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!

DotGNU and Mono Continue

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the well-isn't-that-exciting dept.

The Internet 190

saurik writes "After what has been a strange few weeks of converse between the DotGNU and Mono teams (including a small PR SNAFU that involved the banning of a member from the DotGNU mailing list), DotGNU has now announced that they will be forming a partnership with Portable.NET." Frankly I like that there are 2 efforts going on. Maybe one will succeed.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Interesting effort... (5, Interesting)

Karma Sucks (127136) | more than 12 years ago | (#10587)

For those who didn't read it through, here's some scoop from the Portable.NET faq:

3.2. Why not co-operate with Mono?

I tried suggesting that we divide up the work to prevent too much duplication of effort, but Mono seems set on re-inventing all of the wheels that I already had several months prior. Mono's idea of co-operation at the moment is "do it our way or no way". Therefore, I will co-operate with Mono when they start co-operating with me.

3.1. Mono

The Mono project that is run by Ximian has many of the same goals as Portable.NET.

Mono is oriented towards building a .NET-capable framework that works well with GNOME. This means that their system is unlikely to work well with any other desktop environment, or with PDA's that don't feature GNOME.

Portable.NET is designed to be more general purpose than that. It has very few dependencies on other libraries so that it can be integrated with any desktop or PDA operating environment.

Mono's C# compiler and other tools are written in C#. While academically interesting, this will incur a severe performance penalty on the toolchain compared to Portable.NET's use of C. It also means that it will be longer before Mono can natively host a .NET development toolchain on Linux.

Future versions of Portable.NET will also support compiling C# to the JVM, which isn't something targeted by Mono as yet.

I think it is really interesting that Portable.NET intends to target the JVM. Now we are getting somewhere. Also their version of .NET does not create needless desktop dependencies, so more power to them. I am a bit surprised at Ximian's attitude at the whole thing though, where is the logic? To read the full faq go here:


Re:Interesting effort... (5, Informative)

miguel (7116) | more than 12 years ago | (#12114)

Those statements on the FAQ are incorrect.

We believe in writing as much code as possible in C# i
nstead of C, because we believe we can write more code, more robust code which in the end could be reusable as a components if we use C# instead of C for pieces like the compiler and its associated tools.

This seems to contradict what we have in our web page about the class-library. The class library is being built in a way that would allow the GUI toolkit to be plugged.

It is also plain FUD that we do not want to make Mono work with other desktops (hey, even GNOME works on other desktops).

You do not want to get a Gtk+ toolkit on MacOS, nor on Windows. You want to get a native interface, from http://www.go-mono.com/class-library.html: [go-mono.com]

For classes that might differ more (for example, the implementation of Windows.Forms), we might have different directories altogether:
System.Windows.Forms/Gtk+ and

Re:Interesting effort... (1)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 12 years ago | (#22770)

I believe that the only thing that could be remotely called a Gnome dependency for Mono is glib and glib is just a library of data structures and other such things. From what I have seen, the plans are to MAYBE ONE DAY have Gnome depend on Mono but not the other way around.

Yet another reason.. (1)

swdunlop (103066) | more than 12 years ago | (#11432)

..why I couldn't care less about the efforts to duplicate .NET, or .NET itself. I'll stick to my Smalltalk, where various implementations manage to remain civil with one another, and Free Software flows freely from one to the other.

And I quote.. (1)

methodic (253493) | more than 12 years ago | (#12074)

Frankly I like that there are 2 efforts going on. Maybe one will succeed.

A brilliant commentary by Mr. Taco. Thank you sir, for gleaming such insight upon us inferior souls.

Variety and Freedom of choice, my friends! (2, Insightful)

famazza (398147) | more than 12 years ago | (#12471)

Yes, my friends, fight against each other. If you don't agree the way a project is running, leave the project and make another one by your self!

That's the spirit of Variety. That what keep our Freedom of Choices. I like to choose Window Maker, and I also like that my pal prefers Gnome. That's the variety that I love to see!

Imagine a world where there are no differences, where all window managers look the same! This sux! I prefer to see a good fight, I prefer to see people getting out of a project and building their own. But I'm sad about that horrible happening about baning (too sad...)

Of course, freedom is hard to manage. Ditatorial government are much easier than a real democracy. Be fair is much more difficult, look all around is much more difficult, but IMHO is much much much better!

Let's fight and build several .NET projects. Can I see a third project in the horizon? Maybe I'm right, maybe it's just a dream, maybe everybody fits into dotGNU and Mono. That's ok too, the point is, we still have a choice!


good olchannel ops (4, Interesting)

coaxial (28297) | more than 12 years ago | (#12609)

I've been reading the threads from the archive regarding the banning (oh I'm sorry, "manual moderation").

I don't like it admins on lists that feel like they need to exercise power over the list in the name of "harmony". You see it all the time on IRC.

joeuser> Hey I have a question about KDE.
{joeuser has been banned by @^freak: KDE sucks}

Whether Martin Coxall was being an idiot or not
isn't really the point. Everyone should be entitled to read what he has to say, and killfile him if they want. Afterall that's what killfiles are for. I don't like it when someone makes decisions like that for me.

Also what's the point of "nonpublic" lists when the whole process is supposed to be "open" and allow anyone to join?

It's this hypocracy that keeps me from joining
the selfrightous schlong measuringfest that is IRC, or any of these projects.

Shuttup ya mouth (1)

rootmonkey (457887) | more than 12 years ago | (#13559)

I've been trying to persuade my company to start using open source products. My company will eventually move to .Net, I would love to get them to consider open source alternatives, but how can I convince them that open source can produce superior products when pointless arguments like this contiue and make open source look childish. I'm sure bickering goes on at Microsoft behind closed doors but we don't have that luxury. Come on guys get it together.

