Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Oct 2008 10:37 UTC, submitted by John Mills
Mono Project The Mono project has released Mono 2.0. As most of you will know, Mono is an open-source implementation of Microsoft's .NET framework for Linux, Mac OS X, Windows, and other operating systems. The 2.0 release comes packed with new features, the main ones being the compiler upgrade to C# 3.0 with support for LINQ, as well as the inclusion of ADO.NET 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0 and System.Windows.Forms 2.0. The release notes detail all the changes and new features.
Order by: Score:
Amazing
by slashdev on Mon 6th Oct 2008 11:15 UTC
slashdev
Member since:
2006-05-14

Say what you want about legality, these guys are making great progress on fairly complex technology. Support for ASP.NET and Linq will allow lots of companies to actually consider the move to non-windows (non-IIS) servers.

I'd love to start seeing third parties, like Telerik, compile some of their libraries under mono (or at least check for mono compadiblity).

Reply Score: 6

RE: Amazing
by PLan on Mon 6th Oct 2008 11:46 UTC in reply to "Amazing"
PLan Member since:
2006-01-10

Excuse my ignorance but just how popular is Mono usage ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Amazing
by abraxas on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

It's pretty common on Linux desktops these days. F-Spot, Beagle, Banshee, and Tomboy all use Mono.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It's pretty common on Linux desktops these days. F-Spot, Beagle, Banshee, and Tomboy all use Mono.


There is no Mono at all on my Linux system.

I'm running a KDE 4.1.2 desktop (x86_64).

Works like a charm.

It also has Open Java installed (somewhat surprisingly, both openjdk and IcedTea), and the Gnash flash player.

Equivalents are:

F-Spot ==> digikam
Beagle ==> strigi
Banshee ==> Amarok
Tomboy ==> basket note pads
(there is also a KDE 4 Plasmoid, but basket note pads is way more functional).

Edited 2008-10-06 13:31 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Amazing
by abraxas on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

"It's pretty common on Linux desktops these days. F-Spot, Beagle, Banshee, and Tomboy all use Mono.


There is no Mono at all on my Linux system.

I'm running a KDE 4.1.2 desktop (x86_64).

Works like a charm.

It also has Open Java installed (somewhat surprisingly, both openjdk and IcedTea), and the Gnash flash player.

Equivalents are:

F-Spot ==> digikam
Beagle ==> strigi
Banshee ==> Amarok
Tomboy ==> basket note pads
(there is also a KDE 4 Plasmoid, but basket note pads is way more functional).
"


Who cares? This thread is about Mono.

Reply Score: 7

RE[5]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"[q]It's pretty common on Linux desktops these days. F-Spot, Beagle, Banshee, and Tomboy all use Mono.


There is no Mono at all on my Linux system.

I'm running a KDE 4.1.2 desktop (x86_64).

Works like a charm.

It also has Open Java installed (somewhat surprisingly, both openjdk and IcedTea), and the Gnash flash player.

Equivalents are:

F-Spot ==> digikam
Beagle ==> strigi
Banshee ==> Amarok
Tomboy ==> basket note pads
(there is also a KDE 4 Plasmoid, but basket note pads is way more functional).
"


Who cares? This thread is about Mono. [/q]

And my post shows a way that you can easily have a glorious absence of Mono on your Linux installation, and yet lose no functionality at all.

BTW ... this is actually a very hot topic.

http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/04/how-to-remove-mono-m-fro...

Absence of Mono is more desirable than Mono.

That is who cares.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Amazing
by abraxas on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Personally I think the Mono applications are much better than the counterparts you named. The article you link to is bunk and the author of it clearly doesn't understand what Mono is, claiming that developing applications for Mono is supporting Microsoft. Mono DOESN'T depend on Microsoft technology. The only common dependecy that both Microsoft and Mono rely on is the language and that is a standard. .NET binds to Microsoft technologies. Mono binds to GNOME technologies.

This nonsense makes about as much sense as saying "Developing in C++ supports Microsoft".

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Amazing
by abraxas on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

And my post shows a way that you can easily have a glorious absence of Mono on your Linux installation, and yet lose no functionality at all.


Really? Strigi doesn't index even half of what Beagle indexes, at least according to their website. I'll give you Amarok, at least until Banshee 1.4 is released (any day now) but I don't like Amarok's interface. In fact I don't like BasKet Note Pads or DigiKam either because the interfaces are much more complex. They have the KDE mentality of "everything and the kitchen sink" that annoys me. To each his own I guess, just leave the Mono issue alone because you're only preaching to the converted. The rest of us couldn't care less.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Amazing
by dauger on Mon 6th Oct 2008 20:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
dauger Member since:
2006-01-17

"It's pretty common on Linux desktops these days. F-Spot, Beagle, Banshee, and Tomboy all use Mono.


There is no Mono at all on my Linux system.

I'm running a KDE 4.1.2 desktop (x86_64).

Works like a charm.

It also has Open Java installed (somewhat surprisingly, both openjdk and IcedTea), and the Gnash flash player.

Equivalents are:

F-Spot ==> digikam
Beagle ==> strigi
Banshee ==> Amarok
Tomboy ==> basket note pads
(there is also a KDE 4 Plasmoid, but basket note pads is way more functional).
"

http://www.geocities.com/arnoldsounds/Proud.wav

Edited 2008-10-06 20:15 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Amazing
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 6th Oct 2008 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Love the mono the tech, Dislike all of the apps you mentioned especially beagle. They have no home on any linux box I control.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Amazing
by collinm on Tue 7th Oct 2008 06:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
collinm Member since:
2005-07-15

a few program use it

not really a must to have

Reply Score: 2

RE: Amazing
by Kebabbert on Mon 6th Oct 2008 12:26 UTC in reply to "Amazing"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Yes they are doing great work. Pity that MS isnt doing that work.

Imagine MS said "ntfs is open, you just have to reverse engineer it." Why are MS not releasing some of the code to Mono? To duplicate work is just plain stupid. Mono will never catch up with the latest MS .NET version.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Amazing
by liamdawe on Mon 6th Oct 2008 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
liamdawe Member since:
2006-07-04

Because MS want to keep what they made to themselves like they always do, seriously did i need to tell you that?

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes they are doing great work. Pity that MS isnt doing that work.

Imagine MS said "ntfs is open, you just have to reverse engineer it." Why are MS not releasing some of the code to Mono? To duplicate work is just plain stupid. Mono will never catch up with the latest MS .NET version.


MS have said that parts of .NET are open specifications. These parts are ISO standards even.

In typical MS fashion, though, only parts of the .NET framework are open:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#Standardization_and_lic...

Specifically, CLI and the C# programming language are ECMA standards (ECMA 335 and ECMA 334) which later became ISO standards.

However:
However, this does not apply for the part of the .NET Framework which is not covered by the ECMA/ISO standard, which includes Windows Forms, ADO.NET, and ASP.NET. Patents that Microsoft holds in these areas may deter non-Microsoft implementations of the full framework.


Interestingly, Microsoft has made available much of the source code for the .NET Framework Base Class Library (including ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Presentation Foundation) under the shared source Microsoft Reference License.

That is a red flag, right there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Reference_License#Microsoft_...

Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL)

This is the most restrictive of the Microsoft Shared Source licenses. The source code is made available to view for reference purposes only. Developers may not distribute or modify the code for commercial or non-commercial purposes.


Since Mono 2.0 includes Systems.Windows.Forms 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0 and ADO.NET 2.0 I'd say pretty much that anyone who installs Mono 2.0 on their Linux system has what Steve Ballmer refers to as an "undisclosed liability" to Microsoft right there.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...

http://www.oreillynet.com/windows/blog/2006/11/microsofts_ballmer_l...

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/17/ballmer-linux-users-.html

The easy thing by far to do then is to avoid Mono like the plague, and don't use SuSe Linux.

Personally, with most GNOME distributions now including Mono applications (Tomboy notes, Banshee, F-Spot, Beagle search et al) by default, I'd make it even simpler and just use a KDE distribution.

Edited 2008-10-06 13:18 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: Amazing
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The easy thing by far to do then is to avoid Mono like the plague, and don't use SuSe Linux.

Personally, with most GNOME distributions now including Mono applications (Tomboy notes, Banshee, F-Spot, Beagle search et al) by default, I'd make it even simpler and just use a KDE distribution.


Yeah, because there's just SO much precedent out there of Microsoft suing individuals or other companies for patent infringement.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Amazing
by Soulbender on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yeah, especially when individuals aren't legally responsible for patent infringements (real or imagined) in products they have "purchased".

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yeah, especially when individuals aren't legally responsible for patent infringements (real or imagined) in products they have "purchased".


Unfortunately, AFAIK that is not what the law says.

If a company can show a patent infringement in a product, or even show a cause to believe there is a patent infringement, then the patent holder can force the alleged infringing product to be removed from the market.

That means being able to recall products that are out in the market, in use. Owned by ordinary people who bought them in good faith.

Fortunately, this works two ways. If Microsoft actually tried this against Linux users, then Linux (in the form of the Linux foundation and the SFLC) would counter-suit, and allege that windows infringes patents held by the Patent commons and the open Invention Network. The counter-suit would just as easily be able to force people to stop using Windows.

Clearly, that isn't going to happen. Therefore, Microsoft will not sue.

However, it would appear that Microsoft are still very interested in being able to make threatening noises about the possibility that they would sue (just as they have already done for many a year now).

