Slashdot Mirror
Mono Progress In the Past Year
Eugenia writes "OSNews posted an article accounting the applications created in GTK# the past 8 months, since the release of Mono 1.0. While many of them are still in their infancy, it's clear that the platform had a healthy progress, with 'super-hits' like Tomboy, F-spot, MonoDevelop, Muine & Blam! and other, less known gems, like SportsTracker, PolarViewer, MooTag, GFax, GIB, Sonance and Bluefunk. The 2.0 version of Mono is expected around May, but the developers advised distros and users to upgrade to Mono 1.1.4 despite being a beta."
Interestingly, the summary neglected to mention Beagle, the one Mono application I actually plan on using and that has created some momentum for getting the Mono into various distros.
If Mono proves to be snappier than, say, Java, there might be some hope for it but the spectre of living under the mercy of MSFT is not easy to dodge. It's still there, however much people tried to not talk or think about it.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
1. Emerge monodevelop
2. Afaik there even is a plugin for Eclipse
I just happen to be one of the few official developers for the mono project, just catching this artical early. Mono is quickly becoming better then ever. The biggest difference between Mono 1.0.x and Mono 1.1.x is the fact that our Just-In-Time compiler (or JIT) is getting more and more amazing every day. The 1.0.x series use a interprator capable of understanding things at the application start. One huge correction is that Mono will be called 1.2 in May not 2.0. While it is true that gtk-sharp-2.0 is moving to 2.0 from 1.0, the Mono runtime will remain at 1.2 as not to be confused with Microsoft.NET 2.0 (all though support for many of .NET 2.0 features will be included). Gtk# being based on Gtk+ 2.2 and Gtk# 2.0 being based on Gtk+ 2.4. Windows support is just as compatable with GTK# as it is on Linux, minus support for Gnome, VFS, GConf, GtkHtml 3 and DBus of course.
Hope that helps!
No.
GTK# works wonderful without even even being related to Mono in anyway. It runs under Microsoft.NET just as well as it does on Mono under windows.
.NET SDK 1.1 and it includes documention for it and even some intergration with Visual Studio as well.
g tk s-inst4win
My good friend Paco (Fransico Martieneze) has posted a installer for
http://forge.novell.com/modules/xfmod/project/?
No.
Those same applications will also run under Windows,
.NET applications, they are Gtk+ applications written in C#. As a result, they don't run on Windows or .NET out of the box.
These are not
You can run them on Windows, but you can do that with lots of other Gnome and KDE apps as well.
Plus, they can sell MS Office.NET to Linux users too, as it can run on Linux.
I think this would be great for Linux. Unfortunately, Mono will likely never be compatible enough for that, and hell would freeze over before Microsoft would even contemplate such a thing.
Wow, it's really too bad that people these days think that OO is about a language spec. It's not! OO is a design paradigm! (ugh. i hate that word, but that's what it is.) Your design is either OO or not OO, and the language that you implement it in is irrelevant. All that c++ does that c doesn't is do a few checks in the compiler. You can implement OO designs in C, Scheme, and plenty of other languages that don't have built-in checks for such things. (and yes, c++ does have a number of other features, but they are wholly unrelated to OO) OO doesn't fix buffer overflows either. Why would it? If you have crappy design/use the wrong functions for the wrong things, then you're going to end up with buffer overflows. C# goes quite a ways, as a language, to prevent this, but don't confuse it with OO.
This isn't 100% accurate since there is also the issue of patents to consider. In order to implement some parts of the
MS gets to say that their solution (C#) is cross platform and usable on numerous platforms. In short, publicity.
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
If you're curious about that 64 client limit check out winnt.h and look for MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS (in mine it's on line 1354): // Maximum number of wait objects
#define MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS 64
This is the limit on the number of objects that can be waited for in WaitForMultipleObjects calls. The same limit is enforced in winsock2 for select calls, I believe because in the end microsoft's select implementation is using WaitForMultipleObjects underneath. (Also note that the winnt.h header file is entirely too large for a single header (9170 lines), but hey, that's window's style for ya).
This is slated for C# 2.0.
Dashboard was really just search, and is largely dead. The bones of Dashboard were used to build the framework for Beagle.
You can do dashboard and so much more with the functionality in Beagle. Any future Dashboard-like app would probably be from-scratch on top of a Beagle back end.
That's because they keep thinking "Linux-only". It's not "I'm going to make a cross-platform app using C#", but "I like C#, I'll use it on Linux".
WAKE UP, GUYS!!!
If you want Mono apps to run in Windows, perhaps you should take a look at wx.NET.
From the link:
(end of snip)
Take two very good cross-platform things (.NET/Mono, wxWidgets)... a powerful combination like this could jeopardize Microsoft's monopoly if you ask me. And that is always a good thing.
GoMono!
Fedora comes with gcj (gcc java compiler) and that compiles most swt and gnome applications jsut fine. Also there are a few very good open source JVMs, the first one off the top of my head is Blackdown, which I use to develop java3d on linux. I have yet to see blackdown not do something that Sun's can.
