Will Mono Become the Preferred Platform for Linux Development?
-
The day it runs on Windows and fully implements the .NET spec, it'll be my preferred platform for Windows development. I doubt that it will ever become possible to copy a working .NET application from Windows to Linux and have it work seamlessly, partly because Microsoft will most likely avoid the possibility. In the meantime, I think that it's actually great that the two platforms are so similar in many respects. It makes it easy to write software in Java and port to C# and .NET, for software not using EJBs and other things not mappable to .NET. I probably wouldn't spend time at the moment Mono-certifying any of my applications, though. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
It is too early to say either way at the moment. Long term however I don't see Mono being a gateway for Windows apps running on Linux but the other way around. For instance, Evolution is excellent and I would welcome a fully functional version on Windows.
-
First, thanks for pointing out the article, was a good read! (oh and congrats on your CP position ;) ).. I have been watching the Mono project with interest for some time now. There are others that are trying for almost the same results, but I think Mono is farther along. For me, it is not having code that is 100% compatible, just something that I can port over with relative ease is fine with me. I would never even think of taking a Windows C++/MFC application and porting it to Linux as it may take more time that writing it from scratch. With C#/.NET however, this is a reality. Easy porting of applications to Linux. Write once, port often ;) The point is that it does give Windows programmers (even VB'ers) a door to Linux. That is a good thing for Linux and more than just Novell should get behind the port. While at the beginning it means that you may not be required to have a MS 2003 web server farm to host your ASP.NET applications, it also means that there are many WinForm projects that may be ported to Linux along with just capturing some Windows developers to build Linux dedicated versions of their software. As for the future of it though, I really wonder how Linux will even compete with Longhorn on an end user desktop standpoint. They have worked for years to get some market share for desktop. It they are still playing catchup with MS being dormat on their changes for most of a decade, how do they ever plan to make Linux compete with the scope of Longhorn GUI and integration? It is also going to be interesting when MS starts to battle Novell over patents ;) Well, it is a nice sign and want I have scheduled in pencil to play with for a week or two in the future. I figure I will develop a few WinForm type applications on Linux in the future along with possibly hosting my sites on a Linux box with mono, if I can get the security knowledge to protect it ;) Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
-
First, thanks for pointing out the article, was a good read! (oh and congrats on your CP position ;) ).. I have been watching the Mono project with interest for some time now. There are others that are trying for almost the same results, but I think Mono is farther along. For me, it is not having code that is 100% compatible, just something that I can port over with relative ease is fine with me. I would never even think of taking a Windows C++/MFC application and porting it to Linux as it may take more time that writing it from scratch. With C#/.NET however, this is a reality. Easy porting of applications to Linux. Write once, port often ;) The point is that it does give Windows programmers (even VB'ers) a door to Linux. That is a good thing for Linux and more than just Novell should get behind the port. While at the beginning it means that you may not be required to have a MS 2003 web server farm to host your ASP.NET applications, it also means that there are many WinForm projects that may be ported to Linux along with just capturing some Windows developers to build Linux dedicated versions of their software. As for the future of it though, I really wonder how Linux will even compete with Longhorn on an end user desktop standpoint. They have worked for years to get some market share for desktop. It they are still playing catchup with MS being dormat on their changes for most of a decade, how do they ever plan to make Linux compete with the scope of Longhorn GUI and integration? It is also going to be interesting when MS starts to battle Novell over patents ;) Well, it is a nice sign and want I have scheduled in pencil to play with for a week or two in the future. I figure I will develop a few WinForm type applications on Linux in the future along with possibly hosting my sites on a Linux box with mono, if I can get the security knowledge to protect it ;) Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
Thanks Rocky! Marcie http://www.codeproject.com
-
l a u r e n wrote: kill php??? *cracks up laughing* now u are visiting cloud cuckoo land :rolleyes: Damn you beat me to it. ;P Personally I like PHP because it is based on languages like C and Perl and out of the box has a shitload more functionally than ASP. Oh well, to each their own. Jeremy Falcon
-
As much as I love .NET:
- Will it kill Perl? No.
- Will it kill PHP? No (Oh, how I wish I'm wrong).
- Will it kill Python? No.
- Will it kill C++? No.
- Will it kill C? No.
- Will it kill Ruby? No. BTW, why one code in Ruby?
