×

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!

Attachmate Fires Mono Developers

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the and-there-there-were-none dept.

Novell 362

darthcamaro writes "Love it or hate it, Novell's open source Mono project has inspired a lot of debate over the last 7 years. Mono brings .NET to Linux, with some interesting patent connections. The project is now at a crossroads, with news today that Attachmate had laid off the US based development team for Mono."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

362 comments

And nothing of value was lost. (2, Insightful)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#36017756)

(I will gb2/b/ shortly).

Good. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36017892)

It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.

The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://swpat.org/ [swpat.org] and http://progfree.org./ [progfree.org.] This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.

This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.

The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.

We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as little as possible. In other words, we should discourage people from writing programs in C#. Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions or in their principal ways of installing GNOME, and we should distribute and recommend non-C# applications rather than comparable C# applications whenever possible.

Re:Good. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36017922)

Yeah. And then you will come saying that Java is perfectly fine in the GNU ecosystem.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018412)

Mod parent up.

Re:Good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36017950)

Or not, since C# is an ECMA standard. Don't let facts interrupt your butthurt though. [ecma-international.org]

Re:Good. (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018134)

ECMA standards don't protect you from patent lawsuits. Especially not when the standard is saddled with RAND patents (which virtually guarantee that open source usage is out the window.)

Re:Good. (5, Informative)

rzei (622725) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018184)

Last I checked MONO was aiming to deliver .NET to Linux. .NET (platform) patents scare people, not patents regarding the language specification. I guess you can patent anything in USA and sue on ever more in Texas, but I do not think that the language specification contains anything patentable.

Have you read the patent statement? It says:

Microsoft Corporation will grant, [..] licenses on commericially reasonable terms and conditions, for its patent(s), [...] for the implementation of the Ecma Standard.

So, until you have Microsoft releasing GPL (w/ classpath or whatever assemblies you use on .NET exception) or LGPL code that compiles under Linux you really shouldn't be using it.

Re:Good. (3, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018018)

The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents.

No, C# itself is covered by an open standard. Your suggestion of Microsoft Patent Ire is entirely academic, and Microsoft's patents covering Linux kernel technology are much greater concern

And with Java, the danger is not academic. Oracle is actually suing Google over patents for their implementation resembling Java.

Re:Good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018118)

No, C# itself is covered by an open standard.

Yes, an older version, C# 2.0 is covered by an open standard. C# 3.0/4.0 or the framework versions they came with have no open standards.
Note that all the cool productivity enhancing features came in later versions, C# 2.0 is pretty much Java with awkward closures.

Re:Good. (3, Insightful)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018462)

Are you sure that you aren't confusing C# with .Net? C# is a programming language that is standardized by ECMA and ISO. .Net is a framework that can be used by several programming languages, including C#. I know that there are issues with many patents that have been granted in the United States, but I would still be surprised if Microsoft has patents on a language specification.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018548)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language)#Versions [wikipedia.org]

I would still be surprised if Microsoft has patents on a language specification.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had patents on the language features they popularized, natually they're particular takes on features that have been in academic languages for ages, but you can usually patent new applications of old ideas, or their combinations.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018516)

You might want to check again. C# 4.0 specs were pushed to ECMA last year.

Re:Good. (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018150)

And with Java, the danger is not academic. Oracle is actually suing Google over patents for their implementation resembling Java.

Except he said nothing about Java whatsoever. Why do you (and the first person to reply) insist on stuffing words in other people's mouths?

Re:Good. (1)

warp_kez (711090) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018212)

You cannot bitch about one companies supposedly insane approach to patents while ignoring another's.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018234)

Except that it's an article about Mono.

Re:Good. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018520)

Which was an OSS solution to MS C#, which was MS solution to Sun Java.

It is not that hard to see the evolution, unless you are a creationist.

Re:Good. (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018242)

You cannot bitch about one companies supposedly insane approach to patents while ignoring another's.

You not only can, you have to. It may not be Twitter, but even /. has message length limits.

Re:Good. (1, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018320)

Except he said nothing about Java whatsoever. Why do you (and the first person to reply) insist on stuffing words in other people's mouths?

Because C# and Java have duopoly for modern enterprise programming languages with critical mass; there aren't credible alternatives besides those two. Discouraging C# use, means encouraging Java use, and vice versa.

