Miguel de Icaza Talks About Mono

Matthew Revell writes "Miguel de Icaza defends Mono and talks about its future relationship with the Gnome desktop, in the latest LugRadio. The leader of the open source implementation of .NET says no one is forced to use Mono but he hopes it will make life easier for open source developers. "

Comments

Miguel de Icaza Talks About Mono

[Anonymous Coward]

Claims "a couple of penicilin shots and it all cleared up."

(Yes, yes, I know. Mono is a virus, anti-biotics are useless, and many of them are actually dangerous to mono sufferers...)

Re:Miguel de Icaza Talks About Mono

[magefile]

How would antibiotics be dangerous to a mono patient? I have had mono (twice, I think, although not tested the 2nd time), so the EBV (Epstein-Barr virus) is still in my body, yet I use antibiotics relatively frequently. I don't understand what you mean, unless you're talking about allergies, in which case it's not specific to mono patients.

Re:well..

[suso]

Shouldn't mono be a story for the day after Valentine's day?

mono

[relluf]

Mono is a great programming tool, I hope that it manages to find its way into mainstream gnome. It shows alot of promise anyway. I do belive that CLIs are the way to go.

Re:mono

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn +2 Informative already. I gotta try blathering sometime.

Re:mono

[Inzkeeper]

> Mono... I do belive that CLIs are the way to go.

I couldn't agree more. If it can't be done from a command line interface, it isn't worth doing! w00t! ...or did you mean CIL: Common Intermediate Language?, a CLR, Common Language Runtime.

Ok, I have to admit: CIL is a brilliant concept too.
If only Parrot wasn't pushing up the daisies.
HELLO POLLY PARROT!!!

Re:mono

[smittyoneeach]

What are you on about?
That's not a dead Parrot! That's a kickin' chicken.
It's the (presumably innocent) misinformation that wreaks so much havoc...

Re:mono

[Inzkeeper]

My apologies for the confusion. I was just trying to work with the Monte Python theme. That is why I provided the link.
Parrot is not dead. It is at 0.1.1, so it is still in the egg. It may not squawk, but it may compile!
I am just impatient.

"Python is executable pseudocode. Perl is executable line noise." -???

Re:mono

[cakoose]

CLI is fine too. They have a lot of acronyms. If it starts with a "C", it probably means something in .Net.

Well, that's a relief.

[Anonymous Coward]

The leader of the open source implementation of .NET says no one is forced to use Mono but he hopes it will make life easier for open source developers.

I thought he was planning on jamming it down our throats and making things harder for us.

Patent issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

he hopes it will make life easier for open source developers.

I thought the problem was that Microsoft told everybody that they didn't have any patents on C# or .NET, but they are actually a licensee of somebody else who has patents on it? Miguel dodged the question on this one by simply stating that it was a reimplementation rather than licensing .NET from Microsoft.

Listening to the audio, the things on the horizon are Windows Forms and incremental improvements (tuning). People are porting applications today, usually you can just copy the binary, but ignorant Windows developers do things like screw up path separators, assume case-insensitive systems, etc.

Re:Patent issues?

[Morphix84]

I'm a .NET Developer during my Coop terms, I'm confused as to what you mean by your statement, as C# is Case Sensitive, so I don't know how you can assume a case insensitive system to port to, if you're not porting from one. Can you clarify please?

Re:Patent issues?

[cnettel]

File system. Just think about assembly names specified inconsistently.

On the other hand, I think that the number of Linux applications relying on a case-sensitive file system and a "/" path separator (which, of course, is accepted in most places in Windows) is also quite high, so this is more the general hassles of porting for an application where it wasn't intended. Hey, you can even put in file system assumptions in a Java-only Windows application.

Re:Patent issues?

[vsync64]

I assume AC is referring to case sensitivity in the filesystem.

Re:Patent issues?

[MartinG]

C# and the CLI are both ECMA and ISO standards. As such, any patents have to be licenced under reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.
In this case though, microsoft etc. have gone further and said that they will be made available royalty free in addition.

more info here

Re:Patent issues?

[geordie_loz]

He is referring to the location of files, paths and files in windows are Case Insensitive, but in most other os's it's case sensitive, so:

/C/Windows/AnotherDir/
is not the same as
/c/windows/anotherdir/

see? Not the language but the platform, so path/library locations relying on case insensitivity is the issue..

Re:Patent issues?

[Omega1045]

As a C# coder I always pay attention to case in the FS. I also use "/" instead of "\\" (or @"\") because windows will understand both. However, there is a lot of code at my company that is not written this way, which is really wierd because all of our programmers also program on Unix.

Re:Patent issues?

[alext]

But he didn't say CLI, he said .NET. .NET is the 90% of the API that's not standard, remember?

Re:Patent issues?

[WarmBoota]

And I always use Path.DirectorySeparatorChar to tell me what the character should be.

Re:Patent issues?

[DrSkwid]

% cd /
% find . > /tmp/all_files

% cd /tmp
% awk ' { print tolower($0) } ' all_files > all_lower
% ls -l
total 95040
-rw-r--r-- 1 maht wheel 24310443 Feb 14 19:56 all_files
-rw-r--r-- 1 maht wheel 24310443 Feb 14 19:58 all_lower

% sort all_files | uniq > all_sorted && cat all_sorted | wc
382119 382381 24310443

% sort all_lower | uniq > all_sorted_lower && cat all_sorted_lower| wc
382005 382267 24307548

so 114 files in my filesystem exist that are differentiated by case only

diff all_sorted all_sorted_lower
yielded results mostly in /dev and /usr/ports

Lameness filter stopped me posting the list

Re:Patent issues?

[geekster]

What I've always failed to understand is, what is the advantage of having a case sensitive file system?

Would there really be a time when you'd want ie:
/etc/fstab
and
/etc/Fstab
at the same time?

Seems like just asking for trouble to me.

Re:Patent issues?

[farnz]

Define case-sensitivity for all users, such that the case rules stay the same no matter what locale I use. I happen to be English, so I can cope with a US-ASCII filesystem, and US-ASCII collating rules. If you're Danish, you have a different set of collating rules, and the mechanisms for a case insensitive comparison are different; it gets even worse when we introduce Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Greek and other languages which don't use the Latin alphabet into the mix.

Putting Unicode rules into the kernel is also painful; the collation rules for Unicode are huge and messy, and this relies on all users selecting the same Unicode compliant encoding (note that CJK users tend to prefer 2-byte encodings like UTF-16, while Latin alphabet users tend to prefer single-byte encodings like UTF-8).

Far easier to have the kernel say that a given byte ('/') is a directory separator, another byte ('\0') is the end of file name character, and leave user apps to interpret the byte stream. Then, I can use UTF-8 freely, and it's fine; a Japanese user can use Shift-JIS, and while his filenames look wrong to me, I can select any file he can create. In a case-insensitive system, he can create files that have different names in Shift-JIS, but are differentiated only by case in UTF-8 or ISO 8859-1.

Re:Patent issues?

[XMyth]

Of course not, that's ridiculous.

However, having a /bin and a /bIn can be incredibly useful.

(If you have to ask why, you'll never know.)

Re:Patent issues?

[BHearsum]

You need to learn dvorak. The underscore is in a wonderful place in it :). Unfortunately, the square are curly brackets are not.

Re:Patent issues?

[AvitarX]

I have a share ActiveJobs with 6 subfolders shared using netatalk.

I have the same files shared out of a folder ACTIVEJOBS with 6 symlinks.

I did this because I was having a problem with newly created folders on the MAC showing up on PCs (I have no idea why) and somehow this fixed it (I don't know why or remember the thinking, but it did).

I guess I could have called it WinCopy, heck I could have even gone with Win\ Copy and Active\ Jobs, but I think having one all caps and one CamelCase does a pretty good job of showing one being real and one being WINDOWS and that they are both the same thing.

I still wish I remember why I did that, and really better solution would have been to npot need to do so.

Re:Patent issues?

[jeif1k]

Imho, case-sensitivity was in general, one of the worst ideas the computer science world ever produced.

Case sensitivity wasn't an idea people developed, it's the default you get out of string comparisons: the ASCII codes for "A" and "a" are just different. In order to get case insensitivity, you need a lot more machinery in order to determine whether two strings are "the same". It may look trivial to you, but it isn't in real life, in particular, once you get to other languages (in some languages, the length of a string changes with capitalization).

So, people use case sensitivity because it is simple and straightforward to explain and the alternatives are much worse.

Re:Patent issues?

[Pxtl]

Ah. I've only programmed using normal 7-bit character strings, so I only know case-insensitivity in its simplest form . I could see how it would make a mess in other languages tho.

Re:Patent issues?

[zootm]

Case-sensitive is just the way computers are. If you see two different characters, the computer is representing them internally as different things, at least until it's interpreted them. Case-insensitivity can have a huge processing cost (particularly when working with data), now that so many things are done in Unicode. Not to mention that it's just not relevant in some languages.

There's a good quote about this in an explanation about why XML is case-sensitive.

But yes, it is treating the computer well in favour of the user, which is in general bad form. I don't believe that CamelCase is "the only" argument against case-insensitivity in any way, shape, or form.

Re:Patent issues?

[avdp]

OK, first of all I'll admit freely - I didn't understand half of what you said. But it sounds like you're talking about implementation difficulties.

I would say as a end user who cares about how hard it is to implement. And as a user I have never seen the value of case sensitivity for file names. Never ever would I name two files the same but with different case. In fact where I work we have a standard to just keep everything lower case to keep it easy (a end run against case sensitivity I guess). And regarding implementation: if Windows can do it then it's doable (and should be done).

Re:Patent issues?

[rjshields]

Unix was designed in the 60s. I guess it made more sense then. It takes processing power to convert strings to a different case.

Personally I don't see the point of case insensitive file systems. Having a case sensitive file system makes you think about the casing you use. In my experience, windows developers tend to use a variety of casing in their code. This seems messy to me.

Just becuase it's doable doesn't mean it should be done, neither should it be done because windows does it. Is there a better reason, or is it merely your opinion?

Re:Patent issues?

[BillyBlaze]

You start off sounding just like the proverbial PHB - "I don't understand it, so it must be easy."

Of course you should care about implementation difficulties - they translate directly into bugs for you. And you should care about elegance - the lack of it translates into bloated software for you.

Windows actually implements case insensitivity by translating everything into one case-sensitive bitstream for saving on the disk (along with an 8.3 mangled name - ugh), and back while reading it. This is a minor performance hit. And they didn't implement it for the users, they implemented it for DOS campatibility, DOS having been written when everyone important used ASCII and case insensitivity was one extra line of code, foreigners be damned!

I understand case insensitivity can make things easier to use - but the proper place to implement this is outside of the kernel, in some library that could be used by tab-completion and GUI code. You as a user shouldn't care how this works, you should just file feature requests for accomodating users who are too lazy to press shift once in a while in user-visible software. And when you write software, you aren't a user, so just suck it in and keep track of the case of your filenames - otherwise the interpreter, compiler, or worse, kernel, has to use another MB or so of code, or else scan the entire directory when an open() would suffice, to compensate.

And finally, Windows doing something DOES NOT IMPLY that it should be done.

Re:Patent issues?

[BorgCopyeditor]

If you have to ask why, you'll never know.

Ergo, no one knows. The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Patent issues?

[avdp]

I didn't say it was easy. I said I don't care wether it's easy or not. And I really don't. I want the computer to work for me, not the other way around.

And no, I don't think that just because Windows does it means it should be done. I am saying if Windows does it, don't claim it can't be done or that it's just oh so hard to do.

Now let me switch my hat from end user to programmer: I think it should definetely be implemented at the kernel filesystem driver level. It is the only logical place to implement it. To do it at the application level just introduces more opportunity for inconsistency between applications.

Re:Patent issues?

[BillyBlaze]

The whole thing is inconsistent, as it needlessly introduces a very complex many-to-one mapping between user-visible filenames and the filenames that are actually used for lookup. And thankfully, unix kernel developers have a preference for elegance and simplicity that you just seem to lack, if only because they're the ones who would have to maintain it.

The kernel is supposed to be simple and fast, and so there is a trend to move as much as possible out of it, not into it (eg. udev vs. devfs). Userspace offers a lot more flexibility for things of that nature - it can be upgraded seperately, it can more easily be customized between distros and by individuals, already has mature localization technologies, and so on. And of course a more simple and spartan kernel is easier to strip down for embedded devices.

Now, sometimes you can make the case that things should be in the kernel for performance - as Windows does for a lot of its GUI code. But here, it is unquestionably faster to just not translate the names and do an ordinary case-insensitive match in the kernel, and implement translation as a library used in the few applications that actually need it.

Software is one of the happy few fields where the easy thing is often the right thing, if only because it's fun to work on something elegant, and hard and thankless work to contribute to a quagmire of ugly hackish code. Which is probably why Linux doesn't do it - it's ugly, and Linux has the luxury of not being forced into stuff like that by backwards compatibility.

I've said about all I care to say, but if you care, you can easily find more about this on the web (try the LKML archives). It's basically a bunch of Windows users whining about how they don't care if it's a big ugly hack, and the people who know what they're talking about and would have to fix it when it breaks saying no thanks. (That sounds horribly elitist, and it is, but that's the breaks.)

Re:Patent issues?

[GCP]

I didn't understand half of what you said. But it sounds like you're talking about implementation difficulties.

Let me take a stab at it. The most general, lowest-abstraction-level view is to simply treat text as a sequency of tokens (characters) that are either identical or not. There is no "different but equivalent" rule. If the characters aren't the same, they're different.

The notion that some characters are in some ways equivalent to other characters is a higher-level view that varies by locale, application, etc. (It's not wrong, it's just highly context dependent in ways that most developers don't know much about.)

These days data flows from environment to environment. Other cultures have different character equivalency rules, some of which get pretty complicated, and even English speakers have circumstances where 'a' and 'A' are not considered the same. There are also technical aspects of Unicode where certain sequences are "canonically equivalent" to others, having nothing to do with case.

The way to make things as simple and reliable as possible amidst this complexity is to simply have everyone go by the simple rule that if you want to make text the same, make it identical, otherwise it'll be considered different. Though at times it's a little less convenient, the simplicity of this approach makes it easy for everybody to get it right without having to understand potentially very complicated equivalency rules.

Re:Patent issues?

[farnz]

The PHB summary: for a multi-user machine, where different users speak different languages, there is no such thing as case-insensitivity. The rules for Danish are different to the rules for English are different to the rules for Japanese are different to the rules for Arabic etc. You can only get true case insensitivity by insisting that everyone names their files in the same language.

If the kernel makes filenames case insensitive, some filenames are different to (say) an English speaker, but identical to a (say) Japanese speaker. Conversely, a Japanese speaker can create two files that to him are completely different, but that to a Danish speaker differ only by case.

Given case-insensitivity, how do you tell them apart? One solution (taken by Windows 95/98/ME) is to insist that all on-disk filenames are in the same language. This means that with English Windows 98, I get case insensitivity for all my filenames. Kenji does not, and gets told that he can't use filenames that to him are different (in Japanese, using Shift-JIS), because once they map to English, they differ only by case.

Re:Patent issues?

[geekster]

Thanks for nothing. Point not taken.

To me it just seems that upper case and lower case is more of an aesthetic thing. No matter what case, or mixed case, you write a word in, it still has the same meaning. A file system should work the same way IMHO.

As for your arcane example. I bet the same thing could be accomplished using /bin and /binSpecial. Plus it would be more describing.

Re:Patent issues?

[avdp]

Then I will one last thing: Linux will never make it in (home) user land. This is the single issue that frustrates EVERYONE I have ever tried to convert to Linux. So be it.

Re:Patent issues?

[mattpalmer1086]

I think you mean that case-INsensitivity is perfectly fine, you insensitive clod... :)

Re:Patent issues?

[BillyBlaze]

Honest question - in what specific instances has that issue frustrated them?

I can think of basically two - typing a filename into a load or save dialog box, and during tab completion on the command line. In both cases, the entire directory has already been scanned, so it should be easy to do the case thing - if the typed file doesn't exist but exactly one which differs only in case does, open that instead, when saving, warn if the cases don't match (with an option to always assume they should), and when tab completing, change the case to be right.

There's also what started this, include files, but I think by that point, you're not really just a user (besides, the rest of the language is case sensitive.) And for the commands themselves, it's bad for the shell to do that, as not all arguments are interpreted as filenames. Though I wouldn't be opposed to a flag to fopen(3) that would tell glibc to, if it feels like it (older versions would ignore it, as they do "b", do a case insensitive match, returning an error if there were no normal matches but multiple insensitive matches - then user-visible stuff that doesn't need performance can just use that. (And all this can get integrated with the localization support that already exists at the libc level to work correctly in other languages.)

Re:Patent issues?

[Knuckles]

No matter what case, or mixed case, you write a word in, it still has the same meaning

I don't think so. Just a random example that immediately jumped into my mind:

"Tell us to leave Iraq alone" vs. "Tell US to leave Iraq alone"

SWF

[wizbit]

Mono rocks, and the latest 1.1 branch has support for System.Windows.Forms, the only (that I know of, anyway) cross-platform implementation of the GUI calls from .NET - native calls made on Windows, GDI+ and Cairo for other platforms. Truly a godsend for developing cross-platform apps in C#.

I wish the Mono project and Miguel the best - they have done some excellent, excellent work and deserve to be commended.

Re:SWF

[cortana]

If you are unable to keep track of the files installed on your system, why not use a package manager like dpkg or rpm?

Re:SWF

[Burb]

Just FYI, the portable.net project has some kind of System.Windows.Forms implementation. Don't know how good it is, though.

Re:SWF

[ohyedoggies]

I want to see this C# SWF app run on Linux: www.filescope.com. They claim it will "partially" run with the 1.1 branch. Should be interesting if it did, cause it looks like it's massively graphical (System.Drawing).

Re:SWF

[Jugalator]

Why would they be "littered at random"?
I don't think Mono does that, does it?

And who cares which file format it is?
Do you fall in love with ELF executables? ;-)

.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

The prospect of GNOME becoming dependant was the straw that broke the camels back and made me switch to XFCE, keep the .NET patented API out of GTK!

Why I love mono

[adolfojp]

C# is one of the best ECMA compliant languages today. When used with open source libraries it is a very powerfull developement tool. It is only quasi ilegal when you use the microsoft libraries wich you DON'T need to use.

For rapid application developement under Linux I'll take C# and mono any day.

Cheers,
Adolfo

Re:Why I love mono

[hsmith]

I am a java fanatic, but c# has really pulled me away. It is a breeze to build enterprise web applications in C# compared to the counterpart in java. Java missed the ball with J2EE IMO, they made it more difficult than it needed to be. MS got it right with ASP.NET...

Re:Why I love mono

[Anonymous Coward]

C# is one of the best ECMA compliant languages today.

This is an utterly nonsensical statement. ECMA is a standards body, you can't "comply" with an organisation.

ECMA has published a number of specifications, such as ECMA-262 (Javascript/JScript/QtScript), ECMA-334 (C#) and ECMA-335 (CLI).

Even if you were to take your original statement as referring to ECMA-334 rather than ECMA itself, it's still nonsensical. C# is "one of the best" at implementing its own spec? Duh! In other news, green is the greenest of all colours.

Re:Why I love mono

[m50d]

He means it is the best language with a published ECMA specification. Perhaps he prefers java or something else that doesn't have a ECMA spec.

Re:Why I love mono

[SunFan]

Java doesn't staple your testicles to Windows. .NET does. All .NET is is a Windows development platform--"cross platform" doesn't even enter the picture.

Re:Why I love mono

[killjoe]

" C# is one of the best ECMA compliant languages today"

I am glad you put that qualifier in there. It's definately not better then python or ruby IMHO.

Wait till parrot comes out. I predict it will destroy mono, .net and the jvm.

It will be faster and more cross platform then all those other VMS and it will pretty much instantly have the largest library on the planet.

Re:Why I love mono

[LDoggg_]

J2EE is a collection of technologies not a specific methodology or architecture.
There are several ways to write "enterprise" web applications in java. If you don't like EJB & servlets, maybe you'd like to use struts with JDO, or java server faces with hibernate, or just procedural JSP with straight JDBC or mix and match whatever pieces you want.

Are you sure MS go it right, or did you just pick the wrong coding paradigm out of the available J2EE technologies?

Re:Why I love mono

[adolfojp]

Python is a great language... in fact, I think that it should be taught in first year programming classes instead of Java, C or C++.

MONO has a Python project calles Iron Python. You should check it out :-)

Cheers,
Adolfo

Re:Why I love mono

[Matje]

Have you used asp.net w/ visual studio?

My experience with java dates a few years back, and no j2ee. Is any of the technologies you mention as productive and convenient as asp.net?

Re:Why I love mono

[Whitemice]

>All .NET is is a Windows development platform

Uhm, aren't we talking about Mono?

Sorry, but you're very wrong. I'm running .NET apps on Linux right now.

Re:Why I love mono

[SunFan]

All Mono applications would run in .NET, but not all .NET applications would run in Mono. What would be Microsoft's reaction if Mono was 100% compiliant with all of .NET?

Re:Why I love mono

[Whitemice]

>All Mono applications would run in .NET, but not all .NET applications would run in Mono

Not true, I can write Mono application, using Mono extensions and P/Invokes not available on Windows or in .NET

>What would be Microsoft's reaction if Mono was 100% compiliant with all of .NET?

Who cares. And there are other implementations of .NET besides M$'s and Mono. It is too late in the game for them to get all grumbly, they've released the spec to ECMA and failed to excersise diligence in regard to the class definitions. This argument is spurious.

Re:Why I love mono

[SunFan]

"It is too late in the game for them to get all grumbly, they've released the spec to ECMA and failed to excersise diligence in regard to the class definitions."

What does failed to excersize diligence mean? This isn't trademarks, like Kleenex. For example, Sun is very clear about its positions on Java and OpenSolaris. There is no amibguity that all of Java's APIs can be implemented and that Sun gets involved for conformance testing and licensing the brand. OpenSolaris will be released under the CDDL, complete with a patent license for that code. People can debate the practicalities of all this, but they can at least know where they stand legally.

There is no such clarity with .NET, and the ECMA standard covers only a portion of the platform. Other software for interoperating with Windows suffers from this, such as Samba, whose developers get some insulation by being based outside the USA.

Nice to hear.

[notany]

The leader of the open source implementation of .NET says no one is forced to use Mono

Good news.

R: Well, we mused, you could hardly expect The Beast to come up with a LISP
machine, could you, ha ha?
G: No, but they could have been more creative than that.
-- www.theregister.co.uk interviewing James Gosling about C#

And it does

[MajorDick]

I played with Mono when it was first in Beta as I love the .Net CLR, no its not perfect, but its pretty damm good.

Mono was a way for me to extend my growing .Net knowledge againt Unix and non MS plattforms.
I just downloaded 1.3 (Beta) and I am VERY Impressed with how far they have come I converted a small web app about 10 pages to run under mono, and it does perfectly, I only had to steer clear of a few of my more ecclectic .Net shortcuts, (I should have in the first place)
Mono is and has been self hosting for quite some time, Its a full real language development enviroment not some hodge podge interpreted scripting hack
Congrats to the Mono team, I am looking forward to you .Net 2.0 implementation (some is already part of the 1.3 release)

I can write code 5-6 time faster in .Net than I can in C++ , that me , but if there is no appreciable difference then why in the heck would I write it in C++ ?
ESPECIALLY when its a WHOLE lot easier to move a Mono app around plattforms,
The next project that needs cross platform capablity I will write in Mono, (Writing in Mono its almost sure to work out of the box in MS land)

Re:And it does

[Anonymous Coward]

1996 called, they want their Java back!

