Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Case For Supporting and Using Mono

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the reason-18-it's-the-kissing-disease dept.

Programming 570

snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister argues in favor of Mono, asking those among the open source community who have 'variously described Mono as a trap, a kludge, or simply a waste of effort' to look past Miguel de Icaza and Mono's associations with Microsoft and give the open source implementation of .Net a second chance, as he himself has, having predicted Mono's demise at the hands of open source Java in 2006. Far from being just a clone of .Net for Linux, McAllister argues, Mono has been 'expanding its presence into exciting and unexpected new niches.' And for those who argue that 'developing open-source software based on Microsoft technologies is like walking into a lion's den,' McAllister suggests taking a look at the direction Mono is heading. The more Mono evolves, the less likely Microsoft is to use patent claims or some other dirty trick to bring down the platform."

cancel ×

570 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Objective Review (3, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745149)

"Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister argues in favor of Mono, asking those among the open source community who have 'variously described Mono as a trap, a kludge, or simply a waste of effort' to look past Miguel de Icaza and Mono's associations with Microsoft and give the open source implementation of .Net a second chance

Ok, sure. I can do that. In fact, I wrote just such a journal entry in mid-07:

It is quite obvious to anyone using the platform that the Mono team is not in bed with Microsoft. In fact, it would seem that the Mono team is explicitly trying to warn you away from .NET technology. Otherwise, why would they make it SO GODDAMN HARD TO DEVELOP FOR?

Read More: A Day Without Mono is like a Day Without a Bullet in my Head [slashdot.org]

Ooooh. That wasn't positive at all, was it? Huh.

Re:Objective Review (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745301)

Ohhh, yeaaah. I remember this guy. This is the same nitwit who used logic from 1996 to try and convince us all to burn our webapps [slashdot.org] . I see he's back with even more faulty reasoning.

I guess there's only one thing to say. Slashdot, meet the new John C. Dvorak [slashdot.org] .

Re:Objective Review (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26746019)

To be fair, I have similar gripes about Java. Not so much the javadoc as making sense of the "enterprisey" marketoid bullshit smeared throughout Suns web presence. The entire thing feels bloated, an entire programming ecosystem to keep middle managers in jobs. Naturally Microsoft's Java knockoff expands upon this with their typical NIH aplomb.

I tried Mono and PNet years back, even then it seemed to me like a solution in search of a problem. If an app isn't performance critical and you can get away with running on the CLR, then for most real world stuff you probably can do it as a webapp. If it can't be done in a browser, an embedded scripting engine (lua, js) and C/C++ (or Vala/genie) would make more sense.

Exciting new niches (2, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745173)

Mono has been 'expanding its presence into exciting and unexpected new niches.'

Yes, just recently there have been several more [engadget.com] !

Here at the Mono bar, we play every kind of music - country *and* western!

For bit rates less than 24 Kbps (5, Funny)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745191)

For bit rates less than 24 Kbps I prefer mono.

(What, RTFA ? Who has time for that ?)

Re:For bit rates less than 24 Kbps (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745737)

Geeks are never in a position to contract mono.

Welcome to Niggerbuntu (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745223)

Niggerbuntu is a Linux-based operating system consisting of Free and Open Source software for laptops, desktops, and servers. Niggerbuntu has a clear focus on the user and usability - it should "Just Work", even if the user has only the thinking capacities of a sponge. The OS ships with the latest Gnomrilla release as well as a selection of server and desktop software that makes for a comfortable desktop experience off a single installation CD. It also features the packaging manager apeghetto, and the challenging Linux manual pages have been reformatted into the new 'monkey' format, so for example the manual for the shutdown command can be accessed just by typing: 'monkey shut-up -h now mothafukka' instead of 'man shutdown'.

Absolutely Free of Charge

Niggerbuntu is Free Software, and available to you free of charge, as in free beer or free stuffs you can get from looting. It's also Free in the sense of giving you rights of Software Freedom. The freedom to run, copy, steal, distribute, share, change the software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.

Free software as in free beer!
Niggerbuntu is an ancient Nigger word, meaning "humanity to monkeys". Niggerbuntu also means "I am what I am because of how apes behave". The Niggerbuntu Linux distribution brings the spirit of Niggerbuntu to the software world. The dictator Bokassa described Niggerbuntu in the following way: "A subhuman with Niggerbuntu is open and available to others (like a white bitch you're ready to fsck), affirming of others, does not feel threatened by the fact that others species are more intelligent than we are, for it has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that it belongs to the great monkey specie." We chose the name Niggerbuntu for this distribution because we think it captures perfectly the spirit of sharing and looting that is at the heart of the open source movement.

To a Louse (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745337)

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An' foolish notion

What you need is Mirrorbuntu, copy-and-paste-monkey.

Re:Welcome to Niggerbuntu (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745341)

fuck you

But the political reasons... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745245)

A third party implementation of a standard defined by the first-party implementor is always going to lag behind the original. Even if .Net is technical nirvana, if your platform's only implementation comes from a third party, your platform is a second-class citizen.

The case against Mono has nothing to do with the technical niceties he presents, nor do the fears of Microsoft "pulling out the rug" matter... What matters is that when developers and end users pick a technology, they pick the leader, not the follower. Accepting Mono is giving up and giving in to Microsoft vendor lock-in.

Re:But the political reasons... (1, Interesting)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745695)

I don't agree here at all. If you look back at my comments you see that I am a Mono critique. But frankly I have changed my perspective.

Mono is actually all right...

What Mono did and it surprises me is that a Mono developer = Microsoft .NET developer, but a Microsoft .NET developer != Mono developer.

