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 Project Releases Version 1.0

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the what-a-singular-monkey dept.

Ximian 517

theblackdeer writes "Just poking around the go-mono.com Mono website; it's now the multi-colored mono-project.com. Even better, it updated before my eyes to include the 1.0 release. Screenshots are (slightly) updated, too. Mono 1.0 includes the Mono Develop IDE (based on SharpDevelop, I believe). Download now and start your GTK# engines!" Alliante adds "You can download the Release Notes and the Packages on their website."

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

Licensing concerns abated (5, Informative)

SIGALRM (784769) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571759)

From the FAQ [mono-project.com] :

The Mono project has also sparked a lot of interest in developing C#-based components, libraries and frameworks

Yes it has. In our company's roadmap, we considered C# and Mono, but the controversial elements of their licensing (ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows Forms subsets) gave us pause until we researched it further. Most of it is covered under the ECMA/ISO and the other technologies developed on top of it.

Looks like the Mono strategy is to work around the patent issues by using a different technique that retains the API but changes the mechanism.

/. subscribers = sponsors of terrorism (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571783)

Fuck off prick, my brother died in Afghanistan

I would say the blame... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571904)

goes 50-50 for Bush and your dumbass brother.

Each one deserves a nice kick in the balls

God Bless america

Re:/. subscribers = sponsors of terrorism (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572072)

So did mine. He OD'd on the really top notch heroin.

Re:/. subscribers = sponsors of terrorism (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572170)

Who cares? If he didn't die there, he would have died somewhere else. People die all the time. Get over it

Re:Licensing concerns abated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571843)

It's futile. this will turn into a anti-Mono FUD-fest no matter what the FAQ says.

beware... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571780)

mono makes your throat sore. you get it from kissing girls. actually i guess that's not going to be a concern around here.

forgive the interruption.

How important is this for Linux? (4, Interesting)

Pengo (28814) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571798)


A open source RAD evironment sounds like it could have a huge impact on the number of apps that could be rolled out.

Not so much for the enterprise market, but also for the 'shareware' class applications. Most of my Windows specific applications are programs that are from very small development houses or shareware products. (I love to support a small shareware author!) . I use open source when prudent, but I also love to use a nice simple tool that even if it costs $15-$20 bucks to a pay-pal account, is money well spent in my opinion. Maybe Linux will start to attract this development base with Mono.

Another question, I have a pro version of C# I picked up at staples last year. Anyone know how realistic is it for me to build an application in Windows using my copy of C# and compile it and run it on mono?

Re:How important is this for Linux? (4, Informative)

chetohevia (109956) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571853)

As long as you don't use P/Invoke or too many of the Windows.Forms items, it should do fine. That's part of the whole point.

The other thing you can do is run Gtk# on Windows for your xplatform GUI. :)

Re:How important is this for Linux? (5, Informative)

Tobias Luetke (707936) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571857)

As long as you either use GTK# ( download ), wxNet or console mode you won't even have to recompile it under mono on linux/MacOs/whatever. You will be able to just run it.

Re:How important is this for Linux? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571859)

This would depend upon which class libraries you used. Basic apps should work fine, but those using the windows GUI APIs wil not be portable.

ah, the joys of playing catch-up (4, Insightful)

jbellis (142590) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571869)

ironic that this comes just days after MS announces that whidbey [microsoft.com] and the next-generation .NET framework hit beta 1.

I'm cheering for the Mono guys but I don't see how they can avoid being also-rans in the compatibility race.

whoops, meant to post as top-level comment (1, Informative)

jbellis (142590) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571985)

oops.

See "mono-preview" package you can use NOW (1)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572144)

The gmcs compiler is a demonstration of generics support that you can use right now, at least in a prototyping capacity. The mono team is watching the ball.

Re:How important is this for Linux? (4, Insightful)

thelexx (237096) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571882)

Dear God NO, the last thing I want is the Linux software landscape to degenerate into a million shitty little utilities that all want $20-40 from me for something I probably only need to use once.

