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.

Comments

Oh just go away

[toby]

If we wanted to run crappy Microsoft technologies, we'd just go buy Windows, wouldn't we?

Your precious little synergies (poisonous little stratagems) may please your masters but they don't make Microsoft relevant.

Re:Oh just go away

[goose-incarnated]

Before I tear apart what you think passes for an argument,

Ad hominem

let me say that the Mono folks are doing an amazing job and they get way too little credit.

Irrelevant - I did not begrudge them their due.

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.

WINE removes lock-in, .NET provides it.

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.

Then you have a short memory.

WINE helps people leave windows and still keep their legacy applications. Mono provides a way for new applications to be moved from Linux to Windows.

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?

Strawman, I never claimed anything like that, the majority of applications are in-house development efforts, and there are more portable and less legally dangerous alternatives to .NET

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.

Wine does, certainly.

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.

I believe it is because your experience of the industry might just be limited to software for the masses, and not the majority of software written.

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.

Irrelevant, Ad hominem and a strawman. Well Done!!!

Unless, of course, the argument is made that there are legacy applications in .NET that can be run on Mono, in which case we have bigger problems, such as lack of intellectual integrity on the part of those making the argument

.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.

I leave the above in purely to demonstrate your lack of an argument.

Re:Oh just go away

[KiloByte]

Do you want Vista? I don't. .NET makes everything bloated to an insane degree.

Some Gnome guys try to push a piece of crock named "Tomboy notes". If you try it, it will take more memory than the whole rest of Gnome together. And Gnome, well, isn't quite the paragon of being bloat-free.

Re:Oh just go away

[goose-incarnated]

You're not much of a debater. Yes, there's an ad hominem in there (but only one, not two as you claim). However, ad hominems don't invalidate anything else I said, and it's not necessarily even false. I still think you're a pea-brained moron and your response has done nothing to change that.

If you want to be taken seriously, respond to my argument against you thinking there's Linux lock-in that Mono is breaking.

I never claimed that Linux had lock-in potential, which is, as I already said, a strawman. You present an obviously moronic line of reasoning as being mine, then proceed to knock it down. Well Done, again!!! (care to go for a hat-trick?)

My claim is that of the two techs mentioned (Wine and .NET), one enables migration from Windows, the other prevents it.

Or present some other argument that I shall take great pleasure in mocking similarly.

Newsflash: Some mocking is certainly occurring, but I'm not the one being got at ;-)

Consider this EOFF

Re:Oh just go away

[wisty]

And anyone who has experience of both IE and Firefox will tell you that IE is better thought out, has a more consistant design, has cleaner easier to use interface, scales better, performs better and is altogether a much nicer environment to surf in.

Re:The inevitable Java vs Mono

[HRbnjR]

I am a fan of Free Software and the *freedom* I get from using it.

If you look at Java vs .NET in a Linux world, against a Free Software background, I think it quickly becomes obvious which one comes closer to sharing the Free Software ideals/benefits/mindset and which one doesn't. Mono may be a free implementation, but the platform they are emulating is as proprietary as ever.

Re:I like Mono, but...

[ilitirit]

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.

Reminds me of OO.org and MS Office. Or even the Linux desktop GUI and Windows.

I forgot to mention a few more things

[BhaKi]

I forgot there's a hell lot in MS .NET that's not in ECMA .NET. I forgot more than 99% of the .NET developers read the MS. NET documentation rather than the ECMA .NET documentation or the Mono documentation. I forgot lot of foolish but vocal people consider the compatibility between Mono and MS .NET as a measure of .NET's cros-platformity while they should actually consider the incompatibility between dotgnu and MS .NET as a measure of the lock-in involved.