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!

Mono 2.8 Released

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the han-mono dept.

Microsoft 78

mallumax writes "A new veriosn of Mono(2.8) has been released: Mono has now integrated SourceGear's webservice enhancements, and there has been a lot of improvement in XML, serialization and web services. Other features are new thread locking and ahead-of-time compiler optimisations. Check out the Mono website for more details." Congratulations are in order for the Mono team as well -- SourceGear was their first customer.

cancel ×

78 comments

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

Is it alive? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7138325)

Is this alive, or is it something like *BSD that will elicit nothing but dead jokes?

Re:Is it alive? (0, Troll)

More Karma Than God (643953) | more than 10 years ago | (#7138382)

I think it is alive. It's probably a set of GPL disease building tools.

Oh GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7138523)

"I think it is alive. It's probably a set of GPL disease building tools."

Oh. GPL. Does this mean that if you use it, SCO will send you a bill for $699?

Re:Is it alive? (1)

grilo (694373) | more than 10 years ago | (#7138600)

Will people be using C#-gtk/qt/insert-your-favourite-toolkit-here in the future?

Re:Is it alive? (1)

PhilipChapman (325188) | more than 10 years ago | (#7155141)

People already are. GTK# has come a long way since the project was started. I've never used QT#, though.

GTK# [sf.net]
QT# [sf.net]

Re:Is it alive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7140097)

Mr. TrollMod, It was supposed to be funny. You do know that Mono is a disease, don't you?

If Novell is involved... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7138967)


...that question could be less facetious than you might think.

Re:Is it alive? (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 10 years ago | (#7142615)

Yes, it's alive unfoirtunately. We'll just agree to call it "de Icaza's Folly" for now until history becomes the judge.

It was Mono 0.28, not 2.8 (5, Informative)

mustapha (709) | more than 10 years ago | (#7138418)

The version number is 0.28, not 2.8.

Re:It was Mono 0.28, not 2.8 (3, Funny)

YetAnotherLogin (534226) | more than 10 years ago | (#7138460)

RTFP. It's veriosn 2.8 which is the same as version 0.28, I presume.

Re:It was Mono 0.28, not 2.8 (3, Funny)

pr0c (604875) | more than 10 years ago | (#7138489)

Interesting that you figure 2.8 == .28! You must work on the federal budget?

Re:It was Mono 0.28, not 2.8 (1)

YetAnotherLogin (534226) | more than 10 years ago | (#7138809)

Well, they are equal, for large values of 0.28 anyway :)
I was merely pointing out the obvious dsylexia of the article submitter.

As for the budget, I actually work for Gray Davis. Why do you ask?

Re:It was Mono 0.28, not 2.8 (1)

Illbay (700081) | more than 10 years ago | (#7152484)

As for the budget, I actually work for Gray Davis. Why do you ask?

I've been wondering about this. After the recall numbers are in, Davis' folks (you) can just move the decimal point and it's *voila!* Four more years!

(Or is that "40"?)

Re:It was Mono 0.28, not 2.8 (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7142076)

No, he's probably an emacs developer.

Re:It was Mono 0.28, not 2.8 (1)

ameoba (173803) | more than 10 years ago | (#7148823)

Well, X11 is really 1.1 and GNU Emacs 21 is really 2.1; when somebody realized that the releases were going to be glacially slow, they decided to inflate the version numbers by a factor of 10 so that traditional release numbering scheme would still appear to show actual progress.

Re:It was Mono 0.28, not 2.8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7154729)

Nazi Microsoft scum detector alert!

Re:It was Mono 0.28, not 2.8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7160277)

woot! only another 72 versions before version 1.0! sweeeeet!

Reminds me of netscape 1.0; oh, how stable that was! The good'ol 1.0 version of software.

182 more versions before 2.1!

Who needs version 1 when there's version 0!

0.28 (1, Redundant)

theCoder (23772) | more than 10 years ago | (#7138497)

That should be Mono 0.28, not Mono 2.8.

I almost thought the Mono devs were getting too close to Microsoft and started version inflating. Glad I RTFA :)

Mono - the most important OS project currently (2, Insightful)

pong (18266) | more than 10 years ago | (#7138527)

I have worked with Microsoft/C++/COM, Unix/C++, Java, ruby and C#/.net. My favorites are ruby and C#/.net and they compliment eachother so well.

