Comments on: Squashing A Few Myths About Mono Development http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/ Enhancing your Ubuntu experience! Fri, 11 May 2012 05:04:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Jo B. http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/#comment-7742 Jo B. Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:42:54 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=308#comment-7742 <i>Unfortunately you fail to mention that Microsoft has indemnified the developer you quote. ( Novell )</i> No, you're wrong. Microsoft indemnified Novell's <i>customers</i>, not Novell. Unfortunately you fail to mention that Microsoft has indemnified the developer you quote. ( Novell )

No, you’re wrong. Microsoft indemnified Novell’s customers, not Novell.

]]> By: Robert Blyler http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/#comment-5841 Robert Blyler Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:06:45 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=308#comment-5841 Unfortunately you fail to mention that Microsoft has indemnified the developer you quote. ( Novell ) Even the GPL v3 was changed to prevent this. See Richards Stallmans comments on this: http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript#novell-ms It's such a sleasy thing that there is a web site devoted to exposing this activity. www.boycottnovell.com. If you wondered why Ubuntu switched away from Xen it is explained here. We can only hope that organizations making deals like this ( Novell, Xandros, Linspire ) fall into obscurity though boycott. Even the GPL v3 was changed to prevent this. See Richards Stallmans comments on this: http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript#novell-ms Unfortunately you fail to mention that Microsoft has indemnified the developer you quote. ( Novell )

Even the GPL v3 was changed to prevent this.
See Richards Stallmans comments on this:

http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript#novell-ms

It’s such a sleasy thing that there is a web site devoted to exposing this activity. http://www.boycottnovell.com. If you wondered why Ubuntu switched away from Xen it is explained here.

We can only hope that organizations making deals like this ( Novell, Xandros, Linspire ) fall into obscurity though boycott.

Even the GPL v3 was changed to prevent this.
See Richards Stallmans comments on this:

http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript#novell-ms

]]> By: Nick Lake http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/#comment-5585 Nick Lake Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:47:28 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=308#comment-5585 I like Java... but I really like C# (as a LANGUAGE). My experiences of C# on Windows has been mostly positive. To add to this I believe that the .NET framework has been well laid out for high level programmers. An advantage of Mono on Linux / UNIX that has not been explored in this discussion is obviously the initial lure towards Linux as a dev platform for existing MS-based .NET developers - an outcome that is clearly in the interests of Linux and open-source communities. The decision points for using Mono (.NET) on Linux should be based on a triage of considerations: 1) usage-oriented (this really comes down to performance. Don't use .NET if you need higher performance or you're using MPI [for example]). 2) client-oriented (this is all about the platforms you need to target. In my organisation we use Win2K, XP64, Linux64, Solaris and even SGI. The more heterogeneous your environment the more open you could / should be to a common framework like .NET). 3) developer-oriented (this comes down to the skills available in your development team / organisation. Lets face it... there are sh*t loads of .NET developers around these days). For me at least its about balancing all of the above 3 considerations. A common thread in the previous posts is .NET vs Java. OK! so they're both "interpreted" and therefore limited to lower performance applications. They're both (theoretically) cross-platform. At the end of the day they are just languages - the implementation of an interpreted language runtime (as an added layer of abstraction) allows them to be cross-platform. But... I think the advantage of .NET over Java is the inherent multi-lingual aspect. This is important for me at least when dealing with multiple dev teams. In the long run I'd like to see .NET emerge more as a cross-platform dev framework standard (lets standardise it better as a wider community). I'd also like to see C# as an unmanaged language that could compile natively without the need for a CLR interpreter (??). Over. I like Java… but I really like C# (as a LANGUAGE). My experiences of C# on Windows has been mostly positive. To add to this I believe that the .NET framework has been well laid out for high level programmers. An advantage of Mono on Linux / UNIX that has not been explored in this discussion is obviously the initial lure towards Linux as a dev platform for existing MS-based .NET developers – an outcome that is clearly in the interests of Linux and open-source communities.

The decision points for using Mono (.NET) on Linux should be based on a triage of considerations:

1) usage-oriented (this really comes down to performance. Don’t use .NET if you need higher performance or you’re using MPI [for example]).

