Slashdot Mirror


Mono Project Releases Version 1.0

theblackdeer writes "Just poking around the go-mono.com Mono website; it's now the multi-colored mono-project.com. Even better, it updated before my eyes to include the 1.0 release. Screenshots are (slightly) updated, too. Mono 1.0 includes the Mono Develop IDE (based on SharpDevelop, I believe). Download now and start your GTK# engines!" Alliante adds "You can download the Release Notes and the Packages on their website."

6 of 517 comments (clear)

  1. Licensing concerns abated by SIGALRM · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the FAQ:

    The Mono project has also sparked a lot of interest in developing C#-based components, libraries and frameworks

    Yes it has. In our company's roadmap, we considered C# and Mono, but the controversial elements of their licensing (ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows Forms subsets) gave us pause until we researched it further. Most of it is covered under the ECMA/ISO and the other technologies developed on top of it.

    Looks like the Mono strategy is to work around the patent issues by using a different technique that retains the API but changes the mechanism.

    --
    Sigs cause cancer.
  2. Re:How important is this for Linux? by Tobias+Luetke · · Score: 5, Informative

    As long as you either use GTK# ( download ), wxNet or console mode you won't even have to recompile it under mono on linux/MacOs/whatever. You will be able to just run it.

  3. Try MonoDevelop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those looking for an IDE, try out MonoDevelop 0.5. It doesn't have a gui builder, but has code-completion(intellisense), class browser, project management, etc... It's a port of Sharpdevelop.

  4. Re:Why .NET and not Java? by GlowStars · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...no distribution ships Sun's JVM...

    WRONG! SuSE does.

  5. Re:How important is this for Linux? by Dalcius · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The linux landscape is changing, its going mainstream, and there are a lot linux users who don't like that. I must humbly suggest to such people that you cannot do anything about it, and you should therefore either accept the reality or start moving to another system where you can feel more "l33t"."

    You call others narrowminded but I don't think you yourself understand the reasons people are afraid of the side-effects of Linux growth. Maybe you're just hearing a vocal minority.

    I personally cannot stand to use Windows these days, for many reasons... but one of the biggest is the environment. Under Linux searching for help, files or other content is particularly easy: the signal to noise ratio is quite good. Under Windows, it's "Sign up to download, we sell your email, now you can wait in a queue to get your file, but here are some ads to keep you busy". Pop-ups, spam, misdirection, just junk in general.

    The bottom line for this reasoning is that Linux it's just easier to find what you want (or at least a definitive 'It doesn't exit') in a shorter time. When the community starts growing, we'll see lots of wannabe applications attempting to sell themselves to you, registration keys and website registrations, hassles downloading files or getting help, etc. This is a Bad Thing.

    That all said, I'm in favor of Linux's growth and I think most people are. There aren't many true Linux users who do it just to be "leet" and I think its pretty silly to suggest that. Most Linux hobbiests do it because they are in control, in one way or another -- application choices, configurations, power, etc.

    Slapping a dogma on someone and calling them an idiot isn't helping anyone. I think the Linux community is ready to expand and wants to expand, it's just afraid of how severe the consequences might be when the 'unwashed masses' start using this stuff.

    Cheers

    --
    ~Dalcius
    Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
  6. Re:Why .NET and not Java? by Armchair+Dissident · · Score: 5, Informative

    I now have to use C# at work as our company has decided that this is what Microsoft's future is invested in. I've had a love-hate relationship with it, and my opinion of .NET is possibly clouded by my use of C#, rather than a criticism of .NET, but anyway:

    • Multi-language support by design is a hack. It's not real. C++, for example is not C++ as I, as a C/C++ hack, know it. It's a thing that is something like, but not quite C++.
    • structs as ValueTypes are a pain in the arse. They have the same syntactic semantics as classes but have no similarities. Because of this
      flibble foo = new flibble();
      flibble bar = new flibble();

      foo==bar"
      means two completely different things depending upon whether flibble is a struct or a class. Which has given me endless problems with DateTime.
    • Generics are not yet a standard feature of of .NET CLR. This is the reason given by Microsoft for not including generics as part of C#.
    • EMCA standardisation is a joke if the libraries can be butchered. The language is the least of the problems when portability is concerned. The precise way in which the libraries work and interoperate is the big problem.
    • .NET - as far as I can see - was simply a way of touting a "write once, run anywhere" platform, without actually proving the case. C# takes some things out of Java, and some out of C++, but never asks the question "why are these here". Operator overloads without templates, and without a good distinction between references are pointers spring to mind. (what does 'foo == bar' do?)
    • Some prefer C#, but I can't see why...
    Sorry Miguel. Mono is a worthy project, and I have it running on OS/X - it's impressive from that point. But as .NET stands, and especially C#, Microsoft got it hideously wrong.
    --

    The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.