- Will it kill Java? No, but Java will bleed a lot. :cool:
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: Will it kill PHP? No (Oh, how I wish I'm wrong). Is this an educated option? Jeremy Falcon
-
No, because most linux users (i.e., linux zealots) are so brainlessly anti-Microsoft that anything that even smells of them is shamed and critisized. Ever read http://slashdot.org[^]? There's your proof. It'll be just another notch on the rung of linux development languages' bed post. It's nice to have so many options when programming. Of course, the .NET framework provides a similar experience with the CLI, but you don't see too many people jumping on board with any decent implementations (despite the number of languages that have been "ported").
Microsoft MVP, Visual C# My Articles
-
I just don't have much to say (more accurately, I don't feel much like saying it). I think I've become satisfied with the notion that I'm right and the rest of the world got it all wrong. I have recently developed an overwhelming urge to buy a one-room cabin in the mountains, a high-powered rifle, and sit on the porch all day drinking moonshine and shoot any stupid fucker that so much as shows his pointy little head. The short answer - I'm doing okay. :) Are you still here in the US, or are you back home where the water buffalo roam? You never did come down here and get me drunk and take advantage of me like you promised. :) ------- sig starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 "You won't like me when I'm angry..." - Dr. Bruce Banner Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- sig ends
-
As much as I love .NET:
- Will it kill Perl? No.
- Will it kill PHP? No (Oh, how I wish I'm wrong).
- Will it kill Python? No.
- Will it kill C++? No.
- Will it kill C? No.
- Will it kill Ruby? No. BTW, why one code in Ruby?
- Will it kill Java? No, but Java will bleed a lot. :cool:
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
Depends what you mean by kill. I mean COBOL is not truely killed in some places! I personally think ASP.NET is a much better option for my future web apps, and I'm a former PHP user. So that's one user no longer PHPing. It goes the same for all the others. Of course they still do have a role, but IMO they have been significantly trimmed by .NET technology! So I expect that these technologies will fade into the shaddows as .NET gets more and more addopted... it's just a matter of time... wa ha ha haaaaaa Joel Holdsworth
-
Personally, I think that would be cool. And a port to the MAC too. Isn't that what Microsoft wants? Then, we could actually write apps that run on all these different platforms. I mean, what's the point of the IL anyways? It's not just to support optimizing Intel chips. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
-
Personally, I think that would be cool. And a port to the MAC too. Isn't that what Microsoft wants? Then, we could actually write apps that run on all these different platforms. I mean, what's the point of the IL anyways? It's not just to support optimizing Intel chips. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
Isn't that what Microsoft wants? Is it? What financial interest, i.e. how do shareholders benefit, since that is apparently the only real thing that matters anymore, from having apps written for .Net, work seamlessly on other platforms besides Windows/Microsoft OS's? What possible interest does MS have in encouraging cross platform (i.e. non MS platforms) development? If Mono ever gets enough steam up to make it pretty seamless to run code from MS .NET to Linux or an OSX version of Mono, what compelling reason do people have to stay with Windows? Why buy Windows if any app that I'd be interested in can pretty much seamlessly run (or be re-compiled to run) on another platform that may be more attractive to me? If it costs, say $50 for a good Linux distro, and it costs $200 for Windows XP (or whatever) why get Windows, since one of the *main* arguments is the plethora of applications, many of which are not found on other platforms, is now gone? Futhermore, lets again say Mono gets the developer mindshare, what incentive does MS have to *not* pursue aggressive licensing for patents etc? I am aware that they have said they won't, but do you truly believe that, given their past history? I guess I have a hard time believing that if Mono does succeed or even looks like it might, that MS won't do everything in their power to ensure that developers are locked into Windows/MS platforms, and instead just shrug their shoulders and say "Good luck guys!". All of their history indicates an extremely aggressive pursuit of *any* market, with pretty much of a no-holds-barred approach. I fail to see why this would be any different. ¡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
-
