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!

Miguel De Icaza Forms New Mono Company: Xamarin

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept.

GNU is Not Unix 286

rubycodez writes "After being thrown out on the streets by Attachmate, the purchasers of Novell, Miguel De Icaza has formed a new company Xamarin to make .NET development tools for Android and iOS. The company will also provide commercial international Mono support. There are those who would say Mono poses a risk of drawing Microsoft patent or other IP litigation for its inclusion in some major Linux distributions, and that these recent events might be the beginning of the demise of widespread use of Mono and other .NETiness in open source software, a good thing."

cancel ×

286 comments

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

The cross-platform .NET? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153558)

They failed in their first attempt at making Mono a ubiquitous development platform by keeping their mobile ports behind a paywall. Now they lost access to those proprietary parts and decided to start again, in exactly the same fashion... brilliant.

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (1, Interesting)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153744)

I'm not going to lie. I know nothing about C# other than the blindingly obvious, i.e., it is compiled bytecode designed to run in a virtual machine, it does automatic garbage collection, and it appears to be the premier platform for MS development. I'm pretty well versed in Python and Javascript and I've learned Java to code for Android. I really like Python and with Psycho, it runs plenty fast. And since the GUI widget toolkits like tk are compiled natively just exposing bindings to Python, the graphical presentation of applications doesn't feel slow at all (unlike Swing *ducks*). I kind of like Java too and development for Android is a breeze. Personally, I'd never use Java anywhere that Python would suffice but that is just because Python, at least to me, is so good, i.e., I think it and it almost writes itself. So, my question is this, what is so great about C# that people seem willing to practically move heaven and earth to shoehorn it in to every platform they can get their hands on. Why would I want to use mono when I can use Eclipse+Android SDK which is positively sweet. I don't get it.

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153844)

what is so great about C# that people seem willing to practically move heaven and earth to shoehorn it in to every platform they can get their hands on.

What's so great is the popularity of Microsoft products in a few areas. For example, Xbox Live Indie Games won't run anything but C# and other languages that compile to .NET bytecode meeting some specific criteria. The big advantage of C# is that your video game for Xbox 360 and your game for another platform can share game logic.

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153856)

Why would I want to use mono when I can use Eclipse+Android SDK which is positively sweet. I don't get it.

Because you won't get any hot chicks?

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153892)

C# is a language at precisely the same level of abstraction as Java, but with more productivity features, ie: properties, closures, iterators, LINQ and probably more I'm forgetting off the top of my head.
The CLR platform in comparison to the JVM has more low-level features that allow better performance tuning: structs and boxless generics.
As a bonus, there's a Python-inspired language for the platform called Boo, with such great features as pattern matching, Ruby-like blocks and builtin regexes, that is basically impossible not to love, even despite bugs in the compiler. (And significantly faster than any Python or Ruby implementation, because it supports static typing.)

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153954)

I'm not going to lie. I know nothing about C# other than the blindingly obvious...

Ironic that your "blindingly obvious" factoid is completely wrong.

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154016)

Please enlighten me, AC.

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (2, Informative)

solkimera (1319365) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154166)

it is compiled bytecode designed to run in a virtual machine, it does automatic garbage collection, and it appears to be the premier platform for MS development.

He's a troll. At most he can complain about you using byte code, MS calls it CIL Common intermediate language. They have their name for their VM too. But that's like saying "I'm not riding a vehicle, I'm riding a car".

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (1)

HisMother (413313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154030)

What part of it is wrong -- sounds 100% accurate to me.

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (3, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154108)

The problem isn't with C# itself as it is a decent language. I view it as C++ enhanced to be better than Java. The problem is Mono. Mono attempts to port the .NET framework into other platforms like Linux. While there has been a great deal of work done, it still is incomplete and missing some parts that many consider crucial. Add to that there is the looming threat of MS legal action at any time. Given the MS sabre rattling on how Linux violates hundreds of MS patents, it is understandable that some regard Mono as not safe enough.

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154178)

So you complaint is that Mono isn't "a complete .net" and even if it was, then it would be bad because it's "a complete .net".

Am I reading you right?

Mono has addressed the legal issues by seperating the Microsoft proprietary stuff from the ISO standard stuff, and supplying non-proprietary alternatives to several parts of the system. If Microsoft sues, they can easily jettison the proprietary stuff. If you're concerned about it, don't write to the proprietary API's.