Re:How important is this for Linux? (1)

XMyth (266414) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571911)

eh? That's the point of shareware....if you continue to use it then please be kind and pay for it. If you do not continue to use it then don't worry about it....where's the problem?

Re:How important is this for Linux? (1)

no reason to be here (218628) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572040)

Lots of shareware is crippled until you pay for it. What if you need to use it just once, but can't access a function that you need for your one time use in the crippled version?

Re:How important is this for Linux? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572067)

That stuff is specifically called crippleware (though not by the authors) and it really should not be considered shareware. It's more like the classic idea of trial versions. Most crippleware is also nagware.

Re:How important is this for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571933)

How is that any different then the existing linux software landscape where there are millions of 'shitty little utilities' which are given away for free? At least when you pay for a product you have some hope of support... which is why I'm hating linux software currently, each problem I have I am unable to find a solution to.

It's not good when you do a goggle search for an error message and the only hits you find are from the source code for the app!

Re:How important is this for Linux? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572042)

Yeah...we totally need 200 MP3 player applications.

Re:How important is this for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572078)

Not to mention the umpteen million text editors that are hardly better than notepad... most of which are installed together by default.

Re:How important is this for Linux? (2, Informative)

jdh-22 (636684) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571897)

It will take a little bit of porting if you have any Windows.Forms or any windows32 API calls (hah). Most of the Windows.Forms stuff is currently handled under Wine with Mono. Changing that stuff over to GTK# wouldn't be too bad, plus they would be able to use the application on Linux, and OS X.

I would like to congradulate the Mono developers on a job well done. Programming languages are finally becoming a little more senesible!

Re:How important is this for Linux? (4, Interesting)

arvindn (542080) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572156)

I cheer your voice of sanity in crowd of ideology and narrowmindedness.

When the windows desktop market was the size of the current linux desktop market (not in terms of percentage, of course, but numbers) there was a huge market for shareware. Why doesn't that market exist for linux today?

One reason could be the technology, which you've addressed, but IMHO the main reason is the economics. A while back, in a newsforge article [newsforge.com] I analyzed the situation and suggested how to create such a market. I was quite taken aback by the feedback, which consisted mainly of semi-coherent rants saying "shareware is teh evil!!!" and "kill anyone who dares to suggest proprietary software for linux!!" and so on, despite the fact that what I proposed would have the side effect more open source software getting written.

The linux landscape is changing, its going mainstream, and there are a lot linux users who don't like that. I must humbly suggest to such people that you cannot do anything about it, and you should therefore either accept the reality or start moving to another system where you can feel more "l33t".

Manager Speak (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571803)

Warning: The whole website is littered with manager speak.

Re:Manager Speak (0, Offtopic)

vijaya_chandra (618284) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572045)

What else would you expect!?!

The programmers would be ( and should be ) busy coding

Whoa! That was fast! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571820)

Anyway, I expect an improvement in M$ software. :-P

I never thought I'd be chanting this, But... (4, Funny)

cmdrwhitewolf (580710) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571826)

Go Mono, Go! I hope you infect everybody!

(at least I'm not back in college anymore, where they would've probably hauled me away in straight jacket for chanting that...)

Wow! (0)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571833)

This is great!

It's been a while since I've had a good look at Mono- and things really seem to have advanced since! Way to go guys!

Someone... (1)

irokitt (663593) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571838)

likes [mono-project.com] Modest Mouse [modestmousemusic.com] .

Anyone here use Muine, is it better than xmms?

Re:Someone... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571914)

"Someone... likes Modest Mouse."

As they should.

Re:Someone... (2, Informative)

B1ackDragon (543470) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571971)

I've used Muine, a while ago. It automatically downloads album covers from amazon or something, which was cool but didn't always work. Also, it is organised into albums, so if you've got a directory of music thats mix and match, you have to select an album just to hear the one song off of that album. I could be wrong however, it was a while ago.

Actually, I think it suffers from that all too common among Apple and Gnome base apps problem of "Its so intuitive it's annoying." I like an asthetically pleasing app as much as anyone, but it's almost as if people are afraid of control and buttons and things these days. If you're used to XMMS, it's going to be hard to beat in terms of functionality.

