.NET on linux
-
I was in the middle of checking my email and answering another post... John
-
I was just thinking if MSFT got everyone to write their applications for .NET it may end up hurting their windows sales as their are already working versions of .NET on the linux and MacOS platform http://www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/pnet.html[^] And I know it will be far simpler to implement .NET on Linux than implementing the whole win32 API like the wine project www.winehq.org[^] John
I think it's one more opportunity to get rid of C++ and start solving problems with modern and much better designed languages like Java and C#. Be sure to understand there is a huge difference between the fact that the C# compiler is ported on non Windows platforms, and the entire BCL to be ported on non Windows platforms. As long as we are talking only the C# compiler, then it's a standard and as such no one can claim ownership from now on. In other words, it makes sense to capitalize on C# code today. Regarding the BCL though, it's totally different. Microsoft has patents over it, can stop any potential threat thanks to it and, may be even more important, they are putting so much money on new releases of the BCL that it doesn't make sense to try to catch up and port it. Let's be clear - all the time spent on that is lost regarding innovation and creativity that could happen otherwise.
-
The rotor implementation (or, the "shared source CLI" as it seems to be referred to as), would only suffice for education/evaluation purposes. The license explicitly prohibit its use in commercial applications. Right? Or am I missing something here[^]? The Rotor homepage[^]! Part of the non-smoking generation since 12/5-2003 22.35.
-- Opinions expressed do not neccecarily reflect those of my -- employer; I do think for myself. Resisting temptation is -- easier when you think you'll maybe get another chance -- later on. -
I was just thinking if MSFT got everyone to write their applications for .NET it may end up hurting their windows sales as their are already working versions of .NET on the linux and MacOS platform http://www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/pnet.html[^] And I know it will be far simpler to implement .NET on Linux than implementing the whole win32 API like the wine project www.winehq.org[^] John
I seriously doubt if Linux implementations of .NET will seriously affect sales of Windows or any other Microsoft product for that matter. That's not to say that there aren't other factors that may affect sales, though. I'm actually working on a project at the moment to develop a .NET application for Mono[^] on Linux (or any other supported platform) using C# and GTK#. The original idea was to add a Mono/Linnux version of the application (currently called Image Magic[^]), but now I'm beginning to think that I could just convert the whole project to Mono and GTK# and it would then run on any of the supported platforms, including Windows and Linux. You can read about my experiences so far (and updates as I go along) on my blog[^]. My desire to do this work doesn't and won't change the fact that I prefer Windows and will continue to use and purchase Microsoft products.
Derek Lakin
Providing instant integrated access to an online repository of .NET components from Visual Studio.NET and #Develop.
-
I was just thinking if MSFT got everyone to write their applications for .NET it may end up hurting their windows sales as their are already working versions of .NET on the linux and MacOS platform http://www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/pnet.html[^] And I know it will be far simpler to implement .NET on Linux than implementing the whole win32 API like the wine project www.winehq.org[^] John
I'm a self employed developer and over the last two years, my client base has moved to .net - to a point now where 95% of the work I do is .net. This isn't a complaint - I love both vb.net and c#. What I don't like are the prices I pay to purchase the software I require to service my clients needs. As I mentioned before, I'm self employed. This means I need to pay for my os, office suite and dev tools out of my own pocket. As my clients tend to upgrade fairly frequently, I am forced too as well to keep up with their needs. Thankfully sites like this offer specials (I bought vs.net through CP :)) that makes it somewhat cheaper, but when you don't have a corporate budget, it's not always easy. The reason I'm telling ya'll this is that it's my *dream* to be able to develop on a Linux platform for my windows based clients. To use tools like portable .net and mono for development and open office for my every day needs. Anything I couldn't run under Linux I would run in a vmware virtual machine until I could find a replacement. The problem is, I don't know if my dream will become a reality any time soon. I don't think any of the alternate .net implementations are mature enough to write production quality applications against, and there is no winforms support yet either, which cuts out about half by client base. Also, as someone else mentioned, Redmond is churning out major updates each year, and after two years the alternatives have yet to reach a 1.0 release. Maybe I should learn Java?