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154366)

No Mono addressed the legal issues by having Novell work a deal with MSFT on the proprietary stuff. The problem becomes no Novell no deal, and the Proprietary stuff is required for .NET apps to actually run on windows machines. Therefore you can't build a cross platform .NET application without the MSFT side of the code to run properly on windows.

At least that is how I remember the logic. someone can mod me down if I am wrong.

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154216)

C++ is a more expressive/powerful/complicated language than both C# and Java. The major differences (drawbacks in some applications) is that C++ does not have a large standard library, is not commonly compiled to portable bytecode and is not commonly used with a garbage collector. C# is almost the same as Java and has nothing to do with C++ except some basic similarity.

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154110)

The difference among most languages is just syntax, which is trivial. C# + .Net's big benefit is the huge body of available code for most everything you will ever need. Amazon web services, Google services, Bing services, GIS, linear algebra, image processing, character recognition, etc. Far more than any single platform SDK provides.

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (3, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154164)

Some of it's probably personal preference -- I'd personally rather use almost anything than Eclipse, though I know a lot of people love it. (For me, at its best, it's a pair of left-handed scissors and I'm right handed, and I don't get a lot of 'best' days.)

Some of it might be the versatility of the .NET framework with respect to language -- for example, if you prefer writing Python to Java, in theory in the .NET world you could just switch over to writing in IronPython instead of C# and call it a day, and either way it becomes .NET bytecode.

Some of it might just be a desire for competition. For several years Java was the de facto standard for solving a lot of kinds of problems -- for example, writing custom apps for businesses. That having happened, Java as a language really stagnated in a bad way. It wasn't until C# surpassed Java (in terms of features) that Java really got going and was driven to improve again. In that sense, even if you prefer Java or something else to .NET, having .NET around will probably spur it to be better.

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153766)

cry moar

Re:The cross-platform .NET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153776)

and some spic thinks copying microsoft would ever be a great idea. dumbass.

Give it a rest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153562)

Go away. .NET has no business being on iOS

Re:Give it a rest (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153724)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

.NET has no business being on iOS

Then how do you recommend making one application whose business logic runs on Windows Phone 7 and iOS, or one video game whose game logic runs on both Xbox 360 and iOS? There's an old technique of splitting an application into a front-end and a back-end, allowing different presentation modules (input, graphics, etc.) for different platforms to share the same application logic. It has been called "I/O abstraction", "model-view-controller", or "multitier architecture", according to whatever fad is in season. But this that works only if all platforms share a language in which to write the application logic. All Windows Phone 7 applications and all Xbox 360 Indie Games must be written in a language that compiles to verifiably type-safe IL, which rules out standard C++ and Objective-C.

Re:Give it a rest (0)

spaceplanesfan (2120596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153790)

Thats is very different thing.
Having mono to run windows apps aka wine is great thing, and in fact even patent matter doesn't matter.
After all we use video codecs that breach all kinds of patents.

What does matter is writing native Linux apps in mono.
That is ugly, its like using wine to write Linux apps, and has unnecessary patent riscs (I don't really believe that mono infringes MS patents, but regardless of that MS could generate a ton of FUD if they claimed that it does)

And this is the thing many Linux users including me don't like in mono.

Wine is just another subsystem (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153996)

Having mono to run windows apps aka wine is great thing

And most of the cheerleading for MonoTouch and Mono for Android that I've seen in Slashdot comments has been toward the aim of interoperating with .NET-only platforms.

writing native Linux apps in mono [is] like using wine to write Linux apps

And how is the latter bad? Glibc implements a POSIX-compatible subsystem, Glib and GTK+ implement a GTK+ subsystem, Qt implements a Qt subsystem, and Wine implements a Win32-compatible subsystem.

Re:Give it a rest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154272)

Windows Phone 7

What's that?

one video game whose game logic runs on both Xbox 360 and iOS?

When Microsoft releases a real .Net virtual machine for the iPhone and it gets accepted as an officially sanctioned target for development by Apple, then we can talk. Until then, I think I'll stick to Objective C where my code is first class and a development environment built by pros and not some hacked together shit put out by a bunch of unemployed amateurs.

Re:Give it a rest (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154302)

You bitch to Microsoft for not making that possible by not allowing native code.

The only set-top game platform for micro-ISVs (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154516)

You bitch to Microsoft for not making that possible by not allowing native code.