Re:And it does

[Sheetrock]

It's probably the next stage in computing. Mono (and .NET) are lambasted by folks who are rooted in the past; much like Java, it will have an uphill battle to win mindshare amongst people who believe we should continue to concern ourselves with type safety, buffer overflows and memory leaks when we can design or use a system that takes care of such problems for us.

Fortunately, this is not a popularity contest. If it works best I'll use it, and if it becomes the patent minefield that others suggest I'll use something else. But I think people just don't want to admit that Microsoft came up with something better than the rest of us, even if it's implemented by a open-source friendly developer.

Re:And it does

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Parent has a point. It is a hell of a lot easier to write applications, especially business apps, in a managed language like c# or java. And this is of course where such languages excel. Business and in house apps never really need the efficiency and level of detail that c++ can offer. Mostly they just need to read and write databases and display formatted records. managed languages offer easier coding, and most importantly, standardised APIs to help developers do this. They are the way to go for most business apps.

Having said that, such languages should not be used for apps expecting a heavy load and/or many users. c/c++ is still a much better way to go for major backend applications, games, and for restricted platforms(for now). These apps will always need to squeeze every last drop from the CPU, and since Moores law seems to have subsided for the moment, maybe we'll need that sooner than you think?

Yes c/c++ gives you enough rope to hang yourself, but a lot of people still need that rope.

Re:And it does

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I have yet to see one concrete example of run-time optimisation being used in the real world.
Please, enlighten me.

Mono And Linux

[WombatControl]

I've tried Mono, and while I've little desire to move from Python over to Mono, it's a very well done project. The GTK bindings are quite nice, and C# as a language is much, much, much easier to work with than Java.

The big "if" is whether or not Mono can become to popular without Microsoft trying to pull the plug. However, even if that does happen, C# is an ECMA standard. There are plenty of native Linux libraries that can be used in place of the Microsoft classes. For developing GUI applications under Linux, you're not going to use the Windows.Forms libraries anyway, you're going to use GTK. Mono can stand on its own as a good RAD language for developing graphical applications for GNOME.

I know it's fashionable to bash MS at every turn (and as a Mac/Linux user I do all the time), but C# is a nice language and the .NET libraries are infinitely better than the cruft of Win32/MFC and the other mess of libraries that Microsoft used to shove down programmer's throats. Mono has done an excellent job of taking those libraries and making them work on Linux.

Even without the Microsoft libraries, Mono still provides a good framework for RAD under Linux and GNOME. If we can make it as easy as possible to transition between Windows programming and Linux programming it only helps propagate Linux.

Re:Mono And Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of curiousity, what exactly makes c# easier to work with than Java?

I see many comments on Slashdot to this effect, whenever mono comes up, but nobody ever says how or why they find it easier to work with than java.

Re:Mono And Linux

[alext]

C# as a language is much, much, much easier to work with than Java

Not just interesting, more like astonishing given that the languages are practically identical.

Re:Mono And Linux

[codepoetix]

...the .NET libraries are infinitely better than the cruft of Win32/MFC

Heh. As far as Windows.Forms is concerned, they are mostly just a thin wrapper of managed code around the cruft of Win32/MFC. The "clean break" is promised with Avalon. We'll see.

Still nicer to work with, tho'.

Re:Mono And Linux

[mrroach]

From my brief poking at both java and c# for gui programming, the difference that strikes me most is the incessant need in java to create anonymous classes for event handling:

addHandler(new eventHandler() {
public void yaddaYadda(EventThingie e) {
}
});

As opposed to c#'s typical method:

clicked += clickedEvent;
...
}
public void clickedEvent(object o, EventArgs e) {

}

I know it is not a huge difference, but I much prefer c#'s method.

-Mark

Re:Mono And Linux

[kill -9 $$]

I'm a java guy who's recently been required to start doing some C# in order to keep my job. I must say, that overall, C# is a decent language. Hands down, if I have to ever write real Windows-only apps again, I'll use it.

I found that as a language its much less restrictive than Java. Java's API's are pretty rigid, well defined, C# seems to be a bit more relaxed.

Now for me, thats the thing I like better about Java in that it forces you into a particular coding style/way of doing things. I've had the debate numerous times with Perl folk who like things a bit more relaxed. To each their own I guess.

Thing is that when I go to maintain somebody elses Java code, its pretty consistent with the way I develop code, just because Java kinda forces you into a particular style/way of doing things. Flip over to Perl, and I've had numerous occassions where I've had to learn the previous developer's style at times to follow their code with ease.

So my gut feel on the C# language is its a bit more relaxed (not as much as something like Perl), so I'm thinking I may run into this heartache if I ever have to maintain somebody elses C# code.

Just one other note on why I like that rigidity in code as opposed to flexibility. I find that the more flexible languages lend themselves to allow developers to cut corners and/or take easy routes to do things. Again from personal experience, as software scales up beyond its original scope, I find that its easier to move a Java program forward into bigger and better things than stuff I've seen in other languages. Mostly because the solid foundation was built and effectively enforced by the language from the start, whereas in other languages you sometimes have to solidify stuff up a litle bit more before moving on.

Anyway, this is all mystical voodoo software developement stuff thats hard to codify, but thats my experience. And as I was saying its personal preference. Doesn't meen you have to agree. Doesn't meen that I'm right. (or that I'm wrong)

My buck and a quarter...

Re:Mono And Linux

[mrtrumbe]

I can count, on one hand, the number of improvements C# makes on top of java's syntax:

1) Events
2) foreach (versus for loops)
3) Properties (versus accessor methods)
4) Boxing/Unboxing (versus Classes for intregal types--also used as the "implicit" operator)

Forgive me if I missed anything, but this is all I can think of. On the flip side, Java has a few things which I consider better than C#'s implementation:

1) Explicit declaration of the exceptions a given function will throw.
2) Better handling of packages, especially in the importing of packages into the current class.

I use both languages (learned java first, though) and I really think the differences amount to a wash. When I go from C# to Java, I miss Properties. When I go from Java to C#, I miss the ability to enforce exception handling. In the end, they are both extremely usable languages well suited for modern object oriented programming.

Taft

Re:Mono And Linux

[hedge_death_shootout]

As far as Windows.Forms is concerned, they are mostly just a thin wrapper of managed code around the cruft of Win32/MFC

Windows.Forms contains zero percent MFC.

Re:Mono And Linux

[miguel]

If comparing C# 1.0 vs Java 1.4:

* Attributes.
* Support for unsafe code.
* P/Invoke vs JNI is a fairly big difference.
* Operator overloading, which on the .NET Framework is used with good taste.

If comparing C# 2.0 vs Java 1.5:

* Iterators (yield keyword).
* Anonymous methods.
* Fixed buffers
* Generics for value types (Java only has generics
for reference types, everything else must be
"boxed", the Int vs "int" problem).

Now, from a pure usability standpoint, I like
the tiny things like:

* `mono program.exe' runs your program, no need to
pass a class name, or a path or setup the cp to
run.

* The layout of my files is not constrained to
one-file, one-class and the file system hierarchy
does not have to match the namespaces I have
chosen.

Miguel.

Re:Mono And Linux

[Dalroth]

Delegates, operator overloading, better reflection, CodeDom based code generation, faster startup, better IDE, better GUI technology (but it does have it's own problems), ASP.Net, the list goes on.

That's not to say there aren't ways Java is better. Better web frameworks, community acceptance of OS projects, stronger enterprise support, larger user base, livlier community, aspect oriented development, the list goes on.

Bryan

Re:Mono And Linux

[aled]

1) Events
Don't know what is this

2) foreach (versus for loops)
Last version of Java (1.5) has this.

3) Properties (versus accessor methods)
Java doesn't have, and I'm grateful for this. I think that this obscures the code, though it may let you write a little less.

4) Boxing/Unboxing (versus Classes for intregal types--also used as the "implicit" operator)
Last version of Java (1.5) has this.

Re:Mono And Linux

[Dalroth]

I meant to say more variety in web frameworks for Java.

Bryan

Re:Mono And Linux

[claes]

`mono program.exe' runs your program, no need to
pass a class name, or a path or setup the cp to
run.

'java -jar program.jar' would be the Java equivalent.

The layout of my files is not constrained to
one-file, one-class and the file system hierarchy
does not have to match the namespaces I have
chosen.

one-file - one-class is not neccessary with Java either, although I guess you are somewhat more restricted than in C# (which I don't know well)

Re:Mono And Linux

[mrtrumbe]

I forgot about Attributes. I love those guys, too. Very useful.

However, count me among those who prefer JNI to P/Invoke and unsafe code. Why would I want to pollute my java/c# codebase with c code? I prefer putting this code in a seperate library and using p/invoke or jni. However, I find p/invoke suffers from the "everything must be dynamic" syndrome that I found with COM. There is no good way to verify at compile time that I am not doing something blatently stupid. At least JNI forces you to compile your native code against a header file, insuring you some level of safety at compile time. I admit, though, that Java is less flexible on this point. I just like the paradigm Java forces you into.

I'll pass on 2.0 vs. 1.5 stuff as I am ignorant of the improvements in both.

As to your last two points, they both hinge on the GAC, which I am still wary of. Granted, I haven't given mono's GAC an honest to goodness spin yet, but I've found MS's GAC somewhat flaky. As an example, we were using .Net's default serialization on some objects which used the .Net Comparer class. The serialization routine serialized the Comparer class with our objects (this wasn't perfect, but we were using default binary serialization, so we expected some extra objects). We serialized the objects on one machine, send the data to another machine, then deserialized. This worked well on most of the machines we tested on. However, one of the machines we tested against had two different versions of the .Net framework installed. *Theoretically*, this should have been fine. A particular version of the Comparer class should have been loaded from the GAC and everything should have worked. However, we were getting a version exception on deserialization related to the Comparer class. We tracked down the error to the wrong version of the class being retreived from the GAC. Uninstalling the old version of the Framework made the problem go away.

Since then, I've been a bit leary of the GAC. Don't get me wrong, we still use it. However, we are now much more careful about which frameworks we install on each machine as well as with the versioning and dynamic loading of our own assemblies.

I guess what I'm saying is that with Java, you are left to manage versioning and the loading of classes (mostly) yourself. This is a burden, to be sure, but it allows the careful coder to control every aspect of the process. While .Net (and mono) allow you to sacrifice some of this control in favor of a "don't think about it" kind of versioning with the GAC, it makes me uncomfortable if I can't trust the loading and versioning mechanisms. I liken it to the Unix "everything is a file" paradigm to the MS "we'll take care of it in proprietary format X" paradigm (personified by the registry). You give up control by letting someone else handle the details for you. This has pros and cons, but if I don't entirely trust the people handling the details, I'll probably opt out.

Taft

Re:Mono And Linux

[LDoggg_]

* `mono program.exe' runs your program, no need to pass a class name, or a path or setup the cp to run.

So does `java -jar program.jar`

The layout of my files is not constrained to one-file, one-class and the file system hierarchy does not have to match the namespaces I have chosen.

I guess I've just never found this to be a problem. It has forced me to keep my code organized which I found to be a good thing. And any third party libraries should be in jar files for effeciency.

Re:Mono And Linux

[cortana]

Combining all your .class files into a JAR file is analogous to linking your .o files into an archive or executable, anyway.

Re:Mono And Linux

[LDoggg_]

java -cp %CLASSPATH%;C:\AppDir\lib\library1.jar;C:\AppDir\l ib\library2.jar;C:\AppDir\lib\library3.jar -Xms32M -Xmx512M -jar myjar.jar is the equivilent. Or have you never written any real Java programs?

You do realize that it is possible to place global third party libraries in a common location right? Try /jre/lib/ext/
Or do all Mono programs only use standard APIs?

Re:Mono And Linux

[zdzichu]

Hi Miguel, thanks for the dedication in book I've received from Nat :)

* `mono program.exe' runs your program, no need to
pass a class name, or a path or setup the cp to
run.

You didn't mention even easier way for Linux users. It only takes two commands:

echo ':CLR:M::MZ::/usr/bin/mono:' > proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc/register
echo ':dotNet:M::MZ::/usr/bin/mono:' > /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc/register

(ideally, it should be handled by distribution's mono package)
And now running mono apps:

`./program.exe`

Tadam! Like regular binaries or shell scripts.

Re:Mono And Linux

[jeif1k]

However, count me among those who prefer JNI to P/Invoke and unsafe code. Why would I want to pollute my java/c# codebase with c code? I prefer putting this code in a seperate library and using p/invoke or jni

By letting you express unsafe code in C#, you can do things efficiently that are impossible to do efficiently in JNI.

Furthermore, using unsafe code in C# makes the code platform and processor independent and makes it far easier to deploy than JNI native libraries.

Finally, P/Invoke makes it easy to bind to existing native libraries without having to write native wrappers for it; again, it simplifies deployment and access to legacy code.

Re:Mono And Linux

[LDoggg_]

Ok.
Now that is actually a nice feature. Not sure why JVMs don't do this.

That said, if you are deploying an application to be installed into a directory along with its additional libraries, building the launch script is really not that big of a deal. And the jvm will assume jar files added on the command line with "-cp" are relative to the working directory so "C:\AppDir\lib\library1.jar" can just be library1.jar

Re:Mono And Linux

[claes]

Of course I have. And I don't create as ridiculous classpaths as you do. Check manifest classpaths sometime.

Re:Mono And Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious, but is there any hope for the superfluous ".exe" to get dropped automatically for mono code compiled on UNIX systems. And while you're at it, can you output ".so" as the extension for shared libraries instead of ".dll"? I mean, exactly how fixed is that stuff by the nature of the CLR?

Re:Mono And Linux

[mrroach]

It's not a .so though. No more so than a perl module (.pm) or a python module (.py) is. The term "shared object" has an actual meaning, and renaming things doesn't automatically make them more unixy :-)

-Mark

Re:Mono And Linux

[rnd()]

1) event handling syntax is more intuitive
2) the absence of "throws" leads to cleaner looking code
3) better and more intuitive organization of api code
4) tons of small language improvements that make code easier to write

With the exception of the messy event handling syntax in Java, the differences are fairly minimal, but C# is simply an evolution of java in a lot of ways that is unencumbered by backward compatibility. Much like MacOS was easier/simpler than Windows 3.x for the same reason, .NET is currently clean and simple where Java has legacy (AWT, etc.) api all over the place and hasn't been able to change aspects of the syntax that have subsequently been found to be sub optimal.

Re:Mono And Linux

[aug24]

You do realise that they don't have to be anon, don't you? That's just for convenience.

J.

Re:Mono And Linux

[mrroach]

Yeah, I realize that. I don't think it would be an improvement though :-). The thing that's annoying is that you have to create a new class for every event handler (i.e. no function pointers).

-Mark

Re:Mono And Linux

[Whitemice]

`mono program.exe' runs your program, no need to
pass a class name, or a path or setup the cp to
run.

Amen!

This is wonderful stuff; Java may be great, but it is really hard to use and has grown into a labyrinthian monster rivalling even CPAN.

Re:Mono And Linux

[aug24]

No, you don't. You can create one class and pass it in to all of them, in an MVC controller-type pattern. You just need a class that's clever enough to handleall the events - or create a factory for them!

J.

Mirror for ogg files

[mjmartin_uk]

I've put the high and low quality recordings of Season 2 Episode 9 - 14 February 2005 in Ogg format up here:

http://www.gobisoft.net/tmp/

Just in case the Slashdot effect takes hold.

Re:Is he really a big cheese

[Trigun]

Miguel is the lead developer for gnome, and his pet project was creating a .NET framework for linux. It has since grown to be more than a pet, gaining the backing of Novell. It is not the easiest thing to get running on your system, but by far not the hardest.

It needs to be defended for a number of reasons. Linux zealotry (why would people move from Windows if all the software is cross platform?), laguage zealots (IMHO, C# is a nice language to program in, but the java guys scream bloody hell) and people afraid of MS putting the legal smack down on Linux over API issues,just to name a few.

Personally, I think that Miguel's reliance on WINE is a mistake, but we have discussed this here, and it does have immediate benefits for the windows.forms and directX stuff. I know people who are programming frontends on both Windows and Linux, using a combination of the GTK interface and Windows.forms, and they love it.

How Much .NET Can I use?

[zoomba]

I understand that I can compile C# code across any platform that either has .NET or MONO installed on it. Or any major .NET language. My question is, does MONO extend to ASP.NET and integrating in some way with Apache?

I ask this because I do ASP.NET development where I work, and would like to be able to do some of it on my Powerbook or Linux desktop at home if I need to. I know PHP is the better solution under Linux, and I would prefer to be doing it but it's not a supported product where I work so it's out.

Re:How Much .NET Can I use?

[Zhila the Great Z]

Yes, Mono supports ASP.NET. It has an XSP application (mini ASP.NET webserver), and an apache module mod_mono (basically sends requests to XSP via named pipes). I currently have an ASP.NET website completely run by Apache/Mono, and it works perfectly.

Re:How Much .NET Can I use?

[highcon]

There is an Apache module that allows you to run ASP.NET stuff under linux here. You need the mod_mono, the XSP server, and all of Mono. If you're using a distro with packages you're in luck. I compiled and installed on Slackware, which, although time consuming, was not difficult. Works pretty well once you get it configured.

Re:How Much .NET Can I use?

[Adhemar]

On Linux, you can use the Apache module mod_mono .

It is available on the Mono project's download page.

It allows Apache to serve ASP.NET pages by proxying the requests to a slightly modified version of our XSP called mod-mono-server that is installed along with XSP.

It doesn't work on the Windows version of Apache yet, but work is in progress to make that work, too.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[goldspider]

I thought competition was good for the market. If OSS is always superior to Microsoft offerings, why do you feel so threatened by Mono?

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[mr. marbles]

All it does is to legitimize microsofts attempt at monoplizing another market with yet another windows-only product exactly similar to an exsisting multi-platform product....it's their modus-operandi.

Right cause if we ignore it, then it will go away. It doesn't matter if the industry decides to use it or not.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[furry_wookie]

its not the "software" that is "threating".. its the army of lawyers in readmond.

Interoperability Potential

[qwerty55]

I think Mono may actually be a good think for Linux. One of the things that keeps many people using Windows is that they don't want to give up their current application set to learn the open source equivalents. A project like Mono has the potential to to allow developers to simultaneously target both Windows and Linux, which may lead to more Windows apps running on Linux and in turn more people willing to consider running Linux. Also, C# is a nice language to program in.

Re:Interoperability Potential

[xotx69]

Exactly. There are so many good programmers out there developing in the Windows environment, but are not taking the plunge to do some Linux development because it's just a foreign world. With this, they can use the langauge they are comfortable with and feel as though they are developming regular windows apps, but at the same time, learn some things about GNU/Linux.

We have to think of the big picture. Mono can draw windows developers over to Linux, and this can produce more applications for Linux. The more the merrier, especially in this phase of the game where Linux trying to attract more users. About the Patents/Licenses...I don't know much about that, so I won't comment on that.

Re:Interoperability Potential

[aled]

This is very nice, until Windows programmers find there is no Visual Studio for Linux/Mono. I will understand them.

Re:Interoperability Potential

[xotx69]

your name says it all: "Anonymous Coward"

Re:Interoperability Potential

[ccbailey]

The unfortunate bit here is that Mono seems to be a subset of what's available on Windows with .NET. Practically speaking this means that I, the FOSS developer on Linux, create apps that run just great on Windows but none of those killer Windows apps are ever going to see the light of day on my Linux machine.
I really like the look of Mono and I agree that it has some wonderful technical merits (writing Gnome code in raw C is an exercise in masochism) but I think we ought to consider that it may ultimately end up impeding migration to Linux.
And yeah, I realize that free software is for everyone, Windows people included, but practically speaking MS marketshare needs a little erosion.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Frymaster]

All it does is to legitimize microsofts attempt at monoplizing another market

wrong. mono is about "embrace and extend"... the same technique that microsoft has been using for years to swallow or crush competing technologies.

it's nice to see redmond on the receiving end of this formula for once, don't you think?

Re:Is he really a big cheese

[wizbit]

WINE support was abandoned in favor of their own SWF implementation, and it's been that way for a while in the development releases. They're developing their own implementation because, yes, it makes things less portable and less stable.

Hope for ex-Java and Linux Developers

[lowvato]

Many of us have taken jobs at shops that are Microsoft only shops. I hope that Mono takes off in a big way since that would give us a chance to easily port our apps over or at least develop on something other than fucking windows xp. It really sucks to get stuck in the MS world and not have the time to work in other environments and not be able to have other platforms run at the place that you work. Maybe Mono can be a bridge from the dark valley of MS purgatory.

Re:Hope for ex-Java and Linux Developers

[Malc]

It's called culture shock - deal with that and don't blame the environment. UNIX and Windows are different worlds philisophically and in usage. People going from UNIX to Windows get pissed off with Windows, *and* vice-versa. You have to learn a new way to operate, new terminology and a new mindset. Windows XP really isn't that bad, and there are things you can do to mitigate the culture shock. The first step though is to realise you're suffering culture shock. It's up to you what attitude you're going to apply to dealing with the situation: bitch and complain about the platform, or get on with learning a new way.

Try moving to another country and you will learn big time about culture shock. Even moving between more similar countries like UK and Canada (my experience) where there are cultural ties and similar linguistics can lead to culture shock. The funny thing is, after my first four months in Canada I went back to the UK for a visit and suffered mild culture shock in the land of my native culture!

To be honest, I'm tired of people whinging about other platforms. They're just tools to get something done, so stop wasting everybody's time and make do. Work with the cards you're dealt.

Re:Hope for ex-Java and Linux Developers

[lowvato]

Screw you. I've worked in unix-only, mixed and windows-only environments and I don't need some self-righteous fuck like yourself telling me about culture shock. Talk about culture...Now there is a culture of people like you waiting to give that very response. If you work in a particular environment that you like and have to move to another and start losing a skillset becouse you do not have the time to keep it up, that is not culture shock shit-head, it is losing a skillset and there is nothing wrong with being worried about that so again...fuck you asshole.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[furry_wookie]

Good idea, lets promote and assist the "industry" in deciding to use this tool by NOT POINTINT OUT there is a better cross-platform tool out there but BY HELPING to legatimize this propietary toolset by allowing Microsoftzilla to say "see its multi-platform too" in their marketing materials.

What don't you people see about that??? Can't you see the fools your playing?

Please don't hit me...

[alext]

defends Mono by saying no one is forced to use it

Awww, I bet those of you that have been beating him up for the last 3 years feel really mean now!

Don't worry, it will pass.

Re:Mono perspective

[Quattro Vezina]

GTK plainly sucks for development. No, really, I tried, and it's worse than MFC.

That only really applies if you're coding in GTK's native C, and that's because writing GUI code in C is a braindead idea. Sadly, most GTK apps are written in C. GTK's C# bindings are actually decent, and I believe that its Python bindings are also decent.

I'm no GTK fan, but GTK# has really cleaned up the API.

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is Miguel's answer to GNOME becomig depentdant on MONO: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/2002- February/msg00031.html

Re:well..