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Amazing
by Soulbender on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

For this to happen they'd have to win a suit against the manufacturer or reseller first and then the manufacturer would have to recall the product. Individual consumers are not sued.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

For this to happen they'd have to win a suit against the manufacturer or reseller first and then the manufacturer would have to recall the product. Individual consumers are not sued.


Correct.

But the individual users are still without their computing resources, because those resources are recalled.

However it won't happen. If Microsoft try it on to get Linux systems recalled, then Linux will retaliate to get all Windows systems recalled.

Chaos ensues. Economic meltdown. Therefore it won't happen.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The easy thing by far to do then is to avoid Mono like the plague, and don't use SuSe Linux.

Personally, with most GNOME distributions now including Mono applications (Tomboy notes, Banshee, F-Spot, Beagle search et al) by default, I'd make it even simpler and just use a KDE distribution.


Yeah, because there's just SO much precedent out there of Microsoft suing individuals or other companies for patent infringement.
"

It is not the suing, I believe, that is Microsoft's interest here. Linux would just sue back, and no-one would win.

I would hazard a guess that Microsoft's primary interest is to keep alive the ability to make threats against Linux users (without any actual action), so as to be able to keep up a pretense that there is some legal liability in using Linux.

This is, after all, the entire bluster behind Ballmer's "undisclosed liability" nonsense.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Amazing
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This is, after all, the entire bluster behind Ballmer's "undisclosed liability" nonsense.


If so, then why the hell does it matter if people use Mono, which is fully open source?

Look, big software companies like Microsoft, Apple, Novell, IBM, Sun, etc. will never start a patent infringement lawsuit on their own. In fact, they are always the target of patent lawsuits, but they never sue themselves.

The reason is simple. All of these big companies infringe on one anothers' patents, and they know it. Red Hat infringes on Microsoft patents, Microsoft infringes on Apple patents, Apple infringes on IBM's patents, and so on, and so forth.

It's like a house of cards. As soon as you take one card out, the entire house collapses. It would set s precedent, triggering a chain reaction of various big software companies litigating against one another over patent infringement. That, they really don't want. The reason Microsoft and similar companies don't sue individuals and smaller companies is that they KNOW full well that they themselves infringe on countless patents of other competitors.

The simple and obvious conclusion is that there is absolutely ZERO need to be afraid of patent infringement lawsuits from these big companies, and people saying that users and distributors of Mono are in danger of being sued by MS are plain old trolls.

Edited 2008-10-06 14:02 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If so, then why the hell does it matter if people use Mono, which is fully open source?


With patents, the fact that mono is not a copyright violation of .NET is not the issue. The issue is that Windows,forms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, which Mono 2.0 includes, are patent encumbered technologies.

You can violate a patent even if Mono is not a copy of .NET code.

Hence, you need a license, from Microsoft, to run anything which implements their patented technologies, including Windows.forms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, even if Microsoft did not write the code.

AFAIK, Microsoft has given out such licenses only to Novell SLED, Xandros and Linspire.

Look, big software companies like Microsoft, Apple, Novell, IBM, Sun, etc. will never start a patent infringement lawsuit on their own. In fact, they are always the target of patent lawsuits, but they never sue themselves.


Agreed.

The entire point seems to be that Microsoft wish to continue making patent threat noises against Linux users, without ever actually suing, and trying to get Microsoft dependencies built in to the only distributions which they do not so threaten.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Amazing
by jstedfast on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

With patents, the fact that mono is not a copyright violation of .NET is not the issue. The issue is that Windows,forms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, which Mono 2.0 includes, are patent encumbered technologies.


Most distributions do not, by default, install Windows.Forms, ADO.NET, or ASP.NET portions of Mono (nor do they need to).

Mono is perfectly usable without those components unless you are specifically trying to run a Windows.Forms application or an ASP.NET hosted website.

You do not need them to use Banshee, F-Spot, or Tomboy as has already been explained dozens of times in this thread alone.

Yet somehow you keep ignoring that fact.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Amazing
by segedunum on Mon 6th Oct 2008 19:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

With patents, the fact that mono is not a copyright violation of .NET is not the issue. The issue is that Windows,forms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, which Mono 2.0 includes, are patent encumbered technologies.

If you read the very limited documentation on the ECMA web site regarding governance of these issues, you will actually find that it is worse than that. ADO.Net and ASP.Net are merely namespaces no matter what anyone says, and it's not where the meat is. Without the reasonable and non-discriminatory terms that ECMA membership requires you might well require an explicit license from Microsoft to use .Net ECMA standards, and those RAND terms are simply not guaranteed to be in place forever. That's the situation, and it governs .Net technology such as the CLR and Common Language specification.

There was much bluster from Miguel and a few others on a mailing list a while ago that there was a letter from Microsoft and HP guaranteeing RAND terms to be irrevocable. No such letter has ever materialised, and until that happens questions remain.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Amazing
by Finalzone on Tue 7th Oct 2008 08:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06


AFAIK, Microsoft has given out such licenses only to Novell SLED, Xandros and Linspire.

Linspire is absorbed by Xandros.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Amazing
by segedunum on Mon 6th Oct 2008 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, because there's just SO much precedent out there of Microsoft suing individuals or other companies for patent infringement.

I know people like to dredge up this one time and again, but it has been debunked so many times it is ridiculous. The point is, they don't have to sue anyone. It doesn't mean to say that they can't though. Even then, there is still enough behind how the ECMA manages the whole situation that has left the legal situation far from clear regarding an open source implementation of Mono not distributed to Novell's customers. Why bother when there is other open source technology that doesn't have that explicit milestone around its neck?

Why on Earth do you think Microsoft signed a deal with Novell and then sent out letters to Novell's own customers saying "Don't worry if you use open source software and Novell. You're safe with us [but we can't vouch for you if you're not]".

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Amazing
by jstedfast on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

You don't have to install Windows.Forms support, it's not a core part of Mono. Nor are ASP.NET or ADO.NET.

You are able to install just the ECMA/ISO standardized portions of Mono. Most (all?) Linux distributions already package it like this, anyway.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You don't have to install Windows.Forms support, it's not a core part of Mono. Nor are ASP.NET or ADO.NET.

You are able to install just the ECMA/ISO standardized portions of Mono. Most (all?) Linux distributions already package it like this, anyway.


If Mono's purpose is to allow porting to Linux of Windows applications originally written under the .NET framework, then Mono 2.0 installed without Windows.Forms, ASP.NET or ADO.NET has no purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)

Since version 1.9, Mono now apparently contains Moonlight. Moonlight is an implementation of Silverlight, and it includes binary codecs supplied by Microsoft to the Moonlight project.

It would seem that the whole purpose of Mono has now changed. Its purpose now appears to be solely to get Microsoft dependencies installed by default on (some) Linux systems.

BTW: My KDE 4.1.2 Linux system, which is absolutely functional, has no Mono installed on it at all. Not all Linux systems have the Mono trojan installed on them.

This is, I believe, exactly why there has been a bit of an attack campaign launched against KDE 4 recently.

Edited 2008-10-06 13:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Amazing
by jstedfast on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

If Mono's purpose is to allow porting to Linux of Windows applications originally written under the .NET framework, then Mono 2.0 installed without Windows.Forms, ASP.NET or ADO.NET has no purpose.


Whoa, dude, hold your horses. Mono has plenty of other purposes than just making it possible for Windows GUI apps to run on Linux.

How about Windows console apps? ;-)

Hehe, got ya there :p

But seriously, the reason I'm so interested in Mono is for writing Linux applications. I don't care about Windows.

I really like the features that C# offers as a modern language. It's a lot better than writing applications in C, especially since I often find myself reinventing wheels in C that I don't have to reinvent in C#, because the .NET core library already has those things available.

Since version 1.9, Mono now apparently contains Moonlight.


No, you are confused. Mono 1.9 contains a configure option, "--with-moonlight", which builds a compiler (smcs) that specifically targets the Silverlight 2.0 runtime. It does not include Moonlight itself. It's also, iirc, disabled by default.

Moonlight is an implementation of Silverlight, and it includes binary codecs supplied by Microsoft to the Moonlight project.


Moonlight can be built using ffmpeg (and we'd happily accept a patch to allow Moonlight to build with GStreamer as well) instead of the Microsoft binary codecs. In fact, by default, Moonlight uses ffmpeg.

Reply Score: 7

RE[6]: Amazing
by google_ninja on Tue 7th Oct 2008 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05


I really like the features that C# offers as a modern language. It's a lot better than writing applications in C, especially since I often find myself reinventing wheels in C that I don't have to reinvent in C#, because the .NET core library already has those things available.


What I find cool about C# is how readily anders has been accepting good ideas from other languages. I've really been digging stuff like implicit typing with var, and am completely head over heels in love with lambdas, and absolutely adore extension methods.

It is nice to see a mainstream language walk the line between being too conservative about what is appropriate in a statically typed language, and too radical by including everything under the sun.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Amazing
by antwarrior on Thu 9th Oct 2008 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
antwarrior Member since:
2006-02-11

I agree. From an app dev point of view it puts more options on the table. I'd rather code desktop apps in C# than java or C. Isnt this a no-brainer? I use java for other things and like it more than C# but personal prefernces aside, providing another development offering is always a good thing regardless of your preferences and experiences.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Amazing
by google_ninja on Mon 6th Oct 2008 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

If Mono's purpose is to allow porting to Linux of Windows applications originally written under the .NET framework, then Mono 2.0 installed without Windows.Forms, ASP.NET or ADO.NET has no purpose.


