader, Just-in-time compiler, and a garbage collecting runtime.
      • A class library that can work with any language which works on the CLR. Both .NET compatible class libraries as well as Mono-provided class libraries are included.
      • A compiler for the C# language. In the future we might work on other compilers that target the Common Language Runtime.
    3. Re:explain Mono by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Mono is a disease.

      GCJ is the cure.

    4. Re:explain Mono by 386spart · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can't figure out if mono is...[cut]

      Excellent! It is meant to be a OSS version of .net, which nobody understood what the heck it was either. (MS representatives tried to explain it for months).

      This means Mono is a success! ;-)

  6. Mono FAQ by acomj · · Score: 1, Funny

    Repling to my own post..
    But this helped. mono faq

    An this quote explained why its hard to figure exactle what it its...
    The ".NET Initiative" is a somewhat nebulous company-wide effort by Microsoft, one part of which is a cross-platform development framework.

  7. I hate to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I see no measurable benefit of .NET vs J2EE. since I use and develop with both, I can say with all honesty it's a matter of preference. If someone wants to build GUI's but doesn't want to go to all the trouble of implementing custom tableModel, and treeModels, then .NET forms is easier. Of course that means your apps will look like everyone else's and reduces your competative advantage. If you prefer to code custom GUI's then you're better off using something like C++, QT, SWT or any other GUI package. On the serverside, I find .NET inadequate and the threading model inappropriate. Having to manually manage threads and constantly do callWait is not a good way to build scalable server applications. But that's from first hand experience. If I had to build server apps in .NET, I would rather do it C++ and not C#.

  8. Re:I'm tired of this Mono nonsense by The+Bungi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Because Sun could sue the pants off everyone who has ever even remotely considered doing a JVM implementation if they chose to.

    This is the great stupidity of people who moan and bitch about how Mono is evil and then in the same breath recommend just using Java. C# and .NET are actually more "open" than Java for all practical purposes.

    I'd suggest you read the Mono FAQ and the various blogs (Havoc Pennington, Miguel, Nat and some GNOME hackers) that discuss this, and then make up your mind instead of just parroting what you've read here. Especially here.

    This bi-monthly "OMFG .NET is teh dumb and M$ is teh evilz and why dont we do teh JAVA instead!!1!" diatribe posted to every Mono release announcement is becoming very tiresome.

  9. Windows.Forms by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    I'm quite impressed with Mono, but I'm still waiting for Windows.Forms. Until support for them is reasonably complete, Mono will remain unable to run a large number of programs written in C# or other managed languages.

  10. Portable.NET by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    For all of you talking about winforms, Portable.NET has a beautifully portable version of winforms, and its soon to get a kick in the pants with native theming support to really open some eyes.

    http://216.58.40.193/qtwinforms2.jpg

  11. Not true by rjh · · Score: 1
    Because Sun could sue the pants off everyone who has ever even remotely considered doing a JVM implementation if they chose to.
    Not true; the Java specification is an open standard. Anyone can write their own implementation of a Java virtual machine. What they can't do is call it a Java virtual machine, though, not unless it passes the Java certification standards--otherwise Sun smacks them for violating trademark law.
    1. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so is c# and the core libraries (ecma & iso) - which does java have again?

    2. Re:Not true by The+Bungi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Point me to the ECMA spec.

      If Microsoft had "opened" C# and the CLI the way Sun "opened" Java and Java happened to be an ECMA standard (or fall under any other independent body) you'd probably be asking me for the same thing. Java is not an independent thing. It is closely controlled by Sun. They giveth and taketh away as they choose.

      And you're seriously mistaken if you think Sun can't take legal action against anyone for any reason over anything related to Java.

      That they won't is another matter. But then that's exactly the point I'm making WRT Mono and Microsoft.

    3. Re:Not true by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      Are you such a Euro-centric bigot that unless something is endorsed by the European Computer Manufacturers Association that it doesn't exist? Or are you just ignorant?

    4. Re:Not true by The+Bungi · · Score: 1

      Oh, jeez. Bite me, mmkay?