[geomon]

Actually there is a GPL software package released under the name "Herpes" that will debut tomorrow.

Just in time!

Leaving out half the community?

[m50d]

Don't get me wrong, I think mono is a great idea. But I'm worried about how closely tied it is to gnome. Not because of it taking over gnome, but because of it ignoring KDE. I think they should try and get more of the Qt stuff in there, Qt# at least should be in the standard mono dist. Otherwise you just split everyone.

Re:Leaving out half the community?

[Axoiv]

Ever heard of the "My baby" syndrome? Frequent problem in systems design, I think.

Re:Leaving out half the community?

[metamatic]

This is the GNOME team we're talking about here. If they didn't want to unnecessarily split everyone, they would have given up on their abortion of a desktop environment as soon as the Qt licensing issues were resolved.

Re:Leaving out half the community?

[jeif1k]

as soon as the Qt licensing issues were resolved

The Qt licensing issues haven't been resolved: it is still only available under the GPL or commercial licenses. That may be good enough for shipping the KDE desktop, but it is not acceptable if Linux is to be a major player for commercial applications.

Re:Leaving out half the community?

[Kjella]

The Qt licensing issues haven't been resolved: it is still only available under the GPL or commercial licenses. That may be good enough for shipping the KDE desktop, but it is not acceptable if Linux is to be a major player for commercial applications.

To whom? The OSS community? They'd love it. In-house development? No distribution = no problem. Large commercial corporations? Frankly, the cost of a Qt licence is minimal for a 100% Qt developer. Small/one-man commercial corps? Not acceptable. But my impression is that they get their ass handed to them by a small OSS team duplicating and surpassing their crappy $20 shareware in no time. Are they needed to make a Linux desktop work? No.

Say what you want, but I consider Qt to be far more functional than both GTK and vwWidgets. YMMV.

Kjella

Re:Leaving out half the community?

[jeif1k]

To whom?

To people developing platforms that may be used by commercial developers. That's, for example, why Sun chose Gnome rather than KDE and it's also why Mono chose Gtk+.

Large commercial corporations? Frankly, the cost of a Qt licence is minimal for a 100% Qt developer

Frankly, you are full of shit. I have worked at "large commercial corporations", and the Qt licenses are a lot of money in today's corporate environment, in particular considering that for a fraction of the cost, people can get VisualStudio.NET.

But the biggest problem is one of control: as a commercial developer, I have the same problem with Qt as I have with any other piece of proprietary software: Qt is under the control of one company. If they decide to do things with it that cause problems for me (jack up prices, change strategies), I have no alternative or choice. The Qt library has the same risk as any other proprietary software product from some small company; the fact that it also has a GPL version is a marketing gimmick.

Re:Leaving out half the community?

[m50d]

The issues that were given as the reason for starting GNOME have been resolved. Qt is free, free like readline, freeer in the stallman sense than GTK is.

Re:Leaving out half the community?

[m50d]

Read some history. KDE had a working desktop environment up and running, then the GNOME project was started to create a replacement, *solely*, according to their statements, because of the licensing problems with kde. Gnome was always behind, it would always have made more sense (and indeed still does) for gnome to give up than KDE. Gnome started the whole desktop wars, not KDE.

Re:Leaving out half the community?

[abigor]

You are the one full of shit, actually. No one uses GTK+ for anything except Gnome. Qt is used for lots of stuff.

Qt licenses are a small price for any large corp., next to overall dev costs. Somehow, I don't think you've done much real-life development. If I'm wrong, sorry.

Finally, Qt is GPL'd. That means it's protected from proprietary ravages, unlike, say, ASP.NET. So no, it's not a marketing gimmick; grow up.

Re:Leaving out half the community?

[jeif1k]

No one uses GTK+ for anything except Gnome.

Sun and Eclipse do, for example.

Qt licenses are a small price for any large corp., next to overall dev costs. Somehow, I don't think you've done much real-life development. If I'm wrong, sorry.

Somehow I think you haven't worked in a large corporation recently. Qt licenses may be a small price relative to other costs, but those are different budgets. Software license budgets are tiny, and it is generally assumed that everything you need either falls under the corporate-wide Microsoft license, or you can get it open source.

Finally, Qt is GPL'd. That means it's protected from proprietary ravages, unlike, say, ASP.NET. So no, it's not a marketing gimmick; grow up.

When I develop commercial software, I am not using the GPL'ed version, I'm using the commercial version. The fact that someone can fork and fix the GPL version does me no good because I can't use the GPL version or any contributions to it: I'm still at the complete mercy of Troll Tech.

So, yes, from the point of view of a commercial developer, the GPL version is a gimmick. Troll Tech is just another little company shipping an expensive library, and if they screw up, I'd be in deep trouble with my commercial product based on it. There are plenty of open source toolkits with commercial-friendly licenses, and they work well enough for most people, so there is no need to subject oneself to that kind of pain and risk.

Re:Leaving out half the community?

[m50d]

The fact that there are enough devoted kde programmers of sufficient quality to have written kde as it currently stands suggests there is a significant proportion of gurus as you put it who at the very least support kde. And anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all; unless you can point me to some representative survey or similar showing gurus use gnome, quite simply I don't believe you.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[mr. marbles]

Good idea, lets promote and assist the "industry" in deciding to use this tool by NOT POINTINT OUT there is a better cross-platform tool out there but BY HELPING to legatimize this propietary toolset by allowing Microsoftzilla to say "see its multi-platform too" in their marketing materials.


Fact is there are no better cross-platform tools out there for development, or at least that is the opinion of the users and developers of Mono. People develop and use Mono not because they think to themselve "Hey man, It's Microsoft! They've got to know better," they used it because the same cycle of C/C++ plus a bunch of toolsets are painful to use. Use whatever you want, I like Python myself. What I don't like is this negative FUD campaign against Mono.

Parent NOT Troll!

[Lysol]

While very, er, direct, parent has a point.

It is 100% true that GNOME was founded that way. And I believe, more than anything, that the plunge into .NET by the Mono team steers straight into a darker and deeper pit than anything that would have been experienced in Qt.

I've said it over and over that Miguel and crew have done a remarkable job. Really. But the biggest flaw in their tower is the fact that it's a spawn of Microsoft. I can completely understand their target of a langauage/platform that they know will succeed. But we all know Linux/FOSS to M$ is all about FUD, embrace and extend, etc... How many times has anyone from M$ talked about working with the GNOME/Linux community vs. destroying or crushing it? Plus, now that Miguel is part of Novell who do you think is going to prevail in court? On that one, I'm gonna put my bet on the company with $40bln in the bank (and that ain't Novell). Anyone up for the 'M$ pummels Novell again' show?

Until M$ comes out with an open source license for .NET, Miguel and the Mono guys are walking on really thin ice.

For myselft, years back I started dabbling in C# thinking I'd broaden my programming knowledge. But I have to say that I prefer Java over C# as C# is just too Microsoft and there's something about the feel of it that gives me goosebumps. Like my old, really old, yukky VB days.

Plus, while most people don't care, I can't separate the poilitics from the code on this one.

Re:Parent NOT Troll!

[drew]

I've said it over and over that Miguel and crew have done a remarkable job. Really. But the biggest flaw in their tower is the fact that it's a spawn of Microsoft. I can completely understand their target of a langauage/platform that they know will succeed.

yeah, and unix, c, and c++ were the spawn of at&t. that didn't stop the gnu project, even though at&t at the time was every bit the monster we see today in microsoft.

what's your point?

Re:Parent NOT Troll!

[Locutus]

that really does not have anything to do with it. those "settlements" have never had any effect on how Microsoft conducts its business or what technology it uses. They typically are payoffs to companies who's products/ideas where stolen or crushed and who's financials tanked because of how Microsoft "conducts business".

with $40+ billion in CASH, Microsoft can and does do what ever it pleases with other commercial products/companies. Though the smartest company to ever go to court with Microsoft was Stack. They took the ~$150 million and changed the market they were in. Everyone else were on sinking ships when they settled, and then just continued on the ride to the bottom.

LoB

Re:Parent NOT Troll!

[jeif1k]

Until M$ comes out with an open source license for .NET, Miguel and the Mono guys are walking on really thin ice.

M$ has come out with an open source license for ECMA C#. That's all Mono really needs because it has its own set of APIs in place of .NET.

The .NET compatibility in Mono really is skating on thin ice, but that is an intrinsic problem with providing compatibility with anything from Microsoft. If .NET compatibility were to become legally impossible for Mono tomorrow, it would not be such a big deal for most Mono users and developers because they aren't relying on it (although it might be a problem for Novell's business strategy).

For myselft, years back I started dabbling in C# thinking I'd broaden my programming knowledge. But I have to say that I prefer Java over C#

Well, if you have any legal concerns about .NET, then Java should send chills down your spine: Java is completely owned and controlled by Sun, not only through patents, but also through license agreements on everything related to Java.

C# is just too Microsoft and there's something about the feel of it that gives me goosebumps. Like my old, really old, yukky VB days.

I don't like the method names and Microsoft case either, but those little things will make it easier to attract Microsoft developers to Linux. And that's a good thing.

Re:Parent NOT Troll!

[avanha]

C# Specification and the CLI

As many others have said, that's not everything but it's a start.

Re:Parent NOT Troll!

[man_of_mr_e]

Where's ANSI/ISO C#?

Right here

Where's ANSI/ISO .NET

Right Here

You were saying?

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[axle_512]

That's sort of silly though, doesn't it? The only one that seems to win with the "embrace and extend" is the guy with the monopoly.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[axle_512]

doh!
what sounded silly was my first sentence.
Mean "That sounds sort of silly though, doesn't it?"

Choice of GUI toolkit

[HogynCymraeg]

I remember hearing that GTK# was the way to go WRT the default mono toolkit. Bad idea. GTK on windows is pretty bad. However, I found this project which makes wxWidgets available to mono. Why oh why would you want to use gtk# over wxWidgets (which in turn uses native UI)?

Re:Choice of GUI toolkit

[miguel]

Gtk# on Windows uses the UXTheme API, which will
make Gtk+ look like every other app on the system.

The feel in Gtk+/Win32 is already emulating the
host OS, so you get both look and feel.

Re:Choice of GUI toolkit

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're referring to GTK-Wimp, then you're wrong - it still is missing several things. This is all based on Windows XP, since the UXTheme API is irrelevant on all other platforms. (Except 2003 Server and Longhorn, I suppose.)

* Menus are themed flat out wrong:
. - Black "etched" border instead of single pixel gray border
. - Separators are "etched" gray, instead of a single pixel gray border
. - Menus are missing the drop shadow
. - Don't animate when dropped down
. - Don't fade out when selected
. - Menubar items don't highlight when moused over
. - Menubar has etched border instead of single white pixel border
* Tooltips are missing the drop shadow too
* Toolbar "grippy" is themed wrong
* Combo-boxes
. - Are bordered the same as menus, instead of a single pixel black border
. - Don't animate when dropped down
. - Use "Mac"-style feel (ie, selected element is centered on top of combobox) and not Windows style (menu appears below the combobox)
. - The dropdown menu does not expand to width of its parent control
* Checkboxes are sized wrong, on occasion (but not always)

The menus are the biggest problem. The Comboboxes violating the Windows "feel" is annoying, too. But the menu immediately stands out as looking wrong on most apps.

Suffice it to say that most GTK+ apps on Windows just look and feel wrong. But it's that "uncanny wrong" where it's MOSTLY right, but just slightly out of whack - enough to be distrubing.

Re:Choice of GUI toolkit

[IamTheRealMike]

Are you similarly disturbed by Office, MSN or Visual Studio, which likewise do not use the XP widgets (and don't even attempt to resemble them) ?

Re:Choice of GUI toolkit

[dominator]

Please be a good OSS denizen and file bugs at BGO or (preferably) SourceForge. Some of what you mention is possible to do within the GTK theming/settings framework, and some is simply out of the theme-writer's hands presently.

If people identify and file problems, I know what's bugging them and can work to resolve them. But I won't track down and resolve issues on newsgroups and message boards like Slashdot.

Finally, GTK-Wimp's look will "fall back" fairly nicely on Win32 systems that don't have UXTheme installed (2k,9x) or on XP/2k3 where it isn't running. In those cases, it's basically the Raleigh theme engine with Win32's color palette and system settings in effect.

Best,
Dom Lachowicz, GTK-Wimp maintainer

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[alext]

Except that Mono has been trying for 3 years to embrace Dotnet 1.0 without getting there, and for Dotnet 2.0 "only a subset of the total framework will be available".

Looking at the pace of change and who's in the driving seat, I don't think it's MS on the receiving end here.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[mr. marbles]

When the alternative is "innovate and be copied out of existence" I don't think you have much choice.

Why Mono is a big win for linux

[Zachary Kessin]

The real thing that mono buys linux is a lot of application developers. A lot of people have put a lot of time and money into learning .net and its tools. They don't want to throw that away if they don't have to. So now we can say to all those folks hey you can use your .net skills on linux (or bsd etc) and poof instant linux applications.

The libraries are why you use it

[Anonymous Coward]

Your handwaving about MS pulling the plug and not allowing use of their libraries isn't a trivial issue. It's a critical problem.

The class libraries are what make .NET valuable, the same with Java. A virtual machine based programming environment is all well and good, but the standard set of base libraries in the runtime are what make it useful. Sure, you use GTK to replace windows.forms. Now, what do you do when MS decides to assert copyright over the layout of the base libraries in .NET? That stuff ISN'T standardized.

The Unsinkable MONO.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fact is there are no better cross-platform tools out there for development, or at least that is the opinion of the users and developers of Mono."

I agree that that's their opinion.

"People develop and use Mono not because they think to themselve "Hey man, It's Microsoft! They've got to know better," they used it because the same cycle of C/C++ plus a bunch of toolsets are painful to use."

So the best solution we could come up with is to pull a QT (at least with Trolltech, we knew they were on our side)?

"Use whatever you want, I like Python myself. What I don't like is this negative FUD campaign against Mono."

Saying it's FUD is basically saying YOU ALL ARE A BUNCH OF LIERS!. Care to go through point, by point and show us why we are wrong. Else you're no better than the FUDsters you claim to be against.

I used to think the same thing!

[adolfojp]

Java does not suck! Java is good.

C# is more of a descendant of c++ than a JAVA clone. Even if it were a Java clone (no one can deny the influences) the improvements are vast.

On windows, on the enterprise level, the .NET libraries make it incredibly easy and consistent to make applications. Of course, those libraries have (and never will) be submitted to the ECMA standards, so, although MONO has them, using them will still be on a gray area.

Cheers,
Adolfo

Re:I used to think the same thing!

[adolfojp]

C# is really good computer language...

Microsoft has no control over the language. It only has control over some libraries that have Linux counterparts.

Using C# on Linux will make the transition easier for many Windows Developers.

Using C# on Linux will increase the productivity of many Linux developers.

How what I wrote above will destroy the chance to something better is a really good question that I would like answered.

I post non anonymously to have a chance at inteligent discussion... you on the other hand are not only an ignorant coward, but have also a juvenile mind.

Adolfo

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Lysol]

What I don't like is this negative FUD campaign against Mono.

Dude, it's not so much against Mono & co. - they're our peoples. I think they've done a great job. However, it is against M$ and their history and mindset. Until they start acting like there's a world where many types of languages and platforms can exist on their own merit, instead of wanting to own everything, then I won't trust them and I'll have to cast a skeptical eye towards anything berthed from Redmond. When was the last time Guido pronounced <insert Ballmer or Gates soundbite of the week here>?

Besides, I speak not from the typical /. zealot perspective, but someone who left the M$ camp years ago after being continually burned by the platform and development environment. They haven't changed and if anything, have only extended their reach increased their lock-in. I'll never go back.

Re:Is he really a big cheese

[Trigun]

Thanks for the update. It's been a while since I played around with it. The last time I spoke to Miguel about it, I was under the impression that the wine libs were there to stay. I guess that I'm a little bit out of date.

I haven't done much mono development lately, and when I did, it was only command-line apps. Maybe it's time to get back into it.

Patents: ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Mono's FAQ:

Question 131: Could patents be used to completely disable Mono (either submarine patents filed now, or changes made by Microsoft specifically to create patent problems)?

The controversial elements are the ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms subsets. Those are convenient for people who need full compatibility with the Windows platform, but are not required for the open source Mono platform, nor integration with today's Mono's rich support of Linux.

The patents do not apply in countries where software patents are not allowed.

Hopefully, the patents will fail in the US too; not many applications can be developed without ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms packages.

Re:Patents: ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms

[WombatControl]

Hopefully, the patents will fail in the US too; not many applications can be developed without ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms packages

For web applications yes. Client side, you can use GTK# and MySQL bindings instead.

Re:Mono perspective

[DrXym]

1. GTK plainly sucks for development. No, really, I tried, and it's worse than MFC.
   GTK is a C API. If you don't like it, use a binding such as gtkmm or wxWidgets. Basically it can live underneath any API you care for it.
2. Windows.Form is THE thing that will allow true Linux WIndows portability. And it's a good widget library..
   It's good but many apps end up PInvoking Win32 because Windows.Forms doesn't do something they need. Thus it isn't that portable. Even a full implementation of Windows.Forms won't do you much good for a program that makes a single call to Win32, or which drags in some "safe" C++ compiled native DLL. But getting back to Windows.Forms, it exposes some particularly non-portable things such as WndProc, windows messages etc.
3. .NET is better than Java in my opinion.
   The CLR & core are architecturally cleaner, but Java kicks seven shades of shit out of .NET when it comes to sheer breadth of implementations, platforms, 3rd party libraries, enterprise level specifications and so on.

I'm in no doubt that Mono is a good thing, but neither .NET nor Mono offer anything remotely as compelling as Java at the moment at least in the enterprise domain. Let's see Mono go through a birth of fire on the desktop first.

Speaking of which, I see a lot of potential there (after all half the system tools in most dists are python / perl etc. with bindings). But Mono really has to start encouraging people other than Linux users to use the open source stack - even .NET users. That means producing an installer containing the stack with some wizards & designers so that Visual Studio .NET users can use them with ease.

".exe" has incredible ick value

[Ars-Fartsica]

While I appreciate what the mono folks are doing, I have to admit a cringe when I see ".exe" and ".dll" files on my system. Of course its just an extension i could symlink to anything I want...and whats in a name? Enough apparently to make a difference.

I think the key issue for mono is that most open source programmers are not overly concerned with Windows interoperability. Its not that they don't see the value of migrating Windows users to new open code...its that they just don't seem to care.

In any case mono is just one more Gtk binding as far as I am concerned...and there will never be an "official" Gnome language beyond C since there are too many powerful advocates in the various camps. Python would likely make the most sense (even though I am not a Python coder), but you have people still rooting for "open" Java (that which is supported by gcj) and C# via mono.

Re:".exe" has incredible ick value

[Moridineas]

I think the key issue for mono is that most open source programmers are not overly concerned with Windows interoperability. Its not that they don't see the value of migrating Windows users to new open code...its that they just don't seem to care.

I would strenusouly disagree with this. Apache, Mysql, Postgresql, gaim--just a few of the opensource apps that are very commonly used on windows and are very actively developed for windows. A lot of projects are very interested in being crossplatform.

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[menkhaura]

From your link: " we wanted to empower developers"

Hm... Developers... C#... Mono (monkey?)... All that sounds vaguely familiar.

Miguel Bashing...

[johnhennessy]

Everytime something like this comes up its amazing how many people jump straight in and start attacking and counter-attacking.

I definetly believe that people are very entitled to voice their opinion on any matter, but it might be nicer for everyone if people adopted a more civil approach. It might actually encourage debate rather than activate peoples "fight-mode". And on the plus side if the agrument is presented in more neutral language even the zealots might read it !!!

After all, if the point is useful then people will take it on board (well, except for the die-hards, who aren't going to listen to you anyway !).

In addition to that, most people seem to be fearful of Microsoft (generally a good approach). It might be more useful to check out what Miguel (and others) have already said about Patents/Licensing at: http://www.mono-project.com/about/licensing.html and then get back and highlight what they think is missing, incorrect or maybe plain wrong.

Re:Miguel Bashing...

[teknomage1]

You're not from 'round here are you?

Re:Miguel Bashing...

[miguel]

Hello,

Well, you are missing the point about anonymous
methods. They are just a lot simpler to write and
hook up than the equivalent for Java. You need to
remember less, you need to type less, and they are
effectively closures with variable and state
captures like Scheme would do. Anonymous classes
in Java are effectively a pre-processor hack:
they cant capture or reference local variables
nor parameters, they can only reference instance
variables of the containing class.

Can everything that anonymous methods do in
C# be done with alternative methods in Java?
Absolutely. But then again, sendmail's config
file format is turing complete, but that does not
mean it is pleasant to write applications on top
of it. The same applies ;-)

Thanks for the pointer on .jar, the rest of
the Java criticism still applies.

That being said, Mono and the CLR are language
neutral, and we will run all of your Java code
in Mono. We are an equal opportunity language
runtime. But given the choice, I tend to go with
writing my code in C#.

Re:Miguel Bashing...

[Arroc]

Anonymous classes CAN reference reference local variables/parameters (as long as the variables are final), this is the whole point.
I'm not sure what you mean by a preprocessor hack, can you elaborate?

Re:Miguel Bashing...

[Ivan Todoroski]

What purpose?

Anonymous classes are mostly used for passing to some method, to be called later (callbacks), so by the time they are called, the local variables in the method where the anon. class was defined NO LONGER EXIST, as that method has finished executing.

What is there to modify?

Re:Miguel Bashing...

[lupus-slash]

The whole point is that the local vars are captured so they will exist even after the original method finishes. This is a very powerful pattern, but you'd need to be a programmer to appreciate it.

Re:Miguel Bashing...

[Ivan Todoroski]

I do appreciate the concept of LISP-like closures, but in this context it's meaningless.

Anonymous classes are used only as a shorthand for defining the class elsewhere and then passing it as a parameter to some method. They are NOT closures, nor were they ever meant to be. Think about it, if you defined the class separately, instead of as anonymous, would you have access to local variables from another class' method then?

Having said that, the local values from the method where you defined the anon. class do exist in read-only form if you declare them final, purely as a convenience (another shorthand). You would accomplish the same effect by passing them as parameters to the constructor of a separately-defined non-anonymous class.

Don't confuse shorthand with a completely new semantic. The only place in Java where anon. classes are really used is for simple callback functions, and closures would be overkill.

Trying to overload the concept of "anonymous class" in Java with the additional semantic of "closure" would just confuse and complicate things... it's not that kind of language. :)

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[mr. marbles]

Until they start acting like there's a world where many types of languages and platforms can exist on their own merit, instead of wanting to own everything, then I won't trust them and I'll have to cast a skeptical eye towards anything berthed from Redmond.

Bitching an moaning about a project is not gonna get anyone anywhere except if and when the project crash and burns you get to say "I told you so." The only way to stop Mono is to offer a better alternative. Developers will not decide to go back to inferior tools simply because they're not entirely sure how legal their tools are.

Give Credit Where Credit is due.

[Laoping]

I know, I know, MS is the evil empire and Open Source is the rebellion trying to free the universe and all that but I got to say that .Net is a fantastic language. I have programmed in C, C++, Java, and .Net and I have to say .Net is currently the best. Java 5 is close but it in missing a few things I like from .Net. I love Mono, and I think it works great. I have only had a few problems with it, but nothing major. It really is nice to develop server applications that can run on Windows and Linux, which is really nice for people who develop for enterprise level deployments. One company will want to use you server in a 2003 domain, the next wants it to run on Red Hat. With C++ and to some extent even Java this just does not work.

