FUD Alert - Mono and dotGNU
-
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/35481.html[^] I don't think I need to point out the various parts of this article that I think miss the point. FUD or not? Discuss. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
Yep. And this is the key issue, IMHO: Mono’s roadmap is to implement about five of the Microsoft namespaces in 2004. At a generous estimate, that’s under half of the system class libraries. There will be no remoting; no side-by-side existence of assemblies in the GAC; no code signing of assemblies; and no code access security – despite this being a fundamental piece of the .NET framework. By the time Mono is anywhere near 90 percent of the current functionality of .NET, Microsoft will have released Whidbey, Yukon and probably Longhorn. Microsoft has just too much resources, and the OSS alternatives will always be behind.
-
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/35481.html[^] I don't think I need to point out the various parts of this article that I think miss the point. FUD or not? Discuss. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
It's always simple writer an article bashing someone else's work than actually work. Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
-
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/35481.html[^] I don't think I need to point out the various parts of this article that I think miss the point. FUD or not? Discuss. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
FUD. And a clickety[^] to Miguel De Icaza's blog :-)
Ian Darling "The different versions of the UN*X brand operating system are numbered in a logical sequence: 5, 6, 7, 2, 2.9, 3, 4.0, III, 4.1, V, 4.2, V.2, and 4.3" - Alan Filipski
-
Yep. And this is the key issue, IMHO: Mono’s roadmap is to implement about five of the Microsoft namespaces in 2004. At a generous estimate, that’s under half of the system class libraries. There will be no remoting; no side-by-side existence of assemblies in the GAC; no code signing of assemblies; and no code access security – despite this being a fundamental piece of the .NET framework. By the time Mono is anywhere near 90 percent of the current functionality of .NET, Microsoft will have released Whidbey, Yukon and probably Longhorn. Microsoft has just too much resources, and the OSS alternatives will always be behind.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Microsoft has just too much resources, and the OSS alternatives will always be behind. No, that's not the main problem with Mono: they have lots of resources (sure, less than MS), and now even some funding. And I bet that the OSS development model is way faster than the "big enterprise" model, with all those stupid meetings with stupid PM. They'll always be behind MS some months (6 ~ 18 months) mostly because of their goals: they intend to do a framework highly compatible with MS .NET. This means that most of their work can only be done after MS releases it. Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Microsoft has just too much resources, and the OSS alternatives will always be behind. No, that's not the main problem with Mono: they have lots of resources (sure, less than MS), and now even some funding. And I bet that the OSS development model is way faster than the "big enterprise" model, with all those stupid meetings with stupid PM. They'll always be behind MS some months (6 ~ 18 months) mostly because of their goals: they intend to do a framework highly compatible with MS .NET. This means that most of their work can only be done after MS releases it. Perl combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
Daniel Turini wrote: They'll always be behind MS some months (6 ~ 18 months) mostly because of their goals: Mono is at 0.30 after 2 years of development, and Microsoft is preparing .NET 2.0 already.
-
Daniel Turini wrote: They'll always be behind MS some months (6 ~ 18 months) mostly because of their goals: Mono is at 0.30 after 2 years of development, and Microsoft is preparing .NET 2.0 already.
But the mono team has already done the work behind many of the new features in .NET 2.0. Generics support, for example, is mostly complete. They are catching up. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
-
But the mono team has already done the work behind many of the new features in .NET 2.0. Generics support, for example, is mostly complete. They are catching up. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
Simon Steele wrote: They are catching up. Good luck with "catching up". And no, I'm not going to vote your message down like you did mine. I respect other people's opinions.
-
Simon Steele wrote: _http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/35481.html\[^\]_ Oh dear. The author seems to be rather missing the point. Improving Linux development tools and helping Windows developers to migrate can only be a good thing. If guys like him, would stop bitching and start coding then they'd stand a better chance of keeping up with Microsoft. Of course, just copying where Microsoft are going isn't the best strategy. The Linux boys need to start embracing and extending. That's the only way they can slow Microsoft down. Find something that makes Microsoft stop and think and you'll have a better chance of winning or tieing the race. Michael But you know when the truth is told, That you can get what you want or you can just get old, Your're going to kick off before you even get halfway through. When will you realise... Vienna waits for you? - "The Stranger," Billy Joel
More to the point, if Microsoft would open up and embrace, at least by not actively hindering, porting efforts such as Mono, they could potentially sell their Office .NET suite (whenever..) to Linux users. With entire cities and countries currently switching their systems to Linux surely there is a business prospect in that for Microsoft, too. Bernd
-
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/35481.html[^] I don't think I need to point out the various parts of this article that I think miss the point. FUD or not? Discuss. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
"Article by Neil Davidson of Red Gate software" Mr. Davidson has been up to something recently. Have a look at this[^] article he recently submitted to CP. It's caused quite a stir here, even to the point that a satirical article[^] has been posted in response to it. :P Definitely FUD. Judging by this and the CP article, I believe this Neil guy has an agenda he's trying to push. If I see one more article like this, I'll be suggesting to my boss that we discontinue purchasing and upgrading their .NET profiler tool. The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
-
Daniel Turini wrote: They'll always be behind MS some months (6 ~ 18 months) mostly because of their goals: Mono is at 0.30 after 2 years of development, and Microsoft is preparing .NET 2.0 already.
