Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Nov 2006 23:18 UTC
Mono Project Novell has announced the release of Mono version 1.2, a new version of the Mono project to create an implementation of the Microsoft .Net Framework for open source. Mono 1.2 enhances the open-source effort and is a major step toward compatibility with the .Net Framework 2.0, Novell officials said. Novell announced the new version on Nov. 9 at the Microsoft TechEd Developers conference in Barcelona.
Thread beginning with comment 180751
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
One important point in Mono
by usr0 on Fri 10th Nov 2006 00:20 UTC
usr0
Member since:
2006-10-27

The implementation of the ASP.NET 2.0 features is far behind the .NET implementation (no webparts, no masterpages). I have dealed with Mono for 2 years and was usually really disappointed because I could never use the features under Linux that were available for .NET under Windows. Furthermore the .NET/Mono source is heavily influenced by developers with a Windows related coding style: They never think of interoperability with other operating systems and understand the term "interoperability" as the interoperability to other Windows systems. The most projects were developed under MS VS 2005 so you can not open them with monodevelop easily.

Since Java became (will become) open source there is absolutely no reason for me to use Mono as a platform for my website (CMS development). Java is a mature platform independent framework that is well implemented under Linux - Mono definitely not: Bad performance and incomplete feature implementation of the .NET framework.

Reply Score: 5

Not entirely accurate !
by alex_ndc on Fri 10th Nov 2006 01:18 in reply to "One important point in Mono"
alex_ndc Member since:
2006-11-10

Mono is a good development tool.

Even if it competes directly with Java, Mono is very useful for porting ASP.NET and Windows applications.
Of course, you don't have the WORA promise that Java has, but then again, SUN always wanted to maintain Java's purity, and while that's very good for portable applications, almost all Java desktop applications are crap ... because of Swing and all compromises made for portability reasons, like the java.io package that's also crap.

And although there are GTK bindings for Java and soon we'll also have quality QT bindings provided by Trolltech, Java programmers are so indoctrinated with the WORA promise that it really doesn't matter.
Not to mention that JNI is really hard to program against as compared to P/Invoke.

Also, many companies haven't switched to ASP.NET 2.0, and ASP.NET 1.0 is a fine framework for a web application.

If you have to choose between Java and C#, there's also the question of taste.
C# has features that are not in Java, and vice-versa, and some people prefer Java, and others prefer C#.

People do not understand that the goal of Mono is not to be 100% compatible with .NET.
The goal of Mono, as Miguel de Icaza said numerous times, is to provide a good Linux platform for applications.

If Java will go open-source, great ... but it would be kind of dumb for all programmers to have only 1 choice when it comes to a high-performance virtual machine that runs on top of Linux.

And I don't know where you have those benchmarks from, but Mono moves quite well compared to Python, Ruby, PHP, and the possibilities for optimizations are endless ... and even if Java will always be faster, Mono already has advantages right now, like lower memory consumption.

Edited 2006-11-10 01:22

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Not entirely accurate !
by backdoc on Fri 10th Nov 2006 03:26 in reply to "Not entirely accurate !"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

All of the new Microsoft products are going to require the 2.0 Framework. So, unless a company has no upgrade plans, they will be installing it. However, having said that, you can install more than one Framework version at the same time.

But, I agree with you that choice is good.

Edited 2006-11-10 03:32

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Not entirely accurate !
by someone on Fri 10th Nov 2006 03:27 in reply to "Not entirely accurate !"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

like the java.io package that's also crap.
Have you had a look at the java.nio package?

And although there are GTK bindings for Java and soon we'll also have quality QT bindings provided by Trolltech, Java programmers are so indoctrinated with the WORA promise that it really doesn't matter.
Java Gnome was not popular because of licensing problems with Sun's JRE (which means installing the JRE on any linux distro used to be a hassle)and immaturity of Classpath.

almost all Java desktop applications are crap ... because of Swing and all compromises made for portability reasons
Personally, I think it has more to do with Sun's lack of focus on the desktop and it's easy to see: Just compare the nativeness of Swing's Windows theme versus Qt's theme (both are emulating the native theme).
They only started to seriously focus on making Java a viable desktop application platform in Java 5. However, Java 6 will bring many improvements to Java SE, including better JIT, desktop integration, more-native looking LnF, instant splash screen among other things.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Not entirely accurate !
by segedunum on Fri 10th Nov 2006 14:18 in reply to "Not entirely accurate !"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

People do not understand that the goal of Mono is not to be 100% compatible with .NET.
The goal of Mono, as Miguel de Icaza said numerous times, is to provide a good Linux platform for applications.


No it isn't. If that was the goal then they would have looked at .Net, looked at what they could have learned from it, then looked at Java and up and coming languages like Ruby to create a new platform that took all that into account.

They didn't do that because they thought .Net was the greatest thing since sliced bread, they wanted to clone the .Net framework and create a situation where .Net applications could be copied and run under Mono.

Certainly for Novell, 100% .Net compatiblity is the only selling point of Mono, and therein they will always be stuck trying to achieve that non-achievable goal.

Edited 2006-11-10 14:21

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Not entirely accurate !
by ebasconp on Fri 10th Nov 2006 20:31 in reply to "Not entirely accurate !"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

The new J2SE 6 (that's is in RC since today), solves the issues you mention (compromises for portability on Swing or on in java.io)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: One important point in Mono
by miguel on Fri 10th Nov 2006 08:17 in reply to "One important point in Mono"
miguel Member since:
2005-07-27

Mono 1.2 does not claim to have a complete 2.0 implementation.

But you must not have tried very hard (or in the last 9 months), because master pages is one of the standard demos and standard samples of the XSP download.

Regarding your comment about "Windows style", the entire class library can be built with MonoDevelop (shocking, I know), and it is in fact, simpler than trying to build Mono on Windows.

Linux has always been the easiest platform to get Mono working. So am curious about what kind of problems you had, or even if you had one, or you have not yet mastered the use of "vi" or "emacs" to open a file (which is what I personally use).

Now, you might be referring to the fact that *Windows* developers do not care about MonoDevelop, and that is certainly true. Which is why we are working on having MonoDevelop open Visual Studio project in the future.

In the meantime, you can use "prj2make" to generate makefiles from visual studio solutions.

Now, I get the impression that you are a troll. Becaues there is an open source Java that you could use today, it is very complete, and Sun opening up Java will only make it more complete.

So I doubt that you are actually a Mono user, you seem to be a troll.

Reply Parent Score: 5

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I gues he was reffering to typical .Net apps, not the framework itself.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

And by the way, is there some document/blog outlining the performance advancements?

Reply Parent Score: 1

usr0 Member since:
2006-10-27

Keep cool Miguel! ;) The masterpages feature is well implemented and I forgot to test it with xsp2 but the webparts feature is definitely not implemented. And under .NET webparts currently working only with IE. So I think, it will be not that easy to implement them in Mono because (currently) it is a MS/IE only feature as many other things under .NET (Windows.Forms).

The "Windows style" (code) statement were ascribed to the most .NET/Mono projects (not to Mono itself) that is nothing unusual because the most .NET