On top of that as someone who studied programming languages for my masters project I have to say the .Net system is just the best-designed environments I have seen. I would expect that you will start to see it taught in the colleges, because It allows you to teach people programming that is not language specific. Hopefully you can then get people to know VB, Managed C++ and C# by the end on college, not just Java. Then you can take the importance off learning the syntax and place it on to learning structures and algorithms. Most importantly you then teach the skill of being to switch to new languages and adapt you knowledge, to teach people ho to learn, which in the most important skill I learned in college

Re:Give Credit Where Credit is due.

[l3v1]

On top of that as someone who studied programming languages for my masters project

No offence, but there are some people here, who can put a bit more weight behind their arguments. That said, I don't really care about anything regarding Mono besides this: it works, and one can develop x-platform apps with it besides using Java. That is Good Enough for me to be excited.

Then you can take the importance off learning the syntax and place it on to learning structures and algorithms.

Well, it should've started the opposite way. Syntax, one can learn easily, algorithm-, design- and sw engineering knowledge, should be taught well and learned well.

Re:Give Credit Where Credit is due.

[jeif1k]

.Net is a fantastic language.

The language is C#; .NET is the language plus a large set of APIs.

Re:Give Credit Where Credit is due.

[The MESMERIC]

"... it works, and one can develop x-platform apps with it besides using Java ... "

no-no.

try rephrasing that using the future tense with an auxiliary verb and a time marker.

then you might get a more accurate statement.

Re:No mindshare for Mono

[amightywind]

Language jihads really annoy me. The arguments used to support them generally have no basis in reason but instead rely on emotional outbursts.

This is not a language jihad, just a fact. My posting was not emotional at all, though it seemed to have gotten your color up. C, C++ will not be significantly displaced on GNU/Linux systems or other free software by a M$ language for the simple reason that there is no advantage to it. The emperor has no clothes.

Why is C# easier?

[WombatControl]

Well, it's probably subjective. I started programming with Java, and I found myself constantly fighting with the syntax. Java's syntax seems more esoteric than that of C#. Plus, I've found the .NET libraries to be generally more logically laid out and consistant, and the documentation better than the Java equivalent.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[KhaZ]

... Perhaps I'm missing something.

This post, and all it's subposts, really anger me. From what I understand, .NET is an ECMA standard. This can be verified here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/. They even post a C# specification, so really anyone with the talent can implement it.

As such, how does this "legitimize microsofts attempt at monoplizing another market with yet another windows-only product exactly similar to an exsisting [sic] multi-platform product"?

1) It's not Windows-only since MONO runs on linux.
2) It doesn't legitimize any attempt. http://www.mono-project.com/about/licensing.html does not state anything about an 'evil' Microsoft licensing scheme, or invasion of Microsoft bed bugs into your code:

"The C# Compiler is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL). The runtime libraries are under the GNU Library GPL 2.0 (LGPL 2.0). And the class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11 license.".

Perhaps I fail to see the "licensing minefield created by Miguel", as the fact that it's an open standard, and that the MONO licensing itself isn't restrictive, pretty much subverts that.

On a final note: even if all my points are completely off base, and wrong: I ask you one thing: When did we turn from software developers who seek the 'best' solution to 'X' people?

"I'm a Mac person."
"I'm a Linux person."
"I'm a Windows person."
"I'm an X person."

Since when did it become about branding yourself with something, over choosing the best technology for the job? Half the sub-posts here are all about not choosing the tech because it 'feels too Microsofty'. C# was built by Anders Hejlsberg, who designed Pascal, and Delphi, both successful languages in their own right: and Borland technologies.

Oh no! Now the anti-Borland people aren't going to use C#!

When will this nonsense stop? We're all so anti-being branded, unless we do it to ourselves. Pick the RIGHT solution: not the one you've been known to cower behind.

Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[Tillmann]

Hi,

I can perfectly understand that many hate Mono simply because of the fact that it was Microsoft who designed .NET. That is a valid argument; however, it must be considered that Mono is something that, in the future, is really required for the Linux/UNIX world.

I suppose that those bashing Mono have never actually worked with C#. Personally, I'm really an anti-MS guy, but at work I was basically "forced" to use C#, and I must admit, it absolutely rocks. It is simply a much more productive language than C or C++, especially for GUI development. When you get a specific task, you're simply much more likely to get it done and get it stable within a given time in C#. The biggest productivity gain (besides the syntax candy, like foreach loops) comes from the garbage collection. Sure, other languages like Java have that, too. But, as far as typical DESKTOP applications are concerned, Java has failed to gain popularity both with users and developers (I suppose the major reason is that Sun took way too long to finally allow Java GUI apps to integrate themselves seemlessly in the desktop by adapting a "native" look & feel; but that's another issue).

Linux apps have done a great job in the past years in getting competitive to their Windows counterparts. So, if Linux wants to stay competitive with Windows in the future as well, there must be a similarly productive language for GUI development on Linux. Standard C/C++ with GTK+ and QT can certainly compete with the horrors of MFC easily. But, in my opinion, not necessarily with the combination of C#/Windows.Forms, as far as speed of development is concerned.

Also, if we want to see more commercial applications to run on Linux, there must be a way to easily develop portable GUI apps. Imagine you're the boss of a smaller software company. You develop Windows apps, your customers all use Windows (welcome to the real world!). Maybe 3% of your customers consider switching to Linux. And now you're starting that new software project that must be finished within a certain time. What are you gonna do? Buy QT, and tell your developers to start learning it? Use GTK, with all related problems on the Windows platform, and tell your developers to start learning it? Nope, that's not what the typical boss is gonna decide. He'll let the developers use what they're used to, M$ visual studio, where they can click together the GUI. He'll tell the 3% of the customers that Linux isn't supported.

And this is exactly what may change with Mono!

And talking about the patent issue: Giving up on Mono because of potential patent issues would mean giving up on the patent issue itself. Mono could be the best "bad" example how software patents support a monopoly and limit interoperability. The fight against software patents isn't over yet. At least not in Old Europe.

bye,
Till

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[l4m3z0r]

Java has failed to gain popularity both with users and developers

Wow you could not be more wrong. My "Proof"

Notice Java being the most popular language according to that chart.

I notice that a common theme here is that Mono is needed because RAD(rapid application development) is lacking in Linux. RAD seems to be a sticking point for tons of people who for all I can tell are more concerned with rapidly churning out apps than having correct/good implementations. Or for that matter people who prefer to have quality clean libraries where objects and inheritence aren't creating ugly masses of difficult to maintain code.

My opinion: if you want RAD thats fine, but to suggest that its "necessary" to compete with Windows is just plain foolish. Linux didn't get where it is today by succumbing to the ever increasing move to OO(object oriented). There is no data suggesting Linux has hit a plateau, on the contrary it is growing, without the help of RAD/OO and all these concepts that in my mind are contrary to GOOD programming practice.

Furthermore nothing about the open source model should be described as rapid. Open source development should be slow & methodical, having hundreds/thousands of people hammering away at each others ideas. Introducing these bloated libraries designed as RAD can only result in one outcome in my opinion. A fork. Where the RAD group with there C# or whatever language of the week has there fun in the sun for a few years but eventually die out as the ansi-C programs keep on plodding along, slowly but confident in the fact they are not a passing fad.

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[lupus-slash]

So your point is c# is better than java at desktop programming because .. it's not java?
No, because mono uses much less memory and C# has delegates and (in 2.0 or in the current mono compiler) anonymous code blocks, which allow for much better code than the ugly patterns you need to use in java (check the memory comparison fro Gtk+ apps for some numbers and any Gtk# and java-gnome program for the code cleanness issue).

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[fm6]

As a C# booster, you're making two big mistakes. First, you're focusing on a few features (good support for GUI development, garbage collection) that are important to you but probably not to everybody. Second, you're underestimating the acceptance level of Java, which does indeed have a lot of developers and users, though not nearly as many as its boosters would like.

The C++ way of doing things (huge and hyper-flexible syntax, programmer-directed memory management, objects built on primitive data structures, etc., etc.) is a big, well-established development culture. Both Java and C# represent rebellions against this culture. In point of fact, C# is basically an evolution of Java, and exists mainly because Microsoft people (in particular Ander Hejlsberg, who's been leading the anti-C++ resistance since his Borland days) couldn't accept many of Sun's design choices for Java. People who make the switch away from C++ are making a major change in the working philosophy. So it's not really useful to compare C# with C++. It's a lot more useful to compare C# with the other big anti-C++ language: Java.

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[Tillmann]

Hi, yes, that's what I'm saying. When you're developing software you plan to sell, your aim is to deliver what people want and what people are gonna buy. And what people want is not Java apps. What the majority of (ignorant, Windows-using) people want is a .exe file they can double-click on, and that looks and behaves like those other Windows apps they're using. Be realistic. How many of the typical desktop applications you're using (web browser, email client, office suite, graphics program...) are written in Java? Anyone still remember Corel Office? Of course that is sad. There's nothing wrong with Java. It would have been great if Java had succeeded for desktop apps like it has succeeded in other areas. We'd all be using apps written in Java, there would be much less security issues, more people would have moved away from Windows, etc. Great fantasy. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. Maybe if Sun had - from the beginning on - made Java use native widgets (Windows, or GTK or QT on UNIX) instead of a proprietary interface, or some "emulation" that somewhat looks like the OS' widgets, it would have worked out. But that's really a different issue. Concerning the ease of building graphical apps - it has advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage is that it allows total idiots to make apps that LOOK professional. Especially when VB is involved. The advantage is that it simply saves time, even for experienced programmers. And in .NET, using the GUI builder is quite transparent; the generated code is well-structured. No comparison to the code mess generated by the VC++ 6 GUI builder, for example. I can't really compare it to VB though; the last BASIC dialect I used was AppleSoft BASIC in the 1980s ;-) bye, Till

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[Tillmann]

Hi,

you're making my sound stupid by quoting incomplete sentences :-)

Here's what I wrote:
"But, as far as typical DESKTOP applications are concerned, Java has failed to gain popularity both with users and developers"

If you disagree - tell me: How many of the typical DESKTOP applications that you use (web browser, word processor, email client, ...) are written in Java?

Concerning your other points: They are valid; but I was mainly talking about commercial software, not Open Source. If you develop software for a customer, the customer wants it fast. And RAD can help you do that.

bye,
Till

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[Tillmann]

Hi,

I didn't say that C# is perfect for everything, and all future Linux apps should be written in C#. What I focused on is portable GUI development.

If you're developing a GUI app, it is helpful if the development environment you're using has good support for GUI development.

I'm certainly not going to get into a general C# vs Java discussion. Or in a C++ vs Java/C# discussion. Although I personally try to avoid C++ whenever it's possible.

bye,
Till

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[l4m3z0r]

If you disagree - tell me: How many of the typical DESKTOP applications that you use (web browser, word processor, email client, ...) are written in Java?

I could ask you to tell me some of the typical DESKTOP applications that are written in C# and .NET because the answer would be the same as it is for Java.. NONE. IE, Office, Windows are C++/MFC with gobs of old C and some VB that the low level engineers and interns tossed in for good measure. We won't see the major move to .NET until(if ever) longhorn arrives. And in fact they won't do a complete rewrite, Office, Windows, IE will all still be by in large C/C++/VB. And lets see what third party developers are using now adays. Surprise surprise the majority of the highly visible apps are not using .NET or C#...

My popularity point is still valid. Among developers as a whole Java is more popular than C# despite what you would like to believe about C# and the desktop.

If you develop software for a customer, the customer wants it fast. And RAD can help you do that.

When you are developing software for a customer that really implies that you are under contract to them. Which is hardly the typical desktop apps you were referring to before. Java leads you here, a huge amount of the private in house software apps are now Java or is moving to Java.

If you need further proof, intro to CS classes generally provide a good idea of whats "popular" or wanted or useful. Since Java has become the default intro to CS programming language that should tell you something. There hasn't been a push to make the default language C#. C# like J++ will die out and not take prominence like you seem to think it already has.

Concerning your other points: They are valid; but I was mainly talking about commercial software, not Open Source.

Your distinction between Commercial and Open Source shows a fundamental misunderstanding of software development since you cannot envision companies using Open Source software commercially. Which IBM is doing currently and is very successful at it.

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[amliebsch]

I could ask you to tell me some of the typical DESKTOP applications that are written in C# and .NET because the answer would be the same as it is for Java.. NONE.

Okay, this is true for MS-produced apps. After all, they want to leverage every last secret bit of their WIN32 platform to gain an edge. But for third-party apps, .NET is rapidly becoming a major player. Example: ATI's new control panel utility.

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[The MESMERIC]

Isn't the whole point of C / C++ speed?
I would think any interpreted (Tcl/Tk,Ruby,Perl) or vm-interpreted (SmallTalk, Java, C#) language would be slower.

As to the child mentioning Tcl/Tk
if that is not even vm-interpreted
How can it be fast?

Now if you wanna post a link about how Tcl/Tk can be compiled into bytecode - with some tool I am not aware.
Then please go ahead.

I don't google but doodle specially when I am bored.

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[spitzak]

Modern tcl interpreters do compile on the fly into bytecode.

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[The MESMERIC]

ah ok so its bytecode interpreted like visual basic.
still slower then machine code compiled apps.

- thanks for clarifying that one up.

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[spitzak]

That's correct.

However I thought Java and .net were also bytecodes and not machine language? They still have the advantage that the compilation to bytecodes was done long ago and not as the program is running.

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[The MESMERIC]

Java and .NET compiles to bytecode.
Not sure if you can compile Java to machine language as well.
I would think there are compilers out there that can do that GCJ?
Possibly the same could be achieved with .NET.
Any both posesses a virtual machine - all pioneered originally by Xeror Smalltalk.

Also JVM and .NET are in fact enviroments where you can have other languages:

JVM
.NET

But I wouldn't recommend installing Eiffel for Visual Studio say.
Last 3x I've tried it messed up my environment - and still never worked.
Shame because I really like the Eiffel syntax a lot.

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[Ivan Todoroski]

ATI's control panel utility? That's it? That's your wildcard, the killer app that shows the trend towards .NET on the desktop?

Well, HP's drivers for some of its printers come with management utilities written in Java. Does it mean Java is also conquering the desktop then?

Examples like this are pointless. When we see companies like Adobe, Macromedia, etc. come out with new versions of applications written exclusively in .NET, then you might have a point. So far, I haven't seen any such indication.

Even Microsoft has yet to produce any significant desktop software written in .NET.

P.S. I'm not bashing the .NET platform itself, it's certainly a much nicer language and API than the Win32/MFC/COM crap, it's just that your theory and examples are flawed.

Re:Why Mono is necessary for the Linux/UNIX world

[lupus-slash]

You're right that .net is not multiplatform.
You're wrong about mono, though: mono runs on x86, ppc, sparc, amd64, s390 on linux, solaris, macosx, windows. More ports are in the works, but the above already cover 99% of the computer systems you'd want to run it on.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[agraupe]

If Mono can be sued based on reimplementing an API, what does that mean for WINE? I think that, although there may be some legal problems, there probably won't be. And remember, this is Open Source: if enough people feel threatened by this, they will fork GNOME before the Mono code touches it.

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[21mhz]

You were rather quick to jump ship, because the said prospect never materialized and is unlikely to materialize any time soon.

Re:Because wxWidgets look terrible maybe?

[HogynCymraeg]

Wx looks like the native platform. I don't get what you're saying.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Omega1045]

I really disagree with your point. If anything, Mono helps fight MS. One way that MS locks people onto Windows is with proprietary developer kits and languages like VB and Visual C++. These rely on Microsoft libraries. When a company develops some custom software with ASP, VB or VC++ they are locked into Windows (with the exception of some 3rd party stuff that lets you run some of ASP on Linux, Wine, etc).

MS Actually let .NET and C# become ISO standards unlike many of their past developer tools and languages. So when a large company develops an ASP.NET application and then decides that they don't want to have to continue support IIS or Windows, they now have a choice to migraite to Linix!

Mono provides choice for those that are currently developing for the Windows platform. So does Java. Mono is FOSS. Is Java?

I am currently working on a project that uses C# for the GUI. Our customers use Windows workstations, so we are writing software for Windows. We are actually moving away from Java which was the old language of choice at my company. You may argue the reasoning behind this, but it is the decision that was made and we are using C# instead of Java. I am hopefull that a more mature Mono (in a year or so with full System.Windows.Forms) may provide us with a way to run our client programs on Linux workstations, if requested by a customer. Mono will give us back some of the choice we lost moving away from Java.

Mono creates great competition for Java. Perhaps this will be another reason for Sun to finally make Java FOSS. Competion is a good thing.

Mono needs some work

[bluefoxlucid]

Mono needs a bit of work to work with PaX, but it's possible. I mentioned the necessary changes to the Kaffe team; but they apply to any JIT.

The issue is that a JIT compiler like Mono generates code at runtime. Because it's not generated in realtime (it's compiled at the loading of an executable module, one time), it's feasible to dump the executable code to a file on disk and mmap() it in.

PaX won't allow code to be generated in memory unless the program has mprotect() restrictions off and uses mprotect() right. It's safer to rewrite the JIT compiler though, since you wind up with a stricter security policy that way.

Furthermore, Exec Shield's NX emulation is flawed, and the use of mprotect() in those ways would disable the protections on large parts of the binary. If anything happens in or above the stack, the whole stack is likely executable. This is in fact one reason I prefer PaX; a slight modification to Red Hat's kernel to print X instead of - in /proc/[pid]/maps for !PROT_EXEC memory that's actually executable prints out a good deal of areas that are executable but shouldn't be (rwx vs rwX).

Mono is flexible enough that C and C++ can be compiled to .NET. Microsoft supports this, as mentioned in earlier slashdot posts. It's really important to consider .NET and Mono as insecure, and to make sure they're adequately protected. If you're running all your programs in Mono and Mono has to disable PaX, then you lose the benefit of your GrSecurity-enhanced kernel. (same with ES).

Re:Mono needs some work

[Jamie Lokier]

Mono needs a bit of work to work with PaX, but it's possible. I mentioned the necessary changes to the Kaffe team; but they apply to any JIT.

For the benefit of readers, those "necessary changes" are to require a JIT to generate shared libraries for each class that's loaded, and then dynamically load the shared libraries.

That's fine for a JIT that is only used to generate static code for each class. But it's not efficient for dynamic optimisation techniques, such as run-time profile-driven code optimisation, or run-time data reorganisation.

On a PaX system, perhaps you can work around the restrictions by mapping a shared memory segment in two places, one of them as an executable mapping, the other writable. Write to one address, and execute at the other. I don't know as I haven't tried a PaX system.

-- Jamie

Re:Mono needs some work

[IamTheRealMike]

PaX is the flawed system here. The PaX guys have some weird philosophy where runtime code generation is viewed as "insecure" and it blocked by default, along with a host of other ridiculous restrctions which quite apart from not enhancing security in a useful manner break things as basic as the Nautilus file manager or OpenGL. The fact that Mono doesn't work with it is the least of their concerns.

Quite how runtime code generation can be considered bad is beyond me: I can "generate code" by typing a shell script into emacs.

Meanwhile exec-shield trades off usability and compatibilty against security, and IMHO gets that tradeoff right. If anybody is now thinking "oooh Mono is insecure!!" then don't, it's only insecure according to the PaX developers extremely unusual and by no means accepted world view.

Platform independent?

[Doc Ruby]

Can I just run a Mono app on Linux that was written on/for .NET? When Mono is in full release, that is.

Re:Platform independent?

[amliebsch]

Yes. Especially for non-GUI apps. You can do it now, assuming that the coding was done with some thought towards portability (i.e., no hard-coded file names, no WIN32 platform calls). Fortunately, .NET makes it pretty easy to code with this portability in mind.

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[bonch]

The .NET API is an open standard. The best thing Microsoft could ever do for Mono would be to sue it. The publicity and attention and droves of users/developers it would get would be monumental. They'll ignore it.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Laser Lou]

I can't imagine how GNOME which was FOUNDED strictly because of the POSSIBILITY of some licensing problems with Qt(KDE), would go head-long into this licensing minefield created by Miguel.

The licensing issue with Qt simply concerned whether or not it was free software. However you feel about Microsoft, Mono is based on their standards, so they can only love it.

Don't use .NET at all

[Anonymous Coward]

The absolute major problem with the way I feel Miguel has handled the Mono situation is that he constantly refers to ".NET". It's as if he somehow thinks he's going to outsmart Microsoft or something. You can't beat Microsoft at embrace and extend, you have to change the game. .NET is a MARKETING TERM!!!!!!! Don't you remember when it originally got tacked on to every single Microsoft product? Saying Mono is an Open Source implementation of .NET is ignorant at best, and misleading and irresposible at worst. Just stick to C# and CLR and make no mention of .NET at all. Otherwise, they will continue to show me just how absolutely pathetically naive they (especially Miguel) are. .NET is basically Microsoft's brand, and Miguel will never establish authenticity, originality, etc. by latching on to a MS brand. Sure, take the best stuff, build on the shoulder of some giants, but have some !@#$ business sense. Doesn't he work for Novell now? He should have a powow with a marketing intern and receive some lessons on basic marketing.

If they managed to do that, I might start to consider using it. It's a pretty amazing piece of technology, but don't let yourself be blinded to every other issue because of some neato tech toy fetish worship. As it is, I'm just appalled at how stupid they have been with this. They are just playing right into Microsoft's hands, sticking their head into the guillotine as Microsoft gives them some nice flowers to smell and pretty pictures to look at. Fucking so fucking pathetic.

Re:Don't use .NET at all

[Anonymous Coward]

.Net is today used to refer to the common language infrastructure/environment in which languages like C# exist and are defined. It's no longer a marketing term, but a pinned down reality that hasnt been anything other than that since more than six months before Windows 2003 shipped.

In that regard, he is correct to refer to it as an implementation of .NET, and C# just so happens to be bundled along with it.

Instead of flaming, why not gather the basic literary skills needed to form intelligent, sensible and factual arguments and work from there?

Re:Don't use .NET at all

[Dr. Shim]

Can't we just settle it by saying MONO is a framework which extends the .NET, (that's what it's called, sorry), framework, as well as abides by it's standards? It's another implementation of .NET, (that's what it's called, sorry), period.

I don't see what the problem is. The word 'open' has been used even more as a "marketing term."

not true...

[MenTaLguY]

Hopefully, the patents will fail in the US too; not many applications can be developed without ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms packages.

That's not true. For example, most current Mono apps use Gtk# rather than Windows.Forms. Windows.Forms hasn't even been implemented much in Mono until very recently.

Basically Mono "embraced and extended" .NET and introduced their own competing API stack (though they have made efforts to implement the MS APIs as well).

Re:not true...

[alext]

That's "extend" in the sense of "give up and try something else".

Hope those new readers are keeping up...

Server side Java for multiple platforms is not new

[Augusto]

> It really is nice to develop server applications that can run on Windows and Linux, which is really nice for people who develop for enterprise level deployments. One company will want to use you server in a 2003 domain, the next wants it to run on Red Hat. With C++ and to some extent even Java this just does not work.

