If you tried Mono and though it wasn't improving
-
If you tried Mono last year and though it wasn't improving... you might be a victim of an usability issue in the download page[^], and accidently downloaded a version from May 2005.
What I discovered with horror as I looked through the logs was that people using Windows and MacOS were downloading software that was two years old. Mono 1.1.7 (released sometime in May of 2005) was the most popular download. Only 5% of the Mac downloads were actually getting the latest version, 95% was downloading this two year old version. I dont have my notes handy for Windows, but they were similarly abysmal.
-
If you tried Mono last year and though it wasn't improving... you might be a victim of an usability issue in the download page[^], and accidently downloaded a version from May 2005.
What I discovered with horror as I looked through the logs was that people using Windows and MacOS were downloading software that was two years old. Mono 1.1.7 (released sometime in May of 2005) was the most popular download. Only 5% of the Mac downloads were actually getting the latest version, 95% was downloading this two year old version. I dont have my notes handy for Windows, but they were similarly abysmal.
Funny... at least this would never happen to Microsoft.
Wout
-
If you tried Mono last year and though it wasn't improving... you might be a victim of an usability issue in the download page[^], and accidently downloaded a version from May 2005.
What I discovered with horror as I looked through the logs was that people using Windows and MacOS were downloading software that was two years old. Mono 1.1.7 (released sometime in May of 2005) was the most popular download. Only 5% of the Mac downloads were actually getting the latest version, 95% was downloading this two year old version. I dont have my notes handy for Windows, but they were similarly abysmal.
-
Funny... at least this would never happen to Microsoft.
Wout
You're right. MS would never admit it.
-
Oh dear! It's difficult enough for these guys trying to keep up with MS. They certainly don't need this!
It's not difficult - it's impossible. They still don't have complete .Net 2.0 functionality, and .Net 3.5 is already four months old. Mono will never be useful to anyone until Microsoft abandons .Net in favor of some other crap. Only then will Mono be able to catch up, but to what end? To provide half-assed support for a then dead technology? No thanks (and Microsoft planned it this way).
"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 -
If you tried Mono last year and though it wasn't improving... you might be a victim of an usability issue in the download page[^], and accidently downloaded a version from May 2005.
What I discovered with horror as I looked through the logs was that people using Windows and MacOS were downloading software that was two years old. Mono 1.1.7 (released sometime in May of 2005) was the most popular download. Only 5% of the Mac downloads were actually getting the latest version, 95% was downloading this two year old version. I dont have my notes handy for Windows, but they were similarly abysmal.
For usability, absolutely amazing! Beating my horse: plug and play of generic components is fast and powerful, but doesn't result in elegance.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
You're right. MS would never admit it.
If it happened at MS, somebody prolly would be fired within a couple of hours!
Wout
-
It's not difficult - it's impossible. They still don't have complete .Net 2.0 functionality, and .Net 3.5 is already four months old. Mono will never be useful to anyone until Microsoft abandons .Net in favor of some other crap. Only then will Mono be able to catch up, but to what end? To provide half-assed support for a then dead technology? No thanks (and Microsoft planned it this way).
"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, 10/26/2001I completely agree... moreover Mono is much slower compared to .NET, especially ASP.NET. C# 3.0 is also full of interesting stuff that I'm already beginning to miss in 2.0.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki
-
I completely agree... moreover Mono is much slower compared to .NET, especially ASP.NET. C# 3.0 is also full of interesting stuff that I'm already beginning to miss in 2.0.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki
I took a look at mono once on a virtual appliance, didn't really care for it and hence, never really have paid much attention to it. It is too incomplete for my purposes.
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Funny... at least this would never happen to Microsoft.
Wout
True - they don't have any pages that are two years old, so there's no way an old link would be around. Even if you really needed it.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
It's not difficult - it's impossible. They still don't have complete .Net 2.0 functionality, and .Net 3.5 is already four months old. Mono will never be useful to anyone until Microsoft abandons .Net in favor of some other crap. Only then will Mono be able to catch up, but to what end? To provide half-assed support for a then dead technology? No thanks (and Microsoft planned it this way).