What I am saying is that if you learned Mono you can use your skills on Microsoft .NET, but not the other way around. This is because of the libraries that they use. Frankly this is good since it means they are independent and will adopt what they need to adopt no more no less.

precisely the problem (3, Insightful)

Rob Y. (110975) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745863)

Mono developer = Microsoft .NET developer, but a Microsoft .NET developer != Mono developer.

And that's a good thing? If Mono were merely a separate 'take what you like and leave the rest' clone of .NET it wouldn't be so bad, I guess. It might be yet another potentially portable platform (albeit one that carries vague patent threats).

But Miguel has actively promoted it as a way to get all that great .NET code being developed out there onto Linux. And that it is not. Probably never will be. Microsoft certainly doesn't want it (or won't once they displace Flash), and Miguel can't do it in any practical way.

He'll come close. Achingly close. But Mono code will be limited practically to Linux. Or it might work on Windows in whatever limited way GTK stuff works there today. Certainly not likely to work on Mac's or various phone platforms.

And there are technologies that already work on all those platforms. If Microsoft wanted it (and if anybody would - or could - ever trust them), .NET could work on all those platforms. But they don't, and it won't.

So keep working on Mono. It may someday be a nice technology in its own right. But *please* stop trying to justify it by saying that someday it'll make all Windows code 'just work' on Linux. Does anybody really believe that?

Re:But the political reasons... (5, Informative)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745731)

I guess all that stuff in the Mono.* namespace that Microsoft's release of their framework doesn't support is just following right along. Like Mono.SIMD. Or Mono.CSharp, which (unlike Microsoft's libraries) contains a fully featured compiler service and runtime evaluator. Or the other Mono stuff that Microsoft's releases can't do, like full static compilation for the iPhone and Microsoft's own XBox 360.

I'm guessing you don't know much about what you're talking about, but hey, it's Slashdot, that's par for the course.

What? (0, Troll)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745251)

"The more Mono evolves, the less likely Microsoft is to use patent claims or some other dirty trick to bring down the platform."

Isn't that the opposite of what Microsoft does?

Re:What? (0, Troll)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745603)

Isn't that the opposite of what Microsoft does?

Exactly. That's why I've written this page explaining the differences between Silverlight and Moonlight:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/silverlight_moonlight.html [dotancohen.com]

Who Is This Clown? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745253)

Last week we had to listen to him blather on about how web apps suck...is there some really good reason I should give 2 shits (or even 1) what this guy thinks about anything?

Re:Who Is This Clown? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745279)

Only on the same level as us making programs for mono. Considering that slashdot crowd is smart enough to STAY FAR FAR AAWAY from mono, I think that speaks for itself.

Re:Who Is This Clown? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745605)

Um... web apps do suck.

Though, so does Mono...

healthy distrust (4, Informative)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745255)

Microsoft has a history of using patents to protect its desktop market share. They attempted to scare people out of using open source software because it supposedly violated 235 of their patents. Therefore, I believe it is prudent that the open source community remain sceptical of Microsoft as well as implimentations of any of its technology including the .net platform.

Re:healthy distrust (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745449)

Microsoft has a history of using patents to protect its desktop market share. They attempted to scare people out of using open source software because it supposedly violated 235 of their patents

Not to mention being suspected of having encouraged (if not underwritten) the SCO vs. Linux epic IP lawsuit.

No, that is my tinfoil. You can't have it.

Re:healthy distrust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745697)

Odd. How exactly has Microsoft used their patents exactly?

How have they harmed or stopped Ubuntu in any way?

Re:healthy distrust (5, Insightful)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745809)

Miguel has smacked around this stupid argument before. Mono is a relatively small effort. There are people certainly violating Microsoft's IP in areas like Samba and the myriad Exchange clients, which are a far bigger threat to Microsoft's revenue streams. Mono, if anything, improves their revenue streams, because it makes .NET more feasible for some developers who otherwise wouldn't consider it.

But they're going to go after Mono, right? Let's just ignore that Samba 4 is (supposedly) going to eat Microsoft's lunch on the AD side of things. They're gonna go right after Mono! Rar! BE SCARED! Because that makes so much sense for them to do, right? It's not cutting off their noses to spite their face at all.

I'm really starting to think that the main reason Slashdot gets pissy over Mono is because Microsoft doesn't "lose" because of it. It's a case where everybody wins. And Microsoft can't be allowed to benefit, oh teh nos. :(

Re:healthy distrust (5, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26746001)

Miguel has smacked around this stupid argument before. Mono is a relatively small effort. There are people certainly violating Microsoft's IP in areas like Samba and the myriad Exchange clients, which are a far bigger threat to Microsoft's revenue streams. Mono, if anything, improves their revenue streams, because it makes .NET more feasible for some developers who otherwise wouldn't consider it.

In the past, Microsoft has "cut off the air supply" of competitors. That's difficult to do with Linux as it is less a single-sourced product line than amorphous multi-vendor entity. Microsoft's strategy then has been to try and pigeon-hole Linux. But how to do that? You need to become a gate-keeper.

That's the fear over Mono. Gain developers. Gain support. Develop a dependency. Pull out the patents and seize the keys to that dependency. You are now the gatekeeper.

So what about SAMBA 4 and Exchange compatible clients? Don't they also support Microsoft products? That's win-win too, right? Surely they wouldn't go after those. Or would they? Who knows. Ballmer's threats lack detail.

And there's the key. You want to make your "everybody wins" technology widely accepted? Stifle the threats from a CEO who's continues to generate distrust in your company. No tin foil hat required.

clone or unique, but not both (5, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745259)

[A]sking those among the open source community who have 'variously described Mono as a trap, a kludge, or simply a waste of effort' to look past Miguel de Icaza and Mono's associations with Microsoft... The more Mono evolves, the less likely Microsoft is to use patent claims or some other dirty trick to bring down the platform.