Isn't that what Microsoft wants? Is it? What financial interest, i.e. how do shareholders benefit, since that is apparently the only real thing that matters anymore, from having apps written for .Net, work seamlessly on other platforms besides Windows/Microsoft OS's? What possible interest does MS have in encouraging cross platform (i.e. non MS platforms) development? If Mono ever gets enough steam up to make it pretty seamless to run code from MS .NET to Linux or an OSX version of Mono, what compelling reason do people have to stay with Windows? Why buy Windows if any app that I'd be interested in can pretty much seamlessly run (or be re-compiled to run) on another platform that may be more attractive to me? If it costs, say $50 for a good Linux distro, and it costs $200 for Windows XP (or whatever) why get Windows, since one of the *main* arguments is the plethora of applications, many of which are not found on other platforms, is now gone? Futhermore, lets again say Mono gets the developer mindshare, what incentive does MS have to *not* pursue aggressive licensing for patents etc? I am aware that they have said they won't, but do you truly believe that, given their past history? I guess I have a hard time believing that if Mono does succeed or even looks like it might, that MS won't do everything in their power to ensure that developers are locked into Windows/MS platforms, and instead just shrug their shoulders and say "Good luck guys!". All of their history indicates an extremely aggressive pursuit of *any* market, with pretty much of a no-holds-barred approach. I fail to see why this would be any different. ¡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 make a compelling argument, Jim, and I can't specifically refute it. But one thing comes to mind, borrowing from STNG: assimilation. Regardless of the cost of a platform or the relative merits, I think that for most of the world's software to be running on a Microsoft-based framework is something good for Microsoft. Here's a scenario: 1. Mono is successful. Maybe somebody else does a .NET port to the MAC. 2. Microsoft writes the "next killer app" in .NET. 3. Now, all of a sudden, Microsoft's user base is, well, everyone. So, very sneakily, they are assimilating the "others", ultimately for their own profit. And the irony is, this assimilation will occur under the guise of other people's open source projects which they created to try and stifle Microsoft, while all the time actually playing into MS's hand. I bet Bill will be laughing all the way to the bank. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
-
Depends what you mean by kill. I mean COBOL is not truely killed in some places! I personally think ASP.NET is a much better option for my future web apps, and I'm a former PHP user. So that's one user no longer PHPing. It goes the same for all the others. Of course they still do have a role, but IMO they have been significantly trimmed by .NET technology! So I expect that these technologies will fade into the shaddows as .NET gets more and more addopted... it's just a matter of time... wa ha ha haaaaaa Joel Holdsworth
Joel Holdsworth wrote: So that's one user no longer PHPing. Any particular reason besides the fact Microsoft didn't make it? Jeremy Falcon
-
You make a compelling argument, Jim, and I can't specifically refute it. But one thing comes to mind, borrowing from STNG: assimilation. Regardless of the cost of a platform or the relative merits, I think that for most of the world's software to be running on a Microsoft-based framework is something good for Microsoft. Here's a scenario: 1. Mono is successful. Maybe somebody else does a .NET port to the MAC. 2. Microsoft writes the "next killer app" in .NET. 3. Now, all of a sudden, Microsoft's user base is, well, everyone. So, very sneakily, they are assimilating the "others", ultimately for their own profit. And the irony is, this assimilation will occur under the guise of other people's open source projects which they created to try and stifle Microsoft, while all the time actually playing into MS's hand. I bet Bill will be laughing all the way to the bank. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
2. Microsoft writes the "next killer app" in .NET. Possible, but how about this (and please note I'm kind of playing Devils Advicate at this point): For most of MS's history, as I know it, the only "killer app(s)" they've made that has *also* been a cash cow (and that's kind of what matters at some point, XBox, stinger, et al, not withstanding) are Windows and Office. Nothing else has made *profitable* market penetration. IE: gave it away for free and they could leverage Windows WMP: gave away client for free and could leverage Windows, and while the WMP server stuff costs, I think it is not a huge money maker (not that they don't want it to be) Outlook Express : Free, again leveraging Windows Outlook: (costs) but part of Office Hardware: Windows CE : Leverage developer knowledge of WIn32 API, basically leveraging knowledge and awareness of Windows. And as I understand it, not hugely profitable. XBox: Talk about bending over and taking it! Thank god for Windows and Office profit. Again a version of windows for software to leverage dev experience and make porting games easier. Stinger : Windows CE redux. So MS's track record of a profitable "killer app" outside of Windows or Office, AFAIK isn't too hot. Isn't (wasn't?) one of their corporate mottos "Windows Everywhere" ? Another point against the apps on other platforms, AFAIK every app or framework that they have had for other platforms has kind of gotten dropped, with the exception of, once again, Office for OSX. IE is dead on OSX (can't say I blame them, Safari kicks ass, IMHO), WMP isn't current I don't think (could be wrong), MFC used to be multiplatform such that you could use it for Mac Classic (pre OSX) and I think that's been dropped. IE for Solaris? Is that even available or