Questions questions questions questions. (4, Interesting)

mcc (14761) | more than 12 years ago | (#14470)

What would you say if asked to justify the idea that creating two different .NET implementations is a more valid use of manpower/volunteer time than devoting that same time to the Linux and Windows versions of GNUStep [gnustep.org], with the goal of getting them to the point where GNUStep can be presented to corporations as something to develop for one platform & compile for three OSes? The head start given by the work already done on the Foundation would be enough that if the Community was to try to help GNUStep, they would probably have the time to add support for the java and python programming languages. (Cocoa supports java already.)

Is the c#/.net framework really any better than gnustep would be with a slightly updated objective c or java?*

Why accept Microsoft's conception of the universe and bring it to linux when you can bring your own conception of the universe to Windows with about as much work?

And do you think that Sun will recognize the two or three tiny valid threats in .NET -- a VM that is designed to be compiled to from any programming language, things being seen as slightly more "open", a thought-out system for meshing different object-oriented programming languages-- and move to fix these things?

What would it take to push apple into making NeXTStep a truly cross-platform development environment again? If they did so, would anyone actually use it? (i.e. which is greater: the dirty feeling coming from using an MS platform, or the dirty feeling coming from using an apple (NeXT) platform.) Or is .NET better than *Step/Cocoa anyway?

Will apple or sun actually move to ensure that they remain with products that are better than microsofts', or will they just assume .NET is vapourware and will fail, and pretend it isn't there?

In the upcoming war, which product is X and which is NeWS? Is that an appropriate anology? Are there any third alternatives outside of java/.NET?

What would it take to get the universe to a point where the API and VM for the next generation of operating systems (as well as a system, such as c# offers, where objects can be inherhited across operating systems-- CORBA generation 2, maybe, except actually usable?) is determined by a truly open, inclusive board of experts representing the entire industry, along the lines of an idealized version of the w3c or opengl?

What would the software industry be like *right now* if at the time that Sun began to release Java, they had had the money, resources and ability to get products installed on consumers computers' "by default" that microsoft has right now? I.E., how much better would java be if Sun had been able to rapidly mature it the way Microsoft will be able to rapidly mature .NET? Or is java just inherently doomed because it was the first product of its type, and microsoft is able to learn from Sun's mistakes with 20/20 hindsight?

Is microsoft doomed because rather than attempting foresight, they're just trying to replicate java, slap on an authentication mechanism, with little attempt to do more than fix sun's mistakes?

What the hell is going on?
I'm going to go curl up now.

(please do not respond to the following. i am just trying to explain where i am coming from in wondering these things:)
*(I would honestly like to know the answer to that one. I have used Cocoa and love it to the point i would make my OS choice based on it solely. I haven't looked at C#/.NET because i don't trust MS and believe that if they are given power, any kind of power, they will abuse it. This is nothing more than internal bias and i am not attempting to justify it as "true", or start a discussion on that subject. I just want answers to the questions above. And i am secure, because after programming some Cocoa i know that NeXT will never die the way that the Amiga will never die.) .. here goes nothing.. *submit*

.NET = Good Idea (1)

cthrall (19889) | more than 12 years ago | (#17544)

Here's the one thing I take away from .NET that looks like new technology to me, and it looks like a good idea that wouldn't be super hard to do: .NET lets you provide a public interface for VB and C# objects ("Windows services", web services - guess they haven't thought of an acronym for it yet) without adding another compile/curse/compile step. That is, the interface you write for the C# class is publicly available without writing a separate IDL.

This is a good thing, as I'll bet a large chunk of most development projects is spent writing/debugging this damn translation layer. App servers like Resin let you run applets, but you've gotta set up an agreed upon message format, parse some XML/HTML/binary message format, and do reflection (if you're doing Java).

Why not write a module that maps a XML DTD to a Java interface, then does the RPC for you?

IMHO, this is what .NET is trying to do. For all the marketing BS in there (the whole certified email thing seems hokey - PGP gives you the exact same functionality now), the general idea seems to boil down to be something small and simple.

As far as C# goes, the standard MSFT development practice seems to be "prototype in VB, ship in VC++" because of VB language restrictions (OO in VB looks like a whole lotta duct tape). I'll bet C# is an effort to address these restrictions, while continuing to use a VM, which makes it much easier to tie the whole shebang together:

As one can see from this sample .Net Framework application, what was previously only in the realm of Visual C++ programmers is now possible in a simple, object-oriented program. Although this article focuses on C#, everything written here can also be written in Visual Basic and Managed C++. The new .Net Framework has enabled developers to create highly functional, scalable Windows applications and services from any programming language.

Note that using a VM also makes it easier for MSFT to restrict developers to use only published API calls - no more hitting the hardware. :)

Once again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#21015)

...the open sourcers are trying to play catch-up with MS.

Go ahead, mod this to hell, but it's the truth.

MS is betting the company on C# and .Net, which means they will do whatever is needed to make it succeed. They'll swat Mono, dotGNU, and Project.Net like flies if they have even a hint that it will help them.

Re:Once again... (1)

cthrall (19889) | more than 12 years ago | (#30368)

> ...the open sourcers are trying to play catch-
> up with MS.

In this case, it seems to me it's the other way around. Looks like MSFT saw the possibility of app servers (Resin, Tomcat, etc.) and Java getting more market share, and decided to reply with something similar. C# looks very much like Java, which has been around for years now.

I think if Apache/Jakarta had been left up its own devices, open .NET would have just happened. The only difference is the pieces of the system come from different places (Jakarta, Sun, Caucho, etc. vs. DotGNU/Mono/MSFT/Evil Flying Monkeys/Whatever).

Why??? (1)

aschlag (471348) | more than 12 years ago | (#21069)

I'm still wondering why people need .NET, let alone any open source alternative...