Where the hell did you get that from? The mono project is an effort to make an open source implementation of the CLR, because it is a great platform to work on. The project always encourages Gtk# for new development, winforms is only there for the same reasons that wine exists.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[3]: Amazing
by rramalho on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
RE[3]: Amazing
by abraxas on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

You, like many other misguided users, haven't the slightest clue about Mono. The parts of Mono actually used by Linux applications like Banshee, Tomboy, F-Spot, and Beagle are based on standards not proprietary Microsoft technology. Mono does provide some parts of non-standard .NET but this is for compatibility. GNOME doesn't use Windows.Forms or any other garbage like that. They use GTK just like every other GNOME application. The entire Mono stack for GNOME is their own technology other than the language which is a standard. Why do we have to dispell these paranoid myths every time a Mono article appears?

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You, like many other misguided users, haven't the slightest clue about Mono. The parts of Mono actually used by Linux applications like Banshee, Tomboy, F-Spot, and Beagle are based on standards not proprietary Microsoft technology. Mono does provide some parts of non-standard .NET but this is for compatibility. GNOME doesn't use Windows.Forms or any other garbage like that. They use GTK just like every other GNOME application. The entire Mono stack for GNOME is their own technology other than the language which is a standard. Why do we have to dispell these paranoid myths every time a Mono article appears?


Well, Mono 2.0 includes Moonlight.

Moonlight includes Microsoft-supplied patented binary codecs.

Mono 2.0 also includes Windows.forms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, which are also patented Microsoft technologies which are specifically marked as "not for commercial redistribution" by Microsoft. Unless licensed from Microsoft.

All of these technologies require a license from Microsoft in order for people to be allowed to run them. It really is that simple.

In other words ... buy a Microsoft-endorsed Linux (specifically SLED) or have no Linux at all ... that is the clear aim.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Amazing
by jstedfast on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

Well, Mono 2.0 includes Moonlight.


Wrong.

Moonlight includes Microsoft-supplied patented binary codecs.


Also wrong. Moonlight builds against ffmpeg and can OPTIONALLY build against the Microsoft codecs.

Mono 2.0 also includes Windows.forms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, which are also patented Microsoft technologies which are specifically marked as "not for commercial redistribution" by Microsoft. Unless licensed from Microsoft.


Misleading, at best. Mono 2.0 does support Windows.Forms 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0 and ADO.NET 2.0, but they are not core components. You need not install them to have a working Mono.

Those portions are only interesting if you have a need for them (which the average Linux user does not, because, as has been mentioned dozens of times in this thread alone, F-Spot, Banshee, Tomboy, etc do NOT depend on any of those components).

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Well, Mono 2.0 includes Moonlight.


Wrong.

Moonlight includes Microsoft-supplied patented binary codecs.


Also wrong. Moonlight builds against ffmpeg and can OPTIONALLY build against the Microsoft codecs.

Mono 2.0 also includes Windows.forms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, which are also patented Microsoft technologies which are specifically marked as "not for commercial redistribution" by Microsoft. Unless licensed from Microsoft.


Misleading, at best. Mono 2.0 does support Windows.Forms 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0 and ADO.NET 2.0, but they are not core components. You need not install them to have a working Mono.

Those portions are only interesting if you have a need for them (which the average Linux user does not, because, as has been mentioned dozens of times in this thread alone, F-Spot, Banshee, Tomboy, etc do NOT depend on any of those components).
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Mono_components

The problematic Microsoft compatibility stack is cited as being part of Mono.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Current_status_and_roadmap
"An open source implementation of Silverlight, called Moonlight, is now underway and is included in Mono 1.9. The Silverlight 2.0 .NET classes are implemented as part of the Olive module. Moonlight shipped as part of Mono 1.2.6 release."

Edited 2008-10-06 14:39 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Amazing
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Dude, you're really getting on my nerves here. You can be part of something, but still not required for that something to function.

Pidgin is a part of Ubuntu, but it's not required for Ubuntu to function.

iChat is part of Mac OS X, but it's not required for Mac OS X to function.

My hair was part of Thom Holwerda, but it's not required for Thom Holwerda to function.

Those components are part of Mono, but they're not required for Mono to function.

Am I really smart, or are you just really, really stupid? I'd hazard a guess it's not the former.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Amazing
by abraxas on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Mono_components

The problematic Microsoft compatibility stack is cited as being part of Mono.


Did you actually read the article you linked to? Look at what is says:

"The concerns primarily relate to technologies developed by Microsoft on top of the .NET Framework, such as ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms, i.e. parts composing Mono’s Windows compatibility stack. These technologies are today not fully implemented in Mono and not required for developing Mono-applications."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Current_status_and_roadmap
"An open source implementation of Silverlight, called Moonlight, is now underway and is included in Mono 1.9. The Silverlight 2.0 .NET classes are implemented as part of the Olive module. Moonlight shipped as part of Mono 1.2.6 release."



What is your point? No where does it say they are implementing binary codecs as an integral part of Moonlight. Get over it already. Mono doesn't depends on Microsoft technologies. The Microsoft technologies are only developed for compatibility. Read your own links!

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Amazing
by jstedfast on Mon 6th Oct 2008 20:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Mono_components

The problematic Microsoft compatibility stack is cited as being part of Mono.


Yes, Mono implements those pieces, but no, they are not a core part of Mono. As I've said multiple times in this thread already, it is not required for people to install those components.

Mono is like GNOME or KDE in this respect, the projects might include a web browser, but you don't need to install it to have a functioning desktop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Current_status_and_roadmap
"An open source implementation of Silverlight, called Moonlight, is now underway and is included in Mono 1.9. The Silverlight 2.0 .NET classes are implemented as part of the Olive module. Moonlight shipped as part of Mono 1.2.6 release."


Then Wikipedia is wrong. I know this might shock you, but Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all of information.

I know for a fact that Moonlight is not included in Mono 1.9 or even 2.0 because I am one of the Moonlight developers.

I think I know just a *tad* more about this than Wikipedia or you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Amazing
by miguel on Mon 6th Oct 2008 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
miguel Member since:
2005-07-27


Well, Mono 2.0 includes Moonlight.


It does not include Moonlight; We have not released Moonlight yet.


Moonlight includes Microsoft-supplied patented binary codecs.


Moonlight ships without codecs. If you want to watch patent encumbered videos and audio (mp3, h.264, vc1) you will need to get the codecs from Microsoft or if you live in a country where those patents are invalid you can use the open source FFMPEG libraries, Mono supports those out of the box.


Mono 2.0 also includes Windows.forms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, which are also patented Microsoft technologies which are specifically marked as "not for commercial redistribution" by Microsoft. Unless licensed from Microsoft.


There is nothing "specifically marked as `not for commercial redistribution'" in anything you listed above. You are confused.


All of these technologies require a license from Microsoft in order for people to be allowed to run them. It really is that simple.


We have a policy to not infringe patents, see our web site. And if a patent exists that is not covered by a patent grant, and it is valid with no prior art, we are committed to redoing the code in a non-infringing way, or removing the functionality.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Amazing
by segedunum on Mon 6th Oct 2008 19:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The parts of Mono actually used by Linux applications like Banshee, Tomboy, F-Spot, and Beagle are based on standards not proprietary Microsoft technology.

What makes you think that the CLR specification and the Common Language specification core technologies are safe? Irrevocable RAND terms have not been granted regarding those technologies, and it is merely governance of the ECMA that is keeping it in place.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Amazing
by abraxas on Mon 6th Oct 2008 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

What makes you think that the CLR specification and the Common Language specification core technologies are safe? Irrevocable RAND terms have not been granted regarding those technologies, and it is merely governance of the ECMA that is keeping it in place.


What makes you think the Linux kernel is safe? Microsoft has claimed that the kernel has hundreds of patent infringements in it. What about Samba or Wine? I don't understand this focus on Mono. If you're really worried about Microsoft's software patents then I suggest you stop using any kind of software altogether.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Amazing
by diegoviola on Mon 6th Oct 2008 23:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

"What makes you think that the CLR specification and the Common Language specification core technologies are safe? Irrevocable RAND terms have not been granted regarding those technologies, and it is merely governance of the ECMA that is keeping it in place.


What makes you think the Linux kernel is safe? Microsoft has claimed that the kernel has hundreds of patent infringements in it. What about Samba or Wine? I don't understand this focus on Mono. If you're really worried about Microsoft's software patents then I suggest you stop using any kind of software altogether.
"

They can say whatever they want, but until they don't give proof, it's only FUD.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Oct 2008 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What makes you think the Linux kernel is safe? Microsoft has claimed that the kernel has hundreds of patent infringements in it.


Microsoft did not claim its own patents in the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel is, after all, a UNIX work-alike, whereas the NT kernel is a VMS work-alike.

What about Samba or Wine?


Samba is OK. Samba is a free software implementation of the SMB protocol, which is an IBM invention.

Wine is more problematic, and in some respects it indeed parallels Mono.

I personally don't run Wine either. I'd rather find a native Linux application that does a similar job to any given Windows application. Very often, the Linux application will be better anyway.

I don't understand this focus on Mono. If you're really worried about Microsoft's software patents then I suggest you stop using any kind of software altogether.


... stop using any software where Microsoft can feasibly claim that you would need a license from them (even where Microsoft did not write the code you are running), because Microsoft hold prehaps-valid patents in the applicable technology. Yes. Indeed. Agreed. Precisely the point.