Well at least... (0, Troll)

tepples (727027) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572198)

it's better than liking Mickey Mouse.


Don't buy Disney [losingnemo.com] until they fire the Rat [savedisney.com]

.NET terrarium.. (4, Informative)

joeldg (518249) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571854)

Wonder if that can be run in mono..
installing to find out.

I have been playing in GTK getting sprites and such working, but would like to use this for more portability.. .NET terriarium is damn cool
http://www.windowsforms.net/default.aspx?tab Index= 6&tabId=42
Check it

Congratulations Mono team (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571856)

It's been 3 years and a ton of code. Great work. Let's get those apps rolling out.

I now await the FUD machine.

Appeal of RAD Langs (0, Flamebait)

iisageek (792802) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571868)

The appeal of RAD Languages like VB and C# is nice because you can make a quick utility for a project or novilty without having to sell your first born child. Only draw back is, as with VB, script kiddies with basic knowledge can go and make viruses. Is this going to pose a threat to the *nix community who is known for it's inability for a quick RAD?

Re:Appeal of RAD Langs (1)

kmmatthews (779425) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572014)

inability for a quick RAD
Never used the motif designer or even glade, have you?

script kiddies with basic knowledge can go and make viruses
Is a VB app or a "great-tool.sh" that contains "rm -rf ~ /" more complex? Think about it. As least on Unix, if you're a normal user, the "rm -rf /" bit doesn't hose your system.

As always people, if you want to shoot yourself in the foot, you're free to.

CLR is good stuff... (2, Interesting)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571873)

...it enables things like calling Ruby from C# and vice versa [rubyforge.org] .

I think someone is working on a Ruby to IL compiler, but I failed to successfully Google it...

Java Ruby bridge (2, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572195)

Someone is also working on a Java->Ruby bridge here [rubyforge.org] .

Once they figured out the CLR is really meant to run C# apps and they would have to drop interesting Ruby features, they probably gave up.

BY "Supports other languages", the CLR really means "Supports migrating other language developers to C#".

How can Miguel say that Mono is independent.. (1, Interesting)

Pivot (4465) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571879)

- when he need to consult microsoft [ximian.com] when developing it further...

Re:How can Miguel say that Mono is independent.. (1)

Slayer_X (141736) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571960)

Amen dude!

This is why I think MONO is very bad thing :(

Re:How can Miguel say that Mono is independent.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571964)

On the face of it that seems like a pretty poor troll, but I guess I bit.

C# is an ECMA standard. Stating a preference for developing it as a standard instead of following an embrace and extend strategy is perfectly reasonable and doesn't imply dependence on anyone.

Re:How can Miguel say that Mono is independent.. (3, Insightful)

miguel (7116) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572044)

The same applies to GNU C, GNU C++, GNU Fortran, GNU Ada, GNU Pascal and POSIX.

If you want to call it something else `D#', be my guest, but I think that incremental changes to the
language have a better chance of having an impact in the world, if we work with the standards organizations
than just by forking things.

Troll? (0, Troll)

jbellis (142590) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572081)

that's like flaming gcc for conforming to the ANSI standard... The C# language definition is an ECMA standard.

Read the actual blog post, it has nothing to do with getting microsoft's permission to develop Mono. All it says is Miguel doesn't think forking Mono away from the ECMA standard is a good idea.

Re:Troll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572143)

gcc does non-standard things.

Why .NET and not Java? (5, Interesting)

Sanity (1431) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571881)

This may seem like flamebait, but they throw the first stone right there on From the Mono website [mono-project.com] :
...However, the Java runtime systems commonly available on Linux lack the performance that customers demand, and Java applications do not conform to the Linux GUI look and feel.
If these are the best justification for .NET over Java, then they are pretty weak.

As has been pointed out ad tedium in various Java-related discussions on /. - Java's early reputation for poor performance may have been justified in the 1.0 and 1.1 days, but modern Java VMs employ sophisticated JIT compilers which gives it comparable performance to natively compiled languages like C++, and easily matches .NET's CLR performance. Java's bytecode and .NET's bytecode are not that different, the main differences are in the APIs.