2) client-oriented (this is all about the platforms you need to target. In my organisation we use Win2K, XP64, Linux64, Solaris and even SGI. The more heterogeneous your environment the more open you could / should be to a common framework like .NET).

3) developer-oriented (this comes down to the skills available in your development team / organisation. Lets face it… there are sh*t loads of .NET developers around these days).

For me at least its about balancing all of the above 3 considerations.

A common thread in the previous posts is .NET vs Java. OK! so they’re both “interpreted” and therefore limited to lower performance applications. They’re both (theoretically) cross-platform. At the end of the day they are just languages – the implementation of an interpreted language runtime (as an added layer of abstraction) allows them to be cross-platform. But… I think the advantage of .NET over Java is the inherent multi-lingual aspect. This is important for me at least when dealing with multiple dev teams.

In the long run I’d like to see .NET emerge more as a cross-platform dev framework standard (lets standardise it better as a wider community). I’d also like to see C# as an unmanaged language that could compile natively without the need for a CLR interpreter (??).

Over.

]]> By: I used to like Java.... http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/#comment-5541 I used to like Java.... Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:03:37 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=308#comment-5541 I used to like Java... but there are too many things that just bug me about it... The whole generics implementations is awful at best. Large swing apps seem to cripple my computer... And there's a freakin' library for everything (and many cost money) which isn't necessarily bad in theory until you start looking into copyrights etc. for each thing you want to use. And my last complaint is that it seems everything seems to be over designed, everything MUST follow some pattern or you'll die. I used to like Java… but there are too many things that just bug me about it… The whole generics implementations is awful at best. Large swing apps seem to cripple my computer… And there’s a freakin’ library for everything (and many cost money) which isn’t necessarily bad in theory until you start looking into copyrights etc. for each thing you want to use. And my last complaint is that it seems everything seems to be over designed, everything MUST follow some pattern or you’ll die.

]]> By: Ludo http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/#comment-1274 Ludo Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:19:47 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=308#comment-1274 John Anderon: that's exactly the problem: for Mono to be a viable system for cross-platform apps (like Java is), it has to be up to date. Mono's a great system, but it doens't beat Java - at all (except for running the .NET languages of course, but I'm arguing that it'd be more interesting to make the .NET languages running on the JVM, instead of building everything from scratch). Java also has other advantages, like speed. John Anderon: that’s exactly the problem: for Mono to be a viable system for cross-platform apps (like Java is), it has to be up to date.
Mono’s a great system, but it doens’t beat Java – at all (except for running the .NET languages of course, but I’m arguing that it’d be more interesting to make the .NET languages running on the JVM, instead of building everything from scratch). Java also has other advantages, like speed.

]]> By: John Anderon http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/#comment-1273 John Anderon Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:09:32 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=308#comment-1273 It doesn't matter if Mono always lags behind, Its not a race. There doesn't have to be a loser to have a winner this case. Mono is being developed to create a great development environment for Linux but also allow us to create cross-platform applications and even if mono doesn't have *all* of the framework implemented they'll always have enough to make great applications. It doesn’t matter if Mono always lags behind, Its not a race. There doesn’t have to be a loser to have a winner this case. Mono is being developed to create a great development environment for Linux but also allow us to create cross-platform applications and even if mono doesn’t have *all* of the framework implemented they’ll always have enough to make great applications.

]]> By: I Love Patents http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/#comment-1272 I Love Patents Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:07:17 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=308#comment-1272 > Isn’t the lack of legal action a decent indicator that there’s no truth to claims of patent infringement? Sure. In the same way that the GIF patent didn't exist because there was almost two decades of non-enforcement befoer Unisys decided to get all the cash they could. (FYI, last I heard trademarks must be enforced or you can lose the protection - but patents can be left as time bombs.) It's a known fact that Microsoft patents everything that they can get away with, and we've all heard time and again how this is "defensive" in case other companies doing the same thing try to screw Microsoft. So, do you seriously think that there isn't a single patent on anything applicable to .NET ? That's, um, interesting. If I was a Microsoft strategist, I'ld happily leave time bombs anywhere I could, and not bother suing anyone until either I could make some serious cash, or disarm a threat. Until Mono looks like a real threat to Microsoft's income, there's no need to do anything. > Isn’t the lack of legal action a decent indicator that there’s no truth to claims of patent infringement?

