Mono is a platform for running and developing modern applications, based on the ECMA/ISO Standards. Mono can run existing programs targeting the.NET or Java frameworks.
Execution of Java code in Mono today is done with IKVM (http://www.ikvm.net) the Java virtual machine that runs on top of the Common Language Infrastructure.
Today IKVM is fully supported by Mono and its part of the standard Mono package distribution. As it stands today, it is able to run popular applications like Eclipse and Derby.
We, the Windows devs, are not using Java because it's a mess on Windows. Some users have the MS JVM, others the Sun, both with incompatibilities and are different versions.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Java client apps don't look like Windows apps, and Windows users generally despise them..NET client apps, OTOH, look like native Windows apps..NET is geared for Windows. There are some truely awesome.NET IDEs for Windows, while only a few decent Java IDEs (Eclipse is butt slow!). For us, Java isn't as good as.NET; we're Windows devs after all.
Nonsense. I've been developing Windows software professionally since around 1995, and I can tell you with all certainty that almost no Windows developers use Java, unless it is for an existing codebase. Sure, there are some Java jobs now, and this is primarily because companies heavily invested in Java during the 1990s. But virtually no one is using Java on Windows for client stuff anymore, especially with the VM incompatibilities that exist on this side of the fence.
Go to Windows dev-centric sites like The Code Project, see how many Java articles, content, source code, or jobs you can find, you'll see what I mean.
Really? I wish you could've said that when I was arguing the same several years ago. But all I got back from Java zealots was that I was an "M$ fanboi".
That said, I'm curious: isn't the Java class library source code now freely available and under an OSI-approved license?
A few years back MS made a lot of fuss about Java while developing an alternative (.NET). In the process, they've planted some seeds such as "Java is neither open nor free!", and "Java is lock-in!", or the confusion surrounding Java on Windows, thanks to the MS VM supporting only v1.3.
I'll tell you all now, I'm a Winodws developer and I write C# code. For us Windows devs, no one uses Java anymore; if you do, it's for support of an existing product. Virtually all new projects are.NET-based or native code. So if you, the open source community, cause more fuss over Java and whine about using it, then Microsoft has truely succeeded in it's FUD plan over Java.
A closed, proprietary system is valuable to the software vendor, but not to its customers.
Nonsense. I'm a customer of Microsoft (I own a Windows box, 2 Windows laptops, Visual Studio, among other software) and their software benefits me. Would it benefit me more if it was open sourced? No, just like most Linux devs don't actually perform code fixes on the kernel, I wouldn't perform fixes on the Windows kernel.
Grated, there are some theoretical benefits in open sourcing Windows (more eyes == more secure), but there are also theoretical benefits to keeping it closed (a single, unified standard rather than many incompatible variants: just look at the widget differences, clipboard sharing problems, and no unified install techniques, etc. on Linux)
I'll rephrase. One cannot uninstall IE without applying some hack that breaks the thousands of 3rd party apps that depend on the html rendering engine IE uses.
This is not the first identification of soft protein laden tissue that has been extracted from dinosaur tissue as Mary Schweitzer at North Carolina State University has extracted these tissues from other tissues as well, so there is a precedent.
Of course getting actual DNA from these tissues will be a long shot due to its fragile nature, but protein sequence may prove very informative in letting us define exactly where genetic lineages have gone over evolution.
Thanks for spoiling our fun. Can we get back to the Jurassic Park jokes please?
Yep it's pretty sad. I actually have seen TCP/IP completely taken out. On my friends machine he had a ton of spyware (mostly XXX) installed; to the point where he couldn't even access the web, email, anything; his whole connection was hosed.
Fortunately Windows System Restore saved it; I just restored to several months back, and it was working again, although the spyware was still there. At least it let me on the web, where I grabbed an antispyware app, antivirus app, and Firefox for him, cleaned up the forsaken thing.
Decided further to remove IE from his Windows XP SP2 machine.
Impossible. One cannot uninstall IE, there has to be at least 1 "get on the web" option built into the OS. And the network disconnect was more likely due to the spyware; I've seen lots of spyware that hijacks so many settings it basically owns the machine, disrupting everything from browsing to LAN connections.
You're totally missing the point. Explorer.exe uses the HTML rendering engine. Explorer is just the Windows file manager. Just as IExplorer is just the browser; both apps use the publicly available html rendering engine known as mshtml.dll
This is no different than KDE using Konqueror, then reusing the rendering engine for the file explorer.
When we say it's "integrated into the OS", we mean to say that the html rendering engine (mshtml.dll & SHDocVw.dll), along with the simple GUI app that uses these interfaces (IE) are installed with the OS. They don't have "deep ties" or "connections to the core OS"; the Windows kernel has zero knowledge of IE. By installing the html rendering APIs and making them public, 3rd party applications are free to use the rendering engine for their own purposes.
I've always said, MS ought to let 3rd parties bid to be the default browser/CD writer/Office software. That way, MS maintains their business while not locking out 3rd parties.
And FYI, when MS people say it's "integrated into the OS", they mean the html rendering library (mshtml.dll and SHDocVw.dll) are integrated into the OS, and IE is just a GUI app that uses those integrated interfaces.