Which brings us on to the second justification for .NET over Java, native GUIs, which is even weaker. Java-Gnome [sf.net] does the same thing as Mono's GTK bindings, offering exactly the same GUI abilities, and SWT [mindprod.com] offers a truely cross-platform GUI API with a native look and feel on each platform it runs on.

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (1)

iisageek (792802) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571954)

Is there any decent Java IDE's for Linux? I've tried Eclipse 3.0 on Slackware and Slackware-Based College Linux but to no avail.

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (3, Informative)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572095)

Ive been a big critic of Eclipse in the past but 3.0 is huge improvement over their previous efforts and its not actually bad. IDEA IntelliJ is probably the best IDE out there but will cost you a few bucks. NetBeans is passable or you can download JBuilder Foundation which is quite limited, the decent versions will set you back a fair whack. I'm not sure if Oracle JDeveloper is free, it's a JBuilder spin off and from what I hear not bad. Eclipse is the pick of the freebies but I prefer to pay for the quality of IntelliJ.

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (1)

puppetluva (46903) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572124)

Intellij is widely regarded as one of the best IDEs out there and it runs on Linux:
http://www.intellij.com

Also Sun's Netbeans and Java Studio are quite good as well (Netbeans is free).
http://www.netbeans.org

Finally another great non-free IDE/Editor is Visual Slickedit. It runs on just about any platform that exists (including Linux).
http://www.slickedit.com

Netbeans, IntelliJ, JBuilder... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572138)

One possibility is Netbeans [netbeans.org] , which I kind of like. It's free and super-easy to mount against existing code bases for debugging (Mount filesystem, point at source, done! Then you can attach to a VM for remote debugging).

Another possibility is IntilliJ [jetbrains.com] , which a lot of people seem to like a lot - especially if they do not like Eclipse. It does cost money.

Then there is also the Big Mac Daddy of IDE's, JBuilder [borland.com] . That can cost a lot if you want the advanced features, but I don't think it's much if you want the basics.

You may notice a common theme here - all sorts of Java IDE's, and unlike other apps they all actually run under Linux. That's because unlike common perception Java desktop apps can work very well, and as all these are written in Java you get the benefit of being able to use them in Linux.

I do also run Eclipse under Linux and it works fine - I'm using Redhat (company standard).

However, even with all the IDE's you can still get far just with a good text editor and Ant, a very power build tool for Java.

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571979)

With a 4 digit ID, you're probably at least 30 years old, and yet you're still pretending that "My Language Is Gonna Beat Up Your Language"? Get real, there will be the need for both Java and C# support.

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572135)

With a 4 digit ID, you're probably at least 30 years old, and yet you're still pretending that "My Language Is Gonna Beat Up Your Language"? Get real, there will be the need for both Java and C# support.
You got it backwards, they were beating up on Java, he merely pointed out the flaws in their criticisms. He didn't say anything bad about their language.

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (3, Interesting)

Kaellenn (540133) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571996)

Unfortunately, while I agree with you on all your well-made points, I don't think your'e gonna be able to convince people who have a long-held hatred of everything to do with Java.

Yes, it's unfortunate, but at the time the mono project started, those statements were true and were good justification. However, as time progressed and java stabilized as a great programming language, different reasons for pressing the mono issue came to the forefront.

Like it or not, this is an MS dominated industry, and they're going to be pressing .NET, not Java. Java's a great tool and I'd love to see more java apps written, but we're never going to keep up with MS if we can't do the .NET thing too.

In the end, it's probably good to have both; more cross-platform implementations are better. :)

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572105)

> Java's a great tool and I'd love to see
> more java apps written

Hopefully people don't write free java apps. Because without a free (as in freedom) java implementation you cannot run these apps on a free operating system.

Please see www.gnu.org and specifically
http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (1)

DroopyStonx (683090) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572013)

The way I see it, companies who have .NET solutions now have the option of switching to windows.

We have solutions in .NET. Sure, the debate rages on as to whether .NET is better than Java, but personally, it's easier for me to develop in .NET using C#. If I wanted to ditch windows, my only option used to be to completely redo our apps in Java, but time simply doesn't allow for that.