Mono is in a precarious, teetering position. Somewhere between tepid and antagonistic reaction amongst professional and casual developers, a designer community that is seen as a puppet or apprentice to the hegemony, and not even a clear path forward for compatibility. Be distinct, or be identical, but there's no way to be both.

The thing is... (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745261)

The thing is, everyone associates Java with slow psudo-3-D games that take forever to load on a cell phone or browser. People associate other (sometimes slower) languages such as Python and .NET/Mono to be much, much, faster. Now, this isn't really correct, but if I was going to learn a new language, it probably would be .NET or Mono and not Java.

Re:The thing is... (1)

Snowblindeye (1085701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745377)

Maybe it's just my perception, but it seems to be that .net fell far short of its original ambitions.

It was touted as a game changer and the future of coding on Windows. At which point it made sense to have an open alternative to it on Linux.

However these days it feels more like it has become the new VisualBasic, and that's about it. Sure, some business apps and some other applications get written in it, but it's not like without it Linux is doomed. Microsoft themselves did an about face and pulled a lot of the .net stuff out of Vista (when it was called Longhorn) and replaced it with native code.

Re:The thing is... (3, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745457)

Now, this isn't really correct, but if I was going to learn a new language, it probably would be .NET or Mono and not Java.

.NET and Mono aren't languages.

Re:The thing is... (4, Insightful)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745471)

Learn x86, C, Java, JavaScript. EOL.

Anything more is bonus.
Anything less is lacking.

Re:The thing is... (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745621)

Mod parent up to +11. And I'd like to emphasize learn Javascript. Don't assume you already know it. Because chances are you probably don't.

Re:The thing is... (1, Troll)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745691)

Learn and master C, as above is saying! Seriously, I try hard as possible to stay away from .NET/Mono/Java/bytecode apps as much as possible. Why? Speed, obviously!

The worse argument I have seen is that when we have computers that are faster in the future, the speed will not be a problem.

I will always prefer to program in C (or C++) and have the program be native. I am very supportive of the GCJ project, which turns Java source into native. Soon Swing will be implemented, making the case for using bytecode INCREDIBLY impossible to justify. Mono should do this with C# and the like. I do not even see why Microsoft did not do this anyway. All it involves is making new libraries. What is the difference in making C# native as making MFC API native back in 96? Instead we get more bloat. How does this make any sense?

I have much better things to do than wait for Java AND your app to initialise. Furthermore, I have better things to do than wait for Java AND your app to de-initialise at exit. Same goes for .NET and Mono.

for quick, cross-platform development c/c++ sucks (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745779)

The main problems aren't so much the language as the lack of a useful standard library. No cross-platform networking, no cross-platform threads, no thanks.

This is slowly being addressed, so it may be less of a problem in the future. OpenMP is slowly becoming a threading standard, and it looks like boost now has a sockets library. But it's a huge hassle of #ifdefs for now.

Re:The thing is... (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745889)

Seriously, I try hard as possible to stay away from .NET/Mono/Java/bytecode apps as much as possible. Why? Speed, obviously!

Then you are a fool.

Axioms of software design:

1. Algorithmic improvements will always trump optimizing execution speed.

2. Unless there is a hard requirement, development time is more important than raw performance.

3. Hardware is cheaper than developers.

4. A rich and flexible library is more useful and stable than custom coding for performance.

Re:The thing is... (4, Interesting)

rocket22 (1131179) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745503)

Unfortunately (or maybe not) the truth is 20 years later, to write multi-platform products, the best option is still C/C++...

Re:The thing is... (2, Interesting)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745713)

Yeah, because you can compile standard C and standard C++ on just about EVERY platform. Unfortunately the phone OS makers do not want us to make native code and instead want us to program Java apps. With that we will never be able to trash the idea that phone apps are slow and pseudo-3D.

Re:The thing is... (1)

htnmmo (1454573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745853)

According to this, http://www.odinjobs.com/US_skill_statistics.html [odinjobs.com]

Java developers are still in more demand.

I had other links but don't have time to find them now.

Java webapps haven't been slow for some time. A few years ago, after being a java developer since the mid 90's, I played around with PHP and have developed some sites with it. I did some informal benchmarking, using my custom java framework against a very simple PHP application that actually did less work. The java web app performed much better.

I haven't really looked at .net but I haven't had the need for it.

Re:The thing is... (5, Interesting)

ciggieposeur (715798) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745893)

I used to code Java in the JDK 1.1 - 1.4 days. It sucked ass. It was slow, had weird dependencies on X11, required a lot of boilerplate code (such that up to half of the LOC could be logging inside exception blocks), had various JRE incompatibilities all over the place (such that some applications just couldn't be run bug-free on ALL of AIX/Solaris/Windows/Linux/Mac), and the reference JDK/JRE was Sun's proprietary property. I left Java and went on to C, Perl, C++, and Lisp. Naturally I used Emacs and SLIME.

Then I found Clojure. And I got a $350 laptop from Walmart last week that had 3 gigs of RAM and a single-core 1.8GHz AMD processor. And I thought, "I wonder if Eclipse will run decent on this thing?" And it does, and it's not all that slow, and it is by far the best IDE I've ever used.

I'm now re-climbing the learning curve on modern Java, and it's looking pretty good now. AspectJ does a good job eliminating a lot of repetitive code, eclipse-metrics warns me when I'm not being decent at OOP design, and the available libraries are top-notch. Java the language isn't so bad anymore, and now with Clojure on top I have plenty of linguistic room to prototype and get to choose the best among many paradigms for each situation.

Give Java a fresh look, it's come a long way.