-
I'm a self employed developer and over the last two years, my client base has moved to .net - to a point now where 95% of the work I do is .net. This isn't a complaint - I love both vb.net and c#. What I don't like are the prices I pay to purchase the software I require to service my clients needs. As I mentioned before, I'm self employed. This means I need to pay for my os, office suite and dev tools out of my own pocket. As my clients tend to upgrade fairly frequently, I am forced too as well to keep up with their needs. Thankfully sites like this offer specials (I bought vs.net through CP :)) that makes it somewhat cheaper, but when you don't have a corporate budget, it's not always easy. The reason I'm telling ya'll this is that it's my *dream* to be able to develop on a Linux platform for my windows based clients. To use tools like portable .net and mono for development and open office for my every day needs. Anything I couldn't run under Linux I would run in a vmware virtual machine until I could find a replacement. The problem is, I don't know if my dream will become a reality any time soon. I don't think any of the alternate .net implementations are mature enough to write production quality applications against, and there is no winforms support yet either, which cuts out about half by client base. Also, as someone else mentioned, Redmond is churning out major updates each year, and after two years the alternatives have yet to reach a 1.0 release. Maybe I should learn Java?
Hmm.. you know you don't need to use VS to develop .net. There's always #Develop, and the framework itself (and compilers and debugging tools) are free to download. -- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
Hmm.. you know you don't need to use VS to develop .net. There's always #Develop, and the framework itself (and compilers and debugging tools) are free to download. -- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
I wasn't aware of #Develop http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/[^]. Cheers for the pointer.
-
I'm a self employed developer and over the last two years, my client base has moved to .net - to a point now where 95% of the work I do is .net. This isn't a complaint - I love both vb.net and c#. What I don't like are the prices I pay to purchase the software I require to service my clients needs. As I mentioned before, I'm self employed. This means I need to pay for my os, office suite and dev tools out of my own pocket. As my clients tend to upgrade fairly frequently, I am forced too as well to keep up with their needs. Thankfully sites like this offer specials (I bought vs.net through CP :)) that makes it somewhat cheaper, but when you don't have a corporate budget, it's not always easy. The reason I'm telling ya'll this is that it's my *dream* to be able to develop on a Linux platform for my windows based clients. To use tools like portable .net and mono for development and open office for my every day needs. Anything I couldn't run under Linux I would run in a vmware virtual machine until I could find a replacement. The problem is, I don't know if my dream will become a reality any time soon. I don't think any of the alternate .net implementations are mature enough to write production quality applications against, and there is no winforms support yet either, which cuts out about half by client base. Also, as someone else mentioned, Redmond is churning out major updates each year, and after two years the alternatives have yet to reach a 1.0 release. Maybe I should learn Java?
Padgett Rowell wrote: As I mentioned before, I'm self employed. This means I need to pay for my os, office suite and dev tools out of my own pocket. So am I. $2000 for MSDN Universal isn't bad and it's the cost of running your own business (it's also a tax writeoff). If you work for a company, then the cost of the equipment and software is on their backs, which ultimately means yours (along with a lot of other overhead you probably don't need/have). As for Linux et al, my client tried to set up some software on Linux. After three days of wasted effort, he couldn't understand the cost benefit. Java? hahaha! Marc Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
-
I seriously doubt if Linux implementations of .NET will seriously affect sales of Windows or any other Microsoft product for that matter. That's not to say that there aren't other factors that may affect sales, though. I'm actually working on a project at the moment to develop a .NET application for Mono[^] on Linux (or any other supported platform) using C# and GTK#. The original idea was to add a Mono/Linnux version of the application (currently called Image Magic[^]), but now I'm beginning to think that I could just convert the whole project to Mono and GTK# and it would then run on any of the supported platforms, including Windows and Linux. You can read about my experiences so far (and updates as I go along) on my blog[^]. My desire to do this work doesn't and won't change the fact that I prefer Windows and will continue to use and purchase Microsoft products.