Re:Good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018382)

With Java, there is absolutely no danger. With similar to Java implementations (android, apache harmony), there is a ton of danger. Hey, just like with similar to C# implementations.

Re:Good. (0)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018042)

Microsoft and Novell struck a deal related to patent cooperation, and Mono was Novell's product, so there should be naught to fear in any case.

Re:Good. (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#36019138)

That would create a single point of failure. If Novell decided to stop updating Mono (or, say, went out of business) then the community wouldn't be immune to the patents if they chose to pick up the slack.

Re:Good. (3, Interesting)

black6host (469985) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018432)

I don't care for proprietary programming languages as much as the next guy. Take away the .net part of it, look at the principal architect of the C# language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg/> Sorry, URL formatting has me stumped, I've followed the syntax, but that's not the point of this post. You can find him. He was was heavily involved/ perhaps lead architect (I don't know as of now) of Borland's Delphi. A most wonderful development environment, and the only real competitor to VB at the time. So my suggestion is don't bash C# but rather the encumbrances places upon it, like .NET.

Disclaimer: I still write in Delphi. If I want to update a network of 100 systems I just copy over the .exe. (Still using Delphi 7). No need to roll out updates to every machine. No registry usage. None of the BS that comes with rolling out a .Net application. And my clients find my work very valuable. My impression is that Delphi is much more common in the EU and I don't speak at all to the crap that's happened since then with the selling to this corp or that corp. I only point out that the person developed by C# is a talented individual.

Re:Good. (3, Interesting)

Etrigoth (1119741) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018556)

Erm, Have you actually tried to deploy a .net application recently ?

Other then ensuring that the framework is installed, it is also generally as simple as copying a .exe file.

ClickOnce deployment is vaguely more complicated but its complexities exist to counter security problems. One can hardly blame MS for trying to be a bit more proactive about security either.

The largest (in terms of distribution) .NET program I've ever written had a target audience of roughly 40k computers. Our deployment process ? xcopy or download an MSI file if you weren't on the network.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018554)

writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.

Ignoring the mono vs. MS.NET aspect of it and focusing just on your C# comments, I think you're a bit off. Actually it's trading the risk that you have to make a decision to run on a proprietary platform or rewrite (and accept the cost burden of your choice) if Microsoft locks out the .NET market in the next X years (where X is the likely lifespan of your application). You basically give up what anyone gives up when dealing with a proprietary, single vendor. What you get in return is an easy to find skill set, some pretty decent dev tools, and depending on your views a decent framework bootstrapping rapid development.

Like everything else in architecture and design it's a tradeoff. For some the principles of OSS trump all risk vs value discussions. For some the available interchangeable talent pool isn't worth much because they're going to use small teams of experts. In short it's worth it to some and not to others. I'm not saying it's the best choice for any given project but to dismiss the decision as a "gratuitous risk" is silly.

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018644)

It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.

This is the very definition of FUD. You have some assumptions made up of complete guesswork, and from that you try to scare the development community from using this language/platform. You have absolutely no facts to back up your assertions, and yet year after year people keep spreading this FUD and year after year it does not come true.

The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.

So what is the answer? To avoid applications written in C#? If you do that, then you have already lost the applications without any lawsuits being filed. The paranoia wins.

In years to come, when Microsoft moves on to its next programming system that supplants .NET, I am sure you will pat yourself on the back saying how you saved the open source world from an attack that only existed in your imagination. It is like Donald Trump fanning the flames of a nutjob conspiracy, and then claiming a victory because the unlikely accusations proved to be untrue.

Re:Good. (2)

hduff (570443) | more than 2 years ago | (#36019112)

It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.

The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://swpat.org/ [swpat.org] and http://progfree.org./ [progfree.org.] This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.

Miguel says everything is cool so you are wrong and we have nothing to fear. Ever. EVAR !

Re:Good. (1)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 2 years ago | (#36019166)

Do you have the same opinion with wine? should we make life harder for those distributing wine so that people cannot try to run windows programs as a compatibility layer so easily?

Same with mono, many universities teach c# these days in their courses, and if it were not for mono I would have had to actually used windows for once.

Something of value WILL be lost, the ability to continue using your linux system in the face of being forced to use .net stuff.

I was considering Monodroid... (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 2 years ago | (#36017784)

But I think this seals my fate to avoid it and stick with just Java...