I see no reason for Microsoft not to just ignore such complaints. Microsoft knows that it provides the only console for games developed by micro-ISVs. So it offers a Hobson's choice: develop in XNA, or just choose not to publish your game on any console at all.

Who didn't see this coming? (3, Interesting)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153568)

Q. Who didn't see this coming?
A. Miguel.

"Xamarin" - because "Ximian" was already taken.

Good news? (5, Interesting)

nicholas22 (1945330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153572)

This brings on the specter of legal action by Attachmate. While there has always been the thought that Mono could be sued by Microsoft, such as lawsuit would require Microsoft convincing a court that it was “just kidding” and the CLR/C# patent covenants are non-binding. Between their obligations to the ECMA standards body and the legal principal of equitable estoppel, the chance of this happening is slim to none. Attachmate is a completely different story. Even if they aren’t supporting it, they do own a product that is in direct competition with Xamarin’s future offerings. Without some sort of legal arrangement between Attachmate and Xamarin, the latter would face the daunting prospect of proving that their new development doesn’t use any the technology that the old one did. As a result of this, as well as the general uncertainty of any new product, some developers on the mono-android mailing list are stating that they are moving back to Java development for now. Source: http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/05/Mono-II [infoq.com]

Re:Good news? (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153624)

If it's under the GPL and LGPL, it's going to be a rough case Attachmate would be making, considering that it's open licensed and they just kicked the team to the curb. Unless Attachmate has enforceable non-competes, along with carrying Mono forward, they're not going to have all that much of a case. Violating Copyright? Not really.

As much as I wish that this stuff would have MS take the spectre of patent lawsuits away from this, or better yet, just die the death it needs to- this isn't a concern I have for it all.

Re:Good news? (1)

rantomaniac (1876228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153694)

If developers writing competing software having prior knowledge of [parts of] the code of the original was not a problem, the concept of clean room reverse engineering wouldn't exist.
But since the Mono project used not to accept contributions from people that have seen Microsoft's shared source code, they are definitely aware of the danger and must be confident that a lawsuit from Attachmate isn't coming.

Re:Good news? (1)

nicholas22 (1945330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153738)

I don't think they will be GPL and LGPL? The MonoTouch and MonoDroid clones will be commercial offerings following a similar closed philosophy according to Miguel de Icaza (see www.tirania.org/blog)

Re:Good news? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153798)

Then how can developers of free software (by the GNU definition) for the Android platform can afford $400 for Mono for Android plus $250 per year for updates? Or should developers of software for the Android platform just plan to ignore Windows Phone 7, Xbox 360, and other .NET-only platforms entirely?

Re:Good news? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154036)

That road goes both ways you know, maybe MS should start supporting dalvik.

Re:Good news? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154156)

By charging for the apps?

Re:Good news? (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154342)

Or should developers of software for the Android platform just plan to ignore Windows Phone 7

Yes. It's not going anywhere.

Re:Good news? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154454)

Or should developers of software for the Android platform just plan to ignore Windows Phone 7, Xbox 360 [...]?

Yes. [Windows Phone 7 is] not going anywhere.

Should developers also just plan to ignore Xbox 360?

I wonder if Apple would allow it... (2)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153576)

Doesn't Apple have a prohibition of using a framework other than Objective C for their iOS apps? I know some tools get around this by making Objective C source code.

Re:I wonder if Apple would allow it... (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153654)

Doesn't Apple have a prohibition of using a framework other than Objective C for their iOS apps?

Apple has since rescinded this provision, apparently because it was causing Apple to lose money as games and other popular iOS apps that use internal scripting engines were getting kicked off the App Store.

Re:I wonder if Apple would allow it... (4, Interesting)

kervin (64171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153876)

More likely because DOJ was beginning to probe on the behalf of Adobe.

Re:I wonder if Apple would allow it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153894)

not anymore

Re:I wonder if Apple would allow it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154238)

Objective C is not a framework.

There are those who would say... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153602)

...that the submitter should just state his opinion rather than hiding behind weasel words.

New Mono? (1)

Tim99 (984437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153612)

It's a trap!

IL to JSLINUX ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153614)

Are they gonna make IL2CPU and IL2JSLINUX: http://bellard.org/jslinux/

Mono, winforms, gtk, xaml, etc, all in a browser. Or even the web-server in a browser for embedded unix.

demise of open source ".NET-ness", a good thing? (1)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153632)

Given that there is nothing MS would have liked to do more than to shut down Novell for ANY reason whatsoever, why would people consider the demise of ".NET" ness that is clearly open source and in many ways immune to patent litigation (although possibly not DMCA reverse engineering litigation -- I've heard that folks thought that was a possibility at one time) a good thing?