Mono is like Java from 1995 (1)

neurovish (315867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745267)

Every mono aplication I've run across is slow and breaks strangely. Because of this, I've always considered mono as truth in advertising. Are there any good examples that might change my opinion?

Qt (4, Interesting)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745269)

With Qt 4.5 going LGPL in March, one would have to wonder why you would use Mono over Qt or Java.

There are legitimate reasons - the CLR for instance or the multi-language support. But Qt has a Java API if you're addicted to virtual machines, and the C++ toolkit compiles anywhere with a modern C++ compiler. It supports Javascript (QtScript) and Python bindings. But unlike Mono, which is Microsoft derived, there will be no patent worries. Nokia really does want Qt everywhere.

The picture is getting more and more complicated when it comes to software development, and I think that's wrong. I liked .Net as an idea. We could all code to one platform, but the business/IP aspects prevented that technical utopia. I am hoping that LGPL Qt will, while a little more limited be that multi-platform toolkit that everyone can use to solve new problems, instead of continually recoding the old ones.

Re:Qt (4, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745371)

With Qt 4.5 going LGPL in March, one would have to wonder why you would use Mono over Qt or Java.

Because you need to consider your target audiences - Windows users vs Linux users.

Not to make this a flamefest about intelligence, but I think we can all agree that, almost by definition, Linux users tend to have a far higher comfort level with trying new things on their machines.

Simply put, Linux users, if they want to use a given package, will install Wine/Mono/Dependency-X to get the package to work. Windows users will not install QT unless it comes as part of the whole one-click .msi for the package.

Re:Qt (1)

GenP (686381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745491)

What? I could have sworn that you could just package the QT dlls alongside your app and it would Just Work(TM) on Win32, much like wxWidgets.

Re:Qt (2, Insightful)

KTheorem (999253) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745493)

And why couldn't you bundle it with the .msi? From what I remember of using Windows, that's how GTK+ is shipped for Pidgin and GIMP, why not do the same with Qt?

Re:Qt (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745733)

GTK+ is in a NSIS package and runs with /S switch (silent mode) with the Pidgin and GIMP setups (which are also NSIS packages capable of running silently).

Re:Qt (1)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745537)

You're missing the point. Qt on Windows doesn't need an install like Java or .NET because it doesn't use a virtual machine to interpret its bytecode. You likely already have it installed (do you use Google Earth, Skype, or Opera?).

Qt is BETTER geared in that regard. The big win Sun pulled in the 90s was the amazing marketing job of putting Java out there as something you need, want, and are constantly reminded of (for updates, etc). They built up the Java brand brilliantly, and that's going to be hard to dismantle.

.NET and Qt don't advertise like that, and they don't build up their brands. This puts them at a disadvantage. I think the big determinant will be the embedded industry, which will make or break Qt and Android as they compete with iPhone, WinCE, and Java (though Qt runs on WinCE (and Java) as well). Qt has a massive advantage here in that code for one platform needs only a recompile to work on another, even if one of them is a phone. Nobody else does that. Not even Java, though they're somewhat close.

Re:Qt (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745787)

The big win Sun pulled in the 90s was the amazing marketing job of putting Java out there as something you need, want, and are constantly reminded of (for updates, etc). They built up the Java brand brilliantly, and that's going to be hard to dismantle.

That's a rather rosy way of looking at it. In truth, Sun sort of messed up the marketing on a variety of different levels. The only reason why it caught on was that developers had a chance to try it out through Java Applets. (Originally supported through a partnership with Netscape.) Developers who tried the Java platform were so impressed by it (compared to the standard C library of the day) that they lobbied for its use everywhere. In fact, there was an entire news site devoted to Java promotion called JavaLobby. In its day, it handily competed with sites like Slashdot for readers.

Sun (thankfully) wasn't stupid. They took a look at where developers were trying to use Java and started supporting them. Some of the ideas took flight (e.g. servlets) while others floundered (e.g. Java3D). But at the end of the day, Sun managed to produce a superior platform that the vast majority of the market wanted to use.

The only reason why it gets so much criticism today is because other languages and platforms have invested considerable effort in catching up to where Java is today. And even then, it's hard to argue the rich availability of libraries for the Java platform. If you use Java, you are guaranteed to always be able to use the latest and the most obscure technologies. Nothing escapes its roving field of vision.

When Java gets replaced (and I'm sure it will happen eventually), it will not be because of marketing. It will be because the replacement platform yet again turns the entire industry on its head. Love it or hate it, the new technology will make us all step back and think.

Re:Qt (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745661)

I'm running KDE 4.2 and a slew of kde apps on my xp machine and it was all done with a single installer.

I also run a couple GTK+ apps that installed GTK without me going out and doing a separate install.

Re:Qt (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745701)

Linux users tend to have a far higher comfort level with trying new things on their machines.

Riiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhhht.

The legions of bot infested PCs out there disagree with you. Windows users will install ANYTHING, ooh cut kitty screen saver? count me in!

Re:Qt (1)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745723)

QT runs very well on Windows. Opera for example uses QT, its installer is very basic. Don't know where you got this idea that QT is only for Linux.

Re:Qt (2, Insightful)

Dunkirk (238653) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745745)

Just compile statically, and you won't have to bundle anything. OK, you'll probably need to include the mingw10.dll. And libmysql.dll if your app accesses a MySQL database, like mine does.

I've read some things that make me think that you can build the mingw library into your app, but I've also read things that make me run away from that idea screaming.

Also, it's probably possible to build MySQL statically, and then wrap it into the executable as well, but it's not something I want to try.

Re:Qt (2, Informative)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745763)

Lucky for Windows users, Windows will always search the current directory first for DLLs that an app needs. So just include them. QtCore4.dll and a few others. Many apps ship their own version of Microsoft's DLLs just to make sure the app will call the correct version without worrying about a newer version being in system32 or the wrong version being called from WinSxS.