I think Mono is the most important open source project second only to linux, because it will make the most advanced software platform in existence available for free on unix and windows. It is also interesting that it is a useful tool for identifying those among us that are zealots and not software idealists. :-)

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7138970)

.NET??

Is that thing still alive, I thought it died already...?

What a waste of code lines...

can you smell the hype ? (2, Insightful)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 10 years ago | (#7138993)

*the most advanced software platform in existence*

It's just a VM and it exists because it's the only way MS could rescue themselves out of their leaky boat of an OS.

Hanging on to the coat-tails gives it legitimacy, kind of like having Cytrix exist as a third source of x86 chips should Intel & AMD go bust.

Your list of languages is hardly a broad base to make such a sweeping statement.

Re:can you smell the hype ? (5, Informative)

Bazouel (105242) | more than 10 years ago | (#7139098)

.NET is a FRAMEWORK, not a VM. Just like J2EE is.

And it was a way for Microsoft to get rid of Win32 API progressively.

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7139157)

mono and linux are the most important open source projects? Get a grip. Both are copies of things that have been done better already.

TeX, GCC, Emacs, and BSD 4.4 are the real deal.

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (4, Insightful)

Kunta Kinte (323399) | more than 10 years ago | (#7140662)

I have worked with Microsoft/C++/COM, Unix/C++, Java, ruby and C#/.net. My favorites are ruby and C#/.net and they compliment eachother so well.

Congratulations.

My favorites are ruby and C#/.net and they compliment eachother so well.

I'm curious, care to explain how these languages compliment each other??

I think Mono is the most important open source project second only to linux, because it will make the most advanced software platform in existence available for free on unix and windows.

Saying .NET is the most advance software platform in existence does not magically make it so. I can come after and say "no, you wrong, Java is the most advance platform", and we would have gotten absolutely nowhere.

I disagree with your assertion, by the way. And I have a few hundred JSRs at JCP.org [jcp.org] to back me up.

Most of Java's development is done in the open. Which means tool developers have a heads up on what changes are coming and even have a say in it too boot.

It is also interesting that it is a useful tool for identifying those among us that are zealots and not software idealists. :-)

(i)I don't think that Mono makes much sense currently because it's a implementation of a development platform specifically designed to increase Microsoft's market share at the expense of everyone else.

(ii)Because Mono does not have any say in the spec it is implementing *and* the writer of the spec is historically hostile.

If that makes me some type of "zealot", I'll accept my title :)

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7142088)

Up until 1.5, Java lacked some rather significant modern features -- the biggest one of which was typed generics.

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149107)

Unfortunatly Java 1.5s generics are not typed. They are not "templates" which wold be typed ... but just syntactic sugar with build in casts ... generics are wrappers of java.lang.Objects, nothing more.

E.G.:
Vector<String> sv = new Vector<String>();
Vector v = sv;
Vector<Integer> iv = v; // not sure about that and to lazy to fire up my IDE
iv = (Vector<Integer>)sv; // WORKS!! but crashes later
That above is legal ... because in fact the compiler treats it like this:
Vector<Object> v, iv, sv;
angel'o'sphere

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (1)

AndyS (655) | more than 10 years ago | (#7170191)

The information is still in the class files, and the system could well eliminate the casts by using this information as part of a verification step.

As well as this, combined with unboxing - as Integer et al are final classes (and thus can't be extended) - the JVM could transparently replace Integer with a template style version.

The implementation makes these details fully recoverable from bytecode.

(Note, it's not perfect, as you might find that this gets passed to some 1.5 era code that knows nothing about this and it decides to add an Object to it, in which case you'd have to patch everything very quickly, but that's somebody elses problem)

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 10 years ago | (#7177099)

If teh system was a "template" based system, yes. But it is not. The system is like I described above, and sadly its wanted to be like that.
angel'o'sphere

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (1)

AndyS (655) | more than 10 years ago | (#7255943)

I know it's not template based.... I still think you could achieve a fairly easy optimisation by generating some of this stuff dynamically.

If the bytecode looks like this

invokevirtual ArrayList::get()
checkcast Integer

then you can see this later on and shortcircuit the cast.