IMHO, wouldn't it be better for the community to create a "internet service" solution (if we even need internet services) that works, rather than try to duplicate the work of Microsoft?

Re:Why??? (2, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | more than 12 years ago | (#10725)

I know this is a trite argument, but it is appropriate (and no, I'm not trying to flame anybody, or even single you out or anything):

If you really think another way is the way to go, please start doing it. You don't even need to be a programmer yourself; write up a paper detailing the failings of the current efforts and propose a better way. Disseminate this text, and persuade other coders to join in and implement it. Even if you do not succeed in getting your project started, your work will not be wasted as your analysis will be helpful in guiding the current projects.

The people working on Mono, DotGNU and Portable.NET are all doing it because they believe their project is the right way to go about it. Any productive feedback - in the form of a design document or a competing project - is very helpful for all involved. A random 'I don't like this', on the other hand, is likely to be ignored.


Re:Why??? (3, Insightful)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 12 years ago | (#23724)

For me, as a developer, .NET isn't about having "internet services." It's about easy interoperability between languages. I program in Smalltalk (and some LISP), and while I've not had a hard time finding the changesets (read: "libraries") to do what I need (db access, &c), I'm sure one day I'll run into a wall and have to reimplement functionality that has been already done in another language. .NET would allow me to use a lib written in C++ or Python in a version of Smalltalk or LISP or whatever language I feel would be appropriate targeted for the .NET CLI. It means I can do this easily, without having to hack together some IPC or write a C wrapper for the functionality in question.

This has a lot of potential, and I see "internet services" as a small part of it, at least in the way it effects me.

Then again, I'll probably never bother using it, unless there's Smalltalk and CL implementations as good as or better than the ones I use now. :)

I don't see the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#21590)

What is the point of all the effort and argument over .NET? Its to Microsoft as Java is to Sun, Java has the ability to do everything that .NET can, what is the point? To me this just seems to give microsoft a ton of help for free supporting non-microsoft platforms in some ridiculous plot to overthrow the internet. Serisouly though, what real plus or feature does it have over existing things like java? It's got explicit memory management, networking, security and garbage collection, well whoopdie-do so do 50 other languages. So what is the point of all this? People are still capabale of doing everything with existing software - a new language is not a magical tool that suddenly is making the impossible possible.

Re:I don't see the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#30369)

.NET is not a new language. Try reading up [microsoft.com] on what it actually is.

Microsoft is winning (5, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 12 years ago | (#22054)

With .NET , Microsoft successfully managed in a very short period of time to :

Make the community disperse its efforts on copying what is little more than vaporware

Make the community look like a bunch of childish "I can do that too" people.

The only thing that comes to my mind when I look at the mono and dotGNU projects is "monkey see, monkey do". One of the projects can't even come up with an innovative name for itself. Well, I'm sorry but copying .NET is just dumb and it plays in favor of Microsoft, who looks like the real innovators that legions of unimaginative free-software geeks always try to copy.

In short, the community has to stop copying and being toyed with by Microsoft, and begin innovating and proving that there are much better things than what Microsoft comes up with.

I'm too busy with other holy wars (5, Funny)

RestiffBard (110729) | more than 12 years ago | (#22056)

I'm just so involved in evangelizing for vi vs. emacs and gnome vs. kde I just don't have the time to get involved in another holy war. so you guys fight it all out and let me know in 20 years what you came up with.

Another reason... (3, Insightful)

Chester K (145560) | more than 12 years ago | (#22973)

...it's hard for people in business to Open Source seriously.

This is no different than the Gnome vs. KDE debate, or Debian vs. RedHat, or hell, even Linux vs. BSD. We fight amongst ourselves so much that we can't present a unified front against (much more organized) Closed Source efforts.

Will somebody at one of these .NET-clone projects get off their high horse and just merge the projects together? All this stupid in-fighting just goes to show that Microsoft has nothing to fear from Open Source.

Re:Another reason... (0)

seann (307009) | more than 12 years ago | (#12673)

freedom, choices
if you replaced redhat with slackware
I would be a very disapointed campter, I do not like redhat, or anything about it. I do however like slackware, and the only distribution of linux I would use besides one I make myself is Slackware. Your rant is irrelevant.

Re:Another reason... (2)

Chester K (145560) | more than 12 years ago | (#30697)

freedom, choices

How do you need a choice between two open source implementations of the same .NET standard?

Think of how much more powerful the Open Source movement would be if we didn't spend half our time playing politics with other Open Source projects and instead spent that time coding.

Re:Another reason... (1)

elefantstn (195873) | more than 12 years ago | (#22742)

We fight amongst ourselves so much that we can't present a unified front against (much more organized) Closed Source efforts.

Right, Microsoft, AOL, and Oracle present a big unified, organized front for proprietary software. In other news, the Yankees and Red Sox are merging to defeat the hated Blue Jays...

There's something you're forgetting: *BSD is Dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#23541)

Please remember, yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on top of of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test. You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all. Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts. Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house. All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Sad, but true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#27985)

Please moderate the parent post up, it's sad news, but true nonetheless. It should be spread in the hopes of picking up momentum before it finally stops.

Re:There's something you're forgetting: *BSD is Dy (1)

NewbieSpaz (172080) | more than 12 years ago | (#34572)

2 things:
1. Isn't the parent off-topic?
2. Isn't BSD the core of MacOS X?


Re:There's something you're forgetting: *BSD is Dy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#23515)

Mod the reply with the 'WTF' _UP_!

Re:Another reason... (1)

SheldonYoung (25077) | more than 12 years ago | (#30126)

What good would it be replacing one monopoly with another? The competition between each entity you mentioned above has benefited us all. It's not "fighting amongst ourselves", it's about persuing different paths to similar goals.