That is why I don't run Wine or Mono.

That is also why it is absolutely fine for me to run the Linux kernel, GNU software, KDE desktop, Qt libraries, Samba, LAMP stack, even ntfs-3g (since Microsoft clearly didn't invent the concept of "filesystem"), OpenOffice (since Microsoft did not invent the concept of "office suite"), Firefox (Microsoft didn't invent the web browser), Thunderbird (Microsoft didn't invent the email client), and so on.

Microsoft did, however, invent the Win32 API, and Microsoft did invent the .NET framework.

Edited 2008-10-07 01:27 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Amazing
by abraxas on Tue 7th Oct 2008 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Microsoft did not claim its own patents in the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel is, after all, a UNIX work-alike, whereas the NT kernel is a VMS work-alike.


http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2189833/microsoft-claims-patents-...

Samba is OK. Samba is a free software implementation of the SMB protocol, which is an IBM invention.


Have you ever heard of CIFS?

... stop using any software where Microsoft can feasibly claim that you would need a license from them (even where Microsoft did not write the code you are running), because Microsoft hold prehaps-valid patents in the applicable technology. Yes. Indeed. Agreed. Precisely the point.


Have you ever read a software patent. They are so broad that everything in the open source world probably infringes on at least one of Microsoft's patents.

That is also why it is absolutely fine for me to run the Linux kernel, GNU software, KDE desktop, Qt libraries, Samba, LAMP stack, even ntfs-3g (since Microsoft clearly didn't invent the concept of "filesystem")


I'm happy for you. Run the software you want to run. No one cares. We just don't like you shoving your opinions down everyone's throat and spreading massive FUD because of your own irrational fears.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Amazing
by google_ninja on Wed 8th Oct 2008 06:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You are downright trolling about this stuff lemur.

Interestingly, Microsoft has made available much of the source code for the .NET Framework Base Class Library (including ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Presentation Foundation) under the shared source Microsoft Reference License.

...

Since Mono 2.0 includes Systems.Windows.Forms 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0 and ADO.NET 2.0 I'd say pretty much that anyone who installs Mono 2.0 on their Linux system has what Steve Ballmer refers to as an "undisclosed liability" to Microsoft right there.


You would have a great point, except that the mono team requires that all contributers have never read BCL or ROTOR source, and that they wrote all three implementations years before ms released their source.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Oct 2008 08:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You are downright trolling about this stuff lemur.

"Interestingly, Microsoft has made available much of the source code for the .NET Framework Base Class Library (including ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Presentation Foundation) under the shared source Microsoft Reference License.

...

Since Mono 2.0 includes Systems.Windows.Forms 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0 and ADO.NET 2.0 I'd say pretty much that anyone who installs Mono 2.0 on their Linux system has what Steve Ballmer refers to as an "undisclosed liability" to Microsoft right there.


You would have a great point, except that the mono team requires that all contributers have never read BCL or ROTOR source, and that they wrote all three implementations years before ms released their source.
"

To violate a patent, you don't have to copy the source.

Copyright law protects the expression of an idea. If a copy of the actual text of the code that MS released under the shared source Microsoft Reference License appeared in Mono, that would be a copyright violation.

Patent law is not copyright law. Patents protect the idea itself, and not just the expression of it in source code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Presentation Foundation are protected (I believe) by patents. If so, it doesn't matter one whit if Mono contributors have never read BCL or ROTOR source, or that they wrote all three implementations years before ms released their source. They would still be in violation of Microsoft IP if they do not have a license from Microsoft to use the protected IP.

I believe that Mono Project developers (on Novell's staff) may in fact have such a license, as part of the Microsoft/Novell deal.

This however does not mean that anyone else (downstream) can use the Mono Project source code, as THEY certainly do not have such a license.

PS: Thankyou for admitting that I have a point.

Edited 2008-10-08 08:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Amazing
by google_ninja on Wed 8th Oct 2008 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Presentation Foundation are protected (I believe) by patents. If so, it doesn't matter one whit if Mono contributors have never read BCL or ROTOR source, or that they wrote all three implementations years before ms released their source. They would still be in violation of Microsoft IP if they do not have a license from Microsoft to use the protected IP.


Reverse engineering is a specific exception to this. If it weren't for that, smb and ms office format compatibility would have been illegal until they were opened/licensed, and wine would still be illegal.

It is definitely a sort of grey area though, and one that could go to court. The thing is that the worst thing that could happen to mono is forcing them to stop distributing ASP/ADO/Winforms. That is a pain, but its not something that would in any way effect linux mono apps, since its only the high level stuff that gets questionable.

The low level stuff (CLR/C#) is under an open specification, and the linux mono APIs (like GTK#) are completely patent free.

The mono team understands the issues, and from day one has been real careful to keep the dangerous stuff seperate from the safe stuff. I would agree that nobody should base their business on the mono implementations of the .net stack (just like I would caution anyone to base their business on wine), but mono is a great platform that integrates very well into existing linux APIs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Oct 2008 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Presentation Foundation are protected (I believe) by patents. If so, it doesn't matter one whit if Mono contributors have never read BCL or ROTOR source, or that they wrote all three implementations years before ms released their source. They would still be in violation of Microsoft IP if they do not have a license from Microsoft to use the protected IP.
Reverse engineering is a specific exception to this. If it weren't for that, smb and ms office format compatibility would have been illegal until they were opened/licensed, and wine would still be illegal. It is definitely a sort of grey area though, and one that could go to court. "

Sorry. Very nice try, but no. It is OK to reverse engineer a trade secret, but not a patent.

Copyrights protect the expression of something (so you can't copy source code directly, you have to write your own). OK, copyrights aren't the problem, because Mono source code, and Samba and Wine etc aren't a copy of Microsoft's source code.

Patents protect the idea (or the invention, if you will), and not just the expression of an idea. Samba is a free-software implementation of the SMB protocol (IBM's invention) for delivering client/server functionality over a LAN (Novell's invention, in Netware). The only form of IP that Microsoft has that Samba could possibly violate then is a trade secret. Reverse engineering is a perfectly legal way to try to uncover a trade secret. So Samba is fine, that is all fairly clear cut.

Wine is a bit more problematic. Wine is a free-software implementation of a translation between Windows win32 API and the Linux API that covers the same purpose. Therefore Wine does not actually do the same thing as the win 32 API. The Linux API clearly is not a copy of the win32 API. In any event, since any OS has to provide an API for programs to run, since that is a basic function of an OS in the first place, there is a strong argument that the win32 API is not a new invention, and Microsoft can hold no valid patents in it anyway. I haven't decided about Wine, but I think it too might be OK.

.NET is a problem. Microsoft has a fairly strong case to claim that .NET is a Microsoft invention, and therefore any patents that Microsoft holds covering .NET are valid.

I could argue that .NET is just a different-looking implementation of the same functionality as Java, and that therefore Java is the real original invention and not .NET ... but that is a point that would have to be argued in court.

If you want to implement .NET you are legally far better off (i.e safer) to get permission (that is, get a license) from Microsoft to implement it. I believe that Novell probably does have such a license from Microsoft to implement it, and therefore Novell is perfectly fine to write Mono.

The crunch comes ... who can legally use Mono? Implementation of the .NET "invention" requires a license from Microsoft, but so to does use of that "invention". (This pre-supposes that Java is not prior art for .NET, and that Microsoft's patents are valid, but bear with me, because Microsoft legal certainly believe that is so). Certainly purchasers of Novell SLED can use Mono, because they too have a license to use it paid for as part of their purchase of SLED.

Anyone else? I don't think so. Anyone else (other than Novell's programmers, and Novell's SLED customers) would be included in Mr Ballmers group of "Linux users with an undisclosed liability to Microsoft" I believe if they use (or try to modify the source code of) Mono.

The thing is that the worst thing that could happen to mono is forcing them to stop distributing ASP/ADO/Winforms. That is a pain, but its not something that would in any way effect linux mono apps, since its only the high level stuff that gets questionable. The low level stuff (CLR/C#) is under an open specification, and the linux mono APIs (like GTK#) are completely patent free. The mono team understands the issues, and from day one has been real careful to keep the dangerous stuff seperate from the safe stuff. I would agree that nobody should base their business on the mono implementations of the .net stack (just like I would caution anyone to base their business on wine), but mono is a great platform that integrates very well into existing linux APIs.


Mono is not a great platform at all for Linux if, years hence, when a number of mission-critical Linux enterprise applications have been written in C# and using Winforms, ADO.NET and/or ASP.NET, and Microsoft decides to sue.

If I were Microsoft, that actually would be the anti-Linux plan. Get some patent hooks into Linux, get some mission critical stuff using the patents, wait until businesses depend on it ... then collect license fees for it.

Hence ... far better to use Java. It achieves the same end, performs better, and is unencumbered.

Ditch Mono now ... before it becomes a potential problem.

Edited 2008-10-08 23:03 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Oct 2008 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Wine is a bit more problematic. Wine is a free-software implementation of a translation between Windows win32 API and the Linux API that covers the same purpose.


Just on Wine ... there is another argument. Wine is not a copy of Microsoft's source code for the win32 API, so it is in no danger from copyright law. Wine is a reverse engineering of the win32 API functionality, but that is OK IF the win32 API is only protected by virtue of it being a trade secret. Wine is only a problem if it violates a valid patent held by Microsoft.