If the code looked like

invokevirtual ArrayList::get()
checkcast Integer
invokevirtual Integer::intValue

then it's fairly obvious you could eliminate this.

It is a LOT more work than a template based system, but you can be sure that if somebody declares ArrayList then they can't use a subclass of Integer as Integer is a final class.

Basically, you're trying to decompile the code and then recompile it as if it was a template, so it is a bit gruesome, but I think you can still achieve this.

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (5, Insightful)

ekuns (695444) | more than 10 years ago | (#7141475)

most advanced software platform in existence

OK, I'll bite. :) Most advanced platform in existence? Isn't that a bit lofty? C#/.Net can be described, accurately, as Microsoft's answer to J2EE. While I'm a pragmatist about this and I find things to admire and things to dislike about both platforms, history still favors J2EE as the better platform.

If Java were just Sun, then .NET would probably quickly become a superior platform. I hate to say this. I like Sun, I dislike Microsoft. But I have to be honest with what I see. However, Java is not just Sun. There is a huge array of open source software for Java. Just tour the Apache [apache.org] software web site and the enormous variety of Java software available so developers don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Microsoft is often better at making software easier to use. They are often better at making software to make making GUI's easy. They are often better at making certain kinds of tools and certain kinds of integration between products.

But to those who think that Open Source is all about copying what others innovate (I'm not accusing anyone in this discussion of that), there are a great many J2SE and J2EE projects out there that disprove that straw man. (I don't know enought about J2ME to speak intelligently.)

In addition to Apache, check out Exolab [exolab.org] . These are just a couple of the organizations creating open source J2SE and J2EE solutions. The existence of these sorts of organizations, these projects, brings great power and maturity to Java that .NET doesn't yet have.

I'm learning .NET stuff because I'm pragmatic and there are indeed some very nice features it has. One is the ability to link many languages in a native way rather than having to go through JNI. (shudder)

All of this to say that I have to question not only calling any software platform the "most advanced software platform in existence," but especially the .NET platform which has not yet caught up to J2EE in functionality. Not for web projects at any rate.

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (1)

willy134 (682318) | more than 10 years ago | (#7155942)

I agree that C#/.Net is not the most advanced platform. BUT, I don't think it is just another fad. I can search countless websites with information on how to use C#. I feel it has cleaned up a lot of the nastiness of Java. It is not the perfect language (That would be PERL ;) )but I find it very EASY to use and understand. My father-in-law, who only programmed in C before has picked up C# and is really enjoying it.

There may be issues with microsoft calling and saying all C# derivatives are ours. I am sure C# will not be a core element of the Linux Kernel. I think it is an easy way to program and create a GUI.

I can't wait for the day the program I create on windows runs on linux without a recompile/rewrite. And I can't stand programming in Java. I started Java about 5 years ago and it never has been a favorite. It is portable but the way the VM works it is very bloated. I don't know how mono implements the interpreter but I do know that windows will run the program once and do a machine compile. You will be able to rerun that again and again without having to reinterpret the code. (unless you shutdown )

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (1)

wasabii (693236) | more than 10 years ago | (#7157796)

But don't you realize this is a pipe dream?

Lets look at MS's implementations of .NET. We have System.Windows.Forms, which is a THING wrapper over win32 calls, it even lets you manipulate the HWND.

How about MS's .NET 3d environment? IT's DirectX calls all exposed through .NET.

They are wrapping their existing products, nothing more. They are not creating a cross platform platform in any way shape or form.

Look at their MS SQL data class, it's not native, it wraps the native MS SQL classes present in win32.

Mono has System.Windows.Forms working by using Wine. If they get the 3D stuff working, it will also be through Wine.

Just like win32 native .exe's.

You buy the .NET marketting hype without looking at the actual implemenation. Nothing about .NET is inherently any more cross platform than win32 using Wine is.

Mono = Wine of the 21st century.

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7141527)

I think Mono is the most important open source project second only to linux, because it will make the most advanced software platform in existence available for free on unix and windows.

Bah.

The GNU system is undoubtedly the most important open source/Free software project, bar none.

Neither Linux nor Mono would exist without the tools created as part of that project. I mean, what do you use to build your Linux kernels?

