MONO (.net on Linux) and 3rd party component vendors
-
I was looking at the MONO project which is .net under Linux and it's very close to full .net 2 support. http://www.mono-project.com/[^] .net 1 apps purportedly will run on linux under Mono with no changes, in most cases just copy it off windows and run it. http://www.mono-project.com/Guidelines:Application_Portability[^] This coupled with the increasing possibility that people may start jumping ship to Linux as an alternative to upgrading to Vista has made us decide that we will be supporting MONO in all our new commercial apps going forward and porting our existing ones as soon as it's feasible to do so. As a prelude to this I've been checking out the 3rd party component suites for .net that we use and most are saying they are looking at it but awaiting more requests to support it before they start seriously testing under MONO. The issues are all little things apparently like harcoded directory separator characters, registry usage. I recommend that anyone interested in MONO development down the road contact your favorite 3rd party component vendors now and request it.
If .NET was pure, then I would agree. But its the impurities that make it proprietory. MONO has done a good job of adapting the impurities but still some Mono apps need WINE to function. My biggest complaint about mono, is that if code written was pure there wouldn't be a problem. But as yet most Open Source projects align to various versions, and capabilities. For instance LINUX autoconfig/ configure scripts realy heavilly on the pkgconfig version numbers. After installing vanilla Mono, most of these applications fail to compile because there is no consistency in versioning between applications, and their version on MONO. Microsoft wins on consistency. However never underestimate the power of the collective. I am still eagerly watching MONO and implementing pure MONO apps. That all run on Windows. Another big pain is Microsofts low level Thread Pool implementation for Networking. If you are a Java guy and you CLR your Java code. Anything network related will behave very differently to a JVM. Performance frankly dies. Because the .NET configuration for non licienced and non Server systems, cripples the ability of multiple threads to simultaneously handle network connections. .NET patterns, are yucky in that they resemble hacking. While I appreciate the performance aspects of the patterns, they do not abstract (Meta interface) there patterns very well. You almost need a General usage Facade to make them understandable and useable.
-
If .NET was pure, then I would agree. But its the impurities that make it proprietory. MONO has done a good job of adapting the impurities but still some Mono apps need WINE to function. My biggest complaint about mono, is that if code written was pure there wouldn't be a problem. But as yet most Open Source projects align to various versions, and capabilities. For instance LINUX autoconfig/ configure scripts realy heavilly on the pkgconfig version numbers. After installing vanilla Mono, most of these applications fail to compile because there is no consistency in versioning between applications, and their version on MONO. Microsoft wins on consistency. However never underestimate the power of the collective. I am still eagerly watching MONO and implementing pure MONO apps. That all run on Windows. Another big pain is Microsofts low level Thread Pool implementation for Networking. If you are a Java guy and you CLR your Java code. Anything network related will behave very differently to a JVM. Performance frankly dies. Because the .NET configuration for non licienced and non Server systems, cripples the ability of multiple threads to simultaneously handle network connections. .NET patterns, are yucky in that they resemble hacking. While I appreciate the performance aspects of the patterns, they do not abstract (Meta interface) there patterns very well. You almost need a General usage Facade to make them understandable and useable.
ozialien wrote:
If .NET was pure, then I would agree. But its the impurities that make it proprietory. MONO has done a good job of adapting the impurities but still some Mono apps need WINE to function.
That's a little out of date, it used to be true for winforms, but they've gone fully .net since, see here at bottom of page in history section: http://www.mono-project.com/WinForms[^]
-
I was looking at the MONO project which is .net under Linux and it's very close to full .net 2 support. http://www.mono-project.com/[^] .net 1 apps purportedly will run on linux under Mono with no changes, in most cases just copy it off windows and run it. http://www.mono-project.com/Guidelines:Application_Portability[^] This coupled with the increasing possibility that people may start jumping ship to Linux as an alternative to upgrading to Vista has made us decide that we will be supporting MONO in all our new commercial apps going forward and porting our existing ones as soon as it's feasible to do so. As a prelude to this I've been checking out the 3rd party component suites for .net that we use and most are saying they are looking at it but awaiting more requests to support it before they start seriously testing under MONO. The issues are all little things apparently like harcoded directory separator characters, registry usage. I recommend that anyone interested in MONO development down the road contact your favorite 3rd party component vendors now and request it.