With mono, all we have to do is slap the code on a linux box and we're good to go.

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (4, Informative)

miguel (7116) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572018)

First, keep in mind that Mono also ships with a Java VM, so your Java code will work on Mono ;)

There are other reasons, I do not claim these are all of the possibilities, but here are some more:
  • Multi-language support by design, which lets some complicated languages like C, C++ and Fortran
    to be supported without hacks.
  • ValueTypes (structs) are not supported in Java, which is a source of major pressure on the GC, an
    issue solved completely by the availability of it
    on .NET
  • Today: Generics are a VM feature, not only a language feature: which means that your list of
    ints will be a list of ints, and not syntactic sugar for a list of objects of Integer. Importan
    for performance.
  • Binding APIs for C# and .NET is trivial, which is why there is a whole industry of bindings
    for the framework: its trivial to call back into the old code base, without using JNI of any kind.
  • Some people care about the fact that it has been standardized by ECMA.
  • .NET improves upon the lessons learned from Java and were able to make changes that Sun could not
    (yes, that means that someone else can build something new now, and fix the .NET mistakes ;-)
  • Some of us prefer C# the language to Java the language.


But feel free to use Java for doing Gnome applications, I have nothing against it, we are
only an equal opportunity platform provider. Let the big boys fight it over.

Miguel

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572185)

Keep up the good work!

I absolutely love C#. The next GUI (non-console that is) program I write, I'm definitely going to give Gtk# a shot on the chance I'll get a larger install base.

I did have one question, on the Gtk# page, you mention:

"While our System.Windows.Forms implementation is making good progress and will allow user to run graphical .NET SWF based application on Linux, Gtk# is the Mono project main graphical toolkit for cross platform application development and tight Linux integration."

What is SWF?

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572038)

Because .NET is more open and more portable than the JVM. Example: we currently program in java, but compile the java code to .NET to run the programs on both Linux and Windows.

The bindings you have mentioned don't solve the problem. They all require that you ship the JNI wrappers either in source-code or native for all machines on which the software should run.

With .NET we can just P/Invoke the OS native libraries. This is as unportable as JavaGnome/SWT but is easier to handle and works better.

Regarding Libraries/Patent issues, as long as you use the GNU .NET libraries, this isn't a problem.

See http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (1)

110010001000 (697113) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572039)

Because C# and other .NET related technologies have been submitted to standard bodies (ECMA -see http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/) and Java is controlled by a single mega-corporation? You shouldn't support corporate controlled languages like Java.

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (4, Insightful)

Sunspire (784352) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572053)

Java, as it is now, is a complete non-contender in the area Mono is focusing on, which is Linux desktop apps. First, there's no complete open source Java implementation, no distribution ships Sun's JVM. Sure, you can download the JVM for free, but how can you expect us to build a desktop around the thing in that case?

If these are the best justification for .NET over Java, then they are pretty weak.

There's a lot of reasons to go with .NET over Java, and vice versa. This argument will likely never die. Ultimately the difference isn't that big. That said, I personally prefer the direction .NET/Mono is taking and I think Sun is foolish to be resting on its laurels. At this rate Mono will become a major force in the Linux landscape and Sun is doing nothing, five years from now they'll still be wondering what the hell happened.

Which brings us on to the second justification
for .NET over Java, native GUIs, which is even weaker. Java-Gnome


Java-GNOME is completely dead. Java on the desktop, except for Eclipse and SWT (no thanks to Sun) is completely dead. GTK#/Mono has a lot of momentum and Ximian/Novell throwing their weight behind it which is not to be underestimated. Guess which is more likely to have support two years from now, Java-GNOME or GTK#?

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572186)

Uhhhh... slackware ships Sun's JVM.

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (4, Interesting)

danheskett (178529) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572077)

First, Java as a client tool is not popular for Windows development. .NET of course will be. And it is rapidly becoming that way. If a properly written CLR and Class Library was constructed for non-Windows, any app written to use the provided libraries would run immediately on Linux/etc. This a big thing. If any old user can run any old Windows app natively on Linux, that's good (TM).