That would be like saying that SCO's lawsuits had merit for including major Linux distributions in it's target scope, would it not? And I don't think Miguel et. al are so stupid as to put themselves blindly as targets in microsoft's corporate crosshairs, do you?

Re:demise of open source ".NET-ness", a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153722)

Given that there is nothing MS would have liked to do more than to shut down Novell for ANY reason whatsoever....

Your premise is wrong. It's been a long time since Novell was a significant Microsoft competitor.

17 USC 1201(f) (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153906)

and in many ways immune to patent litigation (although possibly not DMCA reverse engineering litigation -- I've heard that folks thought that was a possibility at one time)

Reverse engineering for the express purpose of interoperability is not grounds for a DMCA suit according to 17 USC 1201(f) [cornell.edu] . Say what you want about Universal v. Reimerdes, but I'd bet it would have gone down much differently if DVD Jon had waited until Linux had stable UDF support before releasing DeCSS.

from the point of view of getting things done (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153676)

it's not a good thing that Mono should go away

it is a good thing from the point of view of ideology, however

but as a working programmer, i like getting things done. to hell with the ideologues

Re:from the point of view of getting things done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153866)

it's not a good thing that Mono should go away

it is a good thing from the point of view of ideology, however

but as a working programmer, i like getting things done. to hell with the ideologues

As a consumer, I would prefer to not be at the mercy of one entity when I need to get something fixed or improved.

To hell with your expedience. The end doesn't justify the means.

Re:from the point of view of getting things done (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153976)

you're a pretty rare consumer, because consumers like uniformity

but i will remember your words the next time i build a computer. i will not take solace in one SATA standard or one hard drive size. i will consider myself "at the mercy" of one oppressive uniform standard, and i will prefer to have my disk drives all sorts of random custom sizes and all SATA interfaces to be various and unique handcrafted cables with rare port shapes

because i don't like expedience. i like to expend 10x the amount of grief and time build a new PC. because, you see, the ends of making the process easy and quick does not justify the means

right?

pffffffffffffffft. what an idiot

Re:from the point of view of getting things done (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154438)

Parent said entity, not standard. The whole point of having a standard is to be able to have more than one entity provide a compatible device.

Re:from the point of view of getting things done (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154518)

you mean a separate entity like mono?

Re:from the point of view of getting things done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154446)

How is this any different from anything released on iOS or Windows or Mac or pretty much any commercial proprietary platform at any level of abstraction.

Surely... (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153682)

these recent events might be the beginning of the demise of widespread use of Mono and other .NETiness in open source software, a good thing

Surely thats a matter of opinion?

Re:Surely... (1)

neonux (1000992) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153834)

You must be new here.

Re:Surely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153986)

You must be new here.

Came to say that.

10 years ago, I called Miguel De Icaza a sellout.

Sadly, it's been proven true.

Re:Surely... (4, Insightful)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153900)

It's a matter of unnecessary Slashdot editorializing, promotion of stupid viewpoints by stupid people. Free Software, amongst other things, exists to promote choice amongst developers and users both. So why is losing effective development choices productive? It isn't. But because there's a vague connection to Microsoft here, it must be evil and be destroyed. Especially now with Java in Oracle hands, what does this accomplish? It's like these people never got out of college and think their professors' dedication to C and a UNIX variant is the only legitimate viewpoint.

Re:Surely... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154308)

But because there's a vague connection to Microsoft here, it must be evil and be destroyed.

First of all, it's not a "vague" connection between .NET and Microsoft, they created and own the platform FFS. The connection is as explicit as can be.

Second, Microsoft has proven time and time again that given half a chance will fuck over anything and anybody that stands in their way. And has never stopped trying to take out FOSS, GPL, Linux, open standards and, again, pretty much anything they see as threatening their cosy monopolies. As we speak they're mounting another covert attack on Linux using software patents.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Trust Microsoft? Sorry, never again.

Re:Surely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153910)

No, it's objective, cold, hard, truth...and don't call me Shirley.....

I don't get it (1, Insightful)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153704)

Most companies won't touch it...if they're running on Linux, they're going to go with a language that's native to the platform, like Java. If you're a home user, most relevant software written in .NET isn't going to work with it. This just seems like an extremely futile attempt. Is Miguel hoping that one day Microsoft will say "hey, we really like what you've been doing...come work for us!"?