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (3, Interesting)

burns210 (572621) | more than 10 years ago | (#7141696)

at best, mono will be a never ending catch-up game... always having to tweak itself to stay MS compatible... plus, mono will need to be able to handle all the win32 api calls, so that means WINE needs a lot more development before it will be a formitable opponent to .net

a native port would be huge, but Bill would never give Linux that much power... here is hoping Apple gets a native port of .net

Re:Mono - the most un-quirky yet (1)

pabtro (609586) | more than 10 years ago | (#7143731)

Mono is a product pushed and financed by Microsoft. Mono is somehow their last line of defense, a marketing device and a legitimacy tool. C# and friends have not been able to take off as intended simply, hype aside, because it is not a practical tool to develop end user software (for in-house projects it does well it seems). C# is a work in progress, meaning core updates are coming for at least two or more product generations.

What software designers want is a stable, un-quirky framework to develop applications, even if it is not fancy, not a bag full of tricks and weird behavior, hence the success of Delphi, Ansi C/C++ and even old Visual Basic (at least they know where the quirkiness is by now).

Since computers are universal machines, why do you need so much language refinements when a well chosen instruction set ala RISC is all we need.

Re:Mono - the most un-quirky yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7145581)

Mono is a product pushed and financed by Microsoft


Wow, looks like we have someone who "knows how it is" here. Do you have some proof of this? I'd love to see it.

Re:Mono - the most un-quirky yet (1)

pabtro (609586) | more than 10 years ago | (#7149582)

I simply resist the idea that Mono is a labor of love ala "tunnel vision", "must-be-done" project. Icaza no seria muy inteligente si trabajara gratis como estudiante universitario de primer year para la mayor multinacional del planeta, no crees?

Re:Mono - the most un-quirky yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7155018)

Dos cosas - si vas a usar espa~ol, usa espa~ol. Si vas a usar ingles, usa ingles. La gente que usa "spanglish" para comunicarse es mi mejor argumento para apoyar la pena de muerte.

Y segundo, Miguel es uno de los ejecutivos y fundadores de Ximian (una de las pocas empresas que han generado ganancias vendiendo "open source"), y acaba de vender la compa~ia por varios millones a Novell. Dificilmente lo caracterizaria como "estudiante universitario" que se muere de hambre.

Entonces, de nuevo me gustaria ver tu evidencia de que Microsoft esta detras del proyecto. Si no la tienes, mejor simplemente no abras la boca.

Re:Mono - the most un-quirky yet (2, Insightful)

pabtro (609586) | more than 10 years ago | (#7156708)

I am sure you where joking, but if you truly favor the death penalty, then it is clear that you need a couple of lives more, at least, for self-realization, I mean :)

I have the greatest respect for the work that Bill Gates and MS have done and continue doing; MS has revolutionized the way we compute. Today, computers are in hour houses and companies, featuring effective interfaces, powerful programming languages and developing environments. I believe new developments, like .NET languages and framework are welcomed by everyone, since they represent the evolution of computing, and not only that; these products are presented as a consistent framework that is clear and easy to use, with some issues, but great all around.

What I don't like about a market economy and innovation these days is the rate at which products are launched, plus the upgrading as a commercial strategy for revenue. It is possible to produce at near zero defect quality, with some constraints, but companies and people don't bother anymore. I see this trend in software of course, but also in other industries, like in the music and movie industry. Quality is getting lost to favor a quick product. Not labors of love and craftsmanship, like a Stanley Kubrick film, but quick montages to quickly satisfy a need and to get something out in the market.

I have always said that the only open source projects that are successful are the ones that have a powerful vision behind, plus financing. Founding is essential since, due to our nature and for the project own sake. Founding obligates project leaders and developers to follow a well defined process, to commit to a plan or schedule and to effectively see the product happen.

Now Mono. Mono looks from the outside like an impressive piece of software. The development process looks exceptionally well organized and their lead developers exceptionally skilled. Good for Mono! If implemented completely (no doubt) it will be a very useful product since we'll benefit from the well crafted MS development tools and ideas.

We live in the real world, and you cannot simply expect that there is ZERO commercial interest in a development of the magnitude of the .NET framework. I would make no sense, as it makes no sense that the most successful company in the planet wouldn't have *any* interest in the parallel development of their technologies. *I have no proof of this*, but I, myself would be interested if placed in MS feet.