You have to remember that Microsoft had been developing .NET and C# LONG before it was released. I was talking to a guy from Autodesk last week and he and brought up the subject of the age of C# and .NET. To quote him, "However, one thing to keep in mind was that .Net was almost 3 years old technology within MS when it was first released as Beta, and it still was yet another year before it shipped. C# is essentially going on 5 years old, 6 years old if you go back to the seedling R&D phase when 6 people were working on it. Before I joined Autodesk in early '99 I worked for a small consulting company with very tight connections to MS. Under NDA I saw a very rough form of C# when J++ 6.0 was just hitting the marketplace in '98. This was a full three years before MS even started to talke about .Net. MS knew what was coming down the road with Sun, and they knew they needed their own technology to compete, since Sun wasn't going to let the MS get away with the MS JVM, RNI and the WFC. They never had any intention on sticking with their version of Java...only proloning the fight and keeping up the confusion over Java. My point is C# didn't get this pretty over night. A lot of smart people worked on it for a long time to get it into the shape it was before the masses started to get ahold of it. During this time, MS was committing massive resources towards making sure they had something as good as Java, if not better, coming right out the gate." Taken in this light, Mono has in fact made a lot of progress, especially for a project so controversial and even hated by some on both sides of the Linux vs Microsoft argument. More power to them.. The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
-
"Article by Neil Davidson of Red Gate software" Mr. Davidson has been up to something recently. Have a look at this[^] article he recently submitted to CP. It's caused quite a stir here, even to the point that a satirical article[^] has been posted in response to it. :P Definitely FUD. Judging by this and the CP article, I believe this Neil guy has an agenda he's trying to push. If I see one more article like this, I'll be suggesting to my boss that we discontinue purchasing and upgrading their .NET profiler tool. The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
>I'll be suggesting to my boss that we discontinue purchasing and upgrading their .NET profiler tool. Because you don't agreee with his opinions on software development you'd stop doing business with the company he works for? A bit harsh don't you think? A slight over-reaction perhaps???
-
>I'll be suggesting to my boss that we discontinue purchasing and upgrading their .NET profiler tool. Because you don't agreee with his opinions on software development you'd stop doing business with the company he works for? A bit harsh don't you think? A slight over-reaction perhaps???
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Because you don't agreee with his opinions on software development you'd stop doing business with the company he works for? No, not because I disagree with him, but because I am beginning to question his policies toward .NET and Microsoft. I've seen 2 articles from him slamming .NET-related technologies now, if I see a third I'm not going to purchase .NET-related software from his company. The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Because you don't agreee with his opinions on software development you'd stop doing business with the company he works for? No, not because I disagree with him, but because I am beginning to question his policies toward .NET and Microsoft. I've seen 2 articles from him slamming .NET-related technologies now, if I see a third I'm not going to purchase .NET-related software from his company. The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
He doesn't like .NET serialization and he thinks a Linux .NET port is a waste of time and resources - so this means he has a hidden agenda? This smacks of paranoia, especially as he works for a company that has taken the.NET plunge. If your boss has any sense he'll disregard your unfounded prejudices - if they produce good tools then that should be reason enough to consider buying them!
-
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/35481.html[^] I don't think I need to point out the various parts of this article that I think miss the point. FUD or not? Discuss. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
AFAIK, this argument has been out there since the Mono project was first announced. It was nothing more than arrogant bitching then, and it has gained nothing over time. Let's break it down:
practical programmers could be asking: What's the point?
Anyone can ask that question about any project. That's why serious projects publish their reasons. Now, the arm-chair heckler "practical programmer" can disagree with these motivations all he wants - time will tell.
In similar timescales, dotGNU will let you put a button on a form.
By the time Mono is anywhere near 90 percent of the current functionality of .NET, Microsoft will have released Whidbey, Yukon and probably Longhorn.
Speculation, snide comments, and sniping. Either the project is useful, or it is not.
Their enemies are now working, for free, to extend Microsoft's monopoly onto new platforms.
Going back to motivations, is it possible there are people out there thinking "i don't want to develop for a platform controlled by a single company"? Hmmm? Perhaps these "practical programmers", who care less about someone's "Fuck Microsoft" attitude and just want to get their job done? Hmmmm?
If, in Microsoft's wildest dreams, C# on Linux kills Java, and Sun or IBM accuses Microsoft of abusing a monopoly position, all Microsoft will need to do is point at Mono (and hence Novell) and dotGNU.
Ok, step away from the crack pipe! If, in some realization of a Microsoft company-wide wild dream acid trip, C# on Linux crushes Java, then Microsoft won't be monopolizing that particular market, and any complaints from Sun would be sour grapes... not that that'd be unusual. Seriously, what is this guy suggesting? That we don't do anything to lessen Microsoft's "monopoly", lest someone be rendered less able to win a lawsuit against them?