Second, .NET isn't as language specific as Java. Though the .NET CLR is slightly or moderatly biased towards some languages it is vastly more friendly to new compilers. The whole point of the .NET CLR is to encourage new languages to compile to it. This means that a single CLR can support any number of new languages. It means that a Ruby# program compiled to CLR on Windows will run under .NET. This is a "good thing" that Sun can't really with Java.

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (1)

nonmaskable (452595) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572103)

and Java applications do not conform to the Linux GUI look and feel.

From what I can tell, neither does Mono since I use KDE. I doubt there is a believable case that >50% of Linux desktops use Gnome...

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572134)

As has been pointed out ad tedium ...

Well WHOOP-TEE-FUCKING-DOO! Big fucking words! Why don't you just shhot your load all over my face?

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572169)

the Linux GUI look and feel

This has got to be satire. KDE and Gnome both still suck balls compared to even Windows 2K/XP, let alone MacOS X. (Confused menu layouts, icons apparently designed in kindergarten, unresponsive and slow feel from unintuitive feedback design, etc.)

Both are usable, sure, but not good; what the heck does "Linux GUI look and feel" try to imply? That it is actually good? That it has set some kind of high standard? Whoa there. Still has long miles to go... (User interface development is where I contribute myself, as I'm not a terribly good coder. We still have a buncha R&D to do.)

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572196)

.Net is an open standard Java is not. You can download the source code for the C# compiler and CLR from the MS website and build it on your favorite platform with Make, you can't do that with Java. I think that i reason enough for me to use C#

Re:Why .NET and not Java? (1)

digidave (259925) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572208)

I have yet to see a significant desktop application written in Java perform as well as a native application. DB2's control center and Websphere Site Developer are two good examples. Both are quite usable, but not as snappy as a native app.

I also find that Java apps perform poorly using VNC/TightVNC on Linux or Windows' Remote Desktop. There is often a long delay between clicking and seeing the result. This might be a problem with the remote control apps, but it still affects my desire to use Java apps on a remote system.

But (2, Insightful)

Fooby (10436) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571884)

Is any besides mono developers user mono yet? The screenshots are pretty but why haven't I seen a single mono framework or C# app come to the linux desktop in any of the major distributions?

But C# hasn't exactly exploded on the Windows desktop yet either so I suppose it's premature.

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571913)

Maybe because they just released version 1.0?

I think it'll be a bit before Mono is used for the linux desktop.

Re:But (0, Flamebait)

AntiOrganic (650691) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571959)

I use Muine, as do many other Linux users I know.

How many people do you know on Windows who use C# apps? I bet you can't name one there either.

Re:But (1)

lscoughlin (71054) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572142)

SharpDevelop, wintin, just to start, and more then a few others.

Windows users tend not to know though. .net apps come as a .exe, are installed by an installer, and run line native apps.

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572005)

Ximain == Novell == Suse => C# apps are coming

Try MonoDevelop (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571898)

For those looking for an IDE, try out MonoDevelop 0.5. It doesn't have a gui builder, but has code-completion(intellisense), class browser, project management, etc... It's a port of Sharpdevelop.

ah, the joys of playing catch-up (0, Redundant)

jbellis (142590) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571903)

ironic that this comes just days after MS announces that whidbey [microsoft.com] and the next-generation .NET framework hit beta 1.

I'm cheering for the Mono guys but I don't see how they can avoid being also-rans in the compatibility race.

Re:ah, the joys of playing catch-up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571937)

Better to try than to have not tried at all.

Why are you complaining? Stop putting down devs who have a dream, they have a right to it as much as anyone else. It's a free world man!

Re:ah, the joys of playing catch-up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571956)

generics is already in a certain build of mono. Thanks for the FUD, but they're not starting over for the .NET 2.0 release.

Re:ah, the joys of playing catch-up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572032)

Actually, the Mono version numbers don't match the .NET Framework version numbers. Mono 1.0 already has many of the big new features in .NET Framework 2.0 (such as Generics in C# 2.0, which resemble templates in C++).