Finally I would like to say that the best work I have seen comes without any doubt, from young people when they are guided correctly, like university students, especially in their initial years. No matter if rich or poor, they believe in what they do. That is the spirit that has bootstrapped the open source movement and that still somehow impregnates it.

Regards.

Re:Mono - the most un-quirky yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7158259)

*I have no proof of this*

I thought so. Next time, think before you post.

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7148127)

Most advanced software platform in existence? AHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Get a clue. Get Xanalys' Lisp. Or Mozart/Oz.

I assure you, .net is a triumph only of mediocrity.

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 10 years ago | (#7152462)

I think Mono is the most important open source project second only to linux, because it will make the most advanced software platform in existence available for free on unix and windows. It is also interesting that it is a useful tool for identifying those among us that are zealots and not software idealists. :-)

"for free" is not important. Neither is "open source". Mono is free software. That gives you much more than just getting it for free, or getting the code. In fact, its not the fact of getting it for free that matters, but the fact that it is free as in freedom. Of course, Microsoft most probably has patents that they can enforce to kill the project if it becomes too successful, but luckily not in my country.

Re:Mono - the most important OS project currently (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7158431)

I still fail to see how .Net is an improvement over any other technologies. I have Apache/Mod_Pick_Your_Favorite with thousands of utility functions and libraries already available. I have aolserver/tcl. Then one still has more traditional methods.

I favor Python over C++, but QT is perhaps the best GUI toolkit available right now. It is fast, portable, and complete. Using Python/QT you can deploy just about anywhere.

If you really need to write once, run anywhere, why not Java or even Python. Both have a large userbase with a huge collection of standardized modules. They are stable and relatively quick, with speed improvements for each when you bytecompile.

Is the reason for .Net Microsoft finally realized that their VB/C++ COM development enviroment and tools were too painful for even them to work with?

Seriously though, why should the time tested Unix development methods, and even the newer, stable Java, Python, and PHP methods be abandoned for essentially a reinvention of the wheel. That's like jumping to the HURD "because I can". "Because I Can" is simply not good enough when there are equivilent methods that are arguably better already in existence.

Brandon

My views on mono (4, Insightful)

BortQ (468164) | more than 10 years ago | (#7139091)

At first I thought of mono as a way of getting MS .NET applications to run under Linux. Now I see that this view is silly.

Microsoft has built in a way to access the underlying Win32 API into .NET. Thus any .NET application that uses this functionality will never run under mono (except if wine can handle all the calls).

But that doesn't mean that mono is useless, far from it. MS' .NET was clearly created as a competitor to the java virtual machine. Mono is just another competitor to java and MS .NET as well. And the most important point is that it is fully free.

The open source communities have largely embraced java even though sun still imposes some restrictions through licensing. This has had a large negative effect on the spread of some java technologies (like JAI or java3D not being available on macOS).

Mono gives the open source communities a 2nd generation virtual machine design to call it's own. Forget about microsoft's .NET, view mono as a solution in and of itself and it looks very interesting.

Re:My views on mono (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7139660)

Forget about microsoft's .NET, view mono as a solution in and of itself

That is what Microsoft want$ you to do. Then in 5 years or so when their IP is firmly entrenched in the Gnome/Linux landscape, a swawm of laywers will decend to argue over who actually owns what. Mono is probably more dangerous to Linux than SCO.

Re:My views on mono (1, Troll)

Miguel de Icaza (660439) | more than 10 years ago | (#7139894)

lol, patents do not apply in countries where software patents are not allowed

Re:My views on mono (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7141229)

please note that this isnt miguel, it is just an ignorant person that cant get people to read his posts based on their content.

Re:My views on mono (2)

ekuns (695444) | more than 10 years ago | (#7141492)

Then in 5 years or so when their IP is firmly entrenched in the Gnome/Linux landscape, a swawm of laywers will decend to argue over who actually owns what.

Well, the worst they could do is force licensing fees to use Mono, or force the removal of that work from Linux. They couldn't use that to attack Linux itself unless somehow Mono became an integral aprt of the operating system itself.

I mean, Mono running under Solaris or MacOS certainly wouldn't give Microsoft an in to destroying those platforms.

Re:My views on mono (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7140642)

That being said, the question needs to be asked again: why?

