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."

19 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. huh? by utexaspunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tomboy, F-spot, Muine & Blam! ... MooTag, GFax, GIB, Sonance and Bluefunk

    WTF? Who comes up with names like these? I would blame the MBA's, but this is open source stuff, right?

    1. Re:huh? by SoCalChris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously...

      At least give the program a somewhat descriptive name, ie Office, Internet Explorer, TurboTax, NotePad, Photoshop, etc...

      If I were looking for a music player on Google, I wouldn't even give search results about programs named Muine, MooTag or Bluefunk a second glance, simply because they don't sound like music players.

      Open Source programmers are good at a lot of things, but naming their programs isn't one of them. Just look at the whole Phoenix/Firebird/FireFox fiasco.

    2. Re:huh? by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's more than that. Those names just sound better and friendlier, and are easy to remember.

      I don't know why, but just about every OSS project title is some tongue-in-cheek in-joke amongst the developers who are the only ones who think it's funny. Like KDE programs all being titled with puns starting with "K."

      Besides, Powerpoint, Access, and Visio have reasonable similarity with what they actually do. As for your completely random and pointless reference to Bob, I'm still amazed Slashdotters obsess over this small desktop shell released for a short time way back in 1994.

  2. Re:Mono is Wonderful by m50d · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It does benefit them. Hopefully when Sun sees all the devs switching it will finally open up Java. If not, good riddance - C# includes all the good bits anyway.

    --
    I am trolling
  3. Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm writing this as a mere user, not as a developer, but from my point of view mono really is impressive. Just looking over the list of apps on osnews shows that mono really seems to give developers a framework that let's them develop great application in a relatively short time and in the end it's users like me who profit from that. ;-D

    Great works, mono devs.

    And to all those trolls that will come out of the woodwork with every mono story, telling us that mono is the end of open source:
    Please, for once in your miserable lifes try to provide arguments for your point that go beyond MS is evil (though I would readily agree with that) and therefor mono is the suX0r.

  4. Re:Mono is Wonderful by shird · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it really reverse engineering? I mean the full spec for the CLR and various other things with .NET have been published for the very reason to create VMs such as Mono on different platforms.

    --
    I.O.U One Sig.
  5. it's not reverse engineering by idlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mono is a wonderful piece of reverse engineering

    There is no "reverse engineering" involved. These applications are written in C#, an open ECMA standard, and the open source Gtk+ toolkit.

    I fear the day when Microsoft will come and snatch this out from under the Mono team,

    There is nothing to "snatch": these are applications implemented in a non-Microsoft toolkit using an open language standard.

    I really think this benifits Microsoft

    I don't see how writing Gnome applications in C# benefits Microsoft any more than writing Gnome applications in C++ or Python.

    1. Re:it's not reverse engineering by ultrabot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is nothing to "snatch": these are applications implemented in a non-Microsoft toolkit using an open language standard.

      The catch is that C# and CLR are not open standards - they are just ECMA standards. Apparently it was a brilliant move by MSFT because now people will automatically believe CLR is somehow "open". In fact, a while ago Novell was asking MSFT for a clear declaration that Mono does not infringe MSFT IP. Guess what, we never heard what happened with that.

      I don't see how writing Gnome applications in C# benefits Microsoft any more than writing Gnome applications in C++ or Python.

      It provides a hose that MSFT can step on to end the distribution of the appications. The more critical the app is for Desktop Linux, the better for MSFT. Hopefully the apps that are written in C# will stay small and architecturally open enough to be easily rewritten in another language should that happen. We should never become too dependent on Mono, or Java, or any other proprietary technology.

      --
      Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    2. Re:it's not reverse engineering by Patoski · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.


      Your point would be well made if all Mono wanted to do was implement C# but obviously Mono looks do to much more than that. I never meant to imply that these early adopter apps use ASP/ADO.NET as they clearly do not. I was merely commenting on the the larger issue touched on by the great grandparent which is the possibility of MS trying to damage Mono somehow (by using an IP / patent club in my example).

      Who is to say that MS won't at some later date apply for a patent to some core part of .NET and come after Mono / Novell / Gnome for using it? MS is openly hostile to OSS in general and towards Linux in particular. When asked directly if Mono infringed on MS' IP, MS' silence was deafening.

      Depending on the good graces of someone who will go to great lengths to stop Linux is something we ought to consider *very carefully* before embracing Mono with both arms.

      The non-standardized parts of .NET are only an issue if you use Mono to deploy your Windows-based ASP.NET or ADO.NET applications on Linux.


      Note that Mono very openly encourages and advertises Mono's support for these questionable portions of .NET. Also, ASP and ADO aren't exactly some dusty corner of .NET spec which we can safely assume will infrequently be used.

      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.


      Saying that the patent issue is a "red herring" is an enormous stretch. Mono's web site acknowledges that is an issue and even tries to come up with mitigating factors. Heck, Miguel even acknowledges that this is an issue which deserves debate, discussion and may result in the FOSS community having to route around patent damage. I'm not sure why you're trying to paint this as a non-issue when all sides have agreed that it is an issue worthy of discussion.
      --
      G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
  6. Re:Hmm, does realy Mono work.. by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're using Mono for GNOME/GTK development, it's actually quite stable, and much more usable than trying to write applications in old-fashioned C.