What doesn't work? People have been doing server side Java development for a long time now, and you tout this as an innovention from .net? BTW, .net has less platform support than the Java VM, so your statement is really misinformed.

What about wx?

[WarmBoota]

I've a c# developer, and I'd be tempted to play with mono, but I have to wonder why Python with the wxWindows and wxGTK toolkits isn't getting more exposure.

My biggest problem with Java apps is that they look equally bad on any given platform. Based on what I've seen with wxWindows and wxGTK, the apps look like native apps. Is Python missing something essential?

Re:What about wx?

[codepunk]

wxWindows is fairly cool but it still has many quirks. The thing python is missing is about to be released GPL qt on windows. I agree, java and C# just are not as productive as good ole python.

Re:What about wx?

[chris_mahan]

Yes, good books on doing GUI applications with python.

Re:What about wx?

[aurelianito]

I think that they are missing a good IDE (where is the eclipse equivalent for python?)

Re:What about wx?

[juhaz]

wxGTK is still buggy as hell with GTK2 and unicode, GTK1 version may "look like native", but it's horribly ugly native from ten years ago. Not to mention, wxWidgets API is modeled after the horror called MFC.

I much rather use pygtk directly, even if it's at the expense of "feeling" bit less native on Windows.

Re:No mindshare for Mono

[geomon]

This is not a language jihad, just a fact.

Really?

I should think most real hackers would be embarrased to program in C# as they are to program in Java.

Tell me where the objective "fact" is in that statement.

My posting was not emotional at all, though it seemed to have gotten your color up.

The "No real hacker" portion of your post is hardly rational discourse.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[KhaZ]

Obviously troll bait, however just incase there's people who don't understand, this isn't really reasonable.

You won't be using Windows.Forms in Linux, unless someone writes an emulation layer for it, so it's not really a cross-platform type Java-esque solution in such away.

I'll leave the obvious hyperbole of 'since the MS build will always offer more features' for the reader to disregard on their own. :)

I'm glad I'm not an OSS developer...

[shrikel]

I mean geez - Mononucleosis as a job requirement? No thanks.

Answer: VisualStudio.NET vs TextPad

[rjamestaylor]

C# and .NET are easier because of VisualStudio.NET.

Sun's Java books still recommend TextPad, which is a great editor, but MS has the Visual programmers by the precious parts. Yes, there are IDEs for Java, but they're optional. I don't know any C# developers using something other than VisualStudio.

Of course, then there's the minority of Mono programmers...but they aren't put off by Java's "complexity" of package naming convention as some C# promoters claim. They're seasoned developers and can work with whatever they so choose. They are choosing Mono. Good on 'em, I say.

Visual tools... that's what enables the common programmer.

Re:Answer: VisualStudio.NET vs TextPad

[aled]

That IDEs are optional is good because some people don't like them. With Java you can have many very good IDEs, and you may even do the project using different ones. You even have a couple (Eclipse and Netbeans) that are FOSS. As I see that's a Good Thing.

Re:Answer: VisualStudio.NET vs TextPad

[rjamestaylor]

Good for you!

I don't think anyone was promoting C# 'cause of the tool VS.NET -- at leadt I wasn't -- but rather explaining the reason C# is touted as "easier."

But, thanks for offering your opinion!

kinda...

Re:Mono perspective

[kahei]

Quite a rarity, this... an Mono-skeptical post that is written in a rational tone, as opposed to just freaking out because hey, M$. I will therefore append my opinions to it, such as they are.

It's good but many apps end up PInvoking Win32 because Windows.Forms doesn't do something they need. Thus it isn't that portable.

True, but that's because those people aren't trying to write portable code. I don't like Windows.Forms and I don't think it encourages portability at all; but luckily there's nothing to stop people who want to be portable from using something else. I would rather see work done on whole new GUI kits, than see a perfect Windows.Forms on Linux.

The CLR & core are architecturally cleaner, but Java kicks seven shades of shit out of .NET when it comes to sheer breadth of implementations

I'd say that .NET can have more implementations and libraries and so on by and by (and really, libraries have been appearing at a tremendous rate), whereas the fundamental flaws in Java will be there forever. I'd rather invest in the core that works, even if it has a few crappy libraries on top of it at the moment. The core is just that much better.

neither .NET nor Mono offer anything remotely as compelling as Java at the moment at least in the enterprise domain.

My industry (which invested HUGELY in Java) does not agree -- there are lots of .NET projects starting up, although the lack of a JBoss-equivalent is certainly a problem.

But Mono really has to start encouraging people other than Linux users to use the open source stack - even .NET users.

I agree 103%. That is absolutely the best thing they could do. As things are, most people write .NET apps in Visual Studio and then afterwards they reflect on how they probably could port them to Mono, but can't be bothered. It is essential for the open-source stack to be where projects start from. That would be a very good thing both for portability and for .NET on windows. And it is all about creating an installer that gives you mono and one of the free IDEs and a tutorial.

I'd do that, but ironically I'm busy writing old-style C code for a less forward-thinking open source project.

Python and QT

[codepunk]

So what exactly is this going to get me over say something like using Python and the soon to be released gpl qt for windows? Python is a way more productive language than either C#,C,C++, java or VB so what is the benefit?, I just don't see it.

Re:Python and QT

[hedge_death_shootout]

So what exactly is this going to get me over say something like using Python and the soon to be released gpl qt for windows?

Whenever I try and program in python, the whole process takes much longer, because I make loads of mistakes that dont get caught until runtime. And it takes much longer to write code, because I have to type every character, instead of letting the computer type 80% of it for me, through the magic of 'intellisense'. And I cant use refactoring tools.

So, to summarise, python is more productive, but only for geniuses like yourself.

I hope this clears up your confusion. :)

Re:Python and QT

[Rhalin]

Python can be compiled into CIL code that Mono can be run, I believe the project is called IronPyhon or something. So, you'd get the ability to run your python scripts, -and- allow for other scripting languages to run side by side, and only have to implement a single scripting engine.

Re:Python and QT

[codepunk]

Yea but then again why would I run python on anything but a pure python interpreter and still
have to worry about MS doing away with my environment when the want.

Re:Python and QT

[mrroach]

As someone who is a big fan of Python and uses it almost exclusively, I can say that the static typing of C# and Java has one big advantage. It's not better bug detection at compile time, or some nebulous concept of "enterprise readiness", it's intelligent IDEs with autocompletion etc.

I prefer GvR's ideas about static typing for Python 3000 better (basically, all type checking is done via interfaces), but it doesn't actually exist yet :-).

-Mark

Re:Python and QT

[int19h]

Because IronPython is faster.

Re:Python and QT

[bwalling]

So what exactly is this going to get me over say something like using Python and the soon to be released gpl qt for windows? Python is a way more productive language than either C#,C,C++, java or VB so what is the benefit?

Well, for starters, you get a target platform that people actually have already. In the Linux world, that's not a big deal, but if you want Windows users using your software, you shouldn't depend on them installing Qt.

Which 900 lb gorilla do you fear today?

[fm6]

All it does is to legitimize microsofts attempt at monoplizing another market with yet another windows-only product exactly similar to an exsisting multi-platform product....it's their modus-operandi.

I agree that Microsoft works that way -- when they decide they have to be the dominant player in a particular market. But there's no evidence that Microsoft wants to dominate the Linux market, or that they even take it seriously. MS doesn't control Mono. They just give it token support as a token gesture towards interoperability.

I'll say it again: MS is a big company with lots of people in lots of suborganizations. These people do not have one unifed goal. Indeed, the goals of one group often run at cross purposes to the goals at another. You can't always assume you understand Microsoft's motives for doing something based soley on how Microsoft (or rather, one particular arm of Microsoft) behaved in the past.

Re:Is he really a big cheese

[shish]

less portable and less stable.

Than WINE?

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[squiggleslash]

So does Java. Mono is FOSS. Is Java?

You really need to compare Java to .NET, not Mono. Mono's direct comparison would be with products like GCJ/GNU CLASSPATH and/or Kaffe.

These projects would probably be a little further along than they are now had the development focus not been on .NET (Mono, .GNU), I think developers got bored with Java or something. That said, I like the whole GCJ thing, that's Free Software people implementing a (relatively) original idea using existing protocols, rather than just a blind copy of something someone else has done. Hopefully it'll succeed.

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[aled]

Can you support your comment? CLI and C# are ECMA/ISO standards but .Net API is not. Please provide a link showing it otherwise.

Published does not mean free of patents

[Anonymous Coward]

And in the MONO FAQ, question 131 I can see:

The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA, (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent): here.

Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose.

If you want to accept such grants without a signed document saying that you are allowed, for all the life of the patents, to use such patents without any kind of compensation, in money, cross licensing, no agression treaties or such other conditions, then it's up to you. Saying the risk is not there is not right, until the patent holders provide such documents.

Later in that question they talk about ASP.NET (non ECMA) and other things, which are also patented, but they'll try to avoid the patented methods. The ECMA parts are still patented and required for MONO, and all they can show is an afirmation in a mail list, that says "royalty free and otherwise RAND". RAND can be .25 cents per program copy.

Re:Published does not mean free of patents

[miguel]

The problem with patents is that they will cover
the concepts, not the implementation.

So the reality is that any modern implementation of
anything remotely interesting will infringe in
a bogus patent. You write a hundred lines of code
and you are infringing someone.

In my opinion, we can fight bad patents or we can
move into a safer industry, like selling panties.

But in particular, if you are talking about ASP.NET
the question you must ask yourself are:

* Do I use any concepts that exist in the .NET
Framework in my code? If so, should I remove the
feature?

* Did the concepts in ASP.NET (or any other
technology) exist prior to the .NET Framework?

Remember that you must be thinking "concept" and
not "implementation", because a patent is much
broader than that.

I believe there is very little new under the sun,
and that prior art can be found for all the
interesting parts of the .NET Framework. If I
didnt, I would be selling soap.

Miguel.

Re:Published does not mean free of patents

[alext]

Well now, there is the danger of merely walking through a field with a bull in it, then there is the danger of walking through that field waving a a large red flag bearing the legend "does this API look familiar Bozo?"

I don't think Java or Python developers have much to fear from MS despite the many conceptual similarities.

Re:Published does not mean free of patents

[Sergej]

Hello Miguel. It's nice to see you clarify your position. I have a question, though: What do you consider new under the sun?

Re:Published does not mean free of patents

[Locutus]

oh that's a good way to look at it. If you've got a few million bucks in the bank to pay for the court case that Microsoft files. RIAA anyone?

It is obvious that Microsoft intends to use the US court system and its patents( fake or otherwise ) to shutdown open source software. And this has been obvious for a few of years. The fact that the ECMA allows patented materials in its "accepted" "standards" is obviously why Microsoft used THAT organization.

Come on, open your eyes. For how long did they hold up the XML flag before joining it with their XML format patent flag?

Why Miguel insists on copying Microsofts technologies in his projects is beyond me... It has always been the wrong path and a quick look at Microsofts history will show you that. IMHO

LoB

Re:Published does not mean free of patents

[ajs]

I don't think Java or Python developers have much to fear from MS despite the many conceptual similarities.

I'd really love it if you could note that comment somewhere off-line. Please include the date and time you made it.

Refer back to it in about 5-10 years once Microsoft is starting to bleed money (speaking purely from the standpoint of recent articles in non-tech media that indicate MS is starting to "rot") and sees litigation as an "out". When you go back to your note, I wonder what you'll think....

Re:Published does not mean free of patents

[alext]

I'll probably still think that Java and Python comfortably preceded Dotnet.

Without time travel or the purchase of somebody else's portfolio it's hard to see how MS could concoct a claim.

Re:Published does not mean free of patents

[natrius]

I'll have you know that selling panties is a cutthroat industry. Stay the fuck away. Or else.

Re:Published does not mean free of patents

[ajs]

The probelm is that almost all of .Net is a product of the Java-likeization of technologies that came out of Microsoft Research and significantly pre-date other uses of many of those technologies.

Patents that cover .Net may not have been applied for as ".Net technologies" per se. They just have to be patents that MS happens to hold.

Not exactly

[TheConfusedOne]

Microsoft released portions of the CLR (Common Language Runtime) and C# for standardization. The real nuts-and-bolts of .NET are decidedly NOT an open standard. This is what concers many people.

Additionally, since .NET is a wholly controlled "standard" by MS then Mono will be on the same treadmill that WINE and other groups chasing MS implementations have been on.

Re:Not exactly

[bonch]

The nuts and bolts of .NET fall under the ECMA submission. What the controversy is over is the Windows.Forms, ADO.NET, and other related technologies built on top of it. Even without those, people could freely use Mono with other technologies like GTK#, Cocoa#, or whatever.

Re:Not exactly

[alext]

That's called forking isn't it?

My suggestion is that your first step should be to decide exacty what you include under the "Mono" banner. Is it:

1. The CLI and C Sharp implementations (core)
2. The Dotnet compatibility libaries
3. The "other" libraries
4. 1 & 2
5. 1 & 3
6. 1, 2 & 3

I think this would be a lot less confusing for people encountering claims of Mono standardization, Mono compatibility etc.

And we don't want to confuse people, do we?

Re:Not exactly

[bonch]

That's called forking isn't it?

No, forking is when you create an alternate branch off an existing technology. Unless Microsoft has implemented their own Cocoa#, GTK#, and so on in .NET, I don't know why you'd think it's a fork of anything.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[aled]

From what I understand, .NET is an ECMA standard. This can be verified here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/. They even post a C# specification, so really anyone with the talent can implement it.

Perhaps you should read your own link. Only C# and CLI are ECMA approved standard. The other 80% of .Net (aprox.) is Microsoft property.

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[SunFan]

I would bet Sun's lawyers would intervene before GNOME were at risk. Integrating Mono into GNOME without being sure about patents would be insane.

Re:Patent issues?-Hemophiliac Code.

[alext]

For new readers, this means free with Gnome rather than free of patent lawsuits.

It's important to keep these distinctions clearly in mind.

(And vice versa).

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[miguel]

Hello,

You are wrong, Microsoft has not done anything
to prevent code from running on Mono.

There is the real problem that we do not
implement all the class libraries, specially those
that are being phased out like EnterpriseServices
and Message Queuing. But then again, those are
really marginal tools which were complex to use,
so its not really a problem.

The other bit is COM support, which we do not
support as there is really no "COM" to talk to
in Unix anyways.

Miguel.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[killjoe]

90% of the .NET platform is not an open standard.

MS has lots of patents and they have said publicly that they intend to "defend their intellectual property".

Even if it's a standard Ms can sue you for patent infringement.

Huge difference between Mono and Java

[TheConfusedOne]

You can claim that Mono is FOSS but there are huge patent questions regarding implementing certain portions of .NET. Now Miguel and company have talked about "routing around" or simply not implementing portions that they can't do because of patents but if it's not compatible then there are going to be problems. Additionally, those patent problems could keep entire portions of Mono from being implemented because of similarities to .NET functions.

Meanwhile, Sun has legally committed themselves to allowing FOSS implementations of the Java spec. This includes licensing agreements for any relevant patents that would hinder a standard FOSS implementation.

Now you might bring up the "but Sun controls the spec" controversy. To answer that I'd ask: "Who controls .NET?"

Re:Huge difference between Mono and Java

[Slime-dogg]

I think that it is about time to shut up about the patents already. This really only amounts to massive amounts of whining.

Seriously. Mono provides an implementation of the unpatented CLR bits, those things which are ISO standard. The MS patents, I believe, exist within the System.Windows.Forms namespace. Mono provides this functionality in one stack, and GTK#/QT# in another stack. If a problem aises because of the System.Windows.Forms stack, there would still be an open option for Mono devs.

There really isn't any reason for .NET programmers to use Windows.Forms anyway. GTK# is LGPL, which allows you to distribute your code without the requirement to open it as well. QT# is also available, but I believe that it is GPL'd, which is perfectly fine if you swing that way.

Re:Huge difference between Mono and Java

[TheConfusedOne]

You mean patents and patent applictions like this?

>
Application program interface for network software platform

Abstract

An application program interface (API) provides a set of functions for application developers who build Web applications on Microsoft Corporation's .NET.TM. platform.

Granted this is only an application but it attempts to lay claim to a rather wide field. If this is approved what affect would it have for similar functionality in Mono? We're talking about XML and remote procedure calls which would hurt things a lot worse than having to use something besides System.Windows.Forms.

The main thing is that we've already seen MS try to use patents to stop FOSS implementations (check SAMBA and CIFS patents) so this is not like it would require a huge change in corporate philosophy.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[XMyth]

Are you sure about that? That's one of the things talked about in the article is finishing System.Windows.Forms.

Someone earlier even posted that the current, 1.1, beta (I think) version of mono supports Windows.Forms.

Meanwhile...

[eldacan]

I find that most of the exciting applications I recently discovered are mono based: muine (you must try this one if any), f-spot, and beagle! tomboy seems cool too.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[killjoe]

"MS Actually let .NET and C# become ISO standards " .NET is not an ISO standard. .NET is an umbrella term for a collection of Ms technologies. Only the CLR has been submitted to ECMA (not ISO).

Regardless Ms still owns patents on the numerous .NET technologies have both Ballmer and Gates have repeatedly said they intend to defend their intellectual property vigorously.

Be Aware that your company can be sued for USING patent infringing technology. That's the way the US patent system works. If you company has deep pockets Ms could come after you. If for no other reason then to make you stop using .NET on a non windows platform.

Re:Server side Java for multiple platforms is not

[aled]

And Java has a hell of more production sites than Mono.

Re:Is he really a big cheese

[Locutus]

More on Miguels bio:
Miguels possible next project; An open source tool which reads and writes the patented MS Office MS-XML.

You see, he has a habit of following/copying Microsofts tech, no matter how many patents are behind it. People need to stop following Microsoft because it obviously can't lead to anything good or well designed. IMHO.

LoB

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Phantasmo]

System.Windows.Forms is a part of the .Net libraries like any other, so I don't see why Mono's Cairo-based implementation would be any different from the rest of the reimplemented classes. Cairo plays with X11, so it'll run on any platform with an X server (i.e. GNU/Linux, *BSD or Mac OS X).
Perhaps when the Mac Mono matures we'll see Quartzified/Cocoafied S.W.F. implementation.

Re:Server side Java for multiple platforms is not

[miguel]

Hello,

Yes, "Java has a hell more production sites
than Mono". This is whats wrong with this
argument: if "having more production sites" is the
metric to choose a technology over something new
then we would still be running code in assembler
and Cobol. After all, there were more production
systems written in those than in C, C++ or Java
when these languages came out.

Love,
Miguel.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[alext]

Possibly a misunderstanding?

I guess OP is referring to the portability of programs developed now on Dotnet 1.2 or 2.0 without consideration (at the time) of a move to Mono.

Parent is probably referring to the continued support of programs that were written with Mono in mind.

So you're both right - the real issue is the proportion of programs being written for Dotnet with consideration for Mono.

Re:Mono perspective

[DrXym]

Sorry if I sound skeptical, but I'm involved in .NET projects too within a company that is predominantly Java & C++. For them the qualities they look for are reliability and stability. They don't care that the language is syntactically nicer - just that when they start the thing up, it doesn't stop until they take it down to add more features. Thus they use Java on the server side because it is rock solid. A highly desirable side effect of course is that they can take that code and move it from one box to another, one J2EE impl to another with minor to fair amounts of effort (fixing config files and such). Thus they're shifting a bunch of stuff from Solaris over to Red Hat Linux.

Despite that, management have caught the .NET bug for client applications. This is where Java is weak. JFC might be great on paper, but it just blows as far as performance is concerned, looks weird even with a theme engine and is just plain difficult to programme. Eclipse & SWT demonstrate that a Java UI doesn't have to be such a pain, but SWT hasn't really spun off into something that 3rd party apps can rely on yet.

So traditionally we've always coded C++ on the client side. There's nothing wrong with that in my book, but management have been sold on the idea that .NET will increase product stability and lessen development times. Which is great except they've decided we will migrate by wrapping the old legacy code with managed classes and use a .NET based UI. Thus we get the instability of C++ and the overhead of .NET! The alternative would be to rewrite the product entirely in .NET which would take years.

Thus my skepticism about Mono. The real world (and the world Microsoft wants) has lots of unsafe and unmanaged code tied together with .NET. Unless Mono links to the whole of winelib and provides x86 emulation for non-x86 hosts, this code will never run outside of Win32. To cap it off, our app executes code in MS SQL, so we have yet another dependency. We have no intention of testing on Mono and I sincerely doubt it would work even if we tried.

That's the real world. Mono isn't on the radar and never will be while it's considered some sideshow. The onus will always be on Mono to cope with whatever crap gets flung at it and not the other way around. Thus my belief is they need to push the great stuff they have so it is shown on the same level as the Microsoft code. If GTK# and other open stack APIs are made easy to develop and run from Dev Studio .NET 2003 it might sway someone sufficiently to use them in some major projects. Word will get around soon enough.

I don't think .NET programmers are shy of good open source libraries (NUnit, Log4Net & Spring.NET are popular ports from Java), but they have to work in the first place for people to bother with them.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[e2d2]

This was probably the best post I've read on this site. I was worried that no one really cared about finding the right solution for the job.

I bet if Google was behind Mono it would be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[CodeBuster]

Since when did it become about branding yourself with something, over choosing the best technology for the job?

Specialization is a natural tendency in any industry as it matures and the body of knowledge continues to increase. People chose to specialize because there are not enough hours in the day to learn and work on every platform or language that comes along. You make the best choice that you can on language or platform and outsource the stuff that is not part of your specialty or the core competency of the company.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[miguel]

Hey,

Small correction: C# and the CLI have both
been approved as ISO standards: ISO/IEC 23270 (C#), ISO/IEC 23271 (CLI) and ISO/IEC 23272 (CLI TR).

Huh?

[tgd]

Anders Hejlsberg did NOT design Pascal. Dr. Niklaus Wirth did in 1971.

Re:Huh?

[rewt66]

You beat me to it. But, IIRC, he did design Borland's Turbo Pascal.

Re:Huh?

[man_of_mr_e]

No, but he did more or less design Borland Turbo pascal. Philippe Kahn, one of the founders of Borland worked with Wirth and helped develop Pascal, Anders worked with Kahn to develop Turbo Pascal, a more "real world" version of Pascal that was useful for more things than teaching.

Re:Patent issues?-Hemophiliac Code.

[Pxtl]

Well, in its current state, Mono is free - afaik, its based on recognised ISO standards which are protected from lawsuits. Unfortunately, Miguel doesn't seem to want to stop there, and also wants to invade things like windows.forms which are outside of the CLR and into pure-MS domain.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[rbanffy]

Do you really think someone can embrace and extend Microsoft?! They haven't even embraced the .NET platform fully...

It may make technical sense (yet, I doubt it) but it is the most stupid strategic blunder I saw in a long time. It is a very nice tool for Microsoft to spend FOSS developer's time and resources making them jump when and where they dictate the (de facto) standard.

And I didn't even touch the possible licensing catastrophe that can come out of this mess.

There is one way FOSS can succeed and it is not trying to monkey (pun intended) Microsoft.

Re:Patent issues?-Hemophiliac Code.

[alext]

Well, that was the original stated goal of Mono*. You and your company are now along for the ride... ;-)

*To be pedantic, the goal was originally a "complete" Dotnet implementation, then recently (October 2004) there was some retrenchment and the emergence of two stacks - Dotnet and "Gnome" - now it seems that we're back on track for Dotnet 1.0, though bets are off for anything beyond that. But then that was always the case, wasn't it?