maintained? Just some random thoughts :) ¡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 make a compelling argument, Jim, and I can't specifically refute it. But one thing comes to mind, borrowing from STNG: assimilation. Regardless of the cost of a platform or the relative merits, I think that for most of the world's software to be running on a Microsoft-based framework is something good for Microsoft. Here's a scenario: 1. Mono is successful. Maybe somebody else does a .NET port to the MAC. 2. Microsoft writes the "next killer app" in .NET. 3. Now, all of a sudden, Microsoft's user base is, well, everyone. So, very sneakily, they are assimilating the "others", ultimately for their own profit. And the irony is, this assimilation will occur under the guise of other people's open source projects which they created to try and stifle Microsoft, while all the time actually playing into MS's hand. I bet Bill will be laughing all the way to the bank. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
Here's one more point, if you will. Given these possibilities, and MS's history, let's assume Mono is largely usable, especially for ASP 6 months from now, and mostly stable for most production uses (wildly optimistic, but humor me :) ). Would you be willing to "bet" a client contract on this? Would you be willing to deal with the possible legal and or technical repercussions should patent or other IP issues get chased after by MS? For myself I wouldn't touch the stuff till someone puts in writing, signed by MS (and whoever else needs to), that they are going to give a free and clear license to whom ever wants to use this stuff, and clearly enumerate exactly what people can and cannot use. AFAIK this does not exist. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. ¡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
-
Here's one more point, if you will. Given these possibilities, and MS's history, let's assume Mono is largely usable, especially for ASP 6 months from now, and mostly stable for most production uses (wildly optimistic, but humor me :) ). Would you be willing to "bet" a client contract on this? Would you be willing to deal with the possible legal and or technical repercussions should patent or other IP issues get chased after by MS? For myself I wouldn't touch the stuff till someone puts in writing, signed by MS (and whoever else needs to), that they are going to give a free and clear license to whom ever wants to use this stuff, and clearly enumerate exactly what people can and cannot use. AFAIK this does not exist. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. ¡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
Jim Crafton wrote: For myself I wouldn't touch the stuff till someone puts in writing, signed by MS (and whoever else needs to), that they are going to give a free and clear license to whom ever wants to use this stuff, and clearly enumerate exactly what people can and cannot use. AFAIK this does not exist. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Hehe. Good point. On the other hand, if the client says "use Linux", it'd be nice to know I can develop in .NET-mono. I'm not sure how much time I would spend worrying about possible patents infringements and stuff--the client pays me, I do the job, I leave. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
-
2. Microsoft writes the "next killer app" in .NET. Possible, but how about this (and please note I'm kind of playing Devils Advicate at this point): For most of MS's history, as I know it, the only "killer app(s)" they've made that has *also* been a cash cow (and that's kind of what matters at some point, XBox, stinger, et al, not withstanding) are Windows and Office. Nothing else has made *profitable* market penetration. IE: gave it away for free and they could leverage Windows WMP: gave away client for free and could leverage Windows, and while the WMP server stuff costs, I think it is not a huge money maker (not that they don't want it to be) Outlook Express : Free, again leveraging Windows Outlook: (costs) but part of Office Hardware: Windows CE : Leverage developer knowledge of WIn32 API, basically leveraging knowledge and awareness of Windows. And as I understand it, not hugely profitable. XBox: Talk about bending over and taking it! Thank god for Windows and Office profit. Again a version of windows for software to leverage dev experience and make porting games easier. Stinger : Windows CE redux. So MS's track record of a profitable "killer app" outside of Windows or Office, AFAIK isn't too hot. Isn't (wasn't?) one of their corporate mottos "Windows Everywhere" ? Another point against the apps on other platforms, AFAIK every app or framework that they have had for other platforms has kind of gotten dropped, with the exception of, once again, Office for OSX. IE is dead on OSX (can't say I blame them, Safari kicks ass, IMHO), WMP isn't current I don't think (could be wrong), MFC used to be multiplatform such that you could use it for Mac Classic (pre OSX) and I think that's been dropped. IE for Solaris? Is that even available or maintained? Just some random thoughts :) ¡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
Jim Crafton wrote: Nothing else has made *profitable* market penetration. SQL Server? I hear you, but I'm still not convinced. There's something deeper agenda going on in the bowels of Redmond, IMHO. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