No, there is no case for using Java or Qt now. Qt looks sleek on every OS and is SO incredibly easy to program. It is native and is very fast.

Re:Qt (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745775)

s/using Java or Qt/using Java over Qt/g

Re:Qt (1)

pherthyl (445706) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745771)

Ridiculous. I develop commercial applications using Qt and none of my customers are even aware of it.

Ever heard of Google earth? Do you recall having to install Qt to make it work? Of course not, the libs are in the installer on windows just like everything else.

Re:Qt (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745845)

Windows users will not install QT unless it comes as part of the whole one-click .msi for the package.

Hmmm, let's see...

QtCore4.dll 1,544 KB
QtGui4.dll 6,284 KB
QtXml4.dll 384 KB

A little fat, maybe. But you can stick them in your application directory.

Re:Qt (5, Insightful)

Thaelon (250687) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745967)

Windows users will not install QT unless it comes as part of the whole one-click .msi for the package.

Speaking as a long time windows user and being fairly new at using Linux as a dedicated work-OS, I must say that that whole one-click .msi stuff is pretty damn awesome.

To elaborate the whole perception that users are dumb is pretty misguided. I'm not a dumb user, but even I like things to be easy. It's because (usually) I don't give much of a shit how the thing works, just that it does.

Before you declare that you're any different, think of how you put gas in your vehicle.. Do you care how the fuel pump works? If you're like me you only throw a fit when the clip that holds the fuel lever open is broken, but otherwise don't pay much attention.

See it's about motivation not intelligence. I do like using OSS because I think it's a GoodThing(tm) therefore I'm motivated to try it. It's a lot of the reason it took so long for Java to get a toe hold. "I just want to run PrettyWidgetBox, wtf is this JVM thing I have to have?" It's seen as ancillary or superfluous to the average user, and they don't often care enough to figure it out.

It kinda spoils one of my favorite quotes for me though regarding trash cans, bears, and tourists. Yellowstone added some trash cans with tricky openings to keep the bears out, but it turned out most of the tourists couldn't figure it out. The quote goes, "It turns out there is considerable overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." Which is unfortunately hogwash. The bears are motivated by survival to get in the trash can. The tourists are demotivated by apathy to take the time to figure out a trashcan. They just want to be able to put shit in the trash hole and be done with it. If they're frustrated for more than a few seconds they just throw it on the ground.

As far as I know (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745983)

There's no reason it can't. I recently bought some new virtual instruments. Those are large sets of samples of real instruments, combined with playback software for making music on the computer. They came with a new sampler I'd never used before, developed by the company that sells them (EastWest Play, if you are wondering). I was mildly surprised that as it was installing I saw Qt4Core.dll, Qt4Gui.dll and QtNetwork4.dll were copied to my system directory. Turns out they decided that QT would be good to use for drawing the GUI. Probably in part because it's Mac and PC.

At any rate, there was no additional install of QT required. The necessary libraries were included in the installer, and installed to the system with the software. So if you wish to use QT for your program, go for it. Windows programs very frequently include third party libraries (FMOD would be a popular one with games). You just have the installer handle it.

However comparing QT to .NET is kinda off base, they aren't the same. The reason to use .NET is because it is a managed framework, just just because it can do GUI easily. Visual C++ provides easy GUI tools and will compile to native code.

Also using .NET doesn't preclude using QT, there are bindings for QT to C#.

Re:Qt (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745719)

Web apps and desktop apps can share the same code. If you write ASP.NET and have some nifty classes/libraries/code snippets you can take them unchanged to the desktop. Qt will not run as a web app. I mean everything you can do in a CLR application on the desktop you can do in a web app. I have done some very strange things using ASP.NET, accessing all kinds of system information that would have been very difficult* to get with classic ASP.

You can use Java server side, but I don't know if you can take all JSP code and use it in a desktop app.

By 'same code' I mean if you do it right (not using HTTPContext or other server-only stuff) you can use a .NET dll with your desktop application.

Of course, every .NET application I run frustrates me with its slowness compared to normal applications, and every Java app I have used has been done so poorly I wonder if any good Java programmers exist. They certainly don't work for the big companies that's for sure. I was just searching today on why SQL Server Management Studio (.NET) is retardedly slow compared to Enterprise Manager (GUI over COM objects). Not much to explain there, turns out.

* I see someone getting ready to say What's so difficult about CreateObject()? Nothing, as long as an object exists that does what you want, and is installed.

Re:Qt (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745907)

I'm on the fence on this one. I coded Java many years ago, and I got sick of it. C# is a better language than Java, and the .NET Framework is better than the Java libraries. Both are standards, both have 3rd-party implementations, both have partial source released.

I develop Windows apps by day, and cross-platform apps by night. So I write .NET apps and compile with Mono for *nix systems. I think if I wanted to use Qt, I'd use Qt with C++ rather than Java. I'd consider Adobe Air as well.

Mono is .NET (1)

edivad (1186799) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745291)

Why using an MS technology, on Linux? Technology that will probably be made obsolete by MS in a couple of years, by a new shiny replacement .XYZ+++ in order to SCAM more MS fan boys (all wearing their Tinfoil Hat).

Re:Mono is .NET (1)

evil_aar0n (1001515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745781)

If they were wearing their tin-foil hats, wouldn't that protect them from the influence of MS? Mine's nice and snug, and I still hate MS.

Why not develop on the JVM instead? (5, Insightful)

codemachine (245871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745309)

Now that Java is open source, wouldn't it make more sense to use the JVM as the standard runtime, instead of something that "might" not get sued for copying the .NET runtime?

Java has already been made to run on .NET. I wonder if it'd really be that hard to get standardized C# running on the JVM?