-
-
Exactly and it's good to dabble in MONO just to realize that kind of thing and put it into practice. I won't use a literal character for a path separator ever again, it's easy not to and who knows what os an app will need to run on down the road.
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
If there was a free distro of Vista, I doubt Linux would ever survive.
If Vista Ultimate cost $100 (and "lesser" versions cost even less), Linux wouldn't have a chance.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Yeah, I would love to see a $199 five user license package like OS-X! I think Microsoft figures most people will receive it when they purchase their next computer.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Blog changed to Subtext!
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
I am curious, why J2EE?
It fit nicely with our existing architecture (IBM mainframes, DB2, zOS, etc...), and ran very well on existing infrastructure. In addition, we had large amounts of success with initial ports of some internal systems to run on a J2EE server. I've worked with .NET since the Beta 1 stage, and MSTS/MSMQ/etc... -> COM+ before that, and from what I've seen and experienced of both systems: J2EE systems are easier to build, easier to maintain, and easier to scale than their "enterprisey" MS counterparts. That's not to say that J2EE doesn't have its warts, because it certainly does. In fact, the more I understand about its offerings, the more I think that a really skilled J2EE designer/developer is one who knows what feature sets to avoid entirely :) But as complicated as it is, it's never offerred even 1/10th the headache that I remember having while trying to get all of the COM+ pieces working correctly (and consistently!) in a distributed environment. Perhaps my opinion will change in the future - I'm certainly open to the possibility.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
Russell Morris wrote:
It fit nicely with our existing architecture (IBM mainframes, DB2, zOS, etc...), and ran very well on existing infrastructure. In addition, we had large amounts of success with initial ports of some internal systems to run on a J2EE server.
Kind of figured that would be the case.
Russell Morris wrote:
I've worked with .NET since the Beta 1 stage, and MSTS/MSMQ/etc... -> COM+ before that, and from what I've seen and experienced of both systems: J2EE systems are easier to build, easier to maintain, and easier to scale than their "enterprisey" MS counterparts.
Really, in what way?
Russell Morris wrote:
That's not to say that J2EE doesn't have its warts, because it certainly does. In fact, the more I understand about its offerings, the more I think that a really skilled J2EE designer/developer is one who knows what feature sets to avoid entirely
That is true for about all technologies. I remember someone telling me the different between a profession carpenter and an a hobbiest is the professional knows how to hide their mistakes :)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Blog changed to Subtext!
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
..and of course the "real" .NET is at version 3 and rushing towards 3.5 or whatever it is going to be called at Orcas.
Umm, is ANYONE using ANYTHING that requires ANY version of .NET? As a consumer, I've come across NOTHING that even remotely requires it. As an application developer the domain I work in (hardware) does not require it. Seriously, not very many people are going to rush to upgrade their existing hardware just because Vista is out. Logically, this implies vendors doing any .NET programming are going to stick with the lowest common denominator when it comes to .NET. I'm pretty sure it's not going to be a version that only runs on Vista.
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
From Sean: "Umm, is ANYONE using ANYTHING that requires ANY version of .NET? As a consumer, I've come across NOTHING that even remotely requires it." Dude, what planet do you live on? RKL
rkleinen wrote:
Dude, what planet do you live on?
Earth. I stand by my original post. Most people at CP are developers and as such we think that the domain we dwell in is pervasive. A lot of people at CP breathe .NET and we think it's 'out there'. It just isn't so. We use a lot of software at the university I work for and NONE of it has ANY version of .NET as a requirement. (.NET is not even installed on the machines we test on.) MathCAD, MATLab, Mathematica, ArcGIS are just a few that don't require it. In fact, several of these run off a Java VM. Seriously, name ONE piece of software that the average Joe Schmo user buys that requires it. I use a lot of software both at work and at home and NOTHING uses it. (Obviously I haven't used everything and there are some .NET-based consumer apps out there, but nothing I'm currently using or looking at obtaining uses .NET.) You might think I'm an MS hater but that simply isn't true. I'm merely observing the state of affairs. .NET is Microsoft's Java. When all the hoopla dies down people will realize that .NET will serve the same niche as Java -- web and server-based apps. MONO is nice. When it's polished it will allow formerly Windows-only apps to run on different platforms. If running on different platforms is a design goal, why not just write it in Java in the first place?