Re:Another reason... (2, Troll)

nconway (86640) | more than 12 years ago | (#30346)

We fight amongst ourselves so much that we can't present a unified front against (much more organized) Closed Source efforts.
You mean like the "unified" database market -- Oracle versus DB2 versus Sybase versus Cloudscape versus MS SQL Server? Or the "unified" enterprise OS market -- Solaris versus HPUX versus AIX versus Linux/BSD versus NT? Or the "unified" web application market (too many products to list)?

Re:Another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3063)

HAHAHA, you mentioned Cloudscape in the same sentance as Oracle, Sybase and SQL Server? that's rich.

Re:Another reason... (0)

johnnyproton (160621) | more than 12 years ago | (#30694)

From what I understand, DotGNU and Mono are complimentary projects.

DotGNU is an open-source authentication service similar to Passport, where Mono is a development environment similar to .NET, and in particular the C# language and compiler.

Re:Another reason... (1)

Chainsaw (2302) | more than 12 years ago | (#33053)

DotGNU and Mono have two different goals. The folks from DotGNU wants to implement everything in C and make life harder for just about everyone, while the Mono projects focus on a native runtime and everything else in C#. That should give Mono more time for optimizing the JIT and therefore making all applications run faster.

Re:Another reason... (3, Insightful)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 12 years ago | (#33324)

OTOH, by infighting, the end products are arguably better than if there had been only competition against M$, Sun, etc.

As with most things in life, a balance must be struck. Yes, Gnome and KDE should have differences. Differences of design philosophy, goals, implementation... As long as they keep in mind the larger goal: world domination.


But seriously, there is no way to have a discussion with M$ regarding technical merits. And so what if they get heated? Some of the best discussions I've had have been heated.

If everyone's itch were solved by one product, we'd all be using M$ Bob. They aren't, so we don't.

People who matter take Open Source seriously. And in the end, IBM (among others) are a voice that people still listen to, even if the face of M$.

I do think that some of the fighting (and I went back and read the threads on that mailing list) are pointless, and much along the lines of "I got my feelings hurt". And that is pure bullshit that accomplishes nothing. And yes, *that* sort of argument doesn't look good. Thankfully, most arguments are mostly substantive.

Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#23151)

Sorry, there are 3 efforts going on. You neglected to mention the MS .NET effort.

You are correct in thinking that one of them will win. Sadly The One will be MS .NET

Life sucks, don't it?

Why all the confusion for so long? (5, Insightful)

dwlemon (11672) | more than 12 years ago | (#23288)

Mono is a GNU port of C# and the CLI runtime. What people think this has to do with authentication, I have no idea.

Porting a language means making it available to another platform. With mono, you can develop C# on gnu/linux. Why is this such a terrible and confusing thing to so many slashdotters? Is the availability of another development platform a bad thing? The only thing that would really bug me is if the KDE team decides to write their own separate implementation. The fact that Mono will be tied to Gnome is iffy, but what are you gonna do? Gnome has to make strides of some kind or another to stand out.

When Gnome says they have customers, I believe them.

I don't give a shit if my Mono applications don't even work on Windows. I'd like an alternative to Java that doesn't feel like a toy.

I don't know if dotGNU is needed. I guess if it means I only need one username and password to log into any sites that have accepted their standard, then that's just super.

But wether or not I am going to be able to go to Amazon.com and identify myself with a dotGNU login, I don't know. Frankly, I don't care.

Mono interests me, dotGNU doesn't.

Re:Why all the confusion for so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#29892)

That should say "When Ximian says they have customers..."

anyway, this rant was brought on by Taco thinking dotGNU and Mono are the same thing. duh.

Re:Why all the confusion for so long? (1)

flacco (324089) | more than 12 years ago | (#34712)

When Gnome says they have customers, I believe them.

I presume you mean Ximian.

I'd like to know who their customers are, though...

I like this concept, however... (4, Interesting)

kypper (446750) | more than 12 years ago | (#23323)

We are encouraging Microsoft's .NET strategy with it.

It would be really nice to see other companies such as Sun invest in Mono and push it far beyond what .NET plans to do.

For once, open source can publicly set the standard and let Microsoft catch up.

Re:I like this concept, however... (4, Insightful)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 12 years ago | (#21778)

Unfortunately Microsoft has all the leverage in this particular case because they control the client. We could come up with something a hundred times better than .NET and .NET would still win because the client bits of .NET will be on every new PC firmly embedded into Windows.

The Samba developers really have the right idea. Instead of creating a network file system and then trying to create a Windows client (which Microsoft could break at every .dll update) they instead took the route of emulating Windows servers. Even with a crufty protocol like SMB this turned out to be the easiest route. Microsoft doesn't want to break their own clients, and so they are limited in what they can really change.

One of these days Linux (or some other open system) might very well have enough client side market share that the Free Software folks could create a client side standard and actually have some weight behind it. The closest we have ever come was with browser based applications, and even that was marred by Netscape-isms and the even more overwhelming IE-isms that are cropping up more recently.

Free Software is getting closer, however. My guess is that it is only a matter of time.

Re:I like this concept, however... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#32325)

For once, open source can publicly set the standard and let Microsoft catch up.

Sorry, won't happen. Microsoft is a leader, while the open sores kids were born to chase the taillights. Enjoy the fumes, fuckers. :)

Re:I like this concept, however... (3, Interesting)

scrytch (9198) | more than 12 years ago | (#33323)

It would be really nice to see other companies such as Sun invest in Mono and push it far beyond what .NET plans to do.

Sun wouldn't touch it with a bargepole unless it was written in the Java language, for the Java virtual machine, targeting the J2EE Java class collection. In short, you can use any language you like as long as it's Java, and run it on any platform you want as long as it's Java.