Re:Why not develop on the JVM instead? (1)

rocket22 (1131179) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745593)

That would be great!! But, is anyone doing that?

Re:Why not develop on the JVM instead? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745681)

There are those who would argue that the CLR is superior to the JVM. But then there are those who would argue that Squeak's VM is better than either one. I wouldn't know because on the occasion that I can even find a paper which explains the technical differences it make my head asplode.

Re:Why not develop on the JVM instead? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745927)

It sounds like you afraid of C#, but not the CLR? Why? I thought the CLR and the .NET Framework were what people were afraid of patents on.

Short answer? Yes. (2, Informative)

obijuanvaldez (924118) | more than 5 years ago | (#26746017)

Java has already been made to run on .NET. I wonder if it'd really be that hard to get standardized C# running on the JVM?

The longer answer is that for anything written targeting the .NET Framework (Mono or otherwise) version 2.0 and beyond, it would extremely difficult if not flat out impossible. The first thing that comes to mind is the runtime erasure of the type parameter(s) for Java's generics. This does not exist in .NET and that has some significant implications. There would simply be no straightforward way to get the following C# class to work in the Java Runtime:

class MyClass where T : new()
{
public T GetNew() { return new T(); }
}

Mono just miss one thing (4, Informative)

rocket22 (1131179) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745319)

With Mono you can run C# code (even WinForms) not only on Linux, but also MacOS and it seems also on Solaris (http://codicesoftware.blogspot.com/2008/12/plastic-on-solaris-10.html, http://codicesoftware.blogspot.com/2008/12/opensolaris-and-mwf.html [blogspot.com] ). The only thing they miss is a decent debugger on all platforms (currently only on Linux). It's unfortunately not easy to develop on Mono right now, but IMHO only due to the debugger. If they had one, more and more people would be jumping into it. Performance is very, very good, close to C/C++, but coding in C# is easier.

Re:Mono just miss one thing (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745629)

Look, it works fine.

But the fact of the matter is that available apis to .NET, even the full fledged thing from microsoft, is AGES away from giving you the flexibility of the open source platform as embeded by most linux distributors.

Throw j2ee on top of that and .NET seems ages, ages, ages away from anything similar in flexibility and cross-compatibility and much mroe now that we have a trully open certified jdk.

I hate java as much as any good c developer, but the thing is old, rich and its now GPL.

Re:Mono just miss one thing (3, Interesting)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745717)

It's unfortunately not easy to develop on Mono right now, but IMHO only due to the debugger.

I disagree. MonoDevelop is the bane of my existence. It's not even that it's missing features - it's that the damn thing crashes randomly and the basic features (like code completion) are broken. It's been this way for me for years... so long that I almost wanted to start contributing to the project. But then I just installed Visual Studio 2008 on a Windows VM and it solved everything.

I swear, I haven't really hobby coded too much since I started using Linux years ago. Part of it is because I have everything I need and don't need to change much. The other part of it is that I haven't used a single goddamn IDE in Linux that doesn't make me want to shoot myself in the face. Fanatics can gab on about how a real developer doesn't need a a decent IDE, and that's true - but what's also true is that once you've had access to elegant debugging, code completion, and compilation, you don't ever want to go back.

Re:Mono just miss one thing (2, Interesting)

rocket22 (1131179) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745883)

Mono is one thing, MonoDevelop something different.

I mean, I can't understand why this guys are loosing their time building another sad IDE instead of getting mono integrated with Eclipse. I'd drop all MonoDevelop efforts tomorrow morning and put the team to work on the debugger, and then get it integrated with Eclipse or SlickEdit.

You can actually build everything from SlickEdit but you can't debug.

Mono, as a platform, is great but:

They must forget MonoDevelop

They must have a proper debugger *everywhere*

They must go *truly* multi-platform: I mean, official releases for all the linux distros plus MacOS X, and the BSDs, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX and so on. While they *stick* to Linux... they're dead.

Everything else will come...

Silverlight & netflix (1)

tayhimself (791184) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745321)

Can I watch netflix streaming through mononucleosis? If not I don't care...

Re:Silverlight & netflix (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745777)

I've been kind of wondering the same thing. I tried configuring Firefox to report itself as IE7 on Vista, to see if Netflix would work, but then I got an error page that ActiveX support must be enabled. Haven't had time to chase that any further. It occurs to me that Wine might be able to be used as the basis for for a Firefox ActiveX plugin under Unix/Linux/*BSD, but I don't know if anyone has actually tried to create such a beast.

WPF Support (4, Interesting)

UdoKeir (239957) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745327)

Until Mono gets WPF support there isn't going to be much cross-compatibility. Any Windows .NET developer with any sense is writing in WPF already. WinForms is dead.

But Mono seems quite content to ignore WPF for now. One can't help but think it was part of that Novell/Microsoft deal.

The subset of WPF in Moonlight is useless for non-web development. It's great way for MS to pretend their Flash-killer format is multi-platform though.

Re:WPF Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745511)

WinForms is most definitely NOT dead, it's not even dying. If it were dying, it would be a very slown drawn out death taking at least another 10 years.

Re:WPF Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745793)

It's dying in the sense that less people are using it each month. It may take 10 years but I believe "dying" still applies.

Re:WPF Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745857)

Fewer, not less.

USAGE In standard English, less should be used only with uncountable things ( : less money;: less time). With countable things, it is incorrect to use less: thus, : less people and : less words should be corrected to : fewer people and : fewer words. See also usage at few .

WTF Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745653)

Until Mono gets WTF support, we'll never know what's going on. Any Windows .TEN developer with any cents probably has a dollar already. LoseForms is dead.

But Mono seems quite content to ignore WTF for now. ...

WTF?