If the idea is to build a new VM from scratch, MS be damned, why ever should it be built around their specifications? Why ever should it use their uninspired Java clone as the standard language? Why not build on the existing attempts at a free Java environment (GCJ, ClassPath, etc.), or other original and truly free language/platforms like Python or Ruby?

As it is, creating an almost-workalike of Microsoft's .NET does absolutely nothing for free software as a platform. It entrenches Microsoft's standards further, without even enabling us to run the vast majority of code written for the partly proprietary and "standard" Microsoft implementation.

No, the ONLY reason for mono to exist is to provide a 100%-compatible environment for running apps written to the Microsoft standard on non-Windows platforms. And if it falls short of that goal, it does nothing for anyone, and there are better choices for anyone writing software for free platforms already.

Re:My views on mono (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7140806)

You do realize that vast sections of the CLR and the C# language itself are ECMA standards now, right?

Re:My views on mono (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7141840)

Yes, but a functional implementation of those standards does not produce a "standard" environment, that is, an environment capable of supporting all programs written using Microsoft's .NET environment. Microsoft Visual Studio .NET and their CLR, including Windows Forms and everything else, ARE the standards -- everyone writing .NET code right now is using those. So mono can either 1. implement the proprietary bits and fall into microsoft's trap, or 2. make something that serves no purpose whatsoever. I don't think either is desirable, although choice 1 is far better -- if they don't get sued, a samba situation is possible where the free version becomes widely used and helps to move people away from windows.

System.Windows.Forms in Mono (1)

yerricde (125198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7158730)

Microsoft Visual Studio .NET and their CLR, including Windows Forms and everything else, ARE the standards

Mono's implementation of System.Windows.Forms [go-mono.com] isn't done yet, but it's apparently coming along nicely. There's a heavyweight version implemented in terms of Winelib and a lightweight version that wraps Gtk# [sourceforge.net] . Publishers of apps that stick to the Gtk# compatible subset of Windows.Forms (i.e. don't P/Invoke Win32 and don't override Wndproc) will be able to put a penguin on their boxes as an extra bullet point. (Yes, I know Microsoft will not be such a publisher.)

MOD PARENT UP (1)

Miguel de Icaza (660439) | more than 10 years ago | (#7140836)

Why not build on the existing attempts at a free Java environment (GCJ, ClassPath, etc.), or other original and truly free language/platforms like Python or Ruby?

there was no money to be made in doing that.

It entrenches Microsoft's standards further

hey, i like microsoft. clippy, passport and outlook are my favourite software

the ONLY reason for mono to exist is to provide a 100%-compatible environment for running apps written to the Microsoft standard on non-Windows platforms

nope, thats a job for wine. show me the money!

Re:MOD PARENT UP (1)

aled (228417) | more than 10 years ago | (#7141225)

You got with the first answer, until I read the second.
Mod above +3 Scary please.

Re:MOD PARENT UP (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 10 years ago | (#7142199)

Don't worry, it's only a troll.

Re:My views on mono (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7141084)

If the idea is to build a new VM from scratch, MS be damned, why ever should it be built around their specifications?

Silly rabbit! "Open Source" only exists to make plagurists feel important. Name one truly new useful idea that has been created by the "open sourcers" that wasn't just a lame copy of some pre-existing proprietary product. The only concievable exceptions are the various Internet protocols and utilities, and their creation was largely sponsored (directly or indirectly) by the government (via the military and universities).

Re:My views on mono (1)

yerricde (125198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7158803)

Name one truly new useful idea that has been created by the "open sourcers" that wasn't just a lame copy of some pre-existing proprietary product.

How about RTLinux, whose invention resulted in a U.S. patent? (The patent is licensed for use in any GPL program [fsmlabs.com] .)

Re:My views on mono (2, Interesting)

BigGerman (541312) | more than 10 years ago | (#7143650)

that is a good point.
I support Mono for several reasons:
C# is a very good language
Creating Windows(like) GUI in C# is a pleasure
In a all-out struggle of good vs. evil it is wise to hedge the bets and Sun (and therefore Java) seems to be on decline right now.

But having Ruby or Python grow up to be an alternative to .NET would have been much better choice.
Ruby Application Server anyone?

Re:My views on mono (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7151192)

In a all-out struggle of good vs. evil it is wise to hedge the bets and Sun (and therefore Java) seems to be on decline right now.

