Slashdot Mirror
Mono 2.0 and .NET On Linux
Several readers noted the release of Mono 2.0, which is compatible with Microsoft's .NET Framework 2.0. According to Miguel de Icaza, "... users can move over server applications built for .NET and client applications built with Windows Forms." InternetNews points out that only about half of the .NET apps out there will work on Mono 2.0, for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) legacy Windows-only libraries and Microsoft's progress on .NET 3.0 and 3.5 APIs.
I like Mono, I really do, however it's always playing catch-up, it's by it's very nature it's always going to be one step behind Microsoft. Without the support of features in .Net 3.5, very few people are going to choose it for new developments.
If we wanted to run crappy Microsoft technologies, we'd just go buy Windows, wouldn't we?
That must be why the WINE project is such a silly idea... oh wait...
The bits missing (Windows Workflow Foundation, Windows Communication Foundation and Windows Presentation Foundation) aren't as crucial in my personal opinion; they are just nice toys you aren't going to miss if you've never had them before.
It is crucial in the moment when any programmer use them and application stop working on any non-Windows platform. It is also very difficult, if not improssible, to track VM incompatibilities when main developer (MS) is not interested in 100% compatibility at all. For me, as enterprise application developer, these are show stoppers. Luckily, there is Java and Sun Hotspot, which solves all this.
839*929
Good luck porting over LoadDLL("C:\\windows\\system32\\mylib.dll");.
The existence of a working mono is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one, for porting an application. Whether that condition is fulfilled and to what degree, I'll leave up to you to discuss.
Portability comes from being largely independent of the differences between the platform you want to port from and the one you want to port to. Good portability engineering consists of gathering all the platform-specific bits into one unit with a uniform interface, such that it's easy to write platform-specific modules for all the platforms you want to support; then, make sure to test on all your target platforms.
For a good piece of engineering, see Simon Tatham's puzzle collection (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/). To see the importance of testing on all your target platforms, see the state of synergy on the Mac (http://synergy2.sourceforge.net/ -- "The Mac OS X port is incomplete [...]"). To see the importance of isolating your platform dependence, see any code that makes liberal use of fork and ioctl everywhere [sorry, I can't name an example].
Also, good portability engineering done up front is much less work (i.e. cheaper for your employer) than when the project is already deployed on windows only.
-- Jonas K
I agree. Why don't these people who want to use .NET (managed code) just use Java? At least that is platform agnostic (limited to whatever platforms Java is ported on).
By the way, what about dotGNU? http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/ At least that will be released under GPL and not some dual licence with GPL.
Or we can create something on Linux that has to run on Windows (for whatever reason). This is a two way street - Mono can create software that runs on Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X AND Windows.
This isn't just getting Windows stuff to run on Linux.
Viewed from this perspective it is less important that Mono is behind .NET - if you're creating something new you target Mono and it should run on .NET
For many users Windows is where they are (stuck quite often) and they can't migrate 100% of their desktops to *nix, they have something that stops them on a number of systems. Mono means they can create applications that can run on a mix.
There's a big difference between the two - because devs don't target WINE, WINE is the "embrace" part of moving from Windows. Because devs target .NET, .NET is the "embrace" part of moving from Linux.
So, these two technologies are actually on opposing sides of this particular ideological fence - one is an attempt at removing lock-in, the other is an attempt at locking-in.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I wish the real .NET could be installed on Wine. Not because I like .NET, but because I want to run those programs that people make in .NET these days, in Wine just like I can do with regular programs. If Wine wants to work like Windows, it should also be possible to install the real .NET on it just like you can do on the real Windows. They should try to make it work just as well as they did with MS Office. Then it would become possible to run so much more programs in Wine without problems and without having to reboot to Windows!
You're not making much sense. Yes, people don't target WINE, they target the Windows API, just like they target the .NET API. Wine is a means of running Windows code on linux, Mono is a means of running .NET code on linux. People will be writing code for both, so might as well support running it on linux.
Mono is Java in disguise, if you want cross platforms without traps use Java
It is like the mortgage crash, a few saw it coming, they said so, but the majority didn't care
A few people says that Mono is a legal and technology trap (search the web for mono trap), in the future this will reveal true, do not forget that you where warned
The .NET platform and C# looks like decent enough technology, but I just don't think it's compelling enough to prompt a switch from Java.
With these back-room Novell/MS deals, the patent situation around Mono continues to be as clear as mud, and with Java I get it all under the GPL (with a clear and written patent grant) right from the source. Not to mention Sun's process for advancing the platform (JCP), while not perfect, is far more open and community driven, catering to much wider variety of vendors and platforms than Microsoft.