OK, there is certainly a lot of prior art for the concept of an API, so Microsoft have a hard task right off the bat to try to establish that they did have a valid patent in this arena, but let's suppose for the moment (for the sake of argument) that the US patent system is inane enough to allow Microsoft an enforceable patent on some aspect or another on the win32 API.

OK, a patent is actually a form of IP protection for a "method" of doing something. It does not protect the actual "doing of something", but only the method of doing it described in the patent.

Example of what this means: it would be possible for Edison to get a patent on his invention of an incandescent light. The patent would be to protect edisons "method of producing light from electricity". That after all was Edison's invention.

OK, a flourescent light, or a LED light, both are also "methods of producing light from electricity" ... but neither would violate Edison's patent on his incandescent light because both the flourescent light and the LED light sources use an entirely different method to produce the light from the electricity.

With me so far?

OK then ... Wine uses an entirely different method to provide the win32 API services to any running programs than Windows does.

Wine passes the calls (with translated parameters) on to and back from the Linux API, whereas Windows processes the calls directly.

Therefore, you could argue, that Wine does not violate any patent that Microsoft may hold, because Wine uses entirely different methods than Windows does.

Edited 2008-10-08 23:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Amazing
by google_ninja on Thu 9th Oct 2008 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I see what you are saying about patent vs copyright. I am not entirely convinced that the exceptions in the law around reverse engineering do not apply to patents, but at the same time im not in the mood to go hunting down the info at this moment in time ;)

Mono is not a great platform at all for Linux if, years hence, when a number of mission-critical Linux enterprise applications have been written in C# and using Winforms, ADO.NET and/or ASP.NET, and Microsoft decides to sue.


You missed my point with this. There are two purposes to mono. one is to be like wine, and reduce the difficulties of porting to linux to writing a few lines of code. The second is to create an open implementation of the CLR. Nobody is saying they are not on shakey legal ground with the first thing.

if you go here http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing you will see what I am talking about.
The .NET Framework is divided in two parts: the ECMA/ISO covered technologies and the other technologies developed on top of it like ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms.

Mono implements the ECMA/ISO covered parts, as well as being a project that aims to implement the higher level blocks like ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms.

The Mono project has gone beyond both of those components and has developed and integrated third party class libraries, the most important being: Debugging APIs, integration with the Gnome platform (Accessibility, Pango rendering, Gdk/Gtk, Glade, GnomeUI), Mozilla, OpenGL, extensive database support (Microsoft only supports a couple of providers out of the box, while Mono has support for 11 different providers), our POSIX integration libraries and finally the embedded API (used to add scripting to applications and host the CLI, or for example as an embedded runtime in Apache).

The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA, (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent): here (http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unip...)

Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose.

For people who need full compatibility with the Windows platform, Mono's strategy for dealing with any potential issues that might arise with ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms is: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless.

Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability, but it would still provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono.

The patents do not apply in countries where software patents are not allowed.

For Linux server and desktop development, we only need the ECMA components, and things that we have developed (like Gtk#) or Apache integration.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Amazing
by WorknMan on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Why are MS not releasing some of the code to Mono?


Because .NET is more than just about the framework. It's also about the OS, the web server, the database, etc.

But the more pragmatic answer is... because it doesn't make 'business sense' for them to do so.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Amazing
by jstedfast on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

Why are MS not releasing some of the code to Mono?


Actually, Microsoft are releasing some portions of .NET under a Free Software-approved license.

For example, just recently they released MEF under the MS-PL. They've also released parts (all?) of the DLR and the Silverlight 2.0 Controls will also be under MS-PL if I'm not mistaken.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Amazing
by jessta on Mon 6th Oct 2008 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
jessta Member since:
2005-08-17

that's pretty much the point.
If you want the latest and greatest you have to use Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Amazing
by stabbyjones on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:00 UTC in reply to "Amazing"
stabbyjones Member since:
2008-04-15

you are absolutely right. mono is a great thing to have on the linux desktop.

if mono can handle the code there are a lot of mission critical business apps written in .net that won't be worried by a move to linux.

linux must be compatible with windows in at least some way to let people know that there IS an open and free choice.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Amazing
by ahmetaa on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

Good for mono developers.
but i am afraid Mono usage in server side is nearly zero. My belief is, .Net is (has been and most likely will be) an MS-Windows thing. Mono may be fine for some gnome desktop applications but thats it. Sure mono will be used and fed by MS as "hey look we are multi platform" to the end. but thats another story..

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Amazing
by jstedfast on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

Good for mono developers.
but i am afraid Mono usage in server side is nearly zero. My belief is, .Net is (has been and most likely will be) an MS-Windows thing. Mono may be fine for some gnome desktop applications but thats it. Sure mono will be used and fed by MS as "hey look we are multi platform" to the end. but thats another story..


I think you'd be surprised how many sites actually use Mono on the server. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean they aren't there ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Amazing
by ahmetaa on Mon 6th Oct 2008 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

That's why i said "nearly" zero.
i also challenge your claim. i can show you hundreds of thousands of Java or MS.Net deployments any day. maybe a handful mono ones..

Edited 2008-10-06 15:40 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Amazing
by google_ninja on Wed 8th Oct 2008 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

The goal behind mono isn't really the same as .net. What they consider victories is stuff like second life using it as their official programming language, not widescale xsp deployments. .net is mainly an enterprise thing, as is java.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Amazing
by grfgguvf on Mon 6th Oct 2008 18:44 UTC in reply to "Amazing"
grfgguvf Member since:
2006-09-25

Say what you want about legality


Novell and Microsoft have a collaboration project going on so I'm pretty sure there are no legal issues there. MS even posted a patent waiver for Mono/Moonlight users.

Novell is not really profitable I think and currently it largely runs on money from MS (my speculation)...

Reply Score: 0

RE: Amazing
by Clinton on Tue 7th Oct 2008 05:17 UTC in reply to "Amazing"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

Say what you want about legality, these guys are making great progress on fairly complex technology. Support for ASP.NET and Linq will allow lots of companies to actually consider the move to non-windows (non-IIS) servers.


Why would anybody want to do that though? If you have an ASP.NET app, why not just run it under IIS?

I believe that things are best run under the platform they were designed for. I recently wrote two web apps for organizations who, for whatever reason, insisted on running them on IIS. One app was written using RoR and the other using Django; neither of which were designed to run on IIS.

I got the apps to run, but the configuration was a pain in the butt and the organizations both had to buy a 3rd party application to make IIS emulate mod_rewrite. It would have been cheaper and easier to just run the apps on something like Apache or Lighttpd (and on an OS that supports symlinks) instead of trying to shoehorn them into Windows and IIS. I would think the opposite would be true with ASP.NET on Apache (or some other web server) running on a Linux box.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Oct 2008 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Say what you want about legality, these guys are making great progress on fairly complex technology. Support for ASP.NET and Linq will allow lots of companies to actually consider the move to non-windows (non-IIS) servers.
Why would anybody want to do that though? If you have an ASP.NET app, why not just run it under IIS? I believe that things are best run under the platform they were designed for. I recently wrote two web apps for organizations who, for whatever reason, insisted on running them on IIS. One app was written using RoR and the other using Django; neither of which were designed to run on IIS. I got the apps to run, but the configuration was a pain in the butt and the organizations both had to buy a 3rd party application to make IIS emulate mod_rewrite. It would have been cheaper and easier to just run the apps on something like Apache or Lighttpd (and on an OS that supports symlinks) instead of trying to shoehorn them into Windows and IIS. I would think the opposite would be true with ASP.NET on Apache (or some other web server) running on a Linux box. "

You make an excellent case.

I have but one query ... doesn't Microsoft charge a "Client Access License" fee for every separate connection to one of its IIS servers?

If you have an ASP.NET application, isn't it the case that you will have to pay Microsoft (in terms of CALS for IIS) for each user of the application ... even if the ASP.NET application is actually your own in-house developed application?

It would have been better to develop your application on a LAMP stack ... but given that you haven't, isn't there now a business opportunity to provide a way to run an ASP.NET in-house developed application hosted from a Linux server?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Amazing
by smitty on Tue 7th Oct 2008 06:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

If you have an ASP.NET application, isn't it the case that you will have to pay Microsoft (in terms of CALS for IIS) for each user of the application ... even if the ASP.NET application is actually your own in-house developed application?


I believe you are thinking about SharePoint, which requires a CAL for each user or a really expensive "anonymous" one. There shouldn't be any fee just for using vanilla IIS and ASP.NET.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Amazing
by Soulbender on Tue 7th Oct 2008 06:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I have but one query ... doesn't Microsoft charge a "Client Access License" fee for every separate connection to one of its IIS servers?


No, IIS does not require CAL's at all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Amazing
by sbergman27 on Tue 7th Oct 2008 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

No, IIS does not require CAL's at all.

Thanks, in great part, to Apache. In the absence of strong competition you can bet that operators of IIS Servers would pay yearly per concurrent connection to their "Information Server" (sounds more "pay-for worthy" that way) and would just accept that situation as normal.

Even those who prefer and use Microsoft products owe a debt of gratitude to FOSS for the mercies they enjoy simply due to Microsoft not being able to do what it really would have wanted to do.

Edited 2008-10-07 07:25 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[5]: Amazing
by Soulbender on Tue 7th Oct 2008 13:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Amazing"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Thanks, in great part, to Apache.


Eh, I dunno.
I think it has more to do with that
a) it would be impossibly hard to keep track of, especially for large sites (think YouTube, Facebook and such)
b) to my knowledge there is not, and never has been, an HTTP server that was licensed per connection.