- Simon

Re:ah, the joys of playing catch-up (4, Insightful)

miguel (7116) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572147)

Like Alan Cox said: "Free software is always late", followed by something like `The moment you write the first line of code you are already late: you need the feature, thats why you wrote that line'.

Everyone of your favorite projects was late or playing catch up: Samba, OpenOffice, Gnome, Linux, glibc, gcc, gdb, CUPS.

Miguel.

Re:ah, the joys of playing catch-up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572180)

hmmm, so since all those major open source projects are playing catch up I guess it makes more sense to just use the proprietary but advanced versions of those instead?

You basically are saying there is no technical reason to use open source since it's always just trying to immitate the innovator.

Congrats (1)

Swamii (594522) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571908)

Congratulations to Miguel & the whole band of Mono hackers, it's been a lot of work and you guys deserve a pat of the back. Good job guys!

Some please explain to me (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571920)

Why any person in their right mind would choose to develop on Mono rather than Java?

The greatest risk of the Mono project is Microsoft stepping in and filing suit against the project for using its API w/o a license. Doesn't anyone else see this? Why was Mono ever started to begin with? All you Mono developers are doing is putting $$$ into microsoft's pocket!!!

Use JAVA! It doesn't come with any of the potential problems that Mono does; Java is deployable on any OS w/ a JRE (unlike .NET), and is a much better language overall than C#.

Re:Some please explain to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572000)

I was thinking about using Java until you posted. I will now use Mono. Thank you for helping me decide what platform to use.

Re:Some please explain to me (4, Insightful)

Tony (765) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572176)

I'm probably feeding a troll, but I'll assume you are sincere.

Mono was developed because Miguel thought Mono was kinda cool, and because he could. Beyond that, though, there are a few other important issues.

Most importantly, Mono is vital to the future of Linux and other open-source projects. This was a blatant attempt by Microsoft to reign in wandering developer mindshare. Also, it is part of their strategy to bring the application space back from the web, to the desktop-- Microsoft's desktop.

Also, although most geeks realize that Microsoft is not to be trusted, and that generally they produce shoddy (or downright dangerous) software, most of the rest of the world doesn't understand the danger. So, for a lot of manager-types (you know the ones, knuckles dragging the ground, sloped brow furrowed in concentration while parsing simple sentences, signs your paychecks with an 'X'), they see this as "Microsoft's next big direction." Many will choose to follow that direction, because they love Power Point.

And finally, there's the issue of choice. Java is Okay, but there are issues with it. C# has a different set of issues. Both suck. Both are great. Both cower before the awesome power of LISP. Different developers like different things in a language. Some languages suit our personalities better than others. Me, I'm a LISP and Perl kinda guy. The guy sitting next to me likes C and PHP.

There are potential pitfalls with C#, but at the moment that is all they are: potential. And in most cases, those problems are perceived, and not actual. Now .NET is deployable on any platform with a CLI, like Mono. Nobody pays Microsoft anything, though it doesn't put them at the disadvantage that Java would.

But ultimately our goal should be to produce damned good software, not just destroy Microsoft; we should concentrate on building up, not tearing down.

windows is dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571925)

eom

Re:windows is dying (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9572099)

for the last, what 10 years!?!

Yay! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571931)

One tenth the features of Java at one half the speed with twice the legal encumbrances. I'm excited now!

Re:Yay! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9571970)

Er, one half the speed isn't a bad thing...

Unless you like things that are slow...

Shifting ABI's (3, Insightful)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571961)

I'm still a little skeptical about using a Microsoft-owned technology on Linux, but perhaps this is just what we need to get ISV's on board. I'm going to guess that the "Mono ABI" is going to be less of a moving target than the "Linux ABI" has been. That would be very ironic.

Debate all you want (4, Insightful)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571969)

While people can debate about this, I do think it's something important for linux. It says that no matter what one company can do to try to make their development platform closed and proprietary, the open source community can retort back with their open standards. Yeah, this is just an attempt at cloning yet another microsoft product by the open source community, but when the world uses microsoft and they're distributing this for free, it hardly is as bad as one software giant cloning say...word perfect. I haven't tried mono yet, but when the day arrives when I can run a windows app and linux app without jumping through wine I'll be a happy linux user.