Re:I was considering Monodroid... (2, Informative)

rabtech (223758) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018506)

OK so you wish to live without dynamic language support, true generics, query expressions/LINQ, closures, lambda expressions, the new async/await, and a whole host of other features so you can stick with a language that hasn't seen a major new feature in a long time? One that continuously makes the wrong decisions just for backwards compatibility? (type erasure is idiotic, just make people upgrade their JVMs. the "lambda" support coming in 1.7 will suck for the same reason - it isn't true lambda expressions that make functions first-class citizens, its just syntax sugar on an anonymous class so non-final vars don't get hoisted because writing the changed value back to the caller would apparently be too much trouble.)

Basically Java is frozen in stone and will never be updated with anything worthwhile. Apparently anything that requires JVM support is absolutely out of the question. Especially if C# did it. And if by some miracle Java includes something C# did first, it will introduce incompatible syntax just to be a dick. (for/enumeration loops I'm looking at you!)

There is one interesting question... what will Microsoft do now for Silverlight Linux support? Will they drop it or just go ahead and produce an actual .Net runtime for *nix? They already had rotor, which was an independent implementation of the runtime for *BSD. It wouldn't be hard to do and if they did so there would literally be no reason to choose Java as the only thing it has going for it is that it runs on multiple operating systems. This doesn't necessarily involve the GUI framework or other such things... but the core runtime itself is fantastic.

Re:I was considering Monodroid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018612)

Go fuck yourself.

Re:I was considering Monodroid... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018718)

what will Microsoft do now for Silverlight Linux support? Will they drop it or just go ahead and produce an actual .Net runtime for *nix?

They could port Silverlight to Flash. Flash already has pretty robust cross-platform support.

Re:I was considering Monodroid... (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018722)

Have you used Monodroid or Monotouch? I have been scrounging around for anyone that has (The droid version at least) and been coming up empty. C# is a breeze and I'd prefer to code in it... The attractive part to me was using it to build a common business layer I could leverage with WM7 and save myself some headache.

Re:I was considering Monodroid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36019126)

Uh, nice rant. Good of you to notice the subject line being about "monodroid". You know... on Android. The platform Microsoft actively wants to kill. Your large java vs .net post is pretty much irrelevant due to the glaringly obvious reality that .net on android is simply not to be. It's not really a question of liking or disliking java, so much as not being able to use .net for this.

Though at this point, google might as well fork dalvik well away from whatever oracle wants to do anyway.

Out of mod points today (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#36019198)

what will Microsoft do now for Silverlight Linux support? Will they drop it or just go ahead and produce an actual .Net runtime for *nix?

That was quite funny.

Re:I was considering Monodroid... (1)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 2 years ago | (#36019266)

Basically Java is frozen in stone and will never be updated with anything worthwhile. Apparently anything that requires JVM support is absolutely out of the question.

When I first read about the type erasure fiasco and now the new lambda mess, this was my exact same thought. The only way they might be able to move the language and framework forward at this point is to have a huge drop-off where compatibility with older JVM is removed cold turkey in favor of improving the language. They'd call it something reasonable like Java 2, or something stupid like Java X, and it would be a fresh new start.

It doesn't even seem like compatibility would be that bad. Java programs can target specific versions of the JVM, right? It seems like it should be possible to have multiple versions installed. However, it would probably mean a significant rewrite of the JVM and compiler, a big investment, combined with the effort of maintaining two separate Java branches for who knows how long.

The problem is that Oracle is behind the wheel now, and that just won't happen. As you said, Java is frozen.

MONO? SHOUDA CALLED IT STEREO !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36017790)

Mono is so 1950s'ish.

Re:MONO? SHOUDA CALLED IT STEREO !! (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 2 years ago | (#36017876)

I would suggest they were probably thinking of some difficult to diagnose disease, but that wouldn't be fair.

 

And linux gets fucked up the ass again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36017890)

See, Linux users are good for nothing and they got fired and their jobs will be sent to india who will be using Windows XP and IE6 while the unenmployed linux users will be stuffing cheetos in their face while they try to emerge and apt-get their pacman drivers to run tuxracer.

Mod me down using your Windows computer since you can't get wifi to work still on your linux partition.

Re:And linux gets fucked up the ass again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018046)

The troll is strong with this one. Plenty of us Linux users are gainfully employed laughing at the XP and IE6 users.