Perhaps if MS had been earlier into the game but at the time that MS did release IIS (as a serious product) there was already a large amount of existing servers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Amazing
by sbergman27 on Tue 7th Oct 2008 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Amazing"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Eh, I dunno...

You start with that. But what you say is fairly consistent with what I said.

Remember that "Apache Web Server" is a play on the words "A Patchy Webserver", referring to the fact that Apache started out as a set of patches to the first, and then dominant (and open-source) NCSA webserver.

But come on. Let's cut to the chase and use the 'I' word. (Microsoft's favorite!) Basically, if Microsoft had been Innovative instead of chasing FOSS's tail lights with an inferior copycat product, they could probably have set the precedent of paying per simultaneous connection. But they weren't and so they couldn't. :-)

Edited 2008-10-07 17:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Amazing
by Soulbender on Wed 8th Oct 2008 05:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You start with that. But what you say is fairly consistent with what I said.


Well sort of, but I'm not so sure it's largely due to Apache but more to the fact that there where no per-connection licensed servers at all. back in the day there was a lot more major players in the webserver field.
And even if MS had been earlier you still have the impossible logistics of tracking these licenses for major sites.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Amazing
by google_ninja on Wed 8th Oct 2008 05:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Amazing"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

IIS and apache started around the same time (94-95), and they both sucked pretty bad for a really long time. Apache did stop sucking first though, v2 was a great product. IIS sucked really bad right up till v6. v7 is the first that I would call a great product (just launched with vista/2k8)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by satan666
by satan666 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:30 UTC
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

Mono not only makes it easy to run on Linux C# applications written for Windows, it also makes your Linux box act like a Windows box (slow, heavy and full of shite).

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by satan666
by rramalho on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
rramalho Member since:
2007-07-11

Just like any other interpreted language... such as:
- python?
- Ruby?
- Java?
- perl?

No one uses all of these on a linux system... It's all C++ or... let me see... Assembly language!!?

lol

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by FunkyELF on Mon 6th Oct 2008 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

Just like any other interpreted language... such as:
- python?
- Ruby?
- Java?
- perl?

No one uses all of these on a linux system... It's all C++ or... let me see... Assembly language!!?

lol


I use at least 3 out of those 4. My web site uses python (django), and my OS's package management runs on python. As far as I'm concerned the best bittorrent client out there is still Azureus and perl...what Linux distro doesn't depend on perl in one place or another. I think that I actually do have a program installed that uses Ruby, whether I use that feature of the program or not is another story.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by satan666
by grfgguvf on Mon 6th Oct 2008 18:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
grfgguvf Member since:
2006-09-25

Mono isn't that bad, I have an 8 year old PC and I am using Banshee music player, with Mono 2.0 it doesn't feel slow any more.

If used right it can theoretically be as fast as C++. The implementation is still progressing but it's a lot better than it used to be.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by turrini on Tue 7th Oct 2008 12:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
turrini Member since:
2006-10-31

theoretically doesn't mean in practice.

That's why gnome developers are doing Vala.

Reply Score: 1

Ignorant me
by sb56637 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 15:28 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

Excuse my ignorance, but how useful is Mono for porting .NET apps to Linux without modifying the source? For example, Paint.NET would be a nice program to have under Linux. Can we just take the source and compile it with Mono without hacking the source?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Ignorant me
by fretinator on Mon 6th Oct 2008 15:46 UTC in reply to "Ignorant me"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Excuse my ignorance, but how useful is Mono for porting .NET apps to Linux without modifying the source? For example, Paint.NET would be a nice program to have under Linux. Can we just take the source and compile it with Mono without hacking the source?

As mentioned in the article (imagine that!), Paint.NET used PInvoke - that is, it calls into native Win32 code. To me, that is normally a huge mistake. Unfortunately, it is often necessary, as the .NET libraries do not provide everything you need. At times, you still need native code to get a particular task done. Thus, these call to native code would probably have to be "forked" for other execution environments like Linux and Mac.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ignorant me
by jstedfast on Mon 6th Oct 2008 16:01 UTC in reply to "Ignorant me"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

Excuse my ignorance, but how useful is Mono for porting .NET apps to Linux without modifying the source? For example, Paint.NET would be a nice program to have under Linux. Can we just take the source and compile it with Mono without hacking the source?


You don't need to recompile fully-managed .NET apps to get them to run on Linux under Mono. They will Just Work.

The problem is when a .NET application calls into native c libraries (unfortunately, Paint.NET does this, but people are working on a Linux port of the native library that Paint.NET uses).

Reply Score: 4

RE: Ignorant me
by BrianH on Mon 6th Oct 2008 16:02 UTC in reply to "Ignorant me"
BrianH Member since:
2005-07-06

Paint.NET would be a nice program to have under Linux. Can we just take the source and compile it with Mono without hacking the source?


It all depends on whether the original program uses P/Invoke calls to native code dlls, or uses APIs that aren't supported yet. If not, there is a good chance that the binaries will run without change or recompile.

In the case of Paint.NET you are out of luck for now: There are a lot of P/Invoke calls but almost everything else works as of the new release - it's even shown in the release notes. It's funny that most everyone uses Paint.NET for an example when they are asking this question.

There aren't that many popular .NET apps for Windows either, or Java, or interpreted languages (the aforementioned are not interpreted). That's to be expected though. As with any platform in wide use, most Windows apps are not the "popular" type: They are either internal business apps, or tiny utilities that wouldn't need to be ported.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ignorant me
by miguel on Mon 6th Oct 2008 17:58 UTC in reply to "Ignorant me"
miguel Member since:
2005-07-27

Excuse my ignorance, but how useful is Mono for porting .NET apps to Linux without modifying the source? For example, Paint.NET would be a nice program to have under Linux. Can we just take the source and compile it with Mono without hacking the source?


Paint.NET makes extensive calls to Win32.

But luckily it has isolated all of that code into a library that can be swapped out. The Mono-Paint project on code.google.com has a reimplementation of that library.

As for other applications: out of the data that we received over the past year for about 6,000+ applications, 45% of them will work unmodified (no recompilation necessary, just run the binary directly) on Linux.

The others will require minimal changes. Its equivalent to porting software from Linux to MacOS or viceversa.

Reply Score: 7

Version Compatibility
by BrianH on Mon 6th Oct 2008 16:16 UTC
BrianH
Member since:
2005-07-06

My impression from all of the release notes is that Mono is now compatible with .NET 2.0 SP1, with the exception of VB.NET which is still at the .NET 2.0 language level. Mono also bundles a lot of extra APIs, most of which also run on .NET but need to be separately installed there. .NET 3.5 is basically uses the .NET 2.0 SP1 runtime, but has some extra APIs that haven't been ported yet.

Is anyone aware of any other major differences?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Version Compatibility
by chris_dk on Mon 6th Oct 2008 20:03 UTC in reply to "Version Compatibility"
chris_dk Member since:
2005-07-12



Is anyone aware of any other major differences?


Yes, VB.NET support is like 95% from my experience.

Also, VB.NET bugs are very slow to be fixed in Mono.

C# is the way to go, don't use VB.NET.

Reply Score: 2

Mono sans .NET please!
by Weeman on Mon 6th Oct 2008 16:38 UTC
Weeman
Member since:
2006-03-20

The CLR and C# are interesting technologies and the implementation of it in Mono beats the original in performance aspects. I wish someone would take the project, strip the .NET BCL oyr of it and add a *nix/POSIX specific class library to it. Maybe the *nix world would take it seriously that way, because right now it seems to be more of a laughing stock.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mono sans .NET please!
by jstedfast on Mon 6th Oct 2008 16:43 UTC in reply to "Mono sans .NET please!"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

Mono already has a POSIX class library - it's called Mono.Posix or Mono.Unix

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mono sans .NET please!
by abraxas on Mon 6th Oct 2008 16:55 UTC in reply to "Mono sans .NET please!"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

The CLR and C# are interesting technologies and the implementation of it in Mono beats the original in performance aspects. I wish someone would take the project, strip the .NET BCL oyr of it and add a *nix/POSIX specific class library to it.


This illustrates people's naivety when it comes to Mono. What you describe is exactly what Mono is.

Edited 2008-10-06 16:56 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Thanks but no thanks.
by zenulator on Mon 6th Oct 2008 18:19 UTC
zenulator
Member since:
2008-06-29

While several good programs have been built with mono the fact is that it is a derivative of a microsoft technology and something that I don't want runnung on my systems. This is the same reason i don't run wine. Using these things just validates microsofts ip and extends its grip straight into the heart of linux.