So you believe all the HP/IBM/M$/ML/ESR FUD then? I just hope you know what you're doing.

Re:My views on mono (1)

BigGerman (541312) | more than 10 years ago | (#7152770)

which FUD would that be? I can't think of anything covering all the acronyms! But evidently I believe in it!

Re:My views on mono (1)

unix1011 (709651) | more than 10 years ago | (#7160567)

That might happen still with parrot, Perl's new virtual machine which is register based instead of stack base (which I think .Net, Mono, and Java are, only a guess). It might in the future support other interpreted languages like python and tcl. It would really be a dream if it could support functional languages as well. This could provide the features of .Net language Independence without risking patent trouble with Mono. I can only dream of calling python code from lisp with functional interface, whether that is possible only time will tell.

For information on parrot refer to a Linux magazine article a couple of months ago (does anyone have a link, it may be posted on the web) or this article http://www.wellho.co.uk/solutions/8265856267.html.

Just for kicks you might want to know that parrot is the name the language you would get if you merged Python and Perl, taken from a April fools joke a couple of years ago.

Re:My views on mono (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 10 years ago | (#7161260)

> C# is a very good language.

If you're used to Visual C++ or Visual Basic, I suppose it is... in the same way that losing a finger is "very good" compared to losing an arm.

Re:My views on mono (5, Funny)

aled (228417) | more than 10 years ago | (#7141311)

The open source communities have largely embraced java even though sun still imposes some restrictions through licensing. This has had a large negative effect on the spread of some java technologies (like JAI or java3D not being available on macOS).

And .Mono will be much more open, yes! And it will we as widespread as, like, GNUStep, and the next version will be more stable and feature-wise than Java 1.4.2 (because it's a second generation and Java just fourth). And it will be more portable than J2me and more scalable than J2ee. And will bring peace and love to mankind.
And when .Net and .Mono will meet .Net will say "I am your father...It is pointless to resist, my son". And .Mono will answer "I will not fight you, Father. I've got to save you.".

"If you will not be turned. You will be destroyed. Young fool. Only now, at the end, do you understand." - Emperor to Luke

Re:My views on mono (4, Insightful)

mshiltonj (220311) | more than 10 years ago | (#7142869)

Mono is just another competitor to java and MS .NET as well. And the most important point is that it is fully free.

It's only "fully free" until Microsoft sues because of the patent infringment. It's only a matter of time.

Re:My views on mono (2, Insightful)

benpeter (699832) | more than 10 years ago | (#7143774)

.NET, [sarcasm] It's so cool how it's totally, fully interoperable with ALL windows XP AND windows 2003 server [/sarcasm] Microsoft again, trying to wedge proprietary into what shouldn't be to leverage market share.

P/Invoke needs full trust (1)

yerricde (125198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7158633)

Microsoft has built in a way to access the underlying Win32 API into .NET.

As I understand it, only an application fully trusted by an administrator can P/Invoke native code such as raw Win32 APIs.

Re:My views on mono (1)

Samus (1382) | more than 10 years ago | (#7162342)

I had to laugh when you said Mono and .NET were 2nd generation virtual machines. Fashions in the software world come and go and come back again. People were experimenting with virtual machines before I was born (Close to 30 years). Hell you can even see this trend in VB. VB 1.0 ran under DOS and Windows. The DOS version actually compiled to machine code. Then MS bought up the company and refocused only on windows in interpreted mode. Yep versions 2 through 4 ran only as interpreted. It wasn't until 5 came out that we got to compile our code to machine code again. 2 versions later and its back to compiling to a byte code. I can't tell you what generation the current crop of VMs are but its certainly more than 2 or 3. I hightly doubt that the JVM and .NET VMs are all that different. The JVM is really just more specialized to Java where as .NET is supposed to be more broadly targeted to any language. In practice its only good for your language of choice if your language of choice can somehow be coerced into a static type safe object oriented paradigm.

Mono (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7140656)

Mono... DOH!

Monkey! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7142189)

Do you have a license for zat minkey?

Mono on FreeBSD or OSX not usable - anyone? (1)

RoundSparrow (341175) | more than 10 years ago | (#7154975)

Mono seems to be written with threading that only works on Linux and Windows. If you see their release pages [go-mono.com] , they only have Linux packages.