Competition is good for the software industry, good for Microsoft in particular (as Adam Smith pointed out, monopoly is a great enemy to good management), and most importantly, good for consumers. It is great for everyone when the open-source movement provides credible competition.
-
He doesn't like .NET serialization and he thinks a Linux .NET port is a waste of time and resources - so this means he has a hidden agenda? This smacks of paranoia, especially as he works for a company that has taken the.NET plunge. If your boss has any sense he'll disregard your unfounded prejudices - if they produce good tools then that should be reason enough to consider buying them!
I have no prejudices against him; in fact, I've never heard his name before yesterday when I read his brilliant post on serialization. Actually, that post alone makes me question how in the hell they put a profiler tool together. I'm not ditching his tool; but if his politicizing of these things continue I'd be more than happy to find another profiler. :) I must say, it's not just the point he's trying to make in either post, it's the way he's putting it across: cheap shots (Great. Microsoft is working on adding edit-and-continue to VB.NET, generics to C#, embedding the CLR into the next version of SQL Server, and making a stack of improvements to managed C++. In similar timescales, dotGNU will let you put a button on a form), it's his uninformed biases (The odds are you don’t really know how serialization works. I certainly don’t. This means that there are going to be all sorts of quirks and gotchas that you can’t even conceive of when you start using it.), it's the snoughty attitude of his that puts me in the cold. To me, he comes across as having an agenda. Call me crazy. :) The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
-
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/35481.html[^] I don't think I need to point out the various parts of this article that I think miss the point. FUD or not? Discuss. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
I read this earlier, and thought much the same as everyone else. I've been playing with Mono for about 9 months to a year now, and feel its come on leaps and bounds. Personally I think its great, I get something that works in different places, and write to with multiple languages, and can make use of my favorite dev IDE to do it with. Unlike Java where nearly every IDE I've used from IBM Visage, Sun Forte, Borland J Builer as all awful. Not tried Eclipse, but I've now given up. The only one I ever lied was JCreator for which I bought a copy, but that was not as fully featured as an enterprise IDE should be - not that any of the others were.
"Je pense, donc je mange." - Rene Descartes 1689 - Just before his mother put his tea on the table. Shameless Plug - Distributed Database Transactions in .NET using COM+
-
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/35481.html[^] I don't think I need to point out the various parts of this article that I think miss the point. FUD or not? Discuss. -- Simon Steele Programmers Notepad - http://www.pnotepad.org/
Well the thing that I would be rather conerned about is the patent issues. Whether or not MS should get the patents, or whether or not there are good patenets is irrelevant. Tha fact (AFAIK) is that MS has patented (or is in the process of patenting) various key parts of the .Net libraries. So if I'm MS and I see that the Mono project has started to grab developer mindshare, with companies using Mono, instead of .Net, to implement projects in, it seems to me that a patent infringement lawsuit would be in order. Why wouldn't they (MS) do this? And with the potential for that to happen, why on earth would I, as a developer, want to use the stuff in any commercial project? ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned
-
You have to remember that Microsoft had been developing .NET and C# LONG before it was released. I was talking to a guy from Autodesk last week and he and brought up the subject of the age of C# and .NET. To quote him, "However, one thing to keep in mind was that .Net was almost 3 years old technology within MS when it was first released as Beta, and it still was yet another year before it shipped. C# is essentially going on 5 years old, 6 years old if you go back to the seedling R&D phase when 6 people were working on it. Before I joined Autodesk in early '99 I worked for a small consulting company with very tight connections to MS. Under NDA I saw a very rough form of C# when J++ 6.0 was just hitting the marketplace in '98. This was a full three years before MS even started to talke about .Net. MS knew what was coming down the road with Sun, and they knew they needed their own technology to compete, since Sun wasn't going to let the MS get away with the MS JVM, RNI and the WFC. They never had any intention on sticking with their version of Java...only proloning the fight and keeping up the confusion over Java. My point is C# didn't get this pretty over night. A lot of smart people worked on it for a long time to get it into the shape it was before the masses started to get ahold of it. During this time, MS was committing massive resources towards making sure they had something as good as Java, if not better, coming right out the gate." Taken in this light, Mono has in fact made a lot of progress, especially for a project so controversial and even hated by some on both sides of the Linux vs Microsoft argument. More power to them.. The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
Yes, this is true. The root of C# is Java (only the syntax changed, to accomodate some people), the root of the CLR is the JVM, and the root of the BCL is the Java SDK. By root, I will go as far as saying the entire source code and paradigm was taken and then rebranded. In 1997 already, the MS Java VM and SDK had a lot more features than the Sun Java VM and SDK in that it was more Windows-centric. I guess a lot of people remember the Java COM bridge. This bridge is now called COM Interop. Again, the paradigm, class hierarchy is the one from Java. There is no way to make me think that they have written everything from scratch. That being said, what they have been adding lately to the BCL, CLR and C# language is a clear distinction that they are pushing the envelope further, and they deserve kuddows for that.