Looks like Attachmate didn't want Linux (3, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#36017968)

Firing the mono developers didn't convince me of this. It's the fact they're basically moving Linux development to all be under a european division and giving them control over all the decisions. It's like they got that odd Linux thing and don't know exactly what to do with it.

I worked at Attachmate for awhile, and this doesn't really surprise me.

Re:Looks like Attachmate didn't want Linux (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018400)

Europe is where SuSE came from, so perhaps Opensuse should return to Germany.
It was better off there. It was actually profitable, rather than just a test bed for the SLES and SLED packages. SLES is very nice, but very few people run SLED.

Re:Looks like Attachmate didn't want Linux (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018592)

Suse was first developed in Germany anywas all there doing it refocusing it back to its homebase.

Firing is too good ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36017970)

For those who work on the abomination that is mono only death will suffice.

Terrible news (1, Funny)

kaoshin (110328) | more than 2 years ago | (#36017990)

I sure hope someone else catches mono.

Re:Terrible news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018144)

I hope de Icaza dies from it. Worthless fucking shill.

Re:Terrible news (1)

terjeber (856226) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018402)

It's sad that a pathetic looser calls someone who has contributed so much to Open Source nasty names. Once you have grown past the stage where spelling your name is a chore and you have contributed something more than what your bowels empties into your adult diapers, come back to us and tell us about it. Until then you are a jealous little shit.

Re:Terrible news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018746)

Aww, did little baby just learn his first swear words? Isn't that cute. Learn to spell if you're going to insult someone. The only thing de Icaza could contribute to Open Source would be to put a hand-gun to his empty skull and pull the trigger. Maybe line you up next to him and use a large calibre so the both of you are erased from the gene pool. Don't like that? Tough shit, I don't give a fuck what you think.

I love it when people take the bait. I love it when people like you throw a fucking tantrum like a child and then try to prove how mature you are in the same breath, it's fucking hilarious. It's the reason I even posted in the first place in fact, just to tease out a little cocksucker like you who feels like being an Internet Tough Guy (tm) so that I could sit back and laugh at your punk ass. You're my entertainment. I use people like you at a whim when I need a good laugh. Unfortunately, like a used condom, you've now outlived your usefulness and are nothing but trash. Feel free to come up with some witty retort or baseless insult -- I won't be around to listen. I'll already have moved on to another vulnerable fucking twat just like you. Stupidity is flooding the market, you're not exactly a precious commodity.

Thanks for being a good boy and falling for it.

Re:Terrible news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018192)

I sure hope someone else catches mono.

Since mono is a disease that's like hoping someone catches a cold. :-p

Not many tears (2, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#36017994)

>"Mono brings .NET to Linux,"

In a way that lags so far behind current versions and with limitations to make it unsuitable for just about anything useful. I am not shedding that many tears. It was a dangerous road to begin with (patents, not completely open, etc), and it is a shame those resources were not directed to something that would have truly benefited Linux and other Open Source platforms.

In any case, I am sure development will continue in some way. But without those resources, it will just continue to slip further and further behind.

Re:Not many tears (5, Insightful)

Etrigoth (1119741) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018146)

Ok, I'm not going to wholesale bite but you really need to bring some Citation to this FUD.

You see, a simple google search results in this: http://mono-project.com/Compatibility [mono-project.com]

Which show's that as far as base libraries and feature support, Mono is almost all there with full .Net 4.0.

Seeing as that's the latest version of .Net and not even the latest version that a lot of businesses are targeting, would suggest that Mono isn't lagging at all.

Re:Not many tears (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018280)

I will admit that I based my comments from impressions of what I read over the last few years about things it couldn't do then and things it would never be able to do. There appeared to be a lot more about getting an app to work cross-platform than just the base libraries.

I can't site a source, and I am not a mono or .NET programmer, so I will shut up and let other people analyze it.

Re:Not many tears (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018350)

As someone that build's cross platform .NET apps using Mono, you should definitely STFU, and you obviously are talking out your ass. .NET compatibility in mono these days is steller. The only things we really lack are features of Visual Studio, not so much mono itself. MonoDevelop however is pretty dang good. In .NET we've been getting some amazing database ORM's that point & click to build your DAL automatically for you. In mono its a little bit more old-fashioned having to invoke command line for auto-generation. WPF obviously is not available, as to be expected when developing cross platform, so you use GTK. Go back to fox news dude.