Several days ago I posted a thread on mono-devel [ximian.com] about FreeBSD 4.8 not working and only got two replies - both confirming the problems. OSX seems to have the same basic problems.

This is even for console (text) applications - they just won't run.

Has anyone been able to get a working mono on FreeBSD 4.8 or 5.1? Can you tell us how?

Is Microsoft really behind .NET? (2, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 10 years ago | (#7156713)

I ask the question because as someone that had developed .NET software, the fact that Microsoft still requires users to download a 20MB runtime unless they already have .NET is absolutely the biggest reason not to develop for .NET. Microsoft could have addressed this by including .NET in XP by default, but they didn't.

Unless Microsoft throws their full weight behind .NET it will have all the problems of Java with no advantages over it.

Re:Is Microsoft really behind .NET? (2, Insightful)

Burb (620144) | more than 10 years ago | (#7161105)

Microsoft could have addressed this by including .NET in XP by default, but they didn't.
The .NET and XP beta periods overlapped substantially, if I recall correctly. There wasn't any way to get the completed runtime into the XP release.
the fact that Microsoft still requires users to download a 20MB runtime unless they already have .NET is absolutely the biggest reason not to develop for .NET
This is a bit misleading. It certainly applies if you are writing thick client (win32) applications. But it's irrelvant if you are writing ASP.NET applications or web services where you must only install the framework once per server. I would suggest it's not that big a deal really. True, it's a pain to download 20Mb over a V.90 modem. But with broadband, CD and DVD distributions it's not going to be a massive issue.

Re:Is Microsoft really behind .NET? (1)

mcbevin (450303) | more than 10 years ago | (#7169954)

Microsoft failed to put .NET in WinXP SP1 even though .NET was at that stage already version 1.0 (or even 1.1 - I'm not sure).

I also have very similar concerns about how much Microsoft is behind some aspects of .NET. Consider that they were planning calling their next version of Windows .NET, but dropped this naming, partly because everyone is so confused as to what .NET is.

Re:Is Microsoft really behind .NET? (1)

Burb (620144) | more than 10 years ago | (#7170617)

The point about WinXP SP1 has some validity, but given that SPs should fix bugs rather than add new functionality I'm generally in agreement with them on that. But I'm sure someone here will tell me that some old SPs had new functionality...

Absolutely agree about the marketing cockup with naming. There was a time when .NET got confused with all kinds of unrelated or partly related crap (like passport) and for some bizarre reason they decided to call Windows CE 4.0 (or was it 4.1, anyway...) Windows CE.NET even though it didn't have the .NET Compact Framework. And don't get me started with people who think that .NET starts and ends with Web Services...

Re:Is Microsoft really behind .NET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7162308)

Uhhh.. Windows Update???

Future versions of of Windows will have .NET. WinXP was too late for it. I believe Win2k3 has it. And of course Longhorn will have it. They can always make it a required update in Windows Update, and/or include it in future versions of WinXP (service pack?).

Re:Is Microsoft really behind .NET? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7168461)

The .NET framework 1.0 was still in beta when XP was released.

Windows Server 2003 ships with framework versions 1.0 and 1.1. Longhorn will ship with 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0.

Also, you ask whether MS is behind .NET? Trust me, they are. In fact, parts of their new operating system will be written in .NET [including critical applications such as 'explorer' (don't confuse that with IE)].
This makes sense for Microsoft: the more they write in .NET, the less buffer overflows they have in their software [and we all know this is an important point for MS -- they've made a fool out of themselves often enough].

Wow! 2.8 Where have I been....? (1)

mrdlcastle (254009) | more than 10 years ago | (#7158500)

at first I was stunned when I saw that it's up to version 2.8. But when I followed the link I saw the truth.

It's at version 0.28. Somebody put the decimal in the wrong place! :-)

Oh well, am just glad that it's still going strong!

Mono Tilting at Windmills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7174290)

1. Get 0.28 out
2. Get 0.4 out
3. Get 0.8 out
4. Get 1.0 out
5. Profit?
6. Be sued out of existence by Microsoft for violating a myriad of patents

Great. People hard at work at a project *guaranteed* to be destroyed. When instead they could be hard at work making Java better. Smart. Really smart.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>