With Eclipse and Netbeans, the Java tool support on Linux is fantastic as well. With RedHat and JBoss, the server platform is also well supported on Linux.
So, yeah, nice work, but no thanks.
Before I tear apart what you think passes for an argument, let me say that the Mono folks are doing an amazing job and they get way too little credit. The tinfoil hat brigade around here seems to have taken on Mono as its personal whipping boy, and it's totally unfair and uncalled for.
Sure, but weren't you supposed to be talking about Mono there somewhere? Java used to provide lock-in, too. Hence, the GNU Classpath project, which is pretty much identical in its goals to Mono. Funny that I never saw you people screaming about that one being a trap.
Wow, get some perspective there. How many killer apps are there on Linux that the Windows people are craving? KDE? Gnome? Firefox? OpenOffice? None of those are on .NET and most of them run on Windows, anyway. Do you think that Firefox, OOo and KDE are all helping people move away from Linux by providing Windows ports? Isn't it more likely that without those Windows ports, most of these projects would go nowhere?
It's really quite obvious to anyone with any actual knowledge of how the industry works that people are going to write applications without Linux in mind. The Mono project, just like the Wine project, lets people who run Linux run applications that other people wrote for Windows.
As it turns out, there's also a bunch of useful libraries that Mono includes that you can use when coding for platforms other than Windows. It boggles my mind that anyone would think that this is somehow a trap. It's just a useful way to access Unixy things on Mono. But it clearly can't be breaking Linux lock-in or whatever pea-brained scheme you've come up with.
.NET has been around for 7-8 years now. Do you honestly think code can't become legacy in that amount of time? Here's a tip: if you think Linux has any lock-in potential for applications written on it, then perhaps you shouldn't talk too much about intellectual integrity.
really? I thought MS has dropped support for OpenGL, apart from its very legacy v1.1 base. And you know they will never write a managed wrapper for it.
So, who will write a .NET game using opengl? If you're a Windows dev (and most game devs are) then you'll be using DirectX.NET, which oh so conveniently is not available for Linux.
So close. Yet so immensely far. Do you see the problem now? Its business a usual for MS, but with the added bonus of saying "But we are working on Linux interoperability, Mr DoJ, look - Mono".
To be pedantic I think the C# language definition is open source. What isn't is the runtime. You could write a C# compiler with its own runtime and you'd have a pretty nifty alternative to Java.
What you can't do is copy the windows runtime. I wonder how mono would do if Microsoft invoked patents against it. I suspect not well, but with Mono in its current state it is to MS's advantage - they can say they are multi-platform but know that most people will give up because of the 50% of programs that won't run and turn to Windows.
FLAMEBAIT -- get a life! Anyone who has experience of both J2EE and .NET will tell you that .NET is better thought out, has a more consistant design,
has cleaner easier to use APIs, scales better, performs better
and is altogether a much nicer environment to work in.
I am sorry if this upsets the Slashdot worldview but its the truth. Microsfot are better at software than Sun.
Anyone who has experience of both Apache and IIS will tell you that IIS is better thought out, has a more consistant design, has cleaner easier to use APIs, scales better, performs better and is altogether a much nicer environment to work in.
I am sorry if this upsets the Slashdot worldview but its the truth. Microsfot are better at software than FLOSS Devs.
Because, we all know that those are the only things that matter when gambling your future - your legal liability is irrelevant.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
WINE is as to Windows as Mono is as to .NET
This is basic logical reasoning.
All the budding developers who hear about .NET's cross-platform nature will want to learn it. All, except the wisest, of them will be forced to learn MS .NET from MSDN. They'll code a few .NET applications in C#, test them on M$ Windows and let their brains embrace .NET beyond all question. One day they find that most of their applications don't work on Linux/Mono. They'll scream on all public forums - "Linux is crap!!!". Someone tries to explain to them that the problem is because of their heavy usage of M$-specific extensions which are not part of ECMA .NET. Then they'll scream again - "ECMA .NET?#??!!#! WTF is that?". Such is the depth of lock-in involved with .NET.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
C# is an iso standard language, which puts it in the same league as C/C++.....
...and OOXML.
Thats the exact position Java has been in for years. Language Spec and JVM spec were open, but Sun's runtime was not. Anyone could make their own runtime. Yet people complained that Java was not open. So why would MS get special treatment for an open spec without an open platform?