Derek Lakin
Providing instant integrated access to an online repository of .NET components from Visual Studio.NET and #Develop.
Derek Lakin wrote: My desire to do this work doesn't and won't change the fact that I prefer Windows and will continue to use and purchase Microsoft products. I would switch to linux if I could run the essential windows applications and I own MSFT (microsoft stock)... John
-
I wasn't aware of #Develop http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/[^]. Cheers for the pointer.
Padgett Rowell wrote: I wasn't aware of #Develop It's an excellent IDE although at times it can be a little slow on an older machine... but in sayiong that VS.NET 2003 is also a little slow on my 333Mhz PII (192 MB) machine. Regards, Brian Dela :-) http://www.briandela.com IE 6 required.
http://www.briandela.com/pictures Now with a pictures section :-D
http://www.briandela.com/rss/newsrss.xml RSS Feed -
I think it's one more opportunity to get rid of C++ and start solving problems with modern and much better designed languages like Java and C#. Be sure to understand there is a huge difference between the fact that the C# compiler is ported on non Windows platforms, and the entire BCL to be ported on non Windows platforms. As long as we are talking only the C# compiler, then it's a standard and as such no one can claim ownership from now on. In other words, it makes sense to capitalize on C# code today. Regarding the BCL though, it's totally different. Microsoft has patents over it, can stop any potential threat thanks to it and, may be even more important, they are putting so much money on new releases of the BCL that it doesn't make sense to try to catch up and port it. Let's be clear - all the time spent on that is lost regarding innovation and creativity that could happen otherwise.
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: I think it's one more opportunity to get rid of C++ and start solving problems with modern and much better designed languages like Java and C#. Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: In other words, it makes sense to capitalize on C# code today. :omg::omg::omg: Are you REALLY Stephane Rodriguez? :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
-
Padgett Rowell wrote: As I mentioned before, I'm self employed. This means I need to pay for my os, office suite and dev tools out of my own pocket. So am I. $2000 for MSDN Universal isn't bad and it's the cost of running your own business (it's also a tax writeoff). If you work for a company, then the cost of the equipment and software is on their backs, which ultimately means yours (along with a lot of other overhead you probably don't need/have). As for Linux et al, my client tried to set up some software on Linux. After three days of wasted effort, he couldn't understand the cost benefit. Java? hahaha! Marc Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
I'd rather spend $2000 on hardware that software! Actually I'd rather spend it on a Ducatti 998, but thats another story. :D Does anyone have any tales of success for building windows apps using mono? Derek, how are you finding things so far? (Plus I found your XP theme, now how do you install it!) Cheers, Padgett
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: I think it's one more opportunity to get rid of C++ and start solving problems with modern and much better designed languages like Java and C#. Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: In other words, it makes sense to capitalize on C# code today. :omg::omg::omg: Are you REALLY Stephane Rodriguez? :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
Eh so what why wouldn't someone compile C# source code into native code? ;-) It strikes me to think that nobody did that yet, or I haven't heard about anywhere. Capitalizing on C# in order to produce .NET code? Definitely not today, it's an immature environment that cannot even be deployed determiniscally. From what I have heard, ClickOnce will be really ready (i.e. useable) in the longporn timeframe. ;-) I have nothing against it when it comes to personal projects though, as long as it really lets one focus on real problems, not technicalities. I used to think that only the interop layer was a complete failure on design. Oh man was I wrong. I think it's wiser to learn new practices that are part of the development life cycle (or even to higher grounds : communication skills), rather than try to learn too much of the .NET technicalities, and fall on the trap of spending time learning something that changes over time.