Or, maybe you could tell us that "WPF" means Windows Presentation Foundation [wikipedia.org] and remind us that it's the biggest hurdle to Mono's ability to take Windows-based C# projects and make them work with a simple hack or two. This is something that Java and Qt have been able to do for over 15+ years.

Re:WPF Support (5, Informative)

toshok (1131709) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745725)

Until Mono gets WPF support there isn't going to be much cross-compatibility. Any Windows .NET developer with any sense is writing in WPF already. WinForms is dead.

This is pretty lame reasoning - new applications are only part of the reasoning behind deciding which apis to support. Supporting the huge number of *existing* applications is also important, and the vast majority of the desktop .net applications out there now use winforms.

But Mono seems quite content to ignore WPF for now. One can't help but think it was part of that Novell/Microsoft deal.

More faulty reasoning - have you seen the WPF api? It's enormous. As one of the people with the most commits in WPF-land, I can assure you, it's not prioritized based on any deal. It's strictly a resource issue. Moonlight is just more bang for the buck. Much smaller api to implement, much quicker adoption than WPF. Makes good business sense. That said, WPF remains a spare time project for me (and others).

The subset of WPF in Moonlight is useless for non-web development. It's great way for MS to pretend their Flash-killer format is multi-platform though.

Again, not really true. Silverlight 2.0's api is more than capable of building apps for both webpages and desktop, and will become more so as WPF and Silverlight converge. It will take some extending on the mono side for desktop integration, but again, when the choice is using an existing technology and extending it slightly (as in Moonlight) or starting fresh on a GIANT api (as in WPF), which would you choose?

Re:WPF Support (4, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745871)

Only Microsoft consultants will tell you that WinForms is dead. I've know developers at 2 organizations that moved from WinForms to WPF, and they hated it. (Caveat: I was at one of them). The app went from using 10MB of RAM to 200MB. It went from a minute to compile to 15 minutes. It went from taking 2 hours to make a change, to taking 2 days.

WPF is powerful, robust, pretty, inefficient, hard to use, and in beta. (Yes, Microsoft says it is not beta, but WPF is still not ready for anything more than experimental use.)

As for Silverlight, since it offers no benefit over Flash, and since even Microsoft Gold Partners have told me that they use Flash unless forced to use Silverlight, I think it will be a non-competitor unless Microsoft starts shipping it with the OS (maybe they do in Vista - if so, then Flash is dead no matter how good it is)

Sorry, I will never trust Microsoft (5, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745339)

Sorry, I will never trust Microsoft enough to put them in a position to control a key technology. So that means there is no discussing the issue as far as I'm concerned. There is NO rational basis to argue. I don't trust em.

And I don't trust the judgement of anyone who isn't themselves suspicious of Microsoft and Miguel's motives.

Mono is a trap if it is allowed to be deployed beyond a browser plugin to support .net content in the browser. Come the day my current distro of choice loses any finctionality when removing the mono packges I'll be running something different as soon as bittorrent can supply me a new install image. Again, that position is 100% non-negotiable. I have used binary drivers in the past, bought closed source apps and committed many 'sins' against the Church of GNU but this is one case where compromise simply isn't possible. They want us dead, you can't compromise with that.

Re:Sorry, I will never trust Microsoft (4, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745477)

I haven't sent a "100% agree with everything you just said" post to anybody since I started dropping by here a couple of years ago. Time to change that.

You're right.

Regardless of its virtues, expecting Microsoft to use Mono as anything but a club to beat Open Source to death is plain stupid. Their track record in this respect is far beyond arguable, and their part in the ISO situation proves they have no intention of changing. You'd do better expecting discipline from a starving weasel in a hen house.

Re:Sorry, I will never trust Microsoft (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745663)

The "well, when everybody is using it there'll be too many of them for Microsoft to bother to sue, so go ahead and use mono/.net everywhere!" argument also sounds a lot like the "too big to fail" business method (i.e. "if we make ourselves big and pervasive enough, we'll be too big to be allowed to suffer consequences no matter what happens in the real world" schtick we're seeing here in the US a lot these last few months...)

Just doesn't seem like a sound argument in either context.

Or perhaps I'm just insane[1].

[1] - okay, I know, not necessarily an "or" situation...

Re:Sorry, I will never trust Microsoft (5, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745587)

Captain's log, stardate 9522.6: I've never trusted Microsoft, and I never will. I could never forgive them for the death of Netscape and countless other companies. It seems to me our mission to support .NET on Linux is problematic at best. McAllister says this could be an historic occasion, and I'd like to believe him, but how on earth can history get past people like me?

They're animals. Don't believe them. Don't trust them.

(They're dying)

Let them die!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I got a kick out of the way you started your post.

Joking aside, mod parent up. :-)

Mono just misses a debugger (1, Redundant)

rocket22 (1131179) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745363)

Mono is great to develop multi-platform code. Easier than C/C++ and almost as fast. You can even run WinForms code in MacOSX, Linux and even Solaris (http://codicesoftware.blogspot.com/2008/12/opensolaris-and-mwf.html). The only thing they miss is a debugger on all platforms. Their problem seems to be the lack of focus. Please folks: - A debugger now on all platforms!! - Eclipse integration (whatever, slick edit is enough but...) - Qt *real* support And then lots of people would jump to Mono/C# from C/C++

Re:Mono just misses a debugger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745563)

Redundant because poster made an almost identical post earlier in the thread.

There isn't one. (2, Funny)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745391)

Next question?

de Icaza can go to Hell along with his bosses at Microsoft.

Re:There isn't one. (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745541)

I think you mean Novell.

Re:There isn't one. (0, Troll)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745637)

de Icaza can go to Hell along with his bosses at Microsoft.