You missed the point

[Augusto]

Miguel;

The point wasn't, nobody's using Mono so it's not usable. The point was that the original poster was saying that he's using .Net because Java is not multi platform enough for server side development.

I find that interesting, specially when yes, as the poster you replied to said, Java is used way more on "production sites".

Cross platform apps and scripting

[Rhalin]

Mono may be a reimplementation of an MS product, even looking at the source, you'll notice a folder full of *nix implementations of windows API calls. But what does it really matter if it does the job you need it to?

I started looking into it a few weeks ago when a project I was (am) working on required a scripting engine that could handle running scripts from anonymous sources, id est untrusted.

We went through a large range of languages: python, perl, angelscript, php, lua, etc etc but ended up with a few rather large problems in all of them: either lack of sandboxing and protecting a system from the effects a script could have, or lack of documentation and user friendlyness for those who may not be too familier with programming (yes, we have to consider them)

One of the dev's on the team brought up that .Net includes a set of security features that help to lock down scripts fairly tight, the problem being, our app has to be cross platform. This started us looking into Mono, which doesn't implement all the security features -yet-, but by our planned release date, they should be done, or very close.

Another thing to consider, is that Mono will run any CIL compiled code, meaning that we can support a virtually innumerable count of languages, with very little excess implementation (find a compilier and link it into the project).

So now we have: cross platform scripting (with sandboxing eventually), and the ability to present the users/programmers of the scripts with the syntax they are most comfortable with using.

Not only that, but Mono is going to save us a fortune on our development costs, because we may be able to drop Qt GUI implementation from our project roadmap, which averaged about $6000 for each developer(Qt Enterprise with QSA), I believe, and had some -major- limitations on what you could use thier scripting language for (for example, you're not allowed to use it to expose features of Qt itself to the scripter, which may be neccisary for our project)

Mono does the job, fits our specs almost perfectly, saves us money, and is built on CIL ECMA standards. What more -could- we ask?

Re:Cross platform apps and scripting

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

"...when a project I was (am) working on required a scripting engine that could handle running scripts from anonymous sources, id est untrusted... This started us looking into Mono, which doesn't implement all the security features -yet-, but by our planned release date, they should be done, or very close."

My friend, you have some big balls. You're going to release something which needs a lot of security when the underlying security bits are unfinished and thus cannot be tested. Good luck with that.

"We went through a large range of languages: python, perl, angelscript, php, lua..."

I just have to ask: what about Java or JavaScript?

Re:Cross platform apps and scripting

[Rhalin]

My friend, you have some big balls. You're going to release something which needs a lot of security when the underlying security bits are unfinished and thus cannot be tested. Good luck with that.

The idea we're using at the moment is to initially use the secure version built with .Net, and use a seperate, custom scripting language we're working on for our linux and OSX builds until Mono has proven it's security a bit more, and possibly allow a "security" level within the app for mono-based scripts, default set to high, making it so users that -need- the feature can turn it on, rather than having it on by default.

I just have to ask: what about Java or JavaScript?

Java was ruled out, quite simply because none of the developers on the team like it very much, and we considered it difficult for novice programmers to quickly learn the ins and outs.

Javascript was brought up several times, In fact it was what I personally wanted to use(I went as far as to download the mozilla engine for it, spidermonkey, and start playing around). But one of the project managers (who has more of a say than we do) doesn't like it - and we've yet to find out exactly why.

Re:Cross platform apps and scripting

[argent]

One of the dev's on the team brought up that .Net includes a set of security features that help to lock down scripts fairly tight

Using a design descended from Internet Explorer and Active Desktop, whose security zones and certificates and ad-hoc definitions of zone boundaries has proven fatallay and unfixably flawed.

Why should I trust .NET to have finally fixed the unfixable?

Re:Cross platform apps and scripting

[Rhalin]

If I wasn't one for giving a platform a second (or third) chance, I wouldn't be using linux or freeBSD now. ;)

Rather than just completely denounce an idea because of where it came from, I'm at least willing to give it a try. There comes a point where you just have to drop prior observations and let some things make a fresh start, holding a grudge only limits your options in the future and limits the directions a business can take, often times leading to eventual failure.

I figure Java will be ready for a fourth try in about three years or so, maybe I'll look into that around then. ;)

Re:Cross platform apps and scripting

[argent]

Rather than just completely denounce an idea because of where it came from, I'm at least willing to give it a try.

This has nothing to do with "holding a grudge". You can't evaulate the security of a system by "giving it a try".

The problem is that there is a deep and fundamental flaw in the security of ActiveX and derived technologies. The problem is that the design is based on discretionary access conrol policies and models, but it's operating on objects that have to be limited by mandatory access controls.

When you assign privileges to potentially untrusted objects in a mandatory access control system, it must not be possible for an object to increase its trust level. The only way to ensure this, is for there to be no mechanism by which an object can request additional privileges for itself or for any object it introduces to the system. There must be no way for an object, in Microsoft's terminology, in a less trusted security zone to reference an object in a more trusted security zone. Once you give up privileges there must be no way to get them back.

But that operation, the launching of trusted objects from an untrusted environment, is exactly what ActiveX and .NET are there for. It's their whole reason for being. Without that operation, all that's left is COM/DCOM and some new libraries.

Re:Cross platform apps and scripting

[Rhalin]

...all that's left is COM/DCOM and some new libraries.

And honestly, thats pretty much how we plan on using it. ;)

Re:Cross platform apps and scripting

[argent]

...all that's left is COM/DCOM and some new libraries.

And honestly, thats pretty much how we plan on using it. ;)

I hope that works for you, but the way you described it it sounded like you were going to be depending on its security model as well... and that's just asking for the foul-up fairy to come calling.

Re:Cross platform apps and scripting

[argent]

By the way, I find this really frustrating. The NT kernel has a lot of really nice capabilities that I'd like to be able to use, but there's this great zombie dragon with bad breath and appalling taste in friends called "Windows" that you have to chum up to to get into the kernel.

Re:Mono perspective

[kahei]

Which is great except they've decided we will migrate by wrapping the old legacy code with managed classes and use a .NET based UI.

Owie.

Unless Mono links to the whole of winelib and provides x86 emulation for non-x86 hosts, this code will never run outside of Win32.

I guess not. I mean, it doesn't sound like it was intended to.

That's the real world.

It's certainly bad -- I hardly think it defines 'the real world'. Neither MS nor Mono can prevent decisions like that one being made, or make the C++ legacy code in the world disappear.

To be honest, I'm a bit confused as to why you think your legacy C++ code and your decision to embed it all in your .NET products reflect badly on Mono. Mono's job is to implement .NET; if you include a whole bunch of MFC or something then it's not going to help you.

Elsewhere, however, .NET is proving very productive on the client side. Pity about Windows.Forms -- but I understand why it is like it is. Actually, the main problem I've had with client-side .NET is performance -- it's faster than Java but it's _much_ slower than MFC, specially if you use GDI+.

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[ZephyrXero]

I doubt Stallman would stand for such a thing... remember that Gnome is part of the gnu project.

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[smittyoneeach]

Besides RedHat's configuration tools, Gentoo's Portage leans heavily on python.
Additionally, such killer libraries as PyMacs, boost::python, and the conspicuously-absent-within-your-troll Jython, show that the snake is quietly slithering where few have been able to go.
Or, maybe you could consider the insane amount of comp.lang.python traffic.
Python's biggest weakness, execution speed, is exactly the least important thing in a scripting language. Its strengths are legion and will continue to increase.
Props to the BDFL.

...no....

[MenTaLguY]

That was the original plan.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Locutus]

> I bet if Google was behind Mono it would be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You'd lose the bet.

Google would not be Google if they used Microsoft technology. They could not have grown to the size they are on Microsoft tech nor with the profits they've had.

So, if Google were behind Mono, Google would not be Google and nobody would think that Mono was the greatest thing since sliced bread. IMO.

LoB

what's the alternative?

[jeif1k]

I thought the problem was that Microsoft told everybody that they didn't have any patents on C# or .NET, but they are actually a licensee of somebody else who has patents on it?

Well, let's be precise. C# and .NET are two different things.

C# is an ECMA standard with features that are found in dozens of other languages. There is no indication that there is anything patentable about it. In fact, if you look at the C# specification, it is clear that they have been careful to avoid patents that Sun owns on Java (yes, Java is patent encumbered).

Then there is .NET. It is a huge collection of APIs, many of them Windows specific. In a trial balloon, Microsoft has attempted to patent the totality of those APIs. What the significance of that patent is going to be isn't clear--it may not be worth the paper it is written on.

So, what's the upshot of it all? You can't avoid the risk of patent infringement no matter what language you use. However, at this point, it is pretty clear that C# exposes you to no greater risk than other languages. As for .NET, you don't have to use it: most open source applications developed in Mono are written using the Gnome APIs, not the .NET APIs.

It's not an ideal world, but if you want a reasonably popular and practical natively compiled language with garbage collection and reflection, your choice basically comes down to C# and Java. Java is completely owned by Sun: Sun owns the specifications, Sun holds many patents on it, and Sun effectively can control who may implement Java and who may not (they have chosen not to exercise that control vis-a-vis implementations like gcj and classpath yet, but if they want to, they can). C# may not be the ideal choice, but it's the best you are going to get.

Re:what's the alternative?

[jwegy]

I would like to add some constructive criticism here. I find myself in a unique position on the Open source vs products from microsoft debate. I grew up and cut my teeth so to speak by learning C on Linux(self taught, no money for an expensive IDE, etc...typical 18 yr old at that point.) 9 years down the road, I graduated college...the IT market is crap, so I took, with that 'uhg' feeling' a job in a 'microsoft only' shop who were converting to .Net. After a year, I loved the stuff. .Net is the best product microsoft has came up IMHO. Now mono comes out, and of coarse, given my background, I am highly interested in it, and even ponder some commercial development with C#.I'm hoping to take advantage of the IT market's seemingly obvious transition from Windows to Linux. Now here comes my criticism...and it is contructive, because you're description of the .Net concept is one of the best(read as the one i agree with the most) that I've heard. Gnome API vs .Net API is a wrong comparison. Gnome API vs Windows API is more correct. Or Gnome API vs WinForms. .Net is one big library. microsoft's framework is their implementation and exposure(API) to it. Mono is its own. A .Net api would be something like System.xml or System.Reflection. They have a system.windows.forms, but it is more or less just hooks to the standard windows API. Gnome inside of mono(and i still have not used mono yet, I'm thinking on it heavily) would be like their hooks into the Gnome API. just a small critique.

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[bonch]

From the licensing FAQ section of Mono's own website:

"Question 131: Could patents be used to completely disable Mono (either submarine patents filed now, or changes made by Microsoft specifically to create patent problems)?

First some background information.

The .NET Framework is divided in two parts: the ECMA/ISO covered technologies and the other technologies developed on top of it like ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms.

Mono implements the ECMA/ISO covered parts, as well as being a project that aims to implement the higher level blocks like ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms.

The Mono project has gone beyond both of those components and has developed and integrated third party class libraries, the most important being: Debugging APIs, integration with the Gnome platform (Accessibility, Pango rendering, Gdk/Gtk, Glade, GnomeUI), Mozilla, OpenGL, extensive database support (Microsoft only supports a couple of providers out of the box, while Mono has support for 11 different providers), our POSIX integration libraries and finally the embedded API (used to add scripting to applications and host the CLI, or for example as an embedded runtime in Apache).

The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA, (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent): here.

Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose.

The controversial elements are the ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms subsets. Those are convenient for people who need full compatibility with the Windows platform, but are not required for the open source Mono platform, nor integration with today's Mono's rich support of Linux.

The Mono strategy for dealing with these technologies is as follows: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless.

Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability, but it would still provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono.

The patents do not apply in countries where software patents are not allowed.

For Linux server and desktop development, we only need the ECMA components, and things that we have developed (like Gtk#) or Apache integration.

Question 132: Is Mono only an implementation of the .NET Framework?

Mono implements both the .NET Framework, as well as plenty of class libraries that are either UNIX specific, Gnome specific, or that are not part of the .NET Framework but people find useful.
Credits"

Additionally, I don't see any objections to Java being used in the Linux world. And yet:

- Both are backed by software giants
- Both companies have traditionally been fiercely proprietary
- Both of them offer a new language/platform.
- While C# is now an ECMA standard, Java is still architected by Sun's engineers (even though Sun can claim that they have a "community" process
for extending the language/specs)
- Both have patents of various aspects of the implementation.
- Both have proprietary implementations in the market.
- Both have evangelists eager to win converts to the new platform.
- Both the corporations are profit driven.

So why is Java okay?

Gnome for Mono doesn't use .NET

[jeif1k]

The prospect of GNOME becoming dependant was the straw that broke the camels back and made me switch to XFCE,

The Gnome for Mono libraries don't use .NET APIs, they rely only on ECMA C#.

keep the .NET patented API out of GTK!

There won't be any .NET APIs in Gtk+; Gtk# is a Gtk binding for Mono, not the other way around.

And you better hope that Mono succeeds, becaues there is really not much else out there to develop the next generation of Linux desktop apps in.

Re:Monorail?

[Chembryl]

haha... if I only had the mod points!

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Locutus]

GAWD, here we go again. Microsoft forced companies to NOT sell or build software for OS/2 and that is fact( see the DOJ docs ). I was at the 1994 COMDEX where HP didn not show any OS/2 systems running. That is because they were all pulled off the show floor the night before opening day after Microsoft made a couple of phone calls to HP execs.

Saying OS/2 failed because IBM couldn't market it is being ignorant of what went on. You anonymous coward you.

Now, the original post about following Microsoft by chasing its APIs is valid IMO and the OS/2 reference is valid also. 20+ years of history shows that Microsoft can and will use its APIs to keep everyone following them right off the cliff. Only Microsoft is the only one with the parachute called a monopoly protecting them....

LoB

The problem isn't MONO.

[hey!]

Well, sure, it's and ECMA standard, but we're in the brave new world of software patents where you can take two items that are in the public domain and combine them in a trivial way to create "intellectual property". It's not supposed to to be that way, I know, but we all know it happens.

Suppose the IP in question is not in mono's C# or CLR, but in their Windows.Systems.Forms, or even in the way they implement GTK. It might be that Microsoft holds patents important to either doing certain things on top of the CLR, or in even implementing a CLR to the ECMA standards in the most obvious and efficient way.

Let me be clear, I have no issue at all with the Mono people doing what they are doing. The evil lies in software patents and the uncertainties they create. Nobody can really know what is allowed without a legal research team. Nobody can do what is supposedly allowed without resources to defend themselves against stategic lawsuits.

Just as freedom of speach belongs to the man who owns a printing press, freedom itself belongs only to the man who has a legal staff.

Because of this situation, which is not Mono's fault, I'll take a pass on Mono, and wish them luck. What I would need to take a serious look at them is any one of the following:

(1) A major company (Novell) stepping up to bat and indemnifying Mono users against IP lawsuits.

(2) Microsoft agreeing to grant a license of any of its patents to users of a particular version of Mono.

(3) An end to software patents.

Granted, it is possible that other systems such as Java, may infringe on Microsoft patents. But given that Mono is following Microsoft's lead here (or at least working in parallel), it strikes me as risky.

Is the FUD. Well, I suppose it could be. But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Re:Is he really a big cheese

[Proc6]

+1 Shortsighted.

First of all, I hate to tell you this but if you're looking to bash Microsoft-copying, you might as well just quit using OSS entirely. MONO is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else that's been ripped off from Microsoft and OSX and everyone else.

Secondly, if you want people to move to and embrace Linux and OSS you will be rejoice when people work on bridge technologies like MONO. It's pure fantasy to think there's a lot of shops and managers out there willing to just chuck their MS investment cold turkey for some unique OSS technology. Providing things like MS Office MS-XML readers and Mono let them (and me) move things over carefully and confidentally.

Having some segments of the OSS community working on bridging software like MONO while others (you?) work on new, unique, OSS only ideas is better for OSS in the long run.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Locutus]

not to mention that there are so many just copying MS Windows apps anyways, why use a Mono built copy of something on Windows?

Thank goodness the Chandler folks are NOT using Mono.

Though I do wonder if and when Novell figures out Mono is not a good play for them.

LoB

misleading and wrong

[jeif1k]

The real nuts-and-bolts of .NET are decidedly NOT an open standard. This is what concers many people.

Yes, large parts of .NET are not an open standard. But it's wrong to refer to those as "the real nuts-and-bolts", which falsely suggests that Microsoft kept important portions of the low-level foundations of C# proprietary.

ECMA C# is a complete and powerful language and set of libraries--far more complete than C or C++. Together with the open source APIs that already exist on Linux (Gtk, Gnome, etc.), it gives you a fully open and documented platform to build applications on.

Additionally, since .NET is a wholly controlled "standard" by MS then Mono will be on the same treadmill that WINE and other groups chasing MS implementations have been on.

Most open source Mono developers won't be affected by .NET at all because they won't be using .NET; they'll be using C# with open source APIs.

If you choose to use .NET, for example because you are developing a Windows application that you also make available on Linux, then, of course, you are dependent on the .NET APIs, but that's because you chose to use .NET. Mono is doing the best job they can in giving you that capability, but even if they fail, it just won't make a difference to open source developers.

Also note that Mono is in a far better situation in this regard than open source Java efforts: Sun has draconian compatibility requirements with which they may be able to shut down any open source Java project whenever they choose.

Re:misleading and wrong

[alext]

Balderdash.

Mono's goal, indeed its reason for being, is to clone Dotnet. Not C Sharp, not the CLI, but the complete platform. That statement has been there on the go-mono site since day 1.

Now suddenly (that is, since about October last year) the true effort involved in staying on the MS treadmill has finally become apparent to the Mono developers. So we now have the emergence of Plan B, which cheerfully discards any notion of Dotnet compatibility and leaves Mono as yet another bytecode system, of which we had half a dozen long before Mono was an envious gleam in Miguel's eye.

Wherever people make serious investments in time and money, they are not going to consider a platform that promises compatibility one day and drops it the next - the risks and the costs would be enormous. For such projects the "draconian" (complete) compatibility of Java is an absolute requirement, and one which literally hundreds of thousands of developers rely on every day.

Re:misleading and wrong

[jeif1k]

Mono's goal, indeed its reason for being, is to clone Dotnet.

That's the reason Novell is paying the bill, and it is one goal among several.

Now suddenly (that is, since about October last year)

There is nothing "sudden" about it; the Gtk# bindings were there from pretty much the start of the Mono project, long before Windows.Forms was even usable. Almost all Mono GUI apps are written with them.

I'm sorry you weren't paying attention (or is it that you just make up false "facts" to badmouth projects you don't like).

For such projects the "draconian" (complete) compatibility of Java is an absolute requirement, and one which literally hundreds of thousands of developers rely on every day.

In my experience as a Java developer, Java achieves only limited compatibility across platforms. Even that is only because all implementations right now are derived from Sun-licensed code. In different words, Sun's pitch is the same as Microsoft's: license all your software from one source and all your compatibility worries will go away. Thanks, but I don't want a Sun monopoly any more than a Microsoft monopoly.

Re:misleading and wrong

[aled]

What problems did you have with Java platform compatibility?

Re:misleading and wrong

[lupus-slash]

Mono's goal, indeed its reason for being, is to clone Dotnet.
Nope: mono's goal is to provide a good platform
for development of apps on free software systems.
This is the major goal, since the beginning.
It looks like you're a windows programmer that needs a feature in mono to port his work. We accept patches, feel free to contribute.

Re:No mindshare for Mono

[amightywind]

I should think most real hackers would be embarrased to program in C# as they are to program in Java.

Tell me where the objective "fact" is in that statement.

To understand complex phenomena it often helps to classify relevant data. I consider real hackers to be those individuals who contribute meaningfully to the core of useful free software. These are the people who develop the Linux kernel, gcc, X11, and a miriad of other packages that make the GNU/Linux system the great acheivement that it is. Others (lets call them faux hackers) make lots of noise about trends and the language du jour, but don't accomplish a lot for the cause of free software. I classify C# and Java programmers as faux hackers.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is simple. First, I believe you are talking about patents. Therefore, I will address the patent "issue".

1. MS released their possible patents on the CLR, base CLI and C# specs with a RAND

2. Mono is being VERY responsible. They've created two stacks, one of just the RAND stuff and Mono specific stuff, and one stack which is "possibly infringing" stuff: http://www.go-mono.com/archive/1.0.4/suse-91-i586/

3. Novell has issued VERY strong language saying that it will protect all opensource projects in which it is involved from patent claims with it's own patent portfolio (Mono is one of these): http://www.novell.com/company/policies/patent/

Also, Novell has a lot of patents in the LDAP arena.

4. MS LOVES Mono. It makes it so that they can go to customers and say "if you switch to .Net, you're not locked into MS because Mono is there"

In fact, they love Mono so much, that they've done two MSDN webcasts in the last month showing how you can code in .Net and deploy on Mono: http://primates.ximian.com/~edasque/images/msdn.jp g

Notice the title bar in the outermost window "MSDN Webcast: Mono: Running .Net applications on Linux"

Conclusion:
Mono is no more vulnerable than any other OSS project. It is sad that you have resorted to FUD without any proof of your claims.

you forgot...

[jeif1k]

I agree with the points you listed. There are some more advantages of C# over Java, in addition to the ones you already mentioned:

* Multidimensional arrays
* Unsafe code is portable and written in C# itself
* Call-by-reference

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[ilyanov]

Due to Microsoft's monopoly, water actually flows upstream. If you do accept Microsoft being a monopoly, then you have to accept that their developer universe is immeasurably larger than Gnome's. The concequence of this will result in mono developers joining F500 company to work with .Net becacuse Mono lowers the barriers for one to learn .Net.

Given Microsoft's ownership of .Net, they have the power and the pockets to maintain enough variability in the platform to keep Mono continually behind the curve. This is not theoritical, .Net is windows and it will change with each version of Windows. Mono is coplanar with .Net while what is needed is something that is orthogonal. Java is such a thing, Mozilla/XUL is such a thing.

The Spaniard is one smart cookie nonetheless. I just wish he was wise. I mean why cant he take all that testosterone and embrace and extend Mozilla? There a oodles of W3C specs which if implemented with passion and vision would create a platform compelling enough to get developers like myself join the effort. Mono is a divider not a uniter and in the end what divides us will kill us.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[sadiklis]

From what I understand, .NET is an ECMA standard

Just a subset of .NET is ECMA/ISO standard. Mono is trying to implement everything.

Mono should fork itself into GNOME.NET and WINE.NET. So that only those interested in playing with MS patent fire would install the latter. This is important considering growing MS' thirst for patents and inevitability of Mono's attempt to clone Avalon/Indigo.

Also, consider that neither ECMA nor ISO seem to be guarantees of OSS-friendliness. Google for quotes like "The role of a standards body in this context is to warrant that licensing is possible on RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) conditions" about ECMA or "The ISO standards body will take the unprecedented step of withdrawing the JPEG image format as a formal standard if Forgent Networks, a small Texan company, continues to demand royalties on a seventeen-year old patent."

Re:Mono and *BSD

[lupus-slash]

You need to use the latest 5.x FreeBSD versions, since the previous had broken thread support.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[sadiklis]

Mono provides choice for those that are currently developing for the Windows platform. So does Java. Mono is FOSS. Is Java?