  12. You'll be waiting a very long time by hargettp · · Score: 1

    Even Microsoft is abandoning Windows.Forms as they move towards Longhorn, which is based on a completely different GUI programming model (Avalon,XAML). Windows.Forms was always very Windows-specific, being little more than wrappers for the Win32 API. Without a complete Win32 API implementation, it's nearly impossible to bring up a 100% compatible Windows.Forms implementation on any other platform. And given that 1) again, Microsoft itself is abandoning it, and 2) there are alternatives for cross-platform development (Gtk#), you may want to branch out a little bit sooner rather than later.

    1. Re:You'll be waiting a very long time by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Microsoft may be abandonning it, but that is not going to happen until 2006 or 2007. Certainly 2-3 years of continued exclusive Windows.Forms use warrants a working implementation.

      Last I heard, Mono's implementation of Windows.Forms used WINE. So there really is an (almost) complete implementation of the Win32 API behind Mono's Windows.Forms support. I just want them to finish it, as I think it's a priority.

      Gtk# doesn't help at all for existing code (would require a port to GTK#), nor does it help for already compiled commercial applications (Which I understand Mono can interpret).

  13. So, what languages can I .use today? by yason · · Score: 1

    What languages can I currently use to write production quality CLR programs that run on Mono (and its libraries like GTK#/Gnome#) ?

    (Except for C#, of course.)

  14. Good point about existing code by hargettp · · Score: 1

    And I also agree that the current Windows.Forms (incomplete though it is) will be used for 2-3 years by real applications prior to anyone ever really seeing Longhorn.

    I guess I'm concerned that requiring WINE to run Windows.Forms is a *huge* amount of overhead just to throw up a GUI. Especially since WINE isn't completely perfectly compatible with Windows, despite many years of trying very, very hard (perhaps I'm ignoring CrossOver Office? Begin laughter now, if I'm being too glib).

    So where would I use Windows.Forms? If I were an IT Director (oh, right, I've done that!), then I wouldn't have my folks writing rich client apps, I had have them right web apps. If I were a Director of Software Development (oh, right, I am that!), then I would think very carefully about where my product is going and who it's for.

    I would argue that there are only a small number of firms who need rich client development, and they should think very, very carefully about their cross-platform needs. This isn't the world of 1992, when cross-platform was hard (and only for C/C++) and desktops were still a wide-open game. Desktops are fairly locked up, except for specific markets, and desktops aren't even the most interesting markets anymore. Consequently, the utility of locking into a desktop-only, non-portable, stillborn API is low--not zero by any means (it's damn easy to create apps with Windows.Forms, I confess), but not as high as I would like to justify heavy use of it my organizations.

    Take the above for what it's worth: just one man's opinion. I'd love to know if I've oversimplified, or if I really am missing the cases where the risk of choosing a dead-end technology is worth the benefits received (and there are certainly benefits to Windows.Forms, no dbout).

    1. Re:Good point about existing code by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      You seem to be considering the position of existing code; while I was talking about that, I was talking also (perhaps moreso) about existing applications.

      Consider, for example, Joe User. Joe runs Linux. Joe wants to use a program, but it's for windows. Joe has heard that Mono can run .NET applications, since they're compiled into CLI, which Mono can interpret (I believe so at least, let me know if I'm wrong). Joe tries to run the EXE on his linux machine, only to find that Mono refuses to do so because Windows.Forms is not well supported.

      I would think this would be the dominant position. I suppose that you could run such an application under WINE, but on the other hand, can you install the .NET framework under WINE? I don't know.

    2. Re:Good point about existing code by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      It would be, if there were any existing windows.forms based applications, which there aren't. There are a few .net apps which use windows.forms to wrap calls to standard win32 com objects. But mostly its still straight win32 programming, and doesn't look to change before longhorn, except for the form entry type custom one-off apps that people used vb for in the past, and use HTML for nowadays.

    3. Re:Good point about existing code by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      I'm very surprised about that... Any .NET application designed with the integrated GUI designer would be done with Windows.Forms, no? Why would somebody writing a GUI app in a .NET language do the GUI from scratch when there's already a perfectly good (and powerful!) GUI designer/toolkit provided?

  15. mono (and Ximian) will fail by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

    unless they learn how to deploy their apps on linux. It's just not good enough to target one or two point release for a couple of distros and (somehow) make it impossible to run or compile on all others.