Re:I don't get it (3, Interesting)

nicholas22 (1945330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153750)

Java isn't native to Linux. But I get what you were trying to say.

Re:I don't get it (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153950)

By native, I mean there's a fully supported jvm available for it that isn't currently trying to play catchup with an upstream vendor.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154128)

Ugh, for crying out loud, Mono isn't playing catch up. They supported 4.0 before Microsoft even did.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154330)

Java also generates native linux executable code.

How is Java for Linux not native to Linux? Do you mean historically or?

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153752)

How is Java native to the Linux platform?

Re:I don't get it (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153774)

if they're running on Linux, they're going to go with a language that's native to the platform, like Java.

Say a company wants to make an application available to the public, and the public owns a mix of iOS, Android, and Windows Phone 7 devices. But the developers don't want to perform a complete, error-introducing rewrite of the application logic when porting the application to another platform. So they have to write the application logic* in a language that iOS, Android, and Windows Phone 7 devices can all run. The only ones I can think of are C# and other languages that compile to verifiably type-safe IL.

* Not including the front end, which will differ substantially per platform.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153882)

Companies already do that everyday by targeting WebKit, and deploy with containers like PhoneGap.
Moving from WebKit to C# would be a really dumb move.

PhoneGap can be slow to respond (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154186)

My meager Google research indicates that PhoneGap can be slow to respond, especially for applications that need to perform a lot of calculation. Apple finally introduced JIT execution of JavaScript in iOS 4.3, but only within the Safari app; UIWebView applications such as those made with PhoneGap still use the interpretive engine. (Yes, I know about the security issues of running JIT in the same process as untrusted code, but Apple chose to get iOS 4.3 out the door before refactoring UIWebView to sandbox a view in its own process.)

Re:I don't get it (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153928)

That company would be best advised to bite the bullet and implement it 3 times...using the correct and supported languages for the targeted platform...that is if they enjoy staying in business.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154058)

because tripling your development costs is an excellent way to stay in business!

N-version programming (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154080)

That company would be best advised to bite the bullet and implement it 3 times...using the correct and supported languages for the targeted platform

Then what method do you recommend for ensuring that a program written in Objective-C, a program written in Java, and a program written in C# do exactly the same thing in all circumstances? Which N-version programming [wikipedia.org] tools do you recommend?

Re:N-version programming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154172)

Hire competent programmers? Perhaps each versed in the native language of a target platform with some knowledge of the languages and tools used on the other platforms? Can't find these programmers? Look harder and spend the cash because they are out there.

How to afford, and how to verify? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154252)

So how does a startup afford to "spend the cash"? And once the allegedly "competent programmers" have checked in code, how does the lead engineer verify automatically that the code does in fact behave identically?

Re:I don't get it (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154354)

one problem I see is that Microsoft is well known for locking its developers onto their platform. This is a well known business method used on the Windows OS. Given that, why would you want to fall for using the platform they control( MS .Net) to create applications for the 2 dominant phone platforms, iOS and Android, so you can get the also-ran Windows Phone 7 and be subject to losing iOS and Android at Microsoft's whim?

For crying out loud, Microsoft created their .Net stuff to thwart Java because Java was cross platform. "Does anyone remember Windows" was what Bill Gates exclaimed at an internal Microsoft meeting as the development discussions on where to take Java on Windows became a heated discussion on making a better Java than others. The result of that meeting was stoppage of all current Microsoft Java projects and the beginning of binding MS Java to Windows and breaking the cross platform nature and license of Java. It was also the beginning of their attack on Borland, one of the leading language and Java tools shops at the time, and the beginning of Microsoft's Java-like platform called MS .Net.

LoB

Xbox 360 is not an also-ran (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154434)

Given that, why would you want to fall for using the platform they control( MS .Net) to create applications for the 2 dominant phone platforms, iOS and Android, so you can get the also-ran Windows Phone 7

True, Windows Phone 7 might be considered an "also-ran" worthy of ignoring, but Xbox 360 is not. Like applications for Windows Phone 7, Xbox Live Indie Games also use the .NET Framework.

Re:I don't get it (2)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153816)

Most companies won't touch it...if they're running on Linux, they're going to go with a language that's native to the platform, like Java.

What maks JAVA any more "natively" Linux than .NET or Mono?