Re:Not many tears (1)

FutureDomain (1073116) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018836)

Mod parent up! I've deployed dozens of .NET apps on Linux using Mono, even several OpenGL apps (use the Tao framework). Except for some stupid version differences with Ubuntu (the LTS ships an old version of Mono that didn't support .NET 4.0) it's just been a matter of dragging and dropping a .exe or writing a makefile and building it.

Re:Not many tears (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#36019262)

While the tone is delightfully deprecating, you left off the end of your post.

As someone that build's cross platform .NET apps using Mono, ...

The fella was just echoing a common sentiment that this stuff is, and has always been a trap.

The part you left off is how you intend to get out of this particular trap now that it's sprung. For completeness you should probably include that bit before you start with your tirade.

Re:Not many tears (0)

Etrigoth (1119741) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018406)

Mono does have issues, that's true enough. Microsoft's .Net runtime has issues too.
Linux has issues, Windows has issues ... Everything has issues!

The problem with Mono isn't mono itself (imvho) it's the fact that it's bringing a Microsoft mentality to the GNU mindset and for some people, there can be no compromise on this. That the FSF itself 'discourages' use of Mono can't help matters.

What I'm trying to get at really is that a lot of the negativity towards mono is based on its philosophy and roots, rather then it's technical merit.

Shame really, I'd hoped we were all passed that. Naive, I know!

Re:Not many tears (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018482)

Professional full-time .Net programmer with extensive mono experience.

Mono's implementation of winforms is shit. But hey, winforms is shit!

Otherwise, I found mono to be entirely as good as MS' CLR, with the caveat that it lags behind by a short period of time. This becomes less and less important, as new language features are less and less important (generics was huge, linq was useful, type variance is nice...). Additionally, unlike winforms, mono's ASP.NET implementation is actually pretty passable.

Re:Not many tears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018316)

Netflix. Doesn't. Run. On. Mono (Moonlight).
 
  Second-class implementation. HAND

Re:Not many tears (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018486)

Mono is great, but it also sucks for some specific purposes

If you have an 100% .NET app, it works (most of the time)
The problem is mixing .NET apps with native code, as Wine and Mono don't work together.

Unfortunately this is very common

Re:Not many tears (1)

suy (1908306) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018336)

What I fail to see is what exactly from the MS world is Mono useful for in the Linux/BSD/free software world. We more or less see how new versions of Gnash are more or less ready to play YouTube, or something like that (some goal that is useful for average Joe). But what is Mono useful for? Yes, there are some GNOME applications, and still many GNOME users try to avoid them. What non-GNOME applications from Windows is Mono capable of running? And how useful are them? Is really worth the effort? I don't have the answer, but I must see something significant before I can answer yes, and I fail to see it (and sorry if it's my fault).

Re:Not many tears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018830)

Erm, mono is just an application development platform like the jvm, python or lua. They're all useful to people who like their particular combination of features, quirks and performance characteristics.

Re:Not many tears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36019022)

Mono is very important to quite a few businesses using Mono to run their internal .NET applications. A TON of applications for iPhone and Android also use and depend on Mono.

Re:Not many tears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018372)

...Which shows that as far as base libraries and feature support, Mono is almost all there with full .Net 4.0...

Umm... the link you posted says the exact opposite: "The easiest way to describe what Mono currently supports is: Everything in .NET 4.0 except WPF, EntityFramework and WF, limited WCF."

That is, except for all of the major APIs added since 2.0, they support it all!

Re:Not many tears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018590)

Only if you consider wpf to not be part of .net 4.0. Basically, almost no desktop apps written in some .net language in the last few years will compile under mono.

Re:Not many tears (1)

Etrigoth (1119741) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018856)

Mono is *not* an implementation of .NET, it's an implementation of the CLI.

However, they've already stated that WPF can't work under linux, fair enough ... but from my own experience, I've not authored one piece of .NET software in the last 2 years that needs WPF; I'm pretty sure that no-one in my team has.

Clearly, I'm not the only .NET developer in the world so I welcome your citations ...

Re:Not many tears (2)

samantha (68231) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018204)

Look, without Mono you can't run serveral projects in the cloud without paying Windows stupidity tax. You can run them on anything but windows if mono falls apart. Like it or not C# is at least as good a language as java and arguably better than c++ for many types of projects. We don't want to lose c# from the non-windows open source world.