-
Jim Crafton wrote: For myself I wouldn't touch the stuff till someone puts in writing, signed by MS (and whoever else needs to), that they are going to give a free and clear license to whom ever wants to use this stuff, and clearly enumerate exactly what people can and cannot use. AFAIK this does not exist. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Hehe. Good point. On the other hand, if the client says "use Linux", it'd be nice to know I can develop in .NET-mono. I'm not sure how much time I would spend worrying about possible patents infringements and stuff--the client pays me, I do the job, I leave. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
OK well here I'm probably gonna impress everyone with my ignorance of the law (as if I hadn't already :) ), but aren't there some laws about this that you as the consultant have to live up to? I mean if the client says, "use linux" and you decide to use mono, and MS then decides to go after Mono (Novell?Ximian?) for patent infringment, etc do you have any liabilities? Can you really just leave once the job is done? That'd be awesome if you could but I was under the impression that it was a bit more complex than that. Yet another reason I hate software patents is the absurd amount of time we developers rehash and debate basically stupid issues like this. ¡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
-
OK well here I'm probably gonna impress everyone with my ignorance of the law (as if I hadn't already :) ), but aren't there some laws about this that you as the consultant have to live up to? I mean if the client says, "use linux" and you decide to use mono, and MS then decides to go after Mono (Novell?Ximian?) for patent infringment, etc do you have any liabilities? Can you really just leave once the job is done? That'd be awesome if you could but I was under the impression that it was a bit more complex than that. Yet another reason I hate software patents is the absurd amount of time we developers rehash and debate basically stupid issues like this. ¡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
Jim Crafton wrote: Yet another reason I hate software patents is the absurd amount of time we developers rehash and debate basically stupid issues like this. Yeah, I agree. Marc, the Ostrich. That's the way I like it. :-D There's a lot of complexities here. First, the "if" MS decides to go after patent infringment Second, how long that takes (as technology keeps moving) Third, whether they win Fourth, what are the settlement terms? Is is retroactive? As for consulting, if I'm not doing anything illegal *now*, why would I be in trouble if my actions are deemed illegal in the *future*? I simply stop doing what has now become illegal (harder for some than others). If I'm still in the job when a settlement is reached, again, is the decision such that it affects ongoing projects, or new ones? If I inform my client that my activities are now illegal, and he says "continue anyways", then yes, that's a bad thing. Anyways, it's way too complicated to play the "what-if" game at 10:36 PM on a Friday. :-D Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
-
Personally, I think that would be cool. And a port to the MAC too. Isn't that what Microsoft wants? Then, we could actually write apps that run on all these different platforms. I mean, what's the point of the IL anyways? It's not just to support optimizing Intel chips. Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
And one more thing! [You got me ranting at this point, so feel free to ignore this!] One of the main reasons Mono annoys me so much is that IMHO C++ is a great, kick ass language. Instead of doing the endless repeats of 2nd hand MS knock-offs why not put all that energy and know how into improving C++? Why not make a special version of it (with extensions that you could turn on or off, just like you can with Exception Handling and RTTI) that address these features that people seem so intrigued with in C#? For example, - add first class RTTI to C++ - Add first class Garbage Collection (again, this would be optional, and could be turned off) - Develop a truly kick ass C++ framework to use that is unencumbered by the GPL (hint, hint, VCF :)) - Add first class property and event support, a la C# property and delegate syntax, or something similar. - Come up with a standard ABI and AGRESSIVELY push it to ALL C++ vendors, volunteer help, whatever, to amke this happen, so that we can share components/classes at the binary level. There are TONS of things you could do to make C++ even more of a kick ass langauge. Why wait for the folks on the standards committee to argue, debate, blather, etc why not push the language forward by the very people who actually use the damn thing in the real world!! ( I strongly doubt Bjarne has every written a real world, production level app, I could be wrong though). With all the effort put into Mono we could have had a really kick ass GCC C++ compiler instead of the rather lame clunky thing that currently exists (and yes I have used it - this is coming from experience on both Win32 and linux using 2.95, and the various 3.x series). Instead we have to put all that effort into *starting all over again*!!!!! Sigh... OK I feel better now. ¡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