Reply Score: 5

Just say no
by StaubSaugerNZ on Mon 6th Oct 2008 19:45 UTC
StaubSaugerNZ
Member since:
2007-07-13

Just say no to .NET in any form! No patent worries or dependencies on single suppliers. No need to use C either. Instead, use Java because:

1) It is very, very much faster (especially Java 1.6u10 which accelerates all graphics operations)
Example:
http://blogs.sun.com/jag/entry/current_state_of_java_for
http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00312039/en

2) It is fully open source and there is a patent waiver from Sun for other implementations (unlike .NET)

3) It has many implementations and is supported by more than a single organisation:
GCJ,Kaffe from GNU and ecosystem
IBM Java
Sun Java
OpenJDK

4) There are a lot more jobs out there for it (by around a factor of 5!)
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci
http://www.langpop.com/

Miguel and the Mono team have done a great job in ensuring people can move their .NET legacy apps to other operating systems. However, for new projects you should be using Java (the language features of C# are not worth the potential patent liability and relatively short-lifecycles of MS technologies).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just say no
by jstedfast on Mon 6th Oct 2008 20:53 UTC in reply to "Just say no"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

Just say no to .NET in any form! No patent worries or dependencies on single suppliers. No need to use C either. Instead, use Java because:

1) It is very, very much faster (especially Java 1.6u10 which accelerates all graphics operations)
Example:
http://blogs.sun.com/jag/entry/current_state_of_java_for
http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00312039/en


Mono has improved in performance quite a lot since 1.2.6 and is quickly gaining ground on Java6-server, especially with the new Linear IR branch which you can read about at http://www.mono-project.com/Linear_IL

The Linear IR branch is poised to make it into Mono 2.2 and is already as much as 30% faster than Mono 2.0 and there are lots more optimizations that can be done (and indeed, just last week SIMD optimizations were implemented which increase the performance even more).

2) It is fully open source and there is a patent waiver from Sun for other implementations (unlike .NET)


Mono is also fully open source.

As far as waivers from Sun, I am unaware of these. Could you provide a link to these waivers?

I have never seen nor heard of any such waivers before.

Miguel and the Mono team have done a great job


Thanks for the compliment ;-)

However, for new projects you should be using Java (the language features of C# are not worth the potential patent liability and relatively short-lifecycles of MS technologies).


This is all subjective, and let's not forget that Mono can continue even if Microsoft moves to something else next week, next month, next year, or next decade.

Mono is, after-all, a Free Software project that anyone can continue to maintain. It is not in any way dependent upon the life span of Microsoft's .NET just as C in Linux has been in use long after much of the Windows world switched to C++.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Just say no
by StaubSaugerNZ on Mon 6th Oct 2008 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Just say no"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13


Mono has improved in performance quite a lot since 1.2.6 and is quickly gaining ground on Java6-server, especially with the new Linear IR branch which you can read about at http://www.mono-project.com/Linear_IL

The Linear IR branch is poised to make it into Mono 2.2 and is already as much as 30% faster than Mono 2.0 and there are lots more optimizations that can be done (and indeed, just last week SIMD optimizations were implemented which increase the performance even more).


That is excellent news. Do you have a link to any benchmarks ? (especially against JRE 1.6u10).


Mono is also fully open source.

As far as waivers from Sun, I am unaware of these. Could you provide a link to these waivers?

I have never seen nor heard of any such waivers before.


http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/legal/license.html

See section 2. That is a patent grant for all implementations of the Java specification (and you don't have to ask Sun for permission to use it). However you don't have the right to call it "Java" unless you pass Sun's compatibility tests (since it wants to avoid fragmentation). Unfortunately it doesn't look like Microsoft will ever do this for .NET ;)


This is all subjective, and let's not forget that Mono can continue even if Microsoft moves to something else next week, next month, next year, or next decade.

Mono is, after-all, a Free Software project that anyone can continue to maintain. It is not in any way dependent upon the life span of Microsoft's .NET just as C in Linux has been in use long after much of the Windows world switched to C++.


Completely true. What you're missing is that while Mono would soldier on as soon as there is fragmentation then adoption would be split. While it is not absolutely necessary to avoid this (after all, part of the point of Free Software is the 'right to fork'), this really dissipates developer effort and confuses users. It should be avoided for practical reasons.

Despite my preference for Java I'd like to thank you once again all your efforts with Mono (the community still needs it). It's nice to have choice.

Edited 2008-10-06 21:17 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Just say no
by jstedfast on Mon 6th Oct 2008 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Just say no"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

"
Mono has improved in performance quite a lot since 1.2.6 and is quickly gaining ground on Java6-server, especially with the new Linear IR branch which you can read about at http://www.mono-project.com/Linear_IL

The Linear IR branch is poised to make it into Mono 2.2 and is already as much as 30% faster than Mono 2.0 and there are lots more optimizations that can be done (and indeed, just last week SIMD optimizations were implemented which increase the performance even more).


That is excellent news. Do you have a link to any benchmarks ? (especially against JRE 1.6u10).
"

There were a couple of benchmarks that the JIT developers have been using for comparison purposes. They've been using the Debian Language Shootout benchmark programs, the Portable.NET benchmark and some others. The "Benchmark Results" section towards the bottom of the page I linked to earlier names the benchmarks used and what the performance improvements are for those different tests.

"
Mono is also fully open source.

As far as waivers from Sun, I am unaware of these. Could you provide a link to these waivers?

I have never seen nor heard of any such waivers before.


http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/legal/license.html

See section 2. That is a patent grant for all implementations of the Java specification (and you don't have to ask Sun for permission to use it). However you don't have the right to call it "Java" unless you pass Sun's compatibility tests (since it wants to avoid fragmentation). Unfortunately it doesn't look like Microsoft will ever do this for .NET ;)
"

This is very interesting, I had not known about this before.

Thanks for the link, I'll have to read it more carefully later.

"
This is all subjective, and let's not forget that Mono can continue even if Microsoft moves to something else next week, next month, next year, or next decade.

Mono is, after-all, a Free Software project that anyone can continue to maintain. It is not in any way dependent upon the life span of Microsoft's .NET just as C in Linux has been in use long after much of the Windows world switched to C++.


Completely true. What you're missing is that while Mono would soldier on as soon as there is fragmentation then adoption would be split. While it is not absolutely necessary to avoid this (after all, part of the point of Free Software is the 'right to fork'), this really dissipates developer effort and confuses users. It should be avoided for practical reasons.
"

That all assumes that things fork, though, which wouldn't necessarily happen. (hopefully it wouldn't, actually).

Ideally, the continuation of Mono would remain compatible with the specified portions of .NET and Mono would just be extended (via extension methods for the core and new libraries/compiler features that do not break existing code).

Despite my preference for Java I'd like to thank you once again all your efforts with Mono (the community still needs it). It's nice to have choice.


Choice is indeed good to have ;)

And thank you for your gratitude for our work, it is very much appreciated!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Just say no
by evangs on Wed 8th Oct 2008 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Just say no"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07


Mono has improved in performance quite a lot since 1.2.6 and is quickly gaining ground on Java6-server, especially with the new Linear IR branch which you can read about at http://www.mono-project.com/Linear_IL


Mono still has a long way to go, from the looks of things. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=...

Java is up to 6.9 times faster and is on average twice as fast. Granted, they use the -server flag which turns on much more aggressive optimizations hence the much higher performance and larger memory consumption. Nevertheless, there is still a huge delta between Mono and Java.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Just say no
by jstedfast on Wed 8th Oct 2008 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Just say no"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

"
Mono has improved in performance quite a lot since 1.2.6 and is quickly gaining ground on Java6-server, especially with the new Linear IR branch which you can read about at http://www.mono-project.com/Linear_IL


Mono still has a long way to go, from the looks of things. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all〈...

Java is up to 6.9 times faster and is on average twice as fast. Granted, they use the -server flag which turns on much more aggressive optimizations hence the much higher performance and larger memory consumption. Nevertheless, there is still a huge delta between Mono and Java.
"

You are comparing Java6 -server with, at best, Mono 2.0.0 (hard to tell because Mono 1.9 also reported 2.0.0 afaik), the optimizations are happening in the post-2.0 code base (as I mentioned earlier). If you compare Java6 -client (which is the default) against Mono, they are actually neck-and-neck, possibly with Mono even coming out ahead.

Note also that raw speed isn't the only factor, Mono consistently uses a lot less memory than Java. For one of those tests, Java uses more than 10x the amount of memory than Mono uses.

But yes, you are correct in saying that Mono still has a ways to go if you want to compare Java6 -server with Mono (which doesn't have any special "server" optimizations).

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Just say no
by igouy on Fri 10th Oct 2008 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Just say no"
igouy Member since:
2008-10-10

> (hard to tell because Mono 1.9 also reported 2.0.0 afaik)

Really?

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/csharp.php#about


> If you compare Java6 -client (which is the default) ...

4 years ago -client was the default

http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/vm/server-class.html


> For one of those tests, Java uses more than 10x the amount of memory than Mono uses.

And for the other 12?

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/csharp.php

Reply Score: 1

OLEDB
by Angel Blue01 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 23:40 UTC
Angel Blue01
Member since:
2006-11-01

Now if only Mono supported the OLEDB connector (MS Access), I could port the .NET 2.0 applications I wrote (in school) to Linux :-)

Reply Score: 1

Let's clear up a few things...
by supercompman on Tue 7th Oct 2008 01:42 UTC
supercompman
Member since:
2008-09-14

Two things... 1) Mono IS NOT PART OF GNOME... Gnome has Mono bindings available and there are several non-essential applications that take advantage of this fact. There is NOTHING saying that you must have these applications available to use Gnome. 2) Mono implements all of the bits of .Net and C# that are specified by open standards, but does also implement extra pieces outside of the standard that increase compatibility with applications written for the Windows platform. These non-standard pieces are NOT required to use Mono or the C# language. Just because some pieces of the software that are questionably legal does not mean that you have to throw the whole thing out. There have also been several comments mentioning the uselessness of ASP.NET capabilities. This is absurd. Like it or not, there are _many_ ASP.NET applications out there and any opportunities to move these applications to platforms other than Windows should be welcomed.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Let's clear up a few things...
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Oct 2008 02:11 UTC in reply to "Let's clear up a few things..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Two things... 1) Mono IS NOT PART OF GNOME... Gnome has Mono bindings available and there are several non-essential applications that take advantage of this fact. There is NOTHING saying that you must have these applications available to use Gnome. 2) Mono implements all of the bits of .Net and C# that are specified by open standards, but does also implement extra pieces outside of the standard that increase compatibility with applications written for the Windows platform. These non-standard pieces are NOT required to use Mono or the C# language. Just because some pieces of the software that are questionably legal does not mean that you have to throw the whole thing out. There have also been several comments mentioning the uselessness of ASP.NET capabilities. This is absurd. Like it or not, there are _many_ ASP.NET applications out there and any opportunities to move these applications to platforms other than Windows should be welcomed.