"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, 10/26/2001Mono is useful if you want to make cross platform .Net apps, but as is often the case you have to sacrifice a lot to achive that cross platform ability, in this case performance (on windows) and functionality. Personally I never use Mono, but then I only develop Windows applications so it doesn't make sense for me to do so.
-
If you tried Mono last year and though it wasn't improving... you might be a victim of an usability issue in the download page[^], and accidently downloaded a version from May 2005.
What I discovered with horror as I looked through the logs was that people using Windows and MacOS were downloading software that was two years old. Mono 1.1.7 (released sometime in May of 2005) was the most popular download. Only 5% of the Mac downloads were actually getting the latest version, 95% was downloading this two year old version. I dont have my notes handy for Windows, but they were similarly abysmal.
Tried Mono once with Boo[^] on Linux and when I ran my "hello world" forms app it threw an exception about a so file missing. I recognized this file as a part of gnome-develop package (scary, ah?) and installed it so it worked. Anyway, it was a fun experiment, and Boo is a very nice language, but wouldn't dare to actually use Mono in production.
-
If you tried Mono last year and though it wasn't improving... you might be a victim of an usability issue in the download page[^], and accidently downloaded a version from May 2005.
What I discovered with horror as I looked through the logs was that people using Windows and MacOS were downloading software that was two years old. Mono 1.1.7 (released sometime in May of 2005) was the most popular download. Only 5% of the Mac downloads were actually getting the latest version, 95% was downloading this two year old version. I dont have my notes handy for Windows, but they were similarly abysmal.
-
It's not difficult - it's impossible. They still don't have complete .Net 2.0 functionality, and .Net 3.5 is already four months old. Mono will never be useful to anyone until Microsoft abandons .Net in favor of some other crap. Only then will Mono be able to catch up, but to what end? To provide half-assed support for a then dead technology? No thanks (and Microsoft planned it this way).
"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, 10/26/2001Mono will never be 100% .NET compatible, because some APIs in .NET sort of "expect" to run on Windows (worst offender is System.Windows.Forms, which exposes hwnds all over the place, allows to override WndProc, ). But Mono isn't meant to be a drop-in replacement for .NET to run existing .NET apps on Linux. It's primary purpose is to be a good development tool for Linux. Most Mono users don't care about System.Windows.Forms at all. If .NET 2.0 functionality is missing, they don't care because their programs don't use it! The Mono class library has lots of features that .NET doesn't have (for example a BigInteger class). Mono is also useful for writing Compact Framework applications: if the MS Compact Framework is missing some classes that are in the desktop framework, often you can simply copy them from Mono. It would be nice if Mono would be 100% compatible, but let's face it: simple applications often already run on Mono (or are easily ported), and complex applications usually are using P/Invoke calls or use libraries that do P/Invoke calls, or use libraries that use a COM object, or depend on other Windows-only things like MS SQL Server. Even a perfect Mono cannot make those apps portable.
-
True - they don't have any pages that are two years old, so there's no way an old link would be around. Even if you really needed it.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Christian Graus wrote:
True - they don't have any pages that are two years old, so there's no way an old link would be around. Even if you really needed it.
I know this feeling.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
[my articles] -
It's not difficult - it's impossible. They still don't have complete .Net 2.0 functionality, and .Net 3.5 is already four months old. Mono will never be useful to anyone until Microsoft abandons .Net in favor of some other crap. Only then will Mono be able to catch up, but to what end? To provide half-assed support for a then dead technology? No thanks (and Microsoft planned it this way).
"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, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Mono will never be useful to anyone
There are some commercial Mono applications out there. Presumably some must find them useful. It doesn't matter if it's not feature-comparable with MS .NET provided that users find it useful enough to make use of it.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
No thanks (and Microsoft planned it this way).
Perhaps. Though it's then difficult to understand why they standardised C# and CLI.
Kevin
