Slashdot Mirror
Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code
jones_supa writes: Version 4.0.0 of Mono, the FOSS implementation of the .NET Framework, has been released. This is the first release of Mono that replaces various components of Mono with code that was released by Microsoft under the MIT license. Microsoft itself is working towards .NET Core: a redistributable and re-imagined version of .NET, which has two code drops: CoreFX and CoreCLR. Mono at this point continues to provide an API that tracks the .NET desktop/server version. This means that most of the Mono code that has been integrated from Microsoft comes from the ReferenceSource code drop. Mono's C# compiler now also defaults to C# 6.0.
It absolutely does. You can develop completely cross platform applications with 1 codebase using XWT. The single codebase creates projects for GTK, Cocoa(OSX) and WPF(Windows) that use the native controls for the corresponding platform.
The fact that they are porting most of the libraries over to the first-party Microsoft versions means less bugs, and way more active maintenance. This is very good news for cross-platform developers!
Please don't compare apples to oranges. You are totally right about the trust issue, that's something personal. But it has very little to do with the C# language or .NET.
Pulling JVM into the equation not really helps either, cause the consequent question would be: Do you trust Oracle? Or Google, for that matter if you count Dalvik in.
I do like the C# as a language, having done a few smaller projects with it. The reason why i prefer not to use it is, indeed, because i don't trust or like Microsoft. Having said that, i am totally fine with the Mono project - despite all criticism it's just the language and the VM and has very little to do with MS, and when appropriate (i.e.: someone pays for it) i wouldn't hesitate to develop with Mono or .Net again.
GP totally has a point here: The languages you really need for a certain task already exist, whether it be C, C++, C#, Java and a handful of other niches including but not limited to Perl and PHP. Whatever your choice is, try stick to a steady platform. Code written in any such `proven` language is much more likely to compile in another 10-20 years from now than code written in some obscure actively-developed language which adds little, that couldn't be done otherwise, but headaches.
And AC above also has a point that many OS enthusiasts are guilty of exactly what they accuse their nemesis of. Hence he doesn't deserve the tag 'astroturfer', it may well be his honest opinion. It's totally ok to criticize, but be prepared to accept criticism too, please.
A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
well considering their 'mit license' is invalidated because of the wording saying you can't use without their engine or code... it kind of is a trap. Just a bad one.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
You sir, are a great astroturfer and deserve a raise from MS.
That's really another type of FUD; that anyone who says something that isn't completely anti-Microsoft must be being paid to say it.
It has been 10 years since Mono was released and 13 years since .NET was released, and for the entire time there have been the predictions that Microsoft will start suing all and sundry for patent infringement. For that entire time it hasn't happened. For that entire time it has been complete FUD, whether you like it or not.
Well, just recently a very interesting article covering Microsoft "open source .NET" license, you should read up on that, especially MS requiring a license to the patents in the code you contribute, but refusing to grant you license for their code, instead, providing a promise not to sue.
So what? None of that means that Microsoft is going to start suing you for using the Mono CLR and Framework. If you don't like their terms then don't add your own patented code to a .NET Foundation-owned project, but feel free to use Mono without any fear of being sued by Microsoft.
If you really trust Microsot more than RedHat or opensource developers, than please, don't let anyone stand in your way, trust is a personal issue, some people trust ISIS, some - the supreme leader, but some prefer to be able to verify the code themselves, and Microsoft throwing their dying platform into opensource stream, hoping for a revival is very far from transparency and verifiability.
Wow, talk about FUD again. Bringing up ISIS is just a modern version of Godwin's law. And "some prefer to be able to verify the code themselves" is FUD because this is all about open source code released by Microsoft. Of course you can verify the code yourself. Or are you mixing up the completely unrelated non-OSS Windows code that you can't see. How is that relevant to this discussion?
After looking at Mono I failed to see the point in the whole thing. Thats because it does not support the WPF. Since a large number of .NET applications are GUI, not having WPF pretty much destroys the value of Mono in allowing Windows .NET programs to run on Linux. Otherwise, there is no point in using Mono. If you have a .NET program written using WPF its not going to run on Mono. If you are writing a new program there is no reason to use Mono instead of another application language such as Ruby. Using a development environment designed by the Evil Empire does not hold special appeal over the FOSS plartforms such as Ruby. If one has to write a program that can run on both Windows and Linux i would probably be better to use Ruby or Python or such.
Why didnt Microsoft Open source the WPF. Instead, they open sourced the parts of .NET that Mono already had implementations of.
Quite simply, a patent "promise" is not the same thing as a license. You see, even if they're bared by Laches, they can still drag you through the courts and you've got to prove they're barred by making the promise. If you had a license...you could make a single motion at the first hearing or in the pretrial motions to dismiss because of being licensed if they sought to sue you.
Having this crap in there means Mono's toast without a real license to any valid patents, combined with a covenant to license all tech as it becomes apparent, that ends up in this common core of stuff. Otherwise, you're INSANE for using it- because you can and most probably WILL be sued over it.
No - it is actually stronger (look up promissory estoppel). But leave that aside, because the patents have also already been granted.
The *promise* was issued because fanatics cried foul at the patent grant, arguing that Microsoft with it vast army of lawyers could just sue any OS project out of existence, patent grant or not. Hence, Microsoft issued the promise, all but ensuring that such a case would be outright dismissed since you've acted in good faith on a promise. The promise in that case is actually one of the strongest contract forms imaginable, as it is one-sided: you do not have to sign anything to be covered.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
It would take a delusional lunatic not to know the long history of attacks against commercial and open source competitors. Microsoft isn't trustworthy, and as there are alternatives to .NET, the easiest way to protect against future bad behavior by Microsoft is to use those alternatives. Why risk future woes when you have no need to?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Have you ever considered the possibility that all those years of misconduct by Microsoft have sowed a considerable amount of distrust in the developer community, and that even where Microsoft has turned over a new leaf, so vile was its conduct "back in the day" (which ain't all that long ago, if you think about the OOXML open standard scam), that it might take years, or maybe never, to convince a lot of people that there isn't some evil plan in the works.
Give me one good fucking reason why I should ever trust Microsoft again?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Microsoft has not contributed any useful code to the Linux kernel. Their "contribution" was drivers so that Linux could work on their hypervisor. If you're not running a MS server with MS Hyper-V, then their contributions are useless to you.
Yeah, it's nice they're playing a little more nicely with Linux now, but don't pretend their "contribution" had any altruistic component to it at all, because it didn't. It was only done because customers were demanding that they be able to run Linux virtualized on MS systems. MS did the bare minimum needed to enable this, and that's it.