(I am well aware that there are many languages targeting the JVM. Not one of them receives so much as recognition from Sun, much less moral support, far less technical support)

You never know... (2)

kypper (446750) | more than 12 years ago | (#23462)

stranger things have happened.

And I didn't mean only Sun. Other companies have much to gain from forcing their own method though, making Microsoft adjust instead; it'll keep them in the running.

Re:I like this concept, however... (5, Insightful)

acroyear (5882) | more than 12 years ago | (#29313)

Actually, as I stated before, Sun has their own environment they're developing, Sun ONE, and I belive it was announced before .NET. .NET is a reactive strike against Sun just as its key language, C#, is a reactive strike against Java.

Joined forces (2, Insightful)

andres32a (448314) | more than 12 years ago | (#24070)

"Frankly I like that there are 2 efforts going on. Maybe one will succeed." Well in a sense it is good that the projects have comed together specially when the outcome seems so young. Later on when the technology does become usable there will be other similar projects even based on the original.

Re:Joined forces (2)

acroyear (5882) | more than 12 years ago | (#21710)

Then again, the division of effort may lead to both failing because neither can quite reach getting enough outside developers involved to move it forward at a pace that will keep up with M$'s future (expect it, 'cause its how they do things) consistent changes and updates (many incompatible with early versions -- again, its how they work so why should .NET be any different).

I take as a prime example the issue of the simple email client for GTK/GNOME. A glance @ the gnome software list shows 25 email clients. Do we really need that many? And are ANY of them solid/robust enough to put on someone's desktop and say "you can do anything you want with this that you could do with Outlook, and at the same time be safer than Outlook".

My opinion: no.

The "Not Invented Here" syndrome is still pretty rampant, and I feel it'll be the same between these two .NET clones as well (as the "PR Snafu" demonstrated), and that will likely kill both projects in the mid-range, so that neither survive in the long term when M$ really gets version 3.0 of .NET going (knowing again, that their 3.0 is always the first version of any M$ product that really actually works...).

Then again, by that point they may realize .NET is a crock of crap and have moved on completely -- .NET is a strategic move to take on Sun and J2EE and ONE, not an effort to really change the world for the better).

It would be better for OpenSource to stop cloning stuff that already exists (or doesn't exist and has no real driving need to exist) and come up with its own killer app. Apache as a spokesman for OpenSource originality only goes so far. The world is waiting for something new, not a rehash of what's old, or a clone of something that isn't even done yet.

Re:Joined forces (2)

scrytch (9198) | more than 12 years ago | (#24472)

Then again, by that point they may realize .NET is a crock of crap and have moved on completely -- .NET is a strategic move to take on Sun and J2EE and ONE, not an effort to really change the world for the better).

Do you honestly think J2EE and ONE (whatever the hell ONE is, I couldn't get any info on what it really was when I worked for Sun) are some kind of philanthropy or some great cultural contribution like Michaelangelo or Shakespeare? Good freakin god, is there anyone left who is capable of evaluating platforms on objective criteria?

I see Coxall with a persecution complex, Bollow with a control issue over the word "we", and a whole lot of rah-rah Java boosterism on the dotgnu side from people who don't even know what operator overloading and generic programming is. Then gratuitous mono-bashing in the FAQ's (simply saying you have a difference in opinion should have been fine). I don't see a lot of hope for dotgnu, and frankly not a lot for mono if Coxall is allowed to set the tone on the list.

Re:Joined forces (2)

scrytch (9198) | more than 12 years ago | (#30071)

Lemme amend my post about Bollow and Coxall and just say Read the thread [ximian.com] (search forward for "dotGNU banning"). This guy has some serious anger issues.

Re:Joined forces (2)

acroyear (5882) | more than 12 years ago | (#30348)

Hey, I never said I liked J2EE and ONE, only that Sun put them out, and M$'s .NET is a reaction to them. If ONE fails because of .NET, then M$ comes out a winner yet again, like they did when they cloned Netscape to make IE 3. If ONE falls flat on its own face, then M$ can cut work on .NET 'cause they know (after ONE's example) that the whole idea was garbage (M$'s done that before too -- in some cases the vaporware alone killed the competing product). Take your pick. I personally don't see the use of either of them, and plan on playing with a lot of the stuff from Jakarta in the next few months...

And what is an objective criteria? Application-development platforms are judged on something that varies greatly : developer opinion. Because that opinion varies greatly, the vendors of them try their damndest to bypass the developers and sell to project managers of companies instead, letting them mandate the platform. And certainly that's objective criteria that manager might use...but its not going to be the most informed because he's not the one who's going to have to use it.

Developers rarely respond well to "marketing". They respond by using the product, then judging "how much easier was my project because of this product?" against "how much did this thing cost, and do my end-users have to pay extra to use my product because I used this thing in it?"

The .NET clones have removed the cost factor (if they actually ever work), but at the same time, nothing M$ has done has shown that .NET itself will make anybody's development job easier.

Re:Joined forces (2)

scrytch (9198) | more than 12 years ago | (#11393)

> And what is an objective criteria?

How fast is it, how fast is it at xxxxx clients (where xxxxx is a big number), how much memory does it take up (and at xxxxx clients), how much code has to be rewritten to support it, how much support does it have for future target platforms, how many platforms require admin intervention to roll it out on (usually in the form of installing dependencies). How many existing technologies in use does it integrate with, how many technologies will have to be migrated to something else?