Re:Not many tears (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018326)

I am not trying to imply that C# is not a good language. I am sorry if my comments sounds as such. It probably is just fine. I have heard/read things that support just what you said. And I would hate to see any project that benefits Open Source platforms suffer. My objections have a lot more to do with the source of C#, patents, past history with that company and what they do, etc. And also what distraction C#/mono could be in siphoning away mindshare or resources from historically more open and more cross-platform environments.

Re:Not many tears (1)

terjeber (856226) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018370)

C# of today is in significant areas way ahead of Java. LINQ and parallelism is only two areas. Java might catch up in some areas and will undoubtedly jump ahead in others in Java 7, but Java 7 has proven that the entire Java process is irreversibly broken. The delays and the Oracle ownership are significant problems.

I build vertical in-house enterprise apps for a living. No environment on the planet currently matches .Net for this. Not even close. Being able to run on Linux servers is something I would miss greatly. I hope Miguel will find a new sponsor.

Re:Not many tears (1)

radish (98371) | more than 2 years ago | (#36019312)

LINQ is interesting, but I'm not sure what you mean about parallelism being better in C# - can you elaborate?

The main area that C# (actually all of .NET) lags behind Java is in the core libraries. The collections support is lacking (and only recently became useful in any real way), there's no equivalent that I'm aware of to something like java.util.concurrent (see previous comment about parallelism), etc. The toolset is also lacking - I don't care how many people say VS is awesome, it still needs Resharper (which is, of course, basically a port of IntelliJ to .NET) to be great rather than merely adequate. It's also good to see projects like nant, Moq, Castle, nUnit and so on come along but it's going to take a while to build up an equivalent to the Java ecosystem.

That said, as a pure language, C# is great. The event/delegate model, lambdas, even simple sugars like Properties are all real improvements over Java (though structs can burn in hell). As a platform though, .NET has a way to go before it's really mature IMHO.

Re:Not many tears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018664)

Define "so far behind" when the C# 4 implementation was completed by Mono BEFORE Microsoft had released it.

Re:Not many tears (1)

spikenerd (642677) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018860)

I don't expect this to happen, but it seems to me that it would be a brilliant move for Microsoft to pick this up and run with it. They wouldn't have to worry about those patent issues (obviously), and it might be a simple way for them to stay relevant in a world where Android eats their lunch. Won't happen--would require them to eat too much pride--but it would have been a good idea.

Re:Not many tears (1)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018910)

Absolutely correct. .NET was theoretically multiplatform, and enticed Mono developers to make it happen. But there's always just enough Microsoft-sized wrenches in the works to limit the functionality to quick-and-dirty marketing demos.

foolish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018024)

monotouch is actually very good, and very viable commercially.

mono isnt done, only novell era.. now it can back away from the corporate deals with the devil it made

Let me be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018026)

FUCK!!!

I knew mono was bad news (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018066)

I knew mono was bad news when I found out that Suse/opensuse's automatic update daemon was mono-based (and hence why it hung after running more than a week (or day, I forget which). I had to set up a cron job to make it restart on a regular basis lest it do nothing.

Re:I knew mono was bad news (1)

Etrigoth (1119741) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018312)

So one instance of a bug makes the entire thing bad news ?

If that's your tolerance level for using a computer, then perhaps you'd be better with an abacus :)

the equivalent command in ubuntu... (1)

Blob Pet (86206) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018200)

sudo apt-get purge cli-common mono-runtime

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Re:the equivalent command in ubuntu... (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018274)

sudo apt-get purge cli-common mono-runtime

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I don't necessarily disagree, but it's unfortunately necessary rubbish for my work. :(

Re:the equivalent command in ubuntu... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018428)

And don't forget

sudo apt-get install banshee- rhythmbox tomboy- gnote evolution- thunderbird

or similar.

GOOD: Just think of energy saved... (3, Insightful)

alexmin (938677) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018278)

By not loading up multi-megabyte runtime to print "Hello world!"

Re:GOOD: Just think of energy saved... (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018398)

Who needs a multi-megabyte runtime when "hello world" can be run on a multi-gigabyte dedicated virtual machine!

Re:GOOD: Just think of energy saved... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018640)

Yeah, cos like glibc is only 2KB, right?

Fucktard.

Miguel too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018334)

Did that microsoft fanboi get fired too? If so maybe MS will offer him a job this time...