Re:I don't get it (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153858)

The fact that there's a fully supported jvm for it that isn't constantly trying to play catch-up with the upstream vendor.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153960)

By that definition, Flash is native on Linux too?

Re:I don't get it (3, Informative)

greap (1925302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154378)

The bits that make sense in cross platform systems have been done: http://www.mono-project.com/Compatibility [mono-project.com]

Those that are missing currently (almost entirely limited to entity framework and workflow) have open source alternatives already available (EG NHibernate for EF).

In terms of release cycles it varies fairly wildly. Mono actually was at release for several parts of Framework 4 before Microsoft had their version out of the door, Microsoft tend to be fairly verbose with the roadmap and also put out a great deal of CTP’s targeting small sections of functionality which allows downstream projects to stay on top of what’s coming,

Microsoft is his friend (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153772)

To the extent that Microsoft is anyone's friend, it is his friend. He has had such a relationship with Microsoft even before Mono. Personally, I always thought he was some kind of Microsoft mole in the open source world.

Will Microsoft stick it to him? He probably isn't the target. Will he be collateral damage? Probably. Microsoft wants someone like Google to adopt Mono so it can use the patent hammer to damage the competition. In that light, Mono is just bait.

It's open core- not free software, not open source (4, Interesting)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153778)

From TFM:

The new versions of .NET for the iPhone and Android will be source compatible with MonoTouch and Mono for Android. Like those versions, they will be commercial products, built on top of the open core Mono.

"open core" is not free software, and it's not open source.

last sentence isn't a quote (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153828)

(bungled my html - that last sentence is a note from me, not a quote from the article.)

Re:It's open core- not free software, not open sou (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154078)

Mono, the core project, is very definitely open source. However, just like with java, the mobile development platform is not open source.

You've either being deliberately obtuse, or you've been living under a rock and haven't noticed that Oracle is suing Google over Dalvik. Care to clear up which it is?

Re:It's open core- not free software, not open sou (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154310)

So, it's proprietary software. There is no need to come up with clever-sounding euphemisms such as this "open-core" nonsense. It's proprietary software which happens to market itself on top of a open-source project.

Obsession (1, Insightful)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153826)

Miguel's obsession with creating an open source version of .NET borders on mono-mania [wikipedia.org] .

Kool-Aid (0)

think_nix (1467471) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153854)

Miguel are you still drinking it ?

LOL ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153938)

Wow, he's gonna port his open source implementation of .NET to iOS.

That could rip a hole in the space-time continuum.

Re:LOL ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154424)

Oh my god it's already happened!

http://monotouch.net/ [monotouch.net]

Oracle Java? Microsoft Mono? It's all the same... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153948)

Great. If I want to work platform independ, I can decide if I want to code for Oracle's Java or with Microsoft's .NET. Both have nearly the same limitations with patents and corporate politics.

On a second look my statement above sounds a little bit sarcastic. But it is not meant that way. I really like the Java/Scala/Groovy/Clojure ecosystem. And I am really curious to try .NET/Mono with C#/F#/IronPython/IronRuby. Both ecosystems are very advanced with regards to productivity tools and framework support. I would not want to miss any of them.

It's a pitty that OpenSource needed Sun and Microsoft to kick-start both ecosystems. Now we have to deal with the consequences. But still better than not to have any of them.

Isn't Xamarin... (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153968)

...a drug to help with the depressive side effects of internet addiction?

Re:Isn't Xamarin... (1)

instagib (879544) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154340)

I don't know, it really is a country club in Africa [sa-westcoast.com] , but I think Miguel went for "Tamarin", which is a type of monkey [wikipedia.org] . But unfortunately this name is already occupied by a Mozilla project [mozilla.org] , which strangely is some kind of scripting language, and to his dismay is also being used as the name for a Java framework [sourceforge.net] . *head asplodes*

Not a "Good Thing" (5, Insightful)

mrbluejello (189775) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153974)

It is not a "good thing" to have Mono or .NET interoperability taken out of reach of Linux users. Interoperability layers such as Mono allow Linux systems to participate in networks that are dominated by Windows and other commercial systems. If it weren't for software like this, Linux systems may not be invited into some corporate networks, and would not get a seat at the table. The idea of a "pure" linux or no linux is going to continue having linux sitting out in the cold all by itself. Interoperability is crucial. If anything, we need more software like Mono, not less.

Just Wondering (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36153978)

Why I would choose to pay for .NET on Android over using the abundant and free tools for Java?