A java platform may win on some of these points, and I'd really appreciate seeing those points argued, not vagaries like the Betterment of Society. That along with spelling "Microsoft" correctly, or at least the two letters MS. C'mon, you can do it if you try (though perhaps there's a certain Randroid charm in M$)

Re:Joined forces (1)

quartz (64169) | more than 12 years ago | (#25030)

It would be better for OpenSource to stop cloning stuff that already exists (or doesn't exist and has no real driving need to exist) and come up with its own killer app. Apache as a spokesman for OpenSource originality only goes so far. The world is waiting for something new, not a rehash of what's old, or a clone of something that isn't even done yet.

I don't think that's ever going to happen. Open Source (at least, non-commercial Open Source) does not have any kind of central authority to tell it what to focus on. Open Source is really a community of people scratching their collective itches. So if someone has an itch to replicate Microsoft frameworks, why not do it? If I were involved with Mono or dotGNU, I'd probably have a very good, practical reason for it, with a far higher priority on *my* agenda than that "something new" you're talking about.

Well, I personally will not use anything .NET-related at least until it becomes enough of a standard for me to become unable to avoid it in the UNIX world (as any self-respecting Microsoft-bashing Free Software zealot will do), but since there are people working on it I guess at least it's useful to them.

Now if you were actually talking about commercial Open source, that's a completely different story...

Re:Joined forces (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#23487)


Re:Joined forces (1)

flacco (324089) | more than 12 years ago | (#29824)

the division of effort may lead to both failing because neither can quite reach getting enough outside developers involved to move it forward

Then the developers will probably realize this and coalesce around the one that shows most promise.

Re:Joined forces (2)

acroyear (5882) | more than 12 years ago | (#18103)

One could hope. But that may be unlikely. Again, "Not Invented Here" -- the developers who left the dying project might not go to the surviving one. They'd probably be sick of the whole thing and move on to something else entirely.

Re:Joined forces (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#6159)

-Well in a sense it is good that the projects have comed together specially when the outcome seems so young-

Thats correct. And specially when its not very clear what the final outcome is supossed to be.

it's all in the name (1)

aturley (79907) | more than 12 years ago | (#25211)

DotGNU? Come on guys. .Net was a stupid marketoid wet dream. If people are going to chase after tail lights, the least they could do is try to come up with a decent name.

But hey, what do I know. I'm not working on the project, and I guess if I'm not part of the solution then I'm part of the . . . (fizz)


This is a sure path to failure for OSS projects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#25480)

What's up with that list admin? Pushing people away that want to help, yeah that seems like a great idea to succeed with an open source project!

I forbid you to use the term 'we' from now on... What a joke!

If you haven't read the conversation between the admin and the guy who got kicked off, do it! It's so unbelievable it's hilarious.

Replace that admin immediately for god's sake! He is a danger to any project...

Seriously, how do you expect any open source project to succeed if there is such hostility within the project (against people offering to help) and between projects?

umm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2659)

Can you count, CmdrTaco? Guess not, since that would imply that you passed grade 2. Including Microsoft, and the companies you mentioned, that's *three* efforts, not two.

Doesn't this help to validate Microsoft? (1, Redundant)

Fizzlewhiff (256410) | more than 12 years ago | (#27578)

Doesn't having two open source versions of .NET validate Microsoft's .NET strategy?

Re:Doesn't this help to validate Microsoft? (2, Insightful)

telbij (465356) | more than 12 years ago | (#21070)

Yes, but Microsoft's strategy here was perfect, because they know it's too much of a gamble for the open source community NOT to make an open source version of .net technology. Certainly if we did nothing Microsoft would have to work that much harder to gain universal acceptance of .NET, but if we have an open source alternative at least nobody has to be under the iron grip of MS. That's not too high a price to pay to avoid MS dominance even if it plays into their hands to an extent.

Re:Doesn't this help to validate Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#22082)

Doesn't having two open source versions of .NET validate Microsoft's .NET strategy?

Yes, it does. And that's a good thing. I agree with the writer of the linked article that .NET is superior to JAVA (for the language interoperability as a major factor) based solutions. So validating it is not a bad thing, as long as MS doesn't get a lock on it.

That's why it is important to have a .NET implentation for Linux early in the process -- if people program for the .NET standard that Linux, MacOS, etc will support, it will reduce the possibility of Microsoft changing and locking the standard. But if there is no other version but the ones supported by MS, then people will program with the win32 libraries, and we are no closer to an open standard.

In summary -- keep .NET open by supporting the standard from an early date! Then everyone will win.

Re:Doesn't this help to validate Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#36824)

Wrong.. As long as Microsoft controls what goes into .NET you're not in control of anything. Dump .NET, support Java. At least Java is open! And if you think .NET is so much better than Java, send your suggestions and they will be incorporated.

Re:Doesn't this help to validate Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#43529)

Why is it that use of Java forces you to lose your ability to think rationally? You're as bad as those Javalobby freaks (motto: "If you're not 100% for us, you hate Java and baby seals!").

.NET is standardized with a third party standards organization. Sun has a death-grip on Java and refuses to loosen it at all. Fortunately, rational thinkers know the definition of the word "open."

It's probably because of a single viewpoint... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#27579)

But it sounds like the DotGNU camp (or at least the list admin) is a bunch of assholes.

Re:It's probably because of a single viewpoint... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#23544)

Reminds me of the Carlin cheer.

Rat shit, bat shit, dirty old twat. 69 assholes tied in a not. Yaay, lizard shit. Fuck.

Wasnt Mono supposed to work together with dotGnu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#28337)

Wasnt Mono supposed to work together with DotGNU?

Someone please clue me in -- why care about .NET? (1)

kenshin-h (453971) | more than 12 years ago | (#29008)

Someone wanna tell me why anyone should care? .NET sounds like a lot of Microsoft hot air designed solely to remove Java from the marketplace.

For instance: What compelling features does it offer the customer? Why would I want those features, as a customer?