Regards,
Steve
The catch is that C# and CLR are not open standards - they are just ECMA standards.
.NET is not open, but ECMA C# is.
.NET.
.NET that are not in ECMA C#).
.NET libraries that Mono happens to implement as well. That's what I do.
That is what an open standard is: something that is published by a recognized standards body and that anybody is free to implement.
Apparently it was a brilliant move by MSFT because now people will automatically believe CLR is somehow "open".
They believe that because it's true.
In fact, a while ago Novell was asking MSFT for a clear declaration that Mono does not infringe MSFT IP.
Yes, Novell did ask that. That question doesn't refer to ECMA C#, which is as open as any language standard, it refers to Mono's implementation of
It provides a hose that MSFT can step on to end the distribution of the appications.
Erroneous statements like that seem calculated to create unjustified fear, uncertainty, and doubt about C# in order to keep people from using it. ECMA C# is open. Microsoft can no more "step on its hose" than they can step on C++ or Python or Java (on which, incidentally, they may also hold related patents).
We should never become too dependent on Mono, or Java, or any other proprietary technology.
Mono is not proprietary technology: it's an open source project implementing a de-facto industry standard. As such, it is no different from Linux, for example. As such, Mono consists of two parts: a part that implements an open standard (ECMA C#), and a part that implements a proprietary set of APIs (the parts of
If you want to use purely open APIs, just use ECMA C# and Gtk# and don't use any of the non-standard
Funny story on that:
VB.NET originally supported this (different access on setter and getter) but since C# didn't support it they dropped it to be compatible... now that C# is gonna support it in the next version they are going back in and re-enabling the feature.
Why it wasn't in originally I don't know, it would seem to be an obvious feature.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Please tell us who whose people are so we can remove their code.
We don't decompile the MS libraries as a rule.
This isn't 100% accurate since there is also the issue of patents to consider. In order to implement some parts of the .NET standard there would be some "use" of MS patents (I'm talking about ASP.NET and ADO.NET in particular)
.NET are a red herring because open source applications simply don't use them. That's what this list of applications shows.
.NET are only an issue if you use Mono to deploy your Windows-based ASP.NET or ADO.NET applications on Linux. Your risk and exposure to Microsoft IP results from your choice of using ASP.NET and ADO.NET in the first place; the existence of Mono, if anything, reduces your risk and exposure somewhat, but, of course, it can't completely eliminate it.
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? These are mostly Gnome applications written in the C# language. They don't use ASP.NET or ADO.NET.
Even the Mono team acknowledges this as an issue but they promise they'll somehow code around the patent or they just won't implement parts of the standard. Certainly not an optimal solution.
My point was and is: the non-standardized parts of
The non-standardized parts of
MS gets to say that their solution (C#) is cross platform and usable on numerous platforms. In short, publicity.
Good for them: they let the language undergo standardization by an independent standards body, and now people are creating third party implementations of it for other platforms. That is as it should be.
Contrast that with Sun, which promised to standardize Java, and then pulled out of standardization processes twice when they discovered that those bodies had requirements for intellectual property disclosure and withdrew twice. Sun now falsely gives the impression that Java is an open standard and that the JCP is an open process, when neither is anything of the sort. That is not as it should be.
Unfortunately, the latest stable release of MonoDevelop will not compile against Mono 1.1.4. If you need an IDE for your Mono work, you would have to check out the Mono sources from SVN. The SVN version of Mono also has its dependencies, many of which also would have to be checked out of SVN repositories. So, while Mono 1.1.4 is available, for the time being, I have to stick with 1.0.6 in order to continue working within an IDE framework.
I would be very suspicious about such contribution,
because most of the remoting code was written by
Lluis (for all the high-level channels), Dietmar
(for all the low-level remoting bits), Patrik
(which filled a lot of the mid-level details).
All I can think of are stubs, which are not really
useful.
Those were either Novell/Ximian/Intel employees,
and in no case we did disassemble.
For the other pieces like Soap/Remoting, the code
was so broken that it could not have possibly
been copied/decompiled given how useless it was
until we fixed it in various iterations.
I very much doubt your statement, but if it
happens to be true, we have records for each
contribution going to the day zero of the
project and we can track it down.
Miguel.
Disclaimer: I am the founder of Zamples, Inc. Go gently on our servers, they probably won't survive being slashdotted!
Thanks for looking into this.
We are auditing the code, and the code that we have
in that area was either completely redone, or what
has not been redone is fairly broken.
I would be surprised if the implementation is
copied.
But if they decompiled to learn how it worked, we
will remove the code anyways.
Miguel.
There are issues running Mono on FreeBSD because FreeBSD has broken thread libs. Some of the fixes are in the latests 5.x releases, but there may be still more issues.
Dude, you can join the JCP 20 times in a row, if it makes you feel better, it still doesn't give you any say in what goes in and out of Java 6. That works via expert committees, and these work via invitation only.
The general JCP membership can vote in a bunch of elections, and gets to see some drafts a bit earlier than the general public, and *that's about it*.
cheers,
dalibor topic,
Kaffe dev