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."

14 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. Mono talk w/ icaza by camcorder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Miguel de Icaza interview about mono on lug radio. Really nice one.

  2. C# Rocks - go mono go. by Tanaka · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm just getting into C#, and I love it. One interesting thing I found was that if I ran a socket server app on Windows, I couldn't connect more than 64 clients in a single thread. I tried the same binary on Linux/Mono, and it bombed out at 1011 connections.

    Keep up the good work - I'm loving it!

  3. Well... by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 5, Funny
    Mono is a huge part of my life!

    Every morning I get up and feed F-Spot (my Beagle). Then, I get out some eggs, cheese, and MooTag to make myself an omelet. I learned how to cook omelets from Emeril. So, it's Muine & Blam! and my omelets done!

    Next, I take a shower and wash off the Bluefunk. Once dressed in my suit and my PolarViewer glasses I call down to Tomboy (our doorman) and have him GIB up a cab.

    Once at work it is non-stop Gfaxes and sneaking some time with my SportTracker.

    --
    DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
  4. Re:Wrong punctuation? by Otter · · Score: 5, Funny
    Yes, as a rabidly psychotic MooTag fanboy (Nothing has been holding back open-source more than the shortage of half-finished ID3 tag editors!) I am enraged at this obvious favoritism towards Blam! and F-spot!

    [Insert requisite stream of sexist abuse towards Eugenia...]

  5. C# is Better than Java(At least I think So) by Laoping · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok, Microsoft Is evil, this I will give you, but C# rocks. After years in C and C++, I moved to Java, and It was good, then about 2 years ago I moved to C# and it was better. Now I program in both, for work and graduate school. I have to say they are very similar, but when I am doing a program in Java, I always miss a few of the C# features (virtual keyword for functions, Get/Set are better in C#, etc)

    The only problem I have with C# was that it was not as portable as Java, but Mono came to my rescue. I was surprised how many of my program just worked in Mono (after removing winforms that is). I can't wait for version 2.0.

    Really, Mono should be embraced /.ers . If we can start making programs for the general population that run on *nix systems, but look just like they do on windows, more people will use *nix. What we have to realize is that most people in the world(not on this website J) don't have 4 computers in their basement running different operations systems, they just have the one running windows.

    P.S. And for some reason, they still have the sides on their computer case.......

  6. From a mono developer.. by zbowling · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:From a mono developer.. by zbowling · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, there really isn't an issue.

      IP issues have been solved a long time ago. While Microsoft didn't publicly comment on IP issues in Mono, the legal department at Novell feels that any action taken by Microsoft against mono would be in amazingly bad faith and for 90% of Mono would be impossible to impose.

      The sections that were released under the EMCA filing are public and they will be ours forever. The issues that maybe questionable are parts that were not released on the EMCA but Microsoft has released the source for those under a shared common licence (very restrictive) but allow anyone to "learn" from them as long as the don't take anything tangable (copy and paste, rigth it down) so as much as you can remember while looking at it is yours. The even make the comment in the licence that its a almost needed tool for implimenting your own runtimes. Mono has a personal policy not except code from people who even looked at to avoid all chances of something slipping up in the mess.

      Microsoft has communicated with us in the past on different things and we have communictated with them when we find a security flaw in the framework. They even use our code deep in the depths of Microsoft for regression tests (as much as I have heard) and the even demo with our software at conferences and online broadcasts on the power of the .NET Framework.

      With all the positive support they have given towards it would be in bad interests to suddenly change on that and would be against anti-trust laws. We are also protected by the EMCA filling because it proves that Microsoft intented for .NET to be a standard and not propiatary. Any patent that Microsoft would try to file would be quickly shot down because of prior art clauses and the fact that Mono is mostly a wrapper (when it comes to the classes not the compiler or the runtime) for libraries that already exist in Linux (in most cases this is true) they would have to file against libraries that even Microsoft used as the basis for their products publicly.

      I just don't see any issue. It was a consern when we started before we had time to investigate. :-)

      --
      No.
  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. Re:good by grfpopl · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:it's not reverse engineering by Patoski · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    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). MS has never said anything about letting people use these parts of .NET and could easily go after Mono over this issue. 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.

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

    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."
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. Re:it's not reverse engineering by beanlover · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Thank you for your post. I was one of those that believed because it was an ECMA standard that it was free and open.

    I went to the ecma site and saw this page:

    WARNINGS

    The liability and responsibility for the implementation of an Ecma Standard rests with the implementor, and not with Ecma.

    Below that was a warning and a linke about settling patent issues pertaining to ECMA standards. Scary.

    B

  13. Re:Did you forget about wxNET? by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Each platform has different HIGs which determine how an application should behave as well as how it should look. Using the same UI code on multiple platforms results in apps that don't match the HIGs on any platform except (if you're lucky) the one on which they were developed.

    Which raises the interesting question of whether we should be looking for another level of abstraction for GUIs beyond widget toolkits that let you write one codebase that then applies the HIG rules of the platform (which, of course, have to be something formally codified rather than just a spec document) to generate a (relatively speaking) HIG compliant UI.

    Imagine having applications written on a level such that the "OK/Cancel" button order is determined by the platform rather than by where the code explicitly placed the buttons. Such would certainly make GNOME and KDE much more compatible. At the same time it would formalise the HIG from a "reccomended way of doing things" into a mandated consistent GUI.

    Jedidiah.