Miguel seems to think it's a way to escape the GTK/GNOME/Bonobo architectural limitations, from what I've read -- but so what? Why not fix GTK/GNOME/Bonobo instead?

Seriously, please clue me in, cause I don't understand the fuss.

Re:Someone please clue me in -- why care about .NE (5, Informative)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 12 years ago | (#25091)

1. XML RPC. You can debate the value of XML over other RPC methods, but the .NET model appears to be simpler than CORBA and more easily extensible.

2. Pervasive Object Model. Looking at the ActiveState site, you can see the power of being able to bind to .NET services written in any of the supported languages. Yes, you can compile Python to the JVM, but Sun won't officially support this type of activity - Microsoft on the other hand is funding cross-language support from ground zero.

3. Mostly open architecture. C#, SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI are all open specs. Some of .NET is not open, such as the source of the compiler, but at least with a spec you can write your own, and perhaps even influence the design.

4. A nice OO language. You get this with Java too. Hopefully memory-managed languages can become the norm for application development with all these tools available.

Good idea (1)

microbob (29155) | more than 12 years ago | (#29188)

I still think this is a good idea. Eventually MS will make a huge public blunder by trying to stomp out MONO. Unlike the Bristoll case (and countless others) MS has entered a very high profile and public 'partnership' where EVERY move will be watched.

Sooner or later MS will eat crow or this.

Keep dreaming (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#34408)

Bristol fucked themselves, good riddance. And for God's sake, what makes you think 99% of the world gives a rat's ass about GNU-related things (read: viral garbage)?

Re:Keep dreaming (1)

microbob (29155) | more than 12 years ago | (#30692)

8/31/00. Judge Hall issued a ruling giving Bristol an award of punitive damages of $1,000,000 and an injunction. 2/21/01. The parties announced a settlement, but did not release its terms. read: MS WAS GUILTY

How many times a week... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#8933)

can we see the same FUCKING ARTICLES?? Give it a rest Slashdot, PLEASE!

This is stupid (2, Interesting)

gillbates (106458) | more than 12 years ago | (#29344)

Open source software has lost its creativity and usefulness. DotGNU and Mono are just clones of a bad design in the first place. Must the OS community copy everything that Microsoft does? Or do we lack the intelligence to come up with something unique and inspiring?

It is rather unfortunate that nothing new and interesting has come out of the free software movement. It seems like open source projects are nothing more than cheap knockoffs of existing commercial software.

Re:This is stupid (1)

pnatural (59329) | more than 12 years ago | (#28700)

Or do we lack the intelligence to come up with something unique and inspiring?

written by someone with the nick "gillbates". oh, the irony!

I thought had mono once... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#29638)

for an entire year. Turned out I was just really bored.

It won't work out... (1)

Jim42688 (445645) | more than 12 years ago | (#29893)

It won't work out because of things like this. [ximian.com] Everyone wants their piece of the glory of being the next 'big thing' by being able to replace .NET, but because they are greedy, they lose sight of the real purpose and try to twist is to their personal gain instead of trying to write code that will actually help users and developers

Sounds like the Slashdot "community" (1, Flamebait)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 12 years ago | (#29904)

A bunch a primadonna uber-elite developers/hacks/etc who have the social skills of a six year old, unable to come to any sort of agreement.

One word (1)

Seanasy (21730) | more than 12 years ago | (#30073)

I have just one word for both projects:


Seriously, target the porn web-sites with their technology first to get established. I'm sure more money is spent on porn sites and more sites using authentication are porn sites. Get a foothold in porn and work from there.

terrific (1)

skotte (262100) | more than 12 years ago | (#30103)

excellent. not bad at all. but i see fFlaws in the whole idea, here.

the basic basic thing: i think it's great that a major project is getting a lot of counter-steam fFom the linux world. and two or more groups working on the same thing can be potentially bad, but often quite good. i worry about the duplication of effort, and the dividing of resources .. but 2 against 1 is a good thing.

but i still say picking this, of all M$ products, only adds fFuel to M$'s fFire. it allows them to say "Look at this product! it's so good of a communication method, even those who outright oppose us want to adopt it! See?? it really is the best possible way to go!" I can fFeel ol' billy smirking now.

A better idea would be to fFocus efforts on mimicking every proprietary MS fFormat, such as the outlook *.msg and generally anything else required to get people out of outlook, and into linux.

yes, obviously that this is indeed a MS fFormat .... but it's a fFormat built to be compatible. what if no-one cared to be compatible with it in return?

Just a troll... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#32324)

If you read the mailing list thread it quickly becomes obvious that the guy who claims he was "banned" was just put on the "manually approve" list because he kept trying to start flamewars.

Choice quote from the troll in question:

"Morally, I believe that using a closed standard (Java) is wrong. You and your control-freak cronies tried to ban me for expressing this position."

Seems as though the list manager was just doing his job by stomping out erupting flamewars, and the troll (quite typically, as trolls go) can't seem to deal with that, so he's trying to make trouble everywhere else.

The dotLife of Brian? (5, Funny)

ink (4325) | more than 12 years ago | (#33039)

The Portable.NET project becomes the "DotGNU Portable.NET" subproject of the DotGNU meta-project.

Am I the only one that thought of the gladiator scene in the Monty Python's The Life of Brian when I read that? The bit where they are bickering over the 'splitters' and changing their names from the Liberation Party to the Party of Liberation or some such nonsense. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled /.

Re:The dotLife of Brian? (2, Funny)

tssm0n0 (200200) | more than 12 years ago | (#8448)

Reg Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the
Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
PFJ Yeah
Judith Splitters.
Francis And the Judean Popular Peoples Front.
PFJ Oh yeah. Splitters.
Loretta And the peoples Front of Judea.
PFJ Splitters.
Reg What?
Loretta The Peoples front of Judea. Splitters.
Reg We're the Peoples front of Judea.
Loretta Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
Reg Peoples Front.
Francis Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
Reg He's over there.
--------[A single old man sits on a lower seat.]
--------{Some POPULAR front, eh?}
PFJ [To the old man.] SPLITTER!