All APIs that IE uses are documented as part of MSDN, and are part of the Platform SDK, and is available to other software.
Second part IE is part of the OS, any application that wants to use it is free to, because the APIs are publicly available and free to use.
People get all hot and bothered over this, when it's really simple. Microsoft provides 2 primary dlls: mshtml.dll (contains COM web hosting interfaces) and SHDocVw.dll (which contains the WebBrowser control, which IE itself uses).
Because MS integrates IE into the OS, you can go Start->Run->www.google.com and it will launch using your current web browser (even if it's FF). Or I can launch a process from code, specifying only a URL, and the system will open your browser of choice and navigate to the url.
Basically, integration gives the Windows shell the ability to browse the internet.
the paper this morning was pointing out how this discovery might leave a gaping hole in evolutionary theory.
Wha??? Evolution...gaping hole...? Err uh bzztt *poof* Slashbot brain cannot compute result. You must be a Jeeeeeeezus person.. er bzztt *crash* boing bzzt must POST ANONYMOUSLY...bzzt and INSULT your... m.M.M.m.mother bzzt *boom*
really, why so many angry nerds? better yet, why the stupid posts? why the stupid questions - this one is pretty lame and stupid!
Mature, civilized people have been asking these same questions about Slashdot for years now. Unfortunately we've all been modded down -1 by the unruly peanut gallery here.
Nonsense. It's a perfectly valid analogy. The OSS utopian idea that small businesses can make money by giving their software away for free is the biggest myth since Pets.com's revenue plan.
(If I have to explain why, then you need to sacrifice a goat to your god of choice, severe your genitalia, and eat chilled monkey brain for dessert.)
How long can this really last? Bandwidth costs money. Servers cost money. Power costs money. Admins need to eat. I think it's a good idea, but just wondering where the funds are going to come from.
How long can open source software really last? Software dev tools cost money. Dev machines cost money. Offices cost money. Developers need to eat. I think it's a good idea, but just wondering where the funds are going to come from.
Slashdot Mirror
wtf does Mono have to do with Java?
.NET or Java frameworks.
From the Mono frontpage:
Mono is a platform for running and developing modern applications, based on the ECMA/ISO Standards. Mono can run existing programs targeting the
And also, from the Mono Java page:
Execution of Java code in Mono today is done with IKVM (http://www.ikvm.net) the Java virtual machine that runs on top of the Common Language Infrastructure.
Today IKVM is fully supported by Mono and its part of the standard Mono package distribution. As it stands today, it is able to run popular applications like Eclipse and Derby.
Nice coincidence theory, but what do you think "synergy" means?
:-)
I dunno, some market-speak babble?
Going way back to Slashdot circa 1998, posing the question, "Should Netscape GPL Mozilla?"? Link is http://web.archive.org/web/19980113191222/http://s lashdot.org/
Nice consiracy theory and all, but FYI, MS has been trying to sell its stake in MSNBC. They sold Slate magazine too, by the way.
I see dead pixels.
Haha, I assure you I was not appealing for pity, but only stating the facts for the sake of honesty.
:-)
And yes, C#<->Java, CLR<->JVM, but Slashbots can't be bothered about details.
We, the Windows devs, are not using Java because it's a mess on Windows. Some users have the MS JVM, others the Sun, both with incompatibilities and are different versions.
.NET client apps, OTOH, look like native Windows apps. .NET is geared for Windows. There are some truely awesome .NET IDEs for Windows, while only a few decent Java IDEs (Eclipse is butt slow!). For us, Java isn't as good as .NET; we're Windows devs after all.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Java client apps don't look like Windows apps, and Windows users generally despise them.
Nonsense. I've been developing Windows software professionally since around 1995, and I can tell you with all certainty that almost no Windows developers use Java, unless it is for an existing codebase. Sure, there are some Java jobs now, and this is primarily because companies heavily invested in Java during the 1990s. But virtually no one is using Java on Windows for client stuff anymore, especially with the VM incompatibilities that exist on this side of the fence.
Go to Windows dev-centric sites like The Code Project, see how many Java articles, content, source code, or jobs you can find, you'll see what I mean.
Really? I wish you could've said that when I was arguing the same several years ago. But all I got back from Java zealots was that I was an "M$ fanboi".
That said, I'm curious: isn't the Java class library source code now freely available and under an OSI-approved license?
That's my point: those that do use Java use it because they are "heavily invested" in it already, as you say.
A few years back MS made a lot of fuss about Java while developing an alternative (.NET). In the process, they've planted some seeds such as "Java is neither open nor free!", and "Java is lock-in!", or the confusion surrounding Java on Windows, thanks to the MS VM supporting only v1.3.
.NET-based or native code. So if you, the open source community, cause more fuss over Java and whine about using it, then Microsoft has truely succeeded in it's FUD plan over Java.
I'll tell you all now, I'm a Winodws developer and I write C# code. For us Windows devs, no one uses Java anymore; if you do, it's for support of an existing product. Virtually all new projects are
A closed, proprietary system is valuable to the software vendor, but not to its customers.