Lets clear up something important.

Gnome, Mono, ASP, C#, CLI ... it may indeed be possible to carefully use all of this without actually infringing on any of Microsoft's claimed patents.

But they are all intrically linked with stuff where a claim of patent infringement from Microsoft is quite feasible. This gives Microsoft a perfect opportunity for spreading its patent FUD.

So use Java, KDE, Python, Ruby, etc, etc. Use the Eclipse framework. Use any one of the many available better choices.

Doing this removes the very possibility of Microsoft FUD.

That alone is far more beneficial than any possible benefit that can come from using Mono.

Reply Score: 1

supercompman Member since:
2008-09-14

A properly packaged distro, even if it comes with Mono and dependent applications, just uninstall the packages... it's not going to break Gnome... ever. The Gnome team has time and time again made this perfectly clear. No core Gnome component uses Mono. Mono is supported as a development platform if a developer so chooses. There may be some questions about the legality of SOME pieces of Mono, but there are NO questions about the legal status of the Gnome code. There is also no question about the legal status of the C# language. There is no rational reason to stop using either one. How can Microsoft spread patent FUD about either one of these technologies? C# is a good language. Java is a good language. Writing a compiler or runtime engine for either of these languages is most certainly legal. The only things that might not be legal (and I strongly emphasize might) are some of the libraries that Mono provides... if you wonder about the legal status of the winforms, don't use them; it's as simple as that. There are lots of applications out there that are questionably legal... Sco was claiming that the Linux kernel contained such questionable code, does that mean no one should use Linux, even though Sco never had a leg to stand on in the court room? What makes anyone think that by not using these technologies, you'll be any safer from patent questions/legal actions? At any point ANY technology, far more core to the open source software and free software movements (or outside of software entirely even) could come into question.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

A properly packaged distro, even if it comes with Mono and dependent applications, just uninstall the packages... it's not going to break Gnome... ever. The Gnome team has time and time again made this perfectly clear. No core Gnome component uses Mono. Mono is supported as a development platform if a developer so chooses. There may be some questions about the legality of SOME pieces of Mono, but there are NO questions about the legal status of the Gnome code. There is also no question about the legal status of the C# language. There is no rational reason to stop using either one. How can Microsoft spread patent FUD about either one of these technologies? C# is a good language. Java is a good language. Writing a compiler or runtime engine for either of these languages is most certainly legal. The only things that might not be legal (and I strongly emphasize might) are some of the libraries that Mono provides... if you wonder about the legal status of the winforms, don't use them; it's as simple as that. There are lots of applications out there that are questionably legal... Sco was claiming that the Linux kernel contained such questionable code, does that mean no one should use Linux, even though Sco never had a leg to stand on in the court room? What makes anyone think that by not using these technologies, you'll be any safer from patent questions/legal actions? At any point ANY technology, far more core to the open source software and free software movements (or outside of software entirely even) could come into question.


It is all aquestion of credibility. Credibility in the mind of a potential new user of Linux.

Said potential new Linux user looks at a Gnome-based distribution, and notes the presence of F-Spot, Banshee, Beagle and Tomboy notes, and the corresponding Mono libraries in support ... and (knowing that .NET is a Microsoft patent encumbered development framework), would think ... "hmmmmm, there could be something to Microsoft's bluster about Linux users needing to have a license from MS after all".

Said potential new Linux user looks at a KDE-based distribution, and notes the complete absence of anything resembling Microsoft technology, and would conclude "hmmmmm, there clearly isn't anything at all to Microsoft's bluster about Linux users needing to have a license from MS after all".

It doesn't help that you can remove software ... the suspect software was still included in the distribution, and hence the distribution can still be threatened to be required to have a recall.

When patents are involved, the technology just has to look similar. It doesn't have to be a copy of the source code for there to be a potential patent infringement.

SCO had no patents, and hence no patent claim against Linux. SCO alleged that its UNIX source code had been copied into the Linux kernel.

That was clearly a bogus claim from the get go. Why on earth would a free software Linux kernel developer plagiarise copyrighted UNIX code in plain sight of the whole world?

SCO tried early on to present some disguised examples of copied code. The disguise was in the form of a font substitution. Someone recognised the font, and before the day was out had restored the correct original font, recognised the code, and pointed out that that was BSD code that was never used in any Linux kernel anyway.

SCO's copyright-based threats against Linux were simply not at all credible.

A patent-based threat is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Edited 2008-10-07 04:59 UTC

Reply Score: 0

Richard Dale Member since:
2005-07-22

Said potential new Linux user looks at a KDE-based distribution, and notes the complete absence of anything resembling Microsoft technology, and would conclude "hmmmmm, there clearly isn't anything at all to Microsoft's bluster about Linux users needing to have a license from MS after all"
.

Qt and KDE have perfectly good language bindings for C# called Qyoto and Kimono. There is absolutely no difference between Gnome and KDE over using Mono (or not).

The Gnome GTK# bindings have been around a lot longer than the KDE ones, and so people have had time to write apps. If someone wants to write Qt or KDE apps, Plasma applets etc in Mono/C# there is absolutely nothing to stop them. If in turn you don't want to use those apps, then fine you probably won't have to.

I think KDE can stand on its own merits, and anyone choosing KDE because of the presence or absence of Mono seems slightly barking mad to me.

Reply Score: 3

Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Doesn't make much sense because there is nothing preventing them from making patent infringement claims on all those better choices you are promoting. Why, that's exactly what MSFT is doing with the Linux kernel: it doesn't use their technology, yet they are spreading FUD quite happily.

As your other argument on "new Linux users", it's pretty ludicrous because most users couldn't give a flying duck about software patents or even Mono/.NET as long as it works.

If you believe you're cool 'cause you don't use any Microsoft technology, that's okay. There's nothing wrong with this, but it would be much more productive for all of us if we stayed on topic (e.g. on Mono) rather than blathering on MSFT or fighting FUD with even more FUD.

Reply Score: 3

Spreading FUD
by thewolf on Tue 7th Oct 2008 02:00 UTC
thewolf
Member since:
2007-12-27

A number of people have said exactly the same thing: "I won't use Mono because Microsoft could have patents that conflict with the project."

Nobody has an example of such a patent, until someone finds one, you're blowing a lot of hot air.

Also, by patent I mean one that would be indisputable in court, we all know how companies love to file for patents for things that have examples of prior art.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Spreading FUD
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Oct 2008 02:26 UTC in reply to "Spreading FUD"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

A number of people have said exactly the same thing: "I won't use Mono because Microsoft could have patents that conflict with the project." Nobody has an example of such a patent, until someone finds one, you're blowing a lot of hot air. Also, by patent I mean one that would be indisputable in court, we all know how companies love to file for patents for things that have examples of prior art.


There is plenty of prior art for all of Microsoft's stuff. Java, for example, can be considered prior art (in terms of the basic idea anyway) for the .NET framework.

What is important is the perception. Microsoft can generate plausible-sounding patent threats via .NET technologies, whereas it doesn't have a hope in the area of, say, Office suites (given that its MS Office product displaced existing incumbents from an existing market).

I'd say myself that Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on anywhere with respect to patents.

But what I think isn't important. It is what the general, average, non-expert customer for software thinks that is important here.

Microsoft won't actually sue ... it is too dangerous for Microsoft. But they will continue to make threatening noises about patents and the alleged need for Linux users to license some of Microsoft's technology ... as long as there is any perception at all of a remotely feasible chance that something in FOSS software actually does infringe.

Mono provides a perfect opportunity for Microsoft to generate just such a perception.

Reply Score: 1

A nice example of Mono on the server
by wannabe geek on Tue 7th Oct 2008 16:34 UTC
wannabe geek
Member since:
2006-09-27

This is a bit off-topic, but I've been playing with an interesting example of a server-side application which runs on Mono. It's still in alpha, but it does work:

http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Main_Page


The OpenSimulator Project is a BSD Licensed Virtual Worlds Server which can be used for creating and deploying 3D Virtual Environments. It has been developed by several developers. Out of the box, the OpenSimulator can be used to create a Second Life(tm) like environment, able to run in a standalone mode or connected to other OpenSimulator instances through built in grid technology. It can also easily be extended to produce more specialized 3D interactive applications. Check out the list of growing features to get an idea of what OpenSimulator is capable of.

OpenSimulator is written in C#, and can run under Mono or the Microsoft .NET runtimes. Due to its clean modular nature it is possible to significantly extend functionality yourself via plug-in modules to suit your application.

Reply Score: 1

Grats to the Mono devs
by katelin on Wed 8th Oct 2008 01:42 UTC
katelin
Member since:
2008-10-06

Meant to post this yesterday, but got distracted.

Just wanted to give a big Thank You to the Mono developers for all of their hard work.

You guys are amazing and I hope you continue doing what you do!

Reply Score: 2