Sun has IP agreement with MS. Has Mono?

You can feel relatively safe about Linux because of IBM's patent stockpile. Has IBM embraced Mono too? Or was it Java?

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[jeif1k]

Perhaps you should read your own link. Only C# and CLI are ECMA approved standard. The other 80% of .Net (aprox.) is Microsoft property.

And perhaps you should read a bit more about Mono: Mono comes with two sets of APIs.

One set is a reimplementation of .NET: it's where Novell sees money coming in, and it's there for people to port applications from Windows to Linux. But it's not what most Mono developers are going to be developing in.

The other set is a binding of C# to existing Linux open source tools (Gtk+, Gnome, etc.). That's the set that most open source developers are going to be using. It doesn't rely on .NET and gets by with ECMA C#.

Re:Mono perspective

[rk]

I believe that its Python bindings are also decent.

The Python GTK+ bindings are the only thing keeping GTK+ running on my home system at all. pygtk makes using GTK+ a breeze. And I don't consider myself of GUI programmer type.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[SewersOfRivendell]

Mono creates great competition for Java

Maybe, maybe not. One thing it definitely does is splinter the GNOME developer community. There are cases where sometimes "because it is there" is not a good enough motivation for doing things, because of the fallout those things generate.

There are very talented people working on Mono, at least a few of whom would otherwise be dedicated to improving the GNOME platform. It's possible that Mono could be considered an improvement to the GNOME platform...

Something else I'm curious about: if Miguel finds some new technical cause to champion, does Mono drop on the floor like Bonobo did? (Genuinely curious here; I know little about the reasons Bonobo left the building.)

my 2$ about mono (delphi's like) and java dev.

[sergevi]

it was a log time i didn't had a new mono vs XXX(put your language here). Personnaly i just wanted to warn people about mono and c# ( delphi like) RAD tool.. BE CAREFUL guys, i develop in delphi and java from a long time and this is my conclusion actually : Delphi's like RAD tool make you build a nice little app in a day but don't even think to change your interface later. Java app are longer to build and more complicated but easier to maintain ! ( just because of this over-designed classes:) so... small app = c# , big app = java :) well.. IMHO

Python, Perl, PHP

[Ars-Fartsica]

These languages have critical mass and are free. I won't mention viable alternatives such as Ruby because I grant that the developer base is tiny.

Re:Python, Perl, PHP

[jeif1k]

Those are nice languages, and I use them myself, but they are not alternatives to C#, for many reasons. For example, they lack static type checking and they don't compile into code that is comparable to compiled C/C++ in terms of performance.

Re:Python, Perl, PHP

[jeif1k]

I made a point about languages: Microsoft has demonstrated that C# can be compiled into code comparable to C, C++, and Java, even for compute-intensive inner loops. For Python, Perl, and PHP, nobody has been able to do that.

When Mono will catch up, I don't know. They were already pretty close last year, and this is high on their agenda, so I expect it won't be long. In any case, even Mono is a lot more efficient for compute-intensive loops than Python, Perl, or PHP.

license & both are obsolete

[jeif1k]

The choice between Qt and Gtk+ is pretty easy: functionally, they are similar, but Gtk+ is LGPL. Therefore people can develop commercial apps with Gtk+ without paying anyone, and if you are creating a platform that you hope will attract Windows developers, that matters.

In the long run, it doesn't really matter what they pick now, since both Gtk+/Gnome and Qt/KDE are obsolete. Mono will likely get a nice, managed toolkit that evolves out of its Gnome bindings.

Re:license & both are obsolete

[abigor]

Use the real world as a demonstration.

1. How many commercial apps are written in Qt?
2. How many in GTK+?

Answers:

1. Many.
2. None.

As for Gnome and KDE being obsolete, well, that's a rather strong way of putting it. Both will continue to evolve, and in the long run, will probably have some sort of managed code core as a development option. But I doubt you'll see the end of native code in those desktops for a very long time to come.

Re:license & both are obsolete

[m50d]

Functionally, they are very different in actual use. They may be similar in terms of what they can actually do, but with Qt you can do it a lot easier. And Qt has many things not included in GTK, like networking and multithreading bits.

Re:license & both are obsolete

[jeif1k]

You are asking a different question. Of course, there are developers who license Qt, just for the Windows and cross-platform support alone; doing so comes with the usual problems that licensing an expensive library from a little company has. If you want to compare apples to apples, you have to ask how many commercial Linux-only apps there are in Qt vs. Gtk+. I don't know of any for either toolkit.

The point I was making that Qt is unattractive for building into open source platforms. That's why Sun's desktop is based on Gnome, not KDE, and it's why Mono, SWT, and wxWindows use Gtk+ and not Qt.

Re:license & both are obsolete

[jeif1k]

They may be similar in terms of what they can actually do, but with Qt you can do it a lot easier.

I don't find that to be the case. While using Gtk+ in raw C is kind of cumbersome, Gtk+ has excellent C++, C#, and Python bindings.

And Qt has many things not included in GTK, like networking and multithreading bits.

That's because Qt is a cross-platform library, while Gtk+ is a GUI toolkit. Why would I want to have a license-encumbered C++ wrapper around the native Linux APIs?

Re:license & both are obsolete

[m50d]

I don't find that to be the case. While using Gtk+ in raw C is kind of cumbersome, Gtk+ has excellent C++, C#, and Python bindings.

It was originally a C toolkit and it shows. The Python bindings are an order of magnitude nicer than raw GTK+, but still not as nice as Qt's. Remember Qt is not only C++ but actually pushes that to the extent that it needs a separate preprocessor.

That's because Qt is a cross-platform library, while Gtk+ is a GUI toolkit. Why would I want to have a license-encumbered C++ wrapper around the native Linux APIs?

Maybe so you can make a crossplatform program? Portability is an advantage, really. Linux is unlikely to always be the best platform for you, and if you don't have to rewrite your program when you change it will be nice. And if your program would be GPL anyway it's not an encumberance.

Re:license & both are obsolete

[jeif1k]

Maybe so you can make a crossplatform program? Portability is an advantage, really. Linux is unlikely to always be the best platform for you

Linux won't be "the best platform" as long as everything that runs on it is cross-platform stuff. Linux needs a native toolkit, one that wastes no time or effort on cross-platform features. Qt will always be hamstrung by Troll Tech's commercial interests in shipping a cross-platform toolkit.

And if your program would be GPL anyway it's not an encumberance.

But it wouldn't be. I have written lots of different software under lots of different licenses. A toolkit that forces me to make everything either GPL or proprietary is a non-starter.

Remember Qt is not only C++ but actually pushes that to the extent that it needs a separate preprocessor.

Yes, that alone is a good reason not to use it.

Re:license & both are obsolete

[m50d]

Linux won't be "the best platform" as long as everything that runs on it is cross-platform stuff. Linux needs a native toolkit, one that wastes no time or effort on cross-platform features. Qt will always be hamstrung by Troll Tech's commercial interests in shipping a cross-platform toolkit.

Why? When I see a toolkit that looks better, or looks reasonably good and performs much better, then maybe I'll believe that the crossplatform nature is causing problems. GTK is not aiming to be crossplatform (the win32 port is an ugly unsupported hack and I don't think there even is a native OSX port) yet this doesn't give it any noticeable advantages over Qt.

But it wouldn't be. I have written lots of different software under lots of different licenses. A toolkit that forces me to make everything either GPL or proprietary is a non-starter.

Well, OK then. But under what circumstances do you need to make something that is nonproprietary but can't be GPL? Other than system programming for one of the BSDs (which is unlikely to need to be graphical) I can't think of anything

Remember Qt is not only C++ but actually pushes that to the extent that it needs a separate preprocessor.

Yes, that alone is a good reason not to use it.

How so? I see it as a sign that C++ isn't really powerful enough for Qt, use Python when I can, and carry on. Why is this a reason not to use it?

Re:Is he really a big cheese

[Locutus]

yup, I realize there is alot of copying going on at the APPLICATION level already and I don't really like that either but it's what we got. But when the copying is at the API level, that's another story and a long one at that. The story goes something like this. Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems. It uses that monopoly to control the APIs used in the dominant operating system and thus direct/control developers. This control also allows them to keep the competition behing Microsoft since Microsoft developers have inside information and more timely information on those APIs.

So, do you really think its a good idea building a development platform which puts OSS developers in the position of following Windows developers who are following Microsoft developers?

Not to even mention that the OSS apps are likely to be copies of Windows apps but copies without full access to the patented APIs of .net. So there would be no real reason for them to be used on Windows and they'll only be a partial copy on Linux or whatever platform Mono is running.

Bridging with open formats is a far better way to go. Sometimes copying the LookAndFeel can help the timid move but like I said, it's UI no API copying. Bridging by copying MSFT APIs have NEVER been the way to go if you expect any long term progress. They'll shoot you down sooner than later.

LoB

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[zaroastra]

C# was built by Anders Hejlsberg, who designed Pascal, and Delphi
last time i checked, pascal was designed by nicklaus wirth, who also designed between others modula 2 and a wacky OS they use in his current university (zurich?)
Delphi had as concept base pascal, and pascal in borland turbo pascal compilers imported the "modules and other nice stuff" from modula2 do pascal.
Somewhere along the line something called object pascal appeared, but dunno who the credit goes to on that one.
google for more info, im too lazy

Re:MSMQ phased out?

[miguel]

The infrastructure itself is not, the existing
API is.

The new API is part of Indigo.

Re:Nice Sig

[mattyrobinson69]

bearing in mind IBM owns lots of shares in SuSE, i wouldn't think microsoft would be too quick to sue, as IBM has far more patents than MS, and are not short of full time lawyers

Not much else?

[Ars-Fartsica]

You mean besides the full SDKs that exist for Perl, Python, Ruby etc including good Gtk (and Qt!) bindings??

agreed

[jeif1k]

The use of the term .NET with Mono is problematic. Mono implements large parts of .NET, but it also has its own set of APIs. By linking Mono so closely to the .NET name, the project reinforces the notion that they are completely subject to Microsoft's legal and platform strategy with respect to .NET. But the fact is that .NET and .NET compatibility in Mono could disappear tomorrow and Mono would still be a great and enormously useful project.

Re:agreed

[alext]

a great and enormously useful project

No.

Developers of significant applications do not think "Mono and GTK+ make a cool platform so I'll develop for that", they seek to minimise their development costs across all their target platforms.

Without true portability, the value of Dotnet disappears in a puff of smoke and embarrassing comparisons with Java ensue.

Miguel realised this right at the start, which is why Mono had to promise total compatibility, otherwise it would have been adding no value over Java, Parrot etc.

Now that Mono development has overtaken Kaffe& co. that bait isn't needed and the switch can happen, leaving everyone much as they were before but with Microsoft in the driving seat.

Re:agreed

[jeif1k]

You have the typical Java blinders on. You think it's all about targeting all platforms.

I don't care. I want better tools for developing for Linux, and Mono gives me that. The fact that I also get two choices for deploying on Windows (Gtk# for Win32 and Windows.Forms) is icing on the cake. Mono gives me choices, Java gives me a straightjacket.

Java has already proven itself to be incapable of delivering high quality applications on any platform. If I really want to develop cross-platform applications, I use tools that work, i.e., not Java, but one of the mature C/C++ cross-platform toolkits.

Re:agreed

[babelex]

Actually I think eclipse is a fantastic platform, you've been out of the java loop to long.

Re:agreed

[jeif1k]

Eclipse has to use non-standard native libraries to work as well as it does across platforms. Eclipse is, if anything, a testament to the failure of Sun's approach.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[killjoe]

I stand corrected.

I'd still like to see somebody address the patent problem though.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[man_of_mr_e]

We all know that OS/2 was better than Windows. Guess who won?

We do?

OS/2 wasn't portable. The PPC version was never finished. It suffered from a lot of other problems. It made no attempt to be secure. The same can be said for Windows 3.x and 9x, but MS had an (arguably) secure and portable version (NT) for those that needed it.

Sure, it was better than Windows 3.1, but Microsoft won largely on making Windows 3.x apps and device drivers work transparently with Windows 95. OS/2 kept the Windows 3.x look and feel, used enormous resources to run said apps, and was generally slow doing it. Finally, it wasn't compatible with OLE and ODBC when running in "isolated" mode.

OS/2 felt like it was bolted together out of spare parts. It's UI was over complicated (though very powerful) and it also scared people off. Throw in problems like the OS2.ini corruption, the massive config.sys, the occasional reboot/crash cycle (where a bad app could crash the os and was reloaded at startup and caused the OS to crash again before you could do anything) and lots of people were left extremely frustrated by this "better" OS.

Then of course IBM itself wasn't committed to OS/2. Oh sure, it said it was, but various factions within IBM were not, specifically the PC division.

And finally, what OEM would buy an OS from their biggest competitor? Who wants to pay IBM to put themselves out of business? IBM would have been much better off to spin off OS/2 into it's own company. This finally happened when ECS bought it out, but by then it was too late. it's still early 90's technology.

It was a long string of failures on IBM's part, and successes (and certainly some questionable tactics as well, though they were only contributors to a rich tapestry of problems for OS/2) on MS's that cause OS/2 to become an also-ran.

All this FUD has finally...

[calgarynerd]

...triggered me to register a /. account.

Ok - here's the rub. C# and the CLI specifications are not only ECMA standards - but they are now ISO standards. Just like C++ and the STL... Just like C...

What many of you don't realize is that if companies hold patents on mechanisms related to software development programming languages, compilers, parsers, lexers, interpreters, verifyers, runtimes, etc... this is not going to stop them from SUING ANY INFRINGING IMPLEMENTATION...

What is potentially vulnerable? Everything:

1. GCC
2. Python
3. Ruby
4. Perl/Parrot
5. Mono
6. Java
7. .NET
8. REXX
9. JavaScript

Basically, until some company decides to litigate NO ONE KNOWS which software may be infringing.

Patents are exactly like an arms race featuring nuclear weapons - everyone has to have 'em - but once the missiles begin to leave the silo's, there will be hell to pay...

Re:All this FUD has finally...

[alext]

What is potentially vulnerable? Everything

You mean everything that didn't come first.

Re:All this FUD has finally...

[/dev/trash]

So God is safe?

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[alext]

That's a "no" then?

These LugRadio guys...

[RichDice]

I've never heard these guys before. They're amusing and all, but they're kind of like the Bevis and Butthead of the Linux commentary world, aren't they?

Cheers,
Richard

Re:Mono perspective

[DrXym]

To be honest, I'm a bit confused as to why you think your legacy C++ code and your decision to embed it all in your .NET products reflect badly on Mono.

I'm not dissing Mono except to say that this is the kind of junk it will have to handle. Granted this is an extreme case, but I'm not aware of a single in-house .NET project which doesn't target Win32 with Mono as non-existent or faint target on the radar. Consequently, they'll all be tainted in some way or another - be it the use of COM interop, PInvoke, MS SQL or whatever.

Even Microsoft doesn't care about cross-platform calls. They just released an Enterprise Library that contains no fewer than 16 imported Win32 function calls that are called 44 times directly.

If Mono and its stack could be made more prominent to .NET developers it would go a whole way towards putting it onto the radar. Even MS can't ignore it if half their customers are screaming at them for releasing crap ware that doesn't work with it. My suggestion concerning wizards etc. was one way I see of that happening.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[master_p]

I don't understand why the open source community does not do the exact reverse: instead of bringing .NET to Linux, why not develop a super-duper programming language and libraries for Linux AND Windows (and all other platforms)?

And since there are so many open source developers with such a high knowledge of programming language theory, compilers etc why don't they make this language the best there is, incorporating all the wisdom, knowledge and experience that has been gained all over these years? a language that is object-oriented, functional, supports proper metaprogramming and templates, first class functions, etc ?

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Brandybuck]

Pick the RIGHT solution

If you're a Windows developer, then .NET is certainly a better solution than that load of aardvark dung that is MFC. I have no problems with Windows developers flocking over to .NET. I just wish Microsoft would stop marketing it as a one-size-fits-all solution, and developers would stop believing their one-size-fits-all rhetoric.

But outside of Windows the primary reason to adopt a .NET clone is because it's popular under Windows. As my mother used to say, "if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?" But outside Windows I don't have the big motivator of MFC to push me towards anything else. I don't have nearly the same advantages for switching to it.

Yes because it's the name that REALLY matters!!

[Anonymous Coward]

what a moronic post! .NET is the collective name of the development framework you idiot, it's the CLR and the FCL combined. They initially tacked it onto product names to pump up support for it and they've stopped doing that now that it's known. Its no more a "marketing term" than Java or J2EE! And finally, if the name is what's stopping you from using a "pretty amazing piece of technology" then you must be a very pathetic developer....

Re:Server side Java for multiple platforms is not

[alext]

Java was a technical advance over C++ etc.

Mono is not a technical advance over the Java platform, it is (as of October 2004 when the 100% compatibility goal was abandoned) a pointless knock-off.

Re:No mindshare for Mono

[geomon]

I classify C# and Java programmers as faux hackers.

As I noted before, this is more opinion than fact.

Whatever gets the job completed (with minimal bugs) and puts a program in the hands of users is a "real" programming language, despite your feelings about its worthiness.

Also, the languages you've cited are all higher-lever languages than assembly. The "real" hacker community might consider either one of us to be faux hackers for using C or C++.

Beauty is, as always, in the eye of the beholder.

Unless they are using Fortran. ;)

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Omega1045]

Among the many, many, many things that MS is guilty of is using the ".Net" term for any number of technologies.

As a programmer, when I say ".Net" I mean the CLR, CLS, and standard System namespaces. The runtime, stack and heap, if you will.

More

[jeti]

Structs:
Important for the efficient implementation of custom math types.

Unsigned numbers:
Important for image and video processing.

Support for caching native code:
Important for reducing the startup times of GUI applications.

Support for multiple languagues in the CLI:
Important for migrating existing applications.

Re:Server side Java for multiple platforms is not

[aled]

Miguel:
I didn't want to imply that, just to point that Java has a kind of proven track and that Mono has yet to achieve that point. Of course that means nothing of the merits of Mono, which I wasn't questioning. I use Java in multiple platforms, something that the grandparent of my post mentioned as not working, something it's clearly wrong to me.
There's nothing preventing using Mono, but it is expectable that most people will wait until there's enough critical mass of installed base so they feel safe. After all, who installed Linux at first? students, hackers, people who wanted to experiment. Now you have IBM, HP, Sun, etc. Change happens but usually needs some time to happen.

BTW, something I don't like is people confusing .Net and Mono. People thinks that they will just use their .Net applications in Linux by Mono. I understand this will not be so unless all of .Net APIs are implemented in Mono, but those APIs (like Winforms) are MS patented? Can an API be patented or only the implementation?

Good Luck, from Argentina
Alejandro

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Omega1045]

That is like saying that Company LinX has an IP agreement with SCO so we can their distro and feel safe.

Re:Is he really a big cheese

[alext]

But Mono isn't a bridge, it's a platform.

The strategic direction of that platform is under the control of Microsoft.

There were already other cross-OS platforms, Mono's sole differentiator was that it was Dotnet compatible. Now that goal has been abandoned.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[aled]

That's ok, but people is confusing the two implementations. You can have some .Net compatibility at the cost of (possible) legal problems with Microsoft and another legally unencumbered API but without compability with .Net. You can't have both because the .Net part isn't free. The comment I was replying says ".NET is an ECMA standard." which is not true.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[yokem_55]

The problem with RAND is that it only means "reasonable" (meaning the licensing terms have to be based somewhat in reality and thus that some people will be able to abide by them) and "non-discriminatory" (meaning that MS has to offer the same terms to everyone). MS has not made any official licensing deals and or offers public other than the informal mailing list posting by Jim Miller which stated that the patents in the ECMA standard will be available royalty free, for "non-comercial" purposes.

What does this mean? It means that there is potential for MS to adapt its currently de-facto royalty free, any purpose (as there is no other official licensing) to something more restrictive and requireing money to change hands (in the direction of MS). Whether MS will do that or not is to be seen, and is likely dependent on how big of an impact Mono has on MS's business model, but putting trust in MS's goodwill regarding Mono's freedom is IMHO a rather large risk.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[legirons]

"'cause if we ignore it, then it will go away. It doesn't matter if the industry decides to use it or not."

Well yeah. Pretty much everyone here is the software industry. If we don't use it, then industry doesn't use it.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Omega1045]

I have no knowledge of Bonobo. Sorry. But the first time I heard of Mono was in 2003 and since then they have implimented a ton of libraries. The idea that this might be a "phase" for someone is pretty silly when you look at the sheet amount of work that has been put into Mono.

Re:Server side Java for multiple platforms is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Miguel,

I'm a fan of your work and of Mono in particular but why are your posts formatted like emails?

Cheers,
Anonymous Coward

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[e2d2]

Are you honestly implying with a virtual straight face that .Net is inferior? How so? Speak with specifics, not vague pointing to "it sucks because M$ suxorz" .Net is probably one of the most advanced development platforms on the market. Most developers would not argue this. I certainly don't even though I use other technologies. There is nothing inferior about .Net.

This is the very reason I had for making my post, some people associate MS with inferior technology, when in fact it's their business practices that should be scorned. I'm a developer and search for the right solution to the problem. I don't associate myself with one particular technology or company so I see no problem evaluating a tech based on it's true merits. Do you?

Also your pro-Google bias shines through. Do you think that somehow the people at Google are better at writing software then those at MS? How so? How do they do this? Specifics please.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Omega1045]

I am really trying not to be a troll here, but how would you address the problem other than the FUD you laid down in the parent post? It was FUD, as it was completely inaccurate of what is really going. It is misinformation like this that hurts the FOSS and IT communities from making intelligent decisions about Mono.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[squiggleslash]

Competition is only good for the market if it results in choices.

My feeling is that there's a lot of good that could come out of a FOSS project to create an advanced program-management framework. There's a little less good, but some good nonetheless, if such a thing is built to allow programs that work an existing VM to work under it but is, nonetheless, a totally different design (see GCJ.) There's little or no good if the framework is just a clone of something that already exists, albiet one that's slightly nicer in one area, and slightly worse in another.

I don't see Mono as creating choices.

You have case sensitive/insensitive swapped

[spitzak]

"Case sensitive" means that "A" is not equal to "a". "Case *IN*sensitive" means that "A" is equal to "a".

The fact is, "case sensitive" (or more accuratly "bit pattern sensitive") is the correct way to do a file system. This is an underlying fundemental service of the OS and it should be *SIMPLE*. Anybody who thinks there is some advantage of programming a user interface issue into the underlying system is just completely clueless (and it is alarming how many people are clueless here!). Files should be identified by a string of bytes, with a minimal set of reserved bytes, and if two byte strings differ, then they must be two different files.

Saying "the file system should be case insensitive" is the same as saying "the computer should store numbers so that all numbers larger than 100 are equal, since humans can't really tell them apart, so that would be more user friendly." This completely discounts the fact that a "user friendly" program could easily and trivially print all numbers larger than 100 as "larger than 100" and thus achieve identical user friendliness, while allowing the lower level to be much more powerful and simpler. For some reason though, the proponents of case-insensitivity have blinders and cannot realize that any and all of their "solutions" could be done trivially by higher-level software.