Nonsense. I'm a customer of Microsoft (I own a Windows box, 2 Windows laptops, Visual Studio, among other software) and their software benefits me. Would it benefit me more if it was open sourced? No, just like most Linux devs don't actually perform code fixes on the kernel, I wouldn't perform fixes on the Windows kernel.
Grated, there are some theoretical benefits in open sourcing Windows (more eyes == more secure), but there are also theoretical benefits to keeping it closed (a single, unified standard rather than many incompatible variants: just look at the widget differences, clipboard sharing problems, and no unified install techniques, etc. on Linux)
I'll rephrase. One cannot uninstall IE without applying some hack that breaks the thousands of 3rd party apps that depend on the html rendering engine IE uses.
This is not the first identification of soft protein laden tissue that has been extracted from dinosaur tissue as Mary Schweitzer at North Carolina State University has extracted these tissues from other tissues as well, so there is a precedent.
Of course getting actual DNA from these tissues will be a long shot due to its fragile nature, but protein sequence may prove very informative in letting us define exactly where genetic lineages have gone over evolution.
Thanks for spoiling our fun. Can we get back to the Jurassic Park jokes please?
Yep it's pretty sad. I actually have seen TCP/IP completely taken out. On my friends machine he had a ton of spyware (mostly XXX) installed; to the point where he couldn't even access the web, email, anything; his whole connection was hosed.
Fortunately Windows System Restore saved it; I just restored to several months back, and it was working again, although the spyware was still there. At least it let me on the web, where I grabbed an antispyware app, antivirus app, and Firefox for him, cleaned up the forsaken thing.
Decided further to remove IE from his Windows XP SP2 machine.
Impossible. One cannot uninstall IE, there has to be at least 1 "get on the web" option built into the OS. And the network disconnect was more likely due to the spyware; I've seen lots of spyware that hijacks so many settings it basically owns the machine, disrupting everything from browsing to LAN connections.
You're totally missing the point. Explorer.exe uses the HTML rendering engine. Explorer is just the Windows file manager. Just as IExplorer is just the browser; both apps use the publicly available html rendering engine known as mshtml.dll
This is no different than KDE using Konqueror, then reusing the rendering engine for the file explorer.
That's a common misconception by the uninformed.
When we say it's "integrated into the OS", we mean to say that the html rendering engine (mshtml.dll & SHDocVw.dll), along with the simple GUI app that uses these interfaces (IE) are installed with the OS. They don't have "deep ties" or "connections to the core OS"; the Windows kernel has zero knowledge of IE. By installing the html rendering APIs and making them public, 3rd party applications are free to use the rendering engine for their own purposes.
I've always said, MS ought to let 3rd parties bid to be the default browser/CD writer/Office software. That way, MS maintains their business while not locking out 3rd parties.
And FYI, when MS people say it's "integrated into the OS", they mean the html rendering library (mshtml.dll and SHDocVw.dll) are integrated into the OS, and IE is just a GUI app that uses those integrated interfaces.
First sentence:
All APIs that IE uses are documented as part of MSDN, and are part of the Platform SDK, and is available to other software.
Second part
IE is part of the OS, any application that wants to use it is free to, because the APIs are publicly available and free to use.
People get all hot and bothered over this, when it's really simple. Microsoft provides 2 primary dlls: mshtml.dll (contains COM web hosting interfaces) and SHDocVw.dll (which contains the WebBrowser control, which IE itself uses).
Because MS integrates IE into the OS, you can go Start->Run->www.google.com and it will launch using your current web browser (even if it's FF). Or I can launch a process from code, specifying only a URL, and the system will open your browser of choice and navigate to the url.
Basically, integration gives the Windows shell the ability to browse the internet.
the paper this morning was pointing out how this discovery might leave a gaping hole in evolutionary theory.
...bzzt and INSULT your ... m.M.M.m.mother bzzt *boom*
Wha??? Evolution...gaping hole...? Err uh bzztt *poof* Slashbot brain cannot compute result. You must be a Jeeeeeeezus person.. er bzztt *crash* boing bzzt must POST ANONYMOUSLY
really, why so many angry nerds? better yet, why the stupid posts? why the stupid questions - this one is pretty lame and stupid!
Mature, civilized people have been asking these same questions about Slashdot for years now. Unfortunately we've all been modded down -1 by the unruly peanut gallery here.
However, it's an extra $100, so only for those with disposable income.
Or those who live with their parents and/or leech off them for money. In other words, most of Slashdot.
Nonsense. It's a perfectly valid analogy. The OSS utopian idea that small businesses can make money by giving their software away for free is the biggest myth since Pets.com's revenue plan.
(If I have to explain why, then you need to sacrifice a goat to your god of choice, severe your genitalia, and eat chilled monkey brain for dessert.)
How long can this really last? Bandwidth costs money. Servers cost money. Power costs money. Admins need to eat. I think it's a good idea, but just wondering where the funds are going to come from.
How long can open source software really last? Software dev tools cost money. Dev machines cost money. Offices cost money. Developers need to eat. I think it's a good idea, but just wondering where the funds are going to come from.