Sure. In the same way that the GIF patent didn’t exist because there was almost two decades of non-enforcement befoer Unisys decided to get all the cash they could.

(FYI, last I heard trademarks must be enforced or you can lose the protection – but patents can be left as time bombs.)

It’s a known fact that Microsoft patents everything that they can get away with, and we’ve all heard time and again how this is “defensive” in case other companies doing the same thing try to screw Microsoft.

So, do you seriously think that there isn’t a single patent on anything applicable to .NET ? That’s, um, interesting.

If I was a Microsoft strategist, I’ld happily leave time bombs anywhere I could, and not bother suing anyone until either I could make some serious cash, or disarm a threat. Until Mono looks like a real threat to Microsoft’s income, there’s no need to do anything.

]]> By: Harish Mallipeddi http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/#comment-1271 Harish Mallipeddi Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:52:42 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=308#comment-1271 How does SecondLife use Mono? The client itself is a C++ app. I remember reading about them planning to re-implement LSL in Mono. How does SecondLife use Mono? The client itself is a C++ app. I remember reading about them planning to re-implement LSL in Mono.

]]> By: Ludo http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/#comment-1270 Ludo Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:10:54 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=308#comment-1270 Follow up: apparently (see parrotcode.org), Parrot already has a .NET bytecode to Parrot translator. Glad to hear this - especially if it completely supports .NET (will have to look into that), as Mono doesn't, unfortunately. Follow up: apparently (see parrotcode.org), Parrot already has a .NET bytecode to Parrot translator. Glad to hear this – especially if it completely supports .NET (will have to look into that), as Mono doesn’t, unfortunately.

]]> By: Ludo http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/03/13/squashing-a-few-myths-about-mono-development/#comment-1269 Ludo Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:08:47 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=308#comment-1269 We don't have to worry too much about IP in the case of Mono/.NET. But there is a problem: like Quentin states, Mono will always drag behind the MS implementation. Java, however, has very good VM's for almost every platform. The official implementation has even become F/OSS, as I'm sure you've heard. I totally agree: use the JVM instead of .NET. Sure, you benefit from the .NET classes, but the same applies to the JVM. And indeed, maybe Parrot will be interesting. IMHO, creating C# & VB compilers to generate JVM bytecode would be more interesting to the community (and cost less resources) than implementing .NET AND creating compilers for C#, VB, etc. for this new implementation. BTW, some mention you can't have platform integration + cross platform without great pains in .NET. AFAIK, you can with Java if you use (for instance) the SWT toolkit. I vaguely remember some announcements about Qt & Java as well, though I could be wrong about that. The JVM is cross-platform. Parrot probably is, too. Creating C#/VB compilers for those systems would've been better, IMHO, than Mono's approach. Sure, it allows us to run .NET applications on *nix, but isn't it possible to create MSIL to Java bytecode/Parrot compilers? We don’t have to worry too much about IP in the case of Mono/.NET.

But there is a problem: like Quentin states, Mono will always drag behind the MS implementation.
Java, however, has very good VM’s for almost every platform.
The official implementation has even become F/OSS, as I’m sure you’ve heard.

I totally agree: use the JVM instead of .NET. Sure, you benefit from the .NET classes, but the same applies to the JVM.

And indeed, maybe Parrot will be interesting. IMHO, creating C# & VB compilers to generate JVM bytecode would be more interesting to the community (and cost less resources) than implementing .NET AND creating compilers for C#, VB, etc. for this new implementation.

BTW, some mention you can’t have platform integration + cross platform without great pains in .NET. AFAIK, you can with Java if you use (for instance) the SWT toolkit. I vaguely remember some announcements about Qt & Java as well, though I could be wrong about that.

The JVM is cross-platform. Parrot probably is, too. Creating C#/VB compilers for those systems would’ve been better, IMHO, than Mono’s approach.
Sure, it allows us to run .NET applications on *nix, but isn’t it possible to create MSIL to Java bytecode/Parrot compilers?

]]>