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
rkleinen wrote:
Dude, what planet do you live on?
Earth. I stand by my original post. Most people at CP are developers and as such we think that the domain we dwell in is pervasive. A lot of people at CP breathe .NET and we think it's 'out there'. It just isn't so. We use a lot of software at the university I work for and NONE of it has ANY version of .NET as a requirement. (.NET is not even installed on the machines we test on.) MathCAD, MATLab, Mathematica, ArcGIS are just a few that don't require it. In fact, several of these run off a Java VM. Seriously, name ONE piece of software that the average Joe Schmo user buys that requires it. I use a lot of software both at work and at home and NOTHING uses it. (Obviously I haven't used everything and there are some .NET-based consumer apps out there, but nothing I'm currently using or looking at obtaining uses .NET.) You might think I'm an MS hater but that simply isn't true. I'm merely observing the state of affairs. .NET is Microsoft's Java. When all the hoopla dies down people will realize that .NET will serve the same niche as Java -- web and server-based apps. MONO is nice. When it's polished it will allow formerly Windows-only apps to run on different platforms. If running on different platforms is a design goal, why not just write it in Java in the first place?
-Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
Sean, While I understand that you do not seem to see .net at the university you work for, I think that your world is a fairly narrow one. I have worked as a developer in the business world for 20 years. I have worked for very large companies, small companies and startups. Since I started using .net (from 1.0 days) it has become heavily relied upon (especially in in-house development projects) on almost every project that I have worked on. And you don't have to read too much to find that it is very quickly becoming the platform of choice for many companies (large and small). As far as applications that are out there that are built using the .net platform - you seriously underestimate. First of all, I am sure that many of the websites you frequent are asp.net websites. Secondly, most software that businesses use other than Office, IE, etc, are custom systems, of which MANY have .net as their platform. You can read a lot about this sort of development where J2EE is losing ground - and .net is becoming more and more the platform of choice (especially in the business world). And this is where most of the money and effort is taking place. So, for you to think that .net is not 'out there', is just not true. Its practically everywhere - just like MS and Windows. And I am not a MS lover. But I have made quite a nice living for many years off of their software. In my experience the university world wants the free stuff (open source, linux, java) and all that - because they have no money and they are the idealistic crowd. But in the real world (where all of the money is made and people actually pay for software) MS and .net are Kings. How else do you think MS is such a powerhouse that no one can dethrone? Its because they own the business world - Front end and back-end. And seriously, no one in business cares about multi-platform desktop apps. They all use Windows! How many Fortune XXXX companies use anything other Windows as their desktop. If people want multi-platform they do a web app. The only exceptions to this are the few desktop apps that need to be multi-platform (MS, Adobe, etc). Everyone else makes Windows apps. Thats just the way it is. I know of NO ONE who uses MONO for the business apps. That does not mean there isn't anyone. But that woudl be rare! I like the concept of MONO. But until Linux or MAC can make a dent in the desktop world (a long ways away, if ever) then it is too risky for businesses. No CTO would ever take a chance like that. It would be foolish. Look at the real world numb
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
If there was a free distro of Vista, I doubt Linux would ever survive.
If Vista Ultimate cost $100 (and "lesser" versions cost even less), Linux wouldn't have a chance.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
ozialien wrote:
If .NET was pure, then I would agree. But its the impurities that make it proprietory. MONO has done a good job of adapting the impurities but still some Mono apps need WINE to function.
That's a little out of date, it used to be true for winforms, but they've gone fully .net since, see here at bottom of page in history section: http://www.mono-project.com/WinForms[^]