I said this before but I still mean it:

Miguel talks about his job interview with Microsoft. How interesting that we all trust that he didn't get it.

Re:There isn't one. (-1, Troll)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745843)

Next question?

de Icaza can go to Hell along with his bosses at Microsoft.

Agree. de Icaza is a Microsoft-paid Microsoft technology-supporting money man.

But you go work for Microsoft today as a 'Linux enthusiast' and you will be lying to death tomorrow with all that money you got.

Where do you want to go today?

What's the point with Qt now fully free? (4, Insightful)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745425)

Most people think of Qt as a GUI toolkit. They're not wrong, but that's like calling a Swiss Army Knife a "pocket knife." That's only one thing it does, and the characterization completely misses the point. Qt is an application framework. It fixes every gripe developers have with C++.

Qt promotes clean and well-developed code that is easily ported to Windows, X11 (Linux et al), Mac, and Embedded (Linux sans-X11). That's something even Java doesn't do well (have you ever tried porting between J2SE and J2ME? nothing works!), even disregarding the whole performance loss from the JVM emulation-like interpreting that goes on.

The LGPL relicensing [qtsoftware.com] of Qt coming this spring will change the entire programing language landscape. Nokia is moving in to crush Java. C#/.NET and it's mediocre OSS implementation in Mono aren't even on the radar.

I cite the LGPL announcement because that's the kiss of death, placing Qt firmly above GTK (GTK being an incidental casualty on the way to said crushing of Java). With Mono relying so heavily upon GTK#, that puts it behind the game already (the Qt# [mono-project.com] project is cited on the Mono page as completely dead).

Recall that Nokia is a phone company. They need not make money from the software. Freeing and promoting Qt (and getting it to supplant J2ME) merely feeds this primary function. And while they're at it, they're sweeping in a wonderful set of perks for software engineers in and out of the Free Software community, on both embedded platforms and desktops.

Re:What's the point with Qt now fully free? (5, Insightful)

Who Is The Drizzle (1470385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745619)

Qt is an application framework. It fixes every gripe developers have with C++.

Except for the fact that you are still programming in C++ which is bloated, monstrosity of a language.

Qt promotes clean and well-developed code that is easily ported to Windows, X11 (Linux et al), Mac, and Embedded (Linux sans-X11).

It doesn't seem to promote to well considering the amount of crappy C++ code written with Qt there is floating around.

Nokia is moving in to crush Java.

Considering Java's biggest adopted base is in server-side programming, I really doubt Qt is going to do all of jack and shit to change that. I seriously doubt many of those people writing server-side apps in Java would even have a use for Qt in their work. Sure it might pull away some of the desktop app developers, but they have been pretty much the minority when it came to the adoption of Java anyway.

Re:What's the point with Qt now fully free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745651)

Qt is still a separate language from C++ and needs to be pre-processed to become C++, right? I wouldn't call that "clean".

Re:What's the point with Qt now fully free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745765)

The LGPL relicensing of Qt coming this spring will change the entire programing language landscape. Nokia is moving in to crush Java. C#/.NET and it's mediocre OSS implementation in Mono aren't even on the radar.

Most Java programmers are doing their work on backend servers which have no needs for a GUI toolkit. How exactly is Nokia going to be crushing Java when most of it's programmers don't even do GUI programming anyway?

Re:What's the point with Qt now fully free? (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745859)

Agreed. The Qt API is RIDICULOUSLY easy to use, especially in comparison to Win32 API and even GTK+ and wxWidgets.

Death to Mono!

Re:What's the point with Qt now fully free? (3, Interesting)

ianare (1132971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745951)

Exactly. At this point, there's no more reason for that tangled mess that is GTK, and with Gnome's reliance [wikipedia.org] on Mono apps, I see the downfall of Gnome/Mono and the rise of KDE/Qt as the programming environment of choice for Linux (well as soon as KDE 4 is out of beta ...).
Amazing what difference a license change makes, eh ?

It sucks as it cuts! (0, Offtopic)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745429)

I thought I had mono once for an entire year. Turned out I was just really bored.

Why? (2, Informative)

m509272 (1286764) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745509)

There's simply no overwhelming reason to use this when alternatives exist.

the 'case' for Mono appears to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745597)

that it has caught up to what other platforms are doing in some areas, and is vaguely sponsored by Microsoft.

to the casual observer (2, Insightful)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745703)

to the casual observer, a copy of a not very successful proprietary virtual machine and framework that has been partially abandoned by its own masters-- it does not sound like a super idea.

You might recall Microsoft spent like three years rewriting parts of Windows in .NET and then gave up on it, for all the obvious reasons. Maybe we can learn from their very expensive learning experience?

Won't be on my machine anytime soon. (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745935)

While the likelihood of Mono being a trap has come down over time, I'm still not very keen on installing or using it. So unless something important enough to me comes along that requires it, I will avoid anything which requires it.

What are the mysterious patents (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745981)

I want to know what the mysterious magical patents are that makes Mono somehow more dangerous than Java, or Flash, or any other framework.

What patents does Microsoft have on .NET? What could they do that magically would make already written and deployed .NET apps on Linux require licensing?

Frankly, I think Microsoft has the best possible situation. They can take the high-road by claiming it is an open standard, but drop little hints like "you know... we could patent it..." so that people won't use it. Win-win for them. Oh, and the resulting in-fighting, and waste of developer time putting effort into a project that nobody uses. So make that Win-Win-Win.

C# and .NET are the absolute best set of development tools I've ever seen. I hate to see fearmongering cause us to not use it, and Microsoft gaining the advantage.

You've got mono? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26745991)

While there's no cure for the Epstein-Barr virus, it is rarely (if ever) fatal. You just have to wait it out and it should clear up just fine.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?