Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 1st Apr 2007 21:56 UTC, submitted by suka
Novell and Ximian "Nat Friedman has been one of the driving forces behind the development of the Linux desktop for a few year now. First with his own company Ximian, founded together with Mono chief architect Miguel de Icaza, after its acquisition now inside Novell. A few months ago he has been named 'Technologist of the Year' by the VarBusiness magazine for his work around the SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop. Since then he has been promoted to Chief Technology and Strategy Officer for Open Source, besides the desktop he is also overseeing Novells server business now. During Novells Brainshare Andreas Proschofsky had the possibility to sit down with Friedman and talk about the Linux desktop, the consequences of the Microsoft agreement and the mistakes of the Hula project."
Permalink for comment 226682
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
About Mono
by thompson4822 on Mon 2nd Apr 2007 21:11 UTC
thompson4822
Member since:
2006-07-16

As I read through these postings I am amused by what some otherwise sensible people are suggesting. Somehow, holding up both Beagle and Tracker, we are to make a judgement about Mono? How in the world does that even make sense? If Tracker is much faster than Beagle, great! If it consumes far less memory, awesome! But should we take these findings and just conclude that the Mono platform is junk? Absolutely not!

Look, there are a number of factors that go into any project. These might be awfully convenient for some people in this conversation to ignore, but they are there nonetheless, and exist in every development effort I've ever been involved in. Consider:
- People are a huge part of the success of any project. I'm not just talking about having great coding skills, but also the general dispositions of those involved.
- Technology is always a factor. In probably the most illuminating post, it was revealed that Beagle uses Lucene for .Net while Tracker uses a different technology with some optimizations.
- There are tradeoffs for going with C#/Java/Python vs C/C++. The latter are usually chosen for their execution speed and memory efficiency. Unfortunately they also consume a lot more developer cycles because of their low level nature.
- Many developers use a mixture of high and low level language when developing a solution. It is simply incorrect to think that every app written in <insert high level language here> doesn't rely on some low level code for speed critical areas.
- Part of the success of any project is its user interface (if necessary) and the options it provides. I will freely admit that I use digiKam over F-Spot. Doesn't mean F-Spot is worthless, the fact of the matter is that digiKam has a lot more features. I also use Amarok over Banshee. Again, Amarok has more features. Neither example is an indictment of Mono or any of the myriad languages it supports.

There is no need to point fingers at one another and make accusations of religion. In the end the best applications will (hopefully) win out, language be damned. But anyone who has ever worked with Mono and its various libraries in any sort of depth knows that it is an extremely useful development platform with many extraordinary capabilities. We can either get into a self righteous lather about this (doing no one any good) or accept the fact that, when it comes to creating solutions, we have more options now than we did in the past, which is always a good thing.

Reply Score: 5