Too late for GNOME? (1)

pixline (2028580) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018380)

Quite interesting, GNOME already have *a lot* of core applications backed by Mono... Who will tell 'em? ;-)

Re:Too late for GNOME? (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018498)

None of the core GNOME apps use Mono besides Tomboy [gnome.org] (the others aren't "core apps" and are considered "extra" or even "third-party" apps). You can run GNOME without any of them installed, and they all have reasonable replacements that don't use Mono (Rhythmbox, Gnote, Shotwell, GNOME Shell's search bar, etc.). Rhythmbox is actually quite good; I used to be a Songbird and Banshee fan, but I tried Rhythmbox and, while it doesn't have every single feature under the sun, it's nice to work with and not nearly as buggy as Banshee was to me.

Re:Too late for GNOME? (1)

tchernobog (752560) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018558)

Well, most of those projects have satisfying alternatives, except one (at least for me): Banshee. Rhythmbox just plainly sucks in comparison.

  • Beagle: is it widespread anymore? I thought Tracker did win the race.
  • GNOME Do: use Kupfer or Synapse. As soon as they get momentum, more plugins will be available.
  • Pinta: do we *really* need paintbrush ported to GNOME? I guess Inkscape can be fun for kids anyway.
  • F-Spot: ugly and slow piece of software. I switched to Shotwell a lot of time ago.
  • Gbrainy: no real alternative in the same class, but it is not too big to perform a port.
  • MonoTorrent: Transmission works for me. Other alternatives abound.
  • Tomboy: use Gnote.

I am not claiming the alternatives are perfect (nor the originals). But they can quickly improve if needed.

In my opinion, it is time Vala developers write a decent enough manual for it (improve the main points that undermine its use), and the free world switches to it. It works well, it is fast, and you can link other C libraries to your Vala programs. FLOSS has reached some sort of maturity where it can produce something good without looking at Microsoft or the now-defunct Sun to do it for us.

Impact on popular Linux applications (2, Interesting)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018476)

Looking through the Mono application screenshots [mono-project.com] , what I believe are the most popular programs impacted by Mono development slowing are Banshee, F-Spot, and Tomboy. Since this trio is easily replaced by Rhythmbox, gThumb, and Gnote, among other options, good riddance to the lot of them. In addition to the standard Stallman concerns [fsf.org] , the high concentration of the development team within Novell was always a problem anyway. There are way too many similar applications within open-source operating systems, so culling out some of the weaker ones--from a development risk standpoint--is a net benefit as far as I'm concerned.

This fucking sucks.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018514)

As someone who has just spent 6 months full-time leading a team of 4 porting a *large* C# system to iPad using MonoTouch I am /not/ amused by this news.

Re:This fucking sucks.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36018928)

You know what else sucks? Your #C iPort app.

Re:This fucking sucks.. (1)

Etrigoth (1119741) | more than 2 years ago | (#36018934)

Good luck brother, I'm personally hoping this turns out to be not such a big deal.

They've refocused SUSE and Mono back to europe; let us hope it doesn't kill the momentum.

Loss of Mono means less specialised Linux Apps (0)

mijxyphoid (1872142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36019100)

Love Mono or Hate it, many small software development companies and even some small businesses use mono to help port existing C# winforms applications to run on Linux.
These are the kinds of apps that aren't publicly available, or may be highly specialized.
To rewrite these apps from scratch for a tiny market segment is just not economically viable for many small operators.

(I love LINUX to bits and despise windows, but you have to agree most businesses run Windows desktops for the plebs).
Mono meant that you could write all your heavy lifting C# code to talk to web services, SQL databases, and business backends once.

You could then write your front end for GTK#, winforms, and Cocoa Sharp and have that software look like a native C or C++ application, regardless if you are running Windows, Ubuntu, iPhone, iPad, or Andriod device.

Realistically, I have found that only a tenth of the code for a typical business application needs to be changed when using Winforms or GTK#.
If support for mono ceases to exist, as a software developer that has been pushing hard to release Linux versions of my companies software I am going to find it almost impossible to convince management that the tiny market for Linux is worth a the required man hours to complete re-write the software in some other language.

Trust me, the loss of Mono will not bode well for Linux Desktop usage in business.
If small development companies are forced to choose a platform for desktop software front ends, then Linux will be the very last option.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...