In fact they make things worse. I can name a file "file" and another one "fi1e" on Windows and it does not do anything to save me. I can put a trailing space in a filename or imbed two spaces instead of one and it thinks they are different. These mistakes are just as bad as case errors, but because so many people have been brainwashed into believing it cannot be solved except at the file system level, nobody has addressed this (plus the fact that case-insensitive file systems make it much more difficult to cleanly implement spelling correction like this).

The truth is, case-insensitivity is a relic and if you think there is a good reason for it, you are WRONG!!! Anybody who thinks case-insensitivity is harmless should realize we would probably have had utf-8 internationalization 10 years ago if it were not for this. I also suspect networked file systems would be much further along today and interoperable.

Re:You have case sensitive/insensitive swapped

[rjshields]

"Case sensitive" means that "A" is not equal to "a". "Case *IN*sensitive" means that "A" is equal to "a".

Everyone here knows that already.

The fact is, "case sensitive" (or more accuratly "bit pattern sensitive") is the correct way to do a file system.

You're wrong - this is merely your opinion. Your opinions are not necessarily facts.

Anybody who thinks there is some advantage of programming a user interface issue into the underlying system is just completely clueless (and it is alarming how many people are clueless here!)

Oh, another person who thinks he is far superior to everyone else, despite showing below average articulacy. I gave up reading your post after this point. Please think about why this sort of nonsense gives slashdot a bad name, and write something more intelligent next time.

Re:You have case sensitive/insensitive swapped

[geekster]

I do belive I got it right. Reread my post.

Anyway. Truth or not, I belive case-sensitivity is the relic. Computers are here to serve humans, not the other way around. And while it may seem different to computers, humans still associate car, Car, cAr and CAR with the same thing. Computers are the ones using language incorrectly here.

I think there's a reason why OO languages are more popular than Assembly language. Using computers efficiently is not just about maximizing raw computing power. It's also about human psychology.

Re:You have case sensitive/insensitive swapped

[spitzak]

Of course the computer should be user-friendly!

What I don't understand why so many otherwise intelligent people think that making a computer user-friendly somehow requires burying a really rudimentary english-only spelling corrector at a very low level in a system service. Last time I checked, very powerful spelling correctors ran just fine without being part of the OS! Do you think that spelling correction can not work unless the file system is designed so that mis-spelled words cannot be stored? Your ideas are equivalent to that.

You may think this is all a joke, but highly complex and locale-dependent equality testing for file names already is a serious security problem, and is going to get worse as Unicode compositing characters and locale-dependent ordering rules and so on leak into the file system because of people that think like you. Unless people realize that at some level that system objects like files should be identified by a byte pattern we are going to be in serious trouble!

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[aled]

The .NET Framework is divided in two parts: the ECMA/ISO covered technologies and the other technologies developed on top of it like ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms.
Mono implements the ECMA/ISO covered parts, as well as being a project that aims to implement the higher level blocks like ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms.

This is exactly what I was saying. ADO.NET, etc are not open standards.

And now with respect to Java:
One difference may be that until now there are no really complete enough open source implementations, though efforts like GNU classpath are advancing.
One should compare Java to .Net and Mono to Classpath, because those are similar proyects.
It's suposedly ok to build an open source Java becasue the Java Community Process (JCP) organization has say so but we will not know until someone really has one finished :-)
Another difference is that there are many implementations like BEA JRockit, while in .Net there is only Microsoft one.
On other aspects are similar. I just have less trust in Microsoft but I think that technically .Net is at least good.
What I really like about Java is:
-platform independency (it works wonderfull for me). .Net doesn't have it. (Mono isn't an option right now)
-I don't have to reinstall the operating system or reset the computer if something goes wrong, just the process. With MS seems that everything is part of the OS.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[avanha]

When will this nonsense stop?

It won't, because for far too many, it's not about the best tool for the job, but about giving the MAN the finger.

Power to the people! Long live the revolution!

Re:Is he really a big cheese

[lupus-slash]

You are confused and misinformed.
Mono's stated goal is to provide great development tools on free software systems. The fact that by being compatible with .net we get tons of software written that runs on mono is just a nice side effect.
Besides, mono is both a bridge between old technologies (C code) just as it is a platform to build new apps in a more productive runtime with whatever language you prefer, C#, python, javascript etc.
The direction of Mono is decided by the people who code and contribute to it, not armchair whiners.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Is he really a big cheese

[alext]

Thanks for the heads-up.

Maybe you can put these guys right too?

Prove mono is suitable for commercial development

[MrData]

I challenge Mr. Icaza, et al. to prove that they can fulfil the following vision given at the top of the project's web site (http://mono-project.org/):

Mono is a comprehensive open source development platform based on the .NET framework that allows developers to build Linux and cross-platform applications with unprecedented productivity.

I am willing to overlook the marketing speak claim about productivity, but I would like to know:

• What apps built with mono can I currently run in the standard Microsoft .NET runtime enviroment unaltered, or visa-versa ?
• What steps have you taken to insure that above statment will continue to be true as future versions of .NET are released from Microsoft ?

IMHO, Mono cannot be taken seriously as a commercial development environment unless these two questions can be answered.
I furthermore believe the mono team owes the development community answers to these questions since countless development man-hours will be wasted on mono based projects if this vision proves to be untrue.

Re:Leaving out half the [history]

[m50d]

Miguel on why he started gnome:

"At this point the Kool Desktop Environment project (KDE) was showing a lot of promise: a team of programmers started an effort to bring Unix to the desktop using the C++ based GUI toolkit. I mailed my friend Erik Troan suggesting him to include that code into the Red Hat distribution and I mailed Richard Stallman to let him know that this interesting project existed. KDE was licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL. I got a reply back from both Erik and Richard pointing out that KDE dependency on Qt resulted in a piece of non-free software. Qt did not end users the right to modify, redistribute nor distribute modifed copies of the code and violated the terms of the GNU GPL.

Being a free software entusiast, I contacted Troll Tech, the authors of Qt to propose an alternate licensing scheme for Qt that would still allow them to build a company while empowering users but got no reply. The Troll Tech FAQ at the time also contained significant errors regarding the GPL and ignored dual-licensing schemes. After a time out period, we decided to do something about this problem. Also discouraging was the fact that the KDE developers were not interested in resolving those issues as pointed out in their FAQ document and their mailing list policies.

We evaluated writing a free Qt replacement, but reimplementing an API would most likely result in less efficient software and would have taken too long to implement. GNUstep, Wine and LessTif were other projects that had attempted to reimplement a proprietary API and just had a limited success after a long development history."

KDE existed and was working. GNOME was started because of the licensing issues.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Locutus]

you really should read the post again since I never even mentioned any specific Microsoft technology. History seems to show my point quite clearly.

"pro-Google bias"? You've got to be kidding.

BTW, making a technology decision includes considering those which lock in customers and users and reduce/eliminate choice of a robust underlying operating system. They also include considerations for reliability, security, and ownership at the application layer.

Picking Microsoft is always a 'me too', and 'nobody got fired for ....' thing to do. Otherwise, Microsoft would not have had to spend $100's of Millions advertising Windows 95 and again advertising Windows NT. They would not have had to spend/lose about $1 Billion per year pushing Windows CE. They wouldn't have to have sites like their "Get the Facts" web site or have to pay companies to reprint their marketing data in funded "research" papers.

nuf said.

LoB

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[MosesJones]

So you support the latest generics and BizTalk can run on Mono ?

Re:Prove mono is suitable for commercial developme

[mrroach]

It seems strange that your questions do not actually have anything to do with the statement you quoted...

If I can write an application on linux under mono, and run it on windows under mono, would that count as cross-platform? I have done that. So have others.

How would future versions of MS' product change the state of the current mono implementation?

-Mark

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[man_of_mr_e]

No. It's more like 50% of the .NET platform *IS* an open standard. You really need to look at the specifications for the CLI and C# to see how extensive they are.

Things like Windows Forms, ASP.NET, etc.. make up only a smaller portion of it, and you don't have to use any of those if you don't want to to make viable open source software.

Also, MS has not publicly stated they intend to defend their intellectual property, though that is implied.

Finally, MS has granted a royalty free license to any patents they hold on the ECMA and ISO standard C# and CLI specifications. So no, they can't sue you for infringing patents that are covered by those standards.

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[bonch]

What parts of...

The .NET Framework is divided in two parts: the ECMA/ISO covered technologies and the other technologies developed on top of it like ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms. Mono implements the ECMA/ISO covered parts, as well as being a project that aims to implement the higher level blocks like ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms.

...were unclear? Mono implements the ECMA/ISO covered technologies of .NET--an open standard. In addition, it also attempts to implement that which is not covered, which is the part some people have some sort of problem with for some reason (I guess they don't have a problem with projects like Wine). However, there are already replacements for those high-level blocks, like GTK#, so it doesn't really matter.

Re:Is he really a big cheese

[thehunger]

>I like my coffee like I like my women. Ground up
> and kept in the freezer.

Do you have any idea how plain -stupi-d this sounds? You just tried to appear informative and objective and then you use a sexist .sig like that.

I've seen it before and didnt react to it then. It was the contrast in tone and seriousness between your comment and your .sig that did it. I know its supposed to be funny, but I'm really annoyed by the sexism of it. At least half the population will not appreciate it (I'm male, by the way)

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[bonch]

This is exactly what I was saying. ADO.NET, etc are not open standards.

But the rest of .NET is. If your issue is with high-level stuff like ADO.NET, okay. But you questioned that .NET is an open standard, and I referenced the Mono FAQ to show that a lot of it is, including the base infrastructure.

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[aled]

I think we disagree on the terminology. I'll clarify my point of view.

From the faq: The .NET Framework is divided in two parts: the ECMA/ISO covered technologies and the other technologies developed on top of it like ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms.

.NET = core + high-level-stuff
core = C# + CLI
high-level-stuff = ADO.NET, ASP.NET, Windows.Forms

core is ECMA/ISO standard
high-level-stuff is Microsoft propietary stuff.

.Net is the sum of core and high level stuff, calling the core .Net is at least confusing things. Many people in this discusion talks like .Net is an open standard when it is not. Just the core part is.

Re:What a Mono-umental waste of time!!

[RichiP]

First of all, it's not YOUR time or money they're wasting. It's theirs. Second, they're contributing to Gnome (and the opensource community in general) in the way they see most fit. They're doing it because they WANT to do it. It's their own itch they want to scratch and it's no different from any other opensource software developer who said they'd do something to "scratch an itch".

Most of all, I don't understand why this affects you so much that it drove you to show your obvious displeasure. If you think that by not working on Mono, those same guys would work on projects that you want, you're dreaming.

So if you think they're wasting their time and not yours, shut up and watch. I think these people are one of the brightest people I've encountered in the opensource movement and I happen to be software developer who's not swayed by market-speak or North American insecurities. I've been working with opensource and would dearly love to write Gnome apps but find Gtk/C unwieldy. I also think that the use of IDEs is true to the *nix philosophy of creating the best tools to aid humans and, right now, those tools can be easilly accessed due to Mono. I love monodoc. It's as good (if not better) than javadoc. The entry curve to Gnome programming just became shallower with the advent of Mono.

Quite the opposite, I think what the Mono developers are doing are a perfect use of their time and I look forward to future developments in the way software project should properly be done.

Re:Prove mono is suitable for commercial developme

[Teancum]

The one critical issue regarding apps under Mono is the GUI development issues for cross-platform development.

There is the Windows.Forms implementation, and then a similar effort under Linux, but the portability between the two platforms is difficult at best, primarily because the two environments have such a huge difference in basic API archetechture, especially at the component level.

That said, there are efforts to try and overcome these issues, and for non-GUI applications (command-line or content servers) Mono works equally well in both Linux and Windows.

Re:Prove mono is suitable for commercial developme

[MrData]

I believe you misunderstood my post, and the statement I quoted from Mono. I asked if you can interchangebly use .Net assemblies in a Mono environment, and Mono assemblies in .Net environments.

If I read yours correctly, you are talking about running Mono assemblies in Mono enviroments, which is not what is implied by the Mono project vision.

Do you agree ?

M$ has already won

[kaffiene]

Reading this thread (and others like it) has convinced me that M$ has already won with Mono - nothing else has managed to split the Linux community so deeply.

Congrats Miguel, well done.

Re:M$ has already won

[RichiP]

Whatever are you smoking? Perhaps you're just stating your own bias while trying to pass off some generalization without any proof.

In the Gnome camp, Mono as well as traditional Gtk/C, python and ruby coders are getting along rather peachilly. Because of Mono, there are several more apps for Gnome that otherwise wouldn't have been there. If you read the PlanetGnome blogs, you wouldn't see any split whatsoever.

It really is pathetic seeing people like you spread FUD because there's a project you don't like instead of actually trying to work with people who've nothing but the best interests at heart.

Love

[kentyman]

Love,
Miguel.

Really got into the Valentine's Day spirit, eh Miguel?

Love you too, ;)
Kent

Re:The test for Mono

[j3tt]

This reminds me of Richard Grimes' farewell to .NET. http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=9205/ddj050201dnn/

It may be a while before MS starts coding their own stuff in .NET.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[killjoe]

Why do you think I laid down FUD. Everything I said is 100% true.

"Regardless Ms still owns patents on the numerous .NET technologies"

100% true.

"both Ballmer and Gates have repeatedly said they intend to defend their intellectual property vigorously."

100% true.

'Be Aware that your company can be sued for USING patent infringing technology."

100% true.

'If you company has deep pockets Ms could come after you. If for no other reason then to make you stop using .NET on a non windows platform."

Ok speculative but certainly plausable given the above given premises.

If you are using mono and have not considered the fact that MS has patents on it and both the CEO and the president of the company both have said they intend to defend their intellectual property then I submit you are not making an intelligent decision.

Re:Prove mono is suitable for commercial developme

[mrroach]

I don't misunderstand you at all. I challenge your very narrow definition of "cross-platform." It seems like your definition requires a guarantee that all future versions of mono will always have complete feature parity with .net.

By your definition, Java is not cross platform because Sun's JVM doesn't support GCJ's CNI.

-Mark

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[Harry8]

Mod parent up +5 funny!
Using 'secure' 'portable' in the same sentence as NT.
Brilliant!

Re:Leaving out half the [history]

[Ivan Todoroski]

We evaluated writing a free Qt replacement, but reimplementing an API would most likely result in less efficient software and would have taken too long to implement. GNUstep, Wine and LessTif were other projects that had attempted to reimplement a proprietary API and just had a limited success after a long development history.

And then he went on to reimplement a proprietary API, namely .NET... how ironic.

The problem with LGPL: d toolkits

[Axoiv]

A toolkit (such as GTK) being LGPL:d means that a company can make a comemrcial app _without_ giving back nothing to the community!

Their next step would be to advertise the hell out of their competition. Does that ring a bell somewhere?? MS...

That's what LGPLD libraries will do to Open Source man.

Re:The problem with LGPL: d toolkits

[jeif1k]

A toolkit (such as GTK) being LGPL:d means that a company can make a comemrcial app _without_ giving back nothing to the community!

Companies that want to develop commercial apps without giving back to the community already can: there are plenty of GUI toolkits with BSD and X11 licenses for Linux. Furthermore, GUI toolkits on commercial platforms (Windows, OS X) are included with the OS. In order to compete, the standard Linux GUI toolkit should have a license that allows proprietary software to be developed with it. Note that I'm not saying all libraries should--this is a decision one needs to make on a case-by-case basis.

Their next step would be to advertise the hell out of their competition.

That would be wonderful: if they advertise that Linux is a good platform for their application, we all benefit.

MS...

Is MS shipping Gtk+-based applications on Linux? I think that would be great--we couldn't ask for better PR.

Re:Leaving out half the [story]

[m50d]

"If they didn't want to unnecessarily split everyone, they would have given up on their abortion of a desktop environment as soon as the Qt licensing issues were resolved.

And if the KDS team hadn't wanted to unnecessaily split, they would have given up on their abortion of a desktop environment instead of just changing the licensing."

Gnome was started, after KDE existed, because of the licensing problem. (Without going into too much detail, Mattias (sp?) used Qt as the basis when starting KDE for the pragmatic reasons that it was free (beer) available and the best-looking toolkit for *nix. Qt was not Free (speech) so KDE was not a completely free desktop, and IIRC there were questions over the legality of linking GPLed kde programs and libraries against the non-gpl-compatiable Qt). So when the licensing issue was resolved (by Qt being released as GPL) it was Gnome's place to step down, not KDE. Maybe the license change would not have happened without Gnome, but Gnome had achieved this and should have stepped down, like Harmony did, and like the win32 port of Qt GPL probably will.

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[alext]

You're in good company with other Mono proponents in that you are peculiarly susceptible to the logical fallacy of "composition".

In fact your two posts above directly contradict one another:

The first says The .NET API is an open standard

The second says The .NET Framework is divided in two parts: the ECMA/ISO covered technologies and the other technologies.

The fallacy is that, just because part of Dotnet is covered by ECMA/ISO then the Dotnet framework as a whole is "standard". This is no more accurate than for me to say that because my front left car tire is OK then my whole vehicle is roadworthy.

It never ceases to amaze me that, after more than three years of being corrected on this point (literally dozens of times in each Mono /. story, for example) proponents are still as willing to churn it out this nonsense today as they were in 2001. Clearly this delusion is an essential part of the group-think, and the rest of us will have to live with its constant repetition, just as we have to live with the shifting-sands (or, less charitably, the bait-and-switch) definition of what Mono actually comprises.

Whatever the effects on Mono developers rationality, it is unlikely that this flexible approach to the truth will win the confidence of many significant adopters. Until its fan base grows up and faces facts, Mono's penetration of the corporate world is certain to remain negligible.

Yes it's true, APACHE is developing mod_aspdotnet

[EqualSlash]

CLI sub-project of the Apache HTTP Server is focused on developing interfaces to the various Common Language Runtime (CLR) alternatives for .NET integration into the Apache HTTP Server.

mod_aspdotnet module is an ASP.NET host interface to Microsoft's ASP.NET engine. It is implemented with an Apache.Web.dll assembly that provides ASP.NET with the necessary System.Web.Host and System.Web.Request interfaces to converse with mod_aspdotnet and the Apache HTTP Server.

mod_aspdotnet works only with the .NET Framework version 1.1 at this time. Flexibility for 1.0 or 2.0 .NET Frameworks is being considered.

This module is not compatible with other .NET CLR interfaces, such as Rotor or Mono, and therefore it is only compatible with the Win32 port of Apache 2.0.

Users on non-Win32 platforms may wish to explore the mono project's implementation of mod_mono, also for Apache HTTP Server, and compatible with some non-Win32 platforms. The mono project is not affiliated with the Apache Software Foundation.

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[e2d2]

Nuff said? Hardly. You just slam MS but never back up your google statements or you allusion to .Net being a bad technology.

You are slamming MS for bad businesss practices, which if you read my post you would see I also slammed. But you never backed up your statements about the technology.

So I'll reiterate, How exactly does Google make better software?

Re:Prove mono is suitable for commercial developme

[MrData]

Mark, don't get me wrong here. I have no objection to mono being a development environment which is independent of .Net, but, at least as I see it, it is the Mono team who have made this claim, as given by the quote I mentioned earlier.

It is this inference by the Mono team which is causing false expectations by end users who have the expectation that Mono == .Net due to the quote given above.

And yes, my definition would require future versions of Mono will have a complete feature parity with .Net, since that is what the customers I deal with believe (Since they would like to develop in .Net on Windows, then run these same apps on Linux, and see Mono as the way to achieve this). Do you belive that this expectation is unreasonable ?

As for Java, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Your comment would only apply if Microsoft made a version .NET for other platforms (which they do not), or were somehow supporting the Mono team, which they are not per Mr Icaza. Furthermore, Microsoft's .Net exclusively targets the Windows platform What is the .NET framework?

So let me distill my questions/challenge the light of our previous exchanges, because I believe them to be very important to the development and end user community as a whole:

• Does the Mono mission statement imply .Net-Mono interoperability and compatibility ?
• If not, then what significant advantages does Mono offer versus then the current offerings for Linux and Windows ?
• If this is true, what guarantees can the Mono team make to ensure this compatibility with .NET will continue ?

Which version of C# is standardised exactly?

[Ivan Todoroski]

Several people mentioned that C# and CLI specs are ECMA and ISO standards.

But which versions of these specs are described in those standards? It's my impression that these standard organizations don't change the standard every year, look at the period between various revisions of the C/C++ standards, etc.

Yet, Microsoft keeps releasing new versions of C# at a fairly rapid pace, which introduce some significant changes. Are the ECMA/ISO standards updated with each new version?

I'm not trying to troll or anything, I really don't understand how this is supposed to work.

Specifically, what is preventing Microsoft from releasing a version of C# that deviates from the standard (if the recent versions don't already do)? Should they decide to do so, there is nothing anyone can do really do about it, as their .NET implementation is de facto standard, and if the new versions of their development tools are made to support only this new version, I don't think developers will have much choice but to use the new non-ISO-standard versions, since they already have invested time and resources in the platform. Mono would not be an option, since by the own admission they don't plan to support the next version of the .NET platform fully.

So, you end up back on the Microsoft treadmill of incompatible upgrades, business as usual. I don't share the same confidence as many others here apparently do. Maybe I'm missing something here, I would appreciate any enlightenment on this matter.

Of course, the same thing is absolutely true with Java. The Java language and platform specification is completely at the whim of Sun Microsystems. I'm just wondering why people think that just because C#/CLI has been accepted as an ECMA/ISO standard, they think the situation is any different? C# and .NET in general is still very much subject to the control and whims of Microsoft.

In Java's defense, Sun atleast have a proven track record of keeping a relatively stable language and platform to build upon, with incremental changes that involve the developer community to a certain extent. We have yet to see such a commitment from Microsoft. I guess only time will tell.

As for me, give me Python, or give me death!

Re:.NET is a litigation nightmare waiting to happe

[aled]

Take a look at the last Richard Grimes article on .Net. Very very interesting stuff.

Geekiness vs. Zealotry

[RichiP]

One of the things that hit me hard like a brick in the face is the disparity in the reaction of people claiming things under the name of the community.

It's obvious to me from Miguel de Icaza and other Mono coders that what they're doing is as much for community as it is for their company. And yet this same community manages to react in opposite ways. Those who dislike a project (any project) will react from challenging the instigators with trying to prove their ideas work to downright maligning their efforts. On the other hand, people who like the project do their best to try and help out knowing it would benefit the community in the end.

The odd thing is: it's the same project. The difference is in people. It's a tool that's not inherently evil. If people are divided in this case, it's by their own choosing.

Whoever that blubbering guy is in LUGRadio that always has two reasons for anything, would you kindly reassess your intentions for making those comments as its clear from MdI's words what his are.

GOOD FRIGGINN' LORD!!!

[Whitemice]

Is it possible for the monkeys on slashdot to discuss ANYTHING else other than some crazed notion why this or that technology is EVIL or philospohically inferior?!

Uhm, YOU'RE ALL NOT LAWYERS?!

Do you think places like Novell, IBM, and others (who have lots and lots of lawyers) would be using and developing Mono if there was this huge sword hanging over its neck? I mean, Duh!

People... Get A Grip!

Re:MONO is a disaster.

[master_p]

I don't understand with a different opinion is labelled as 'troll'. From one side, /. wants to pose as a revolutionist, following the open source movement etc, and on the other hand, different opinions (that make perfect sense) are modded as 'troll'...