I really think operating systems have become a comodity anyway. To me, linux, windows, and mac don't mean much but the software that runs on them. Sure, making different versions like mozilla does works now, but you can't expect companies like adobe to ever do the same. I think running things off the same compiled code is where software should be headed. This would make the argument of not being able to switch to linux because of lack of supported applications moot.

This is the first time I've ever thought of .NET as something positive.

Go Cross-Platform! (4, Interesting)

krmt (91422) | more than 10 years ago | (#9571981)

I've been looking for a good way to write a crossplatform GUI for an app I'm working on. Java is not a good choice for a variety of reasons, so Mono is looking pretty tempting right now. Since Mozilla-The-Platform hasn't taken off as well as it could, Mono may wind up being the best option for a totally Free Software approach to cross-platform work. On the other hand, wxWidgits is a great toolset as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if they get C# language bindings for the library.

Re:Go Cross-Platform! (1)

oniony (228405) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572131)

What are the variety of reasons against Java? It's now fast, it's almays been cross platform and has a rich and mature library. Swing is painful but it's a lot more flexible than .NET forms.

The only reason I can see for .NET over Java is that apps look more native on Windows where most of the money is when it comes to desktop apps. That and Windows shipping with .NET runtime making app downloads a lot smaller than the usual 30mb app+JRE downloads one finds for Java apps.

Re:Go Cross-Platform! (2, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572205)

Would you care to share your reasoning as to why a language specifically built to be cross platform and with an incredibly flexible and powerful GUI infrastructure is not a good choice for a GUI app but an immature, unproven platform with serious GUI shortcomings is?

FANTASTIC - (-1, Redundant)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572008)

I usually don't just post something so simple, but Mono is so cool I just felt I had too.

Dashboard (4, Interesting)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572047)

After viewing the screenshots [mono-project.com] I was really impressed with Dashboard [nat.org] (especially if it works).

Given that my main OS is Windows (sorry), is there anything like this for it?

What does this mean for .net apps (1)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572066)

Does this mean I can run Pop Goes the Gmail [jaybe.org] on linux now?

I really was disappointed when I found out this uses .NET, because the most recent .NET framework doesn't install properly on Crossover Office yet.

Is there any way to get an app like this running on linux? I'd like to be able to archive my gmail account and have a local copy for those rare days when I don't have internet access.

Multi-coloured? (1)

Migrant Programmer (19727) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572079)

I suppose two colours, blue and white, technically counts, but.. it's got nothing on Zombo [zombo.com] .

Congrats, mono is impressive (5, Insightful)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572120)

The mono team has released an incredible amount of code in a relatively short timespan. The mono codebase goes beyond a compiler and runtime - graphical bindings, documentation, and a full IDE are all being rolled out as one more strong alternative in the linux development world. Added to which there are already "for real" apps out there you can use today that are not just toys - for example the Muine music player.

Too many people will get hung up over the Microsoft angle and notions that mono is out to wipe out all other development toolkits. This is nonsense. What the mono team has done is upended a Microsoft strategy - that Windows is differentiated because of the .Net platform. Now we have a level playing field on top of all of the other inherent advantages of open source.

Bravo and thanks mono team.

Free as in 'Free from vendor lockin' (4, Interesting)

NigelJohnstone (242811) | more than 10 years ago | (#9572187)

Look, mono have cloned an enviroment & language whose direction is steered by Microsoft.

This is a problem, Microsoft is not nice.

Microsoft can take it into a direction where MS holds patents & IP protection (if it doesn't already which is very unlikely). Mono will either have to follow and lock its user in, or go in a separate direction and abandon any pretensions at cloning MS .NET.

What I think they should do is embrace and extend the the .NET framework *NOW*, add features and support for things that the Windows .NET does not have. But also bring the extended version to Windows itself.

That way the MONO implementation of .NET becomes the real one, not the MS one.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?