One reason I'm in favor of Mono... (2, Interesting)

kriemar (247929) | more than 12 years ago | (#33612)

Is their name--"Mono". At least it's not G.NET or Portable.NET or Opensource.NET or Somethingelse.NET.

The name might seem like a lame reason, but to me it makes all the difference in the world. .NET is a huge cloud of MS initiatives, some of which I am interested in, others of which I consider dangerous.

The choice of name, as far as I'm concerned, says a lot about the mission and mindset of a project. I'm much more interested in a project with a function goal than an emulation goal. "Mono", to me, would beg the question, "what are they trying to do"? X.NET would beg the question "how are they trying to copy .NET?"

Trying to emulate .NET as a vague entity, I believe, will fail.

Trying to emulate or provide alternatives to elements of the .NET initiative, on the other hand, might work well. A good open source CLI implementation, for example, seems great. So does a good authentication system. But trying to do everything at once in one project I have problems with.

Maybe I'm wrong here, and maybe I really don't know enough about the projects (I _know_ I don't know enough about the projects, actually). But I'd rather see one project trying to accomplish X, another trying to accomplish Y, etc. than one huge project trying to copy MSs latest vision of world domination.

Good choice (1)

Palshife (60519) | more than 12 years ago | (#34654)

Frankly I like that there are 2 efforts going on. Maybe one will succeed.

I disagree. I liken the phenomenon of having 2 major versions of Mono in the open source community to, say, splitting the vote within a political party. It's just not smart when we know that the Open-source share will likely already be less than Microsoft.

I hope the consolidation of these projects benefits the effort on a whole, and, if people do it right, it will.

Re:Good choice (2, Funny)

Chundra (189402) | more than 12 years ago | (#9183)

I liken the phenomenon of having 2 major versions of Mono in the open source community to, say, splitting the vote within a political party.

Not to mention the potential etymological shift (say in 5 years) caused by the almost subconcious association of "mono" and "two". I suggest they change the name to bino, or something.

Re:Good choice (1)

Darth Yoshi (91228) | more than 12 years ago | (#9768)

Alternatively, for example, the KDE and Gnome projects seem to spur each other to develop faster.

.NET is evil! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#45731)

When will you people wake up and smell the coffee?! Just because .NET is supported by Linux doesn't make .NET any better than what it really is, a huge venture by M$ out to eat up the rest of the competition INCLUDING LINUX.. Dump their technology and support Java instead!

do i understand this properly? (2, Interesting)

gol64738 (225528) | more than 12 years ago | (#45732)

isn't it true that no matter who provides the front end, the back end authentication will be done with microsofts passport? isn't this a bad idea? is everyone hoping that an open source version of passport will be available at some point? doesn't anyone else feel that if someone designs an open source passport app that microsoft will sue using the DMCA?

i mean, things like the samba project cannot be done anymore, thanks to the DMCA.
please, someone correct me!

Re:do i understand this properly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#23466)

passport is not part of .net at all. you obviously have no idea what .net is about. it is a framework for app development, letting you combine languages in ways never imagined before, and speeding up developement 10x.

Re:do i understand this properly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#27776)

That is my understanding as well -- I don't think building an open-source .NET clone will do anything to take Microsoft out of the picture... but it do two things:
  1. Reinforce .NET and Microsoft's position
  2. Take talented developers who could be using their time on better tools and putting them to work helping MS.
I cannot possibly see how this will help. All it will do is put Microsoft-compatible software on all OSes, then Microsoft can run the world. Hurray.

Seems like a waste of time... (1)

xZAQx (472674) | more than 12 years ago | (#45998)

Is it just me or is .NET the most amorphic peice of vaporware shit to come out of Redmond since, well, ever? Seriously WTF is it? All we ever get is soundbytes from Gates and Co. about "framework" etc. AFAIK, it's a suffix to append to existing bad software, such as ASP.NET and VB.NET (which I hear is even WORSE than VB!!!). Seems like the OSS Community is wasting our time even being worried about it. And now we've got inner battles because of it? Come on, who cares?

Knowledge is Power (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 12 years ago | (#30355)

You are uniformed sorry. The framework SDK is out in beta. It's gonna happen. simply because there's a lot of steam behind this. MS is betting the farm on this, it's not just another software release. And the fact that someone outside of MS is trying to replicate it gives the idea even more credibility. At the very least know the target you attack.

I code in Java and C# by the way and I know one thing..computers suck.

Re:Seems like a waste of time... (1)

cthrall (19889) | more than 12 years ago | (#30356)

The funny thing is that most of their comparisons with respect to saving time, development productivity, etc., seem to stack .NET against the current MSFT web development practices.

For example:

According to Khater, the .NET Framework is helping his team to shave close to 90 percent off deployment time by using "XCOPY deployment," which means that developers design, code, and debug on the development platform, and then simply copy their code to a staging server. Once there, the code is ready to run without requiring that the developers register DLLs or build COM or export packages--that is, without anyone having to worry about dependencies.
Of course, you could also be using C++/Java server-side stuff, in which case you write a script to push a tarball to the server, untar, setup permissions, etc. Deployment on the last project I worked on was one command that pushed everything instantaneously.

They also talk about IDLs:

Unlike in the current version of Microsoft Visual Studio®, C# interfaces can be explicitly defined in any language, removing the need to create and compile IDL files.

One of the nightmares that .NET is supposed to make go away is the whole COM/COM+/ActiveX/DLL rat's nest that makes MSFT development a headache.

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