I mean, I get putting Linux on every device known to humankind, just because it's cool to see things run Linux.
I didn't realize the .NET community had their own version of this?

Re:Just Wondering (1)

mrbluejello (189775) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154132)

If you know .NET and want to deploy to a device, why have a steep learning curve when you can just use the tools you know? .NET runs on phones, servers, desktop PCs, microcontrollers (.NET Micro Edition), extending this to other operating environments is a logical choice. If Mono runs on a Mac, then the designer who insists on running a Mac doesn't need 2 computers at work (Mac for design, PC to run a required app). Interoperability is key, zealots that just stand in the way of this are impractical purists who don't care about users.

it's just a platform (3, Insightful)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153990)

Seriously, isn't it a little juvenile to rally against a software platform just because it's based on something created by a company you don't like? And isn't it hypocritical to bolster Java when it's supported by Oracle, which has a reputation for destroying everything it touches?

Ok, everybody. Two things: (4, Insightful)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154082)

1st of all:
Quit picking on Miguel. You may not share the same opinion as he on bigger issues, as do I, but treating him the way the majority here does is primitive. He deserves all respect and professional merit you can give. Unless you are Linus Torwalds, RMS or someone other of the rare few on which who's work his work is based on, you are not entitled to picking a fight with him or destructively ragging about his decisions and/or motives. The others actually aren't either, but at least they have a track record to back up their ego.
He's done considerable contributions to the cause of FOSS, more than most of humanity anyway and way more than anybody of the wannabees here on slashdot could ever dream of accomplishing, so suck up any stupid and/or ignorant and/or snide remarks you may have ready and just STFU. Thanks.

2nd: Mono may be a controversy in broader issues, but that's not to say it's not a good project. As for the product itself and products based of it: I know at least one that is a game changer and a major leap forward in its industry, that is based entirely on Mono and wouldn't be possible without it ( http://www.unity3d.com/ [unity3d.com] ). Cudos to Miguel and the Mono team for making it possible. I know for sure that the other large x-plattform around, Java, would have been beyond pointless as a foundation for realising this and would have failed miserably. Mono and Monodevelop are cool cross-plattform toolkits, and as far as I can tell they get the job done.
Who can say that about their pet FOSS project?

Mono is/was widespread? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154100)

beginning of the demise of widespread use of Mono and other .NETiness in open source software

This seems to VERY incorrectly imply there once was, or currently is, widespread use of Mono and other .NETiness in open source software. Is it a yogi-ism to say its so widespread that nobody uses it anymore?

shouldn't it be called Duo (3, Insightful)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154120)

Since Attachmate didn't sell Mono to this Xamerin group are there not two versions of Mono? That would then be a Duo. Because two Mono's don't make it right.

That reminds me, Miguel already has a dual personality with his proclaimed love of open source yet his constant admiration for everything made by Microsoft.

LoB

It serves a need, so it is useful... (1)

GrumpyGeek (38444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154158)

I am pretty sure the Unity Game development platform (http://unity3d.com/) is .Net based and uses Mono to run on iOS and Android. This is a nice game development tool made cross platform by Mono, so I would say Mono qualifies as useful. I am sure there are other examples.

Miguel, let it die (0)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154274)

.NET was a mostly foiled attempt of microsoft to do the same thing with C that they did to Netscape. Why hand that over to Microsoft by implementing some cross-platform version of a noose they can hang you with? They are bad enough when the law *isn't* on their side.

I don't understand what would drive anyone to do this unless they are on the Microsoft bank-roll.

Compare Microsoft to Nintendo and Sony (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36154398)

Why hand that over to Microsoft by implementing some cross-platform version of a noose they can hang you with?

Compare the policies of the three video game console manufacturers:

  • Microsoft: Individual developers may work from home as long as their products use 100% pure .NET. No pointers, no P/Invoke, no Reflection.Emit, final destination.
  • Nintendo: No developers working from home allowed at all. I can provide citations if you wish.
  • Sony: SCEA's developer relations site has been down for over a month, but I've read rumors that its policy is like Nintendo's.

In this case, Microsoft is the least of three evils.

The cross-platform aspect just lets a developer share the game logic between the Xbox 360/Windows version of a game and the version for other platforms. Otherwise, a port to or from the platform is a complete line-by-line rewrite that introduces errors and requires subsequent changes to be made twice.

Mono? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36154328)

Homer: Mono... D'oh!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>