    Yes, but let's be honest here: if you're writing a GTK/GNOME application you're writing a reasonably high level application and pretty much anything (Java, Python, hell even C++, bindings) would be "much more usable" than "old-fashioned C".

    Please note that I am not dissing Mono. Variety is nice, and C# does provide a relatively nice language to be able to code GUI applications in. My issue is with the common implication that C# is unique in this - it isn't. Try out PyGTK for instance (particularly with libGlade).

    Jedidiah.

  7. Stop being a crusty slashbot. by Inoshiro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this not like life?

    Ford Explorer -- does that also access the internet?

    Hyundai Accent -- is it about the korean language?

    Honda Accord -- music perhaps?

    People make names which they feel are the best for something. They rely on something's ability to be good at it to spread the love, so to speak. If it's good, people will remember it. If it's not good, it goes away and it's no issue. Do you really like how people went to ultrageneric names and domain speculation on the Internet? Pets.com? Mail.com? News.com?

    Take a look at things which people remember. What about Napster implies filesharing? What about Suprnova? What about Google implies searching?

    Naming is a magic game. Just because you don't like how others play it, does not mean they are playing it wrong. This whole "incorrect naming" meme is stupid and pointless. Start thinking critically about what you're saying before you repeat it everywhere.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  8. Mono has a long way to go, even in OSS by Glock27 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Statistics from Sourceforge:

    Java (14080 projects)
    C# (2206 projects)

    Also, don't forget there is a very interesting ahead-of-time Java compiler as part of the gcc toolchain, gcj. It isn't complete, but it is constantly improving and can now be used to write SWT and Gnome applications. Good stuff!

    I hate to see C# getting any uptake when all it is intended to do is allow Microsoft to co-opt all of Java's good ideas while stifling portability as much as possible. It is a transparent Java ripoff.

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  9. Re:Story time by ed__ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    first, their is a published spec.

    secondly, mono is more about enabling developers to use C# and CLR, rather than allowing people to run windows software on *nix, so there isn't the same necessity for bug-for-bug compatibility as there is in samba (where you want to look exactly like a Windows box from the outside).

  10. What are the good bits of which you speak? by pmike_bauer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What are these good bits of which you speak? Or are we (yet again) confusing Java, the language, and Java, the platform? An argument can be made that the C# language learned and improved upon the Java language's experience. On the other hand, comparing the two platforms (i.e. runtimes and libraries) is a whole different bag. Granted, C# and .Net are possibly the best technologies to use if you are developing Windows applications. But, to assert that these are the best options in any other environment is simply ludicrous. Mono is in no way as mature, stable, feature rich (you name it) as the Java platform. Pray tell where is my Mono equivalent of Jakarta, Java3D, Maven, HotSpotVM, Tapestry, Eclipse, Netbeans, IntelliJ, yadatada? When you find them, then come back and tell me C# has "all the good bits." Mono may have the potential to become what Java is today, but its not there yet.

    --
    I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
  11. Re:Story time by damiam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fate of samba? Last time I checked, Samba was alive and well. And if anything, Mono has an advantage over samba in that it doesn't have to be Windows-compatible to be useful. C# is a great language (supposedly; I've never used it) and an open-source Linux implementation can only be a good thing. All of the apps mentioned in the intro are native GTK apps, and will continue to work well and be developed even if MS does something to break Windows compatibility.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  12. Re:C# Rocks - go mono go. by spongman · · Score: 3, Insightful
    socket servers in .NET should be written using the {Begin|End}{Accept|Send|Receive} Socket methods. These methods make usee of completion ports on Win2k and later (and assync-io on Mono) and are the recommended way to ensure scalability. the old Unix 'select' pattern is broken as far as scalability is concerned - even on Unix.

    I've had a .NET app handle 100,000+ active TCP connections on a Win2k3 box without blinking an eye.

    Just watch out for heap fragmentation caused by pinning your input buffers. It's best to preallocate them in blocks and reuse them when you can.

  13. Re:Mono is Wonderful by FooBarWidget · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's what certification and unit testing program are for. You only get the label "100% compatible JVM implementation" if you pass the test. Where's the problem?

    Even if Sun doesn't open their implementation, people will still create Java compilers. Take a look at the Kaffe and GCJ project. Why don't you complain about them "fragmentating" the Java community? If Sun open sources their JVM implementation, how will it suddenly generate more fragmentation than GCJ/Kaffe already do?

  14. Re:Take the Mono Challenge !!! by lupus-slash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What distinct advantages does Mono have over either of these established and supported platforms ?

    Contrary to both the JVM and MS .Net, Mono is free software. Mono is also cross-platform, running on Linux, MacOSX, Windows, Solaris and others on at least 5 different processor architectures.
    And we're rapidly improving to support better server workloads.

  15. Re:Did you forget about wxNET? by Delos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How many times do we have to have the myth of cross platform UIs repeated?

    As long as people keep downloading Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird.