Ximian and SourceGear have announced a partnership which will help SourceGear distribute their applications across platforms. SourceGear will help complete the missing parts in Mono.
SourceGear and Ximian Announce Partnership
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
For some reason, the whole mono project scares me.
why does it scare you?
personaly I think Ximian might be a big software player in the future….I will certainly be in on the ground floor when tehy go public.
its scary because while the CLR and C# were turned over to standards bodies, things like winForms weren’t and as soon as the project gets any traction m$ will snuff it out. They’ve at least opened it up more than Sun has but not enough.
The shiz is gonna fly again, just like any time Mono is mentioned…Mono is Mono and .NET is .NET…Mono is BASED ON .NET, but is NOT .NET
It doesn’t matter what MS does to .NET…Mono can be whatever it is…and there will still be compelling reasons to use it.
Is Samba evil because it’s based on a Microsoft protocol, which is actually based on an IBM protocol?
How about Evolution, which is an Outlook clone?
Let’s be fair here.
Anyway, hopefully my prediction is wrong and we’ll have a civil Mono discussion here
Ximian is a really cool company that is making some really cool stuff. It gets me wondering though..how do they get an income? I mean they are creating some products that must take a lot of programmer hours, etc., how do they make money as a business to continue the development?
Just curiousity here. I hope they keep up the good work!
MS cannot snuff out an open source project!!!
They can make it incompatible…but that does not kill it.
What do you think the Samba team has dealt with? And .NET is a HELL of a lot better documented than SMB/CFS is
If MS cannot kill Samba, do you honestly think they’ll kill .NET?
And so what if .NET is slightly incompatible with Mono? Anyone who has ever tried writing a more than trivial Java application knows that it requires developer diligence to write cross-platform code even under “write once, run anywhere” platforms. The point is, if a developer cares, they will be able to write code that works on both Mono and .NET, no matter what MS wants to do.
They install their desktop in many companies, and get payed for support. That’s what I know about the way they get their incomes, but there may be more.
They ported Gnome for Sun, HP etc., Ximian Connector helps, some people (like me at one point) actually paid for RCE. Oh yeah, there’s also their corporate red carpet offering.
They make money in a variety of ways. (Though I think the most comes from Unix companies getting them to do a port.)
I think they’re bound and bent on success, even when things were first starting out they tried to get income from selling stuffed animals with logos, hats, shirts, whatever they could to help pay the bills. Since then they have settled down a bit and have made inroads on real revenue streams. It’s great to see such an eager, driven OSS company. Best of luck to them!
Ok, let me be my own grammar nazi: it’s paid, not payed.
Oh, and Ximian isn’t the only contributor to Mono. There’re companies like intel working on it, apart from volunteers. So it’s not like Ximian is the only one developing mono, and thus using most of its resources on it.
http://biztech.ericsink.com/20030611.html#10102
Cool so I can clone the QT library and build my apps on top of it and not pay them a dime? When was this law passed?
Cool so I can clone the QT library and build my apps on top of it and not pay them a dime? When was this law passed?
Ummm yeah actually you can…when was the law passed saying you couldn’t?
For example, what is FreeDOS, LessTif, Linux? All legal clones, (well SCO disagrees with me about Linux) with no encumberments.
The only thing that would be illegal would be to use ACTUAL QT Library code in your “clone”
>its scary because while the CLR and C# were turned over to standards bodies, things like winForms weren’t
It really gets annoying.
The goal of Mono IS NOT to make a compatible clone of MS .NET for Linux.
The programmers at Ximian just discovered what most programmers in the rest of the world discovered too: that C# is the damn nicest modern high-level language on this whole f***ing planet and that the whole .NET stuff is a very clever idea. Read one of the interviews with the project leader (posted here on OSnews in the past!). Ximian wants to use Mono to develop software using Gtk#/GNOME# not MS-only “winforms” or something like that.
They don’t care much about compatibilty with MS .NET. But some people who are part of the mono project do, so these people try to get things like winforms working. But this isn’t the primary goal of Mono. Creating a nicer/more modern programming enviroment for Linux/GNOME is the goal AFAIK.
Mono IS NOT by any means an alternative to Java, just like MS .NET isn’t because the goals of Java and Mono/MS.NET are different.
based on? that would mean access to source code etc. An “implementation of supporting protocols” would be a far more correct way to state it.
>Ummm yeah actually you can…when was the law passed saying >you couldn’t?
>For example, what is FreeDOS, LessTif, Linux? All legal >clones, (well SCO disagrees with me about Linux) with no >encumberments.
Then why did sun successfully sue m$ for its lack of java standards conformance. Not trying to be a jerk. i just really dont understand how IP laws work I guess.
> Then why did sun successfully sue m$ for its lack of java standards conformance.
Sun did sue MS, because MS did licence Java from Sun! Sun had a deal with MS, they signed a contract. MS broke that contract by shipping an incompatible version of Java. ( Well that’s not 100% correct but that’s what it is about more or less. Just google for it…)
Yes, that is correct. They just didn’t extend it, they replaced important parts of the java framework with their own “new and improved”(tm) extensions resulting in something COMPLETELY incompatible. Extensions to the spec are alright, just look at SWT for example, however, removing parts of the spec and still calling it Java is not on.
I think that .Net is a ‘slightly’ more complex than the SMB/CIFS file services Samba implements.
But I think that as long as the focus of Mono is to provide a good development environment and tools for OSS then all is well.
This deal is actually pretty cool, because it will push web services with Mono. Just yesterday I was thinking about how this might be useful for me and now this news. Nice.
well,
i’m a .NET developer at work, and linux user at home, and i am following mono pretty closesly (C# is damn neat and i don’t want to take coding in C or C++ up again) because i do think that linux could use a new development framework (and mono is/will be).
Think Java, only neater with gtk/qt/whatever support, and open source so you could create support for things you need yourself (just as sourcegear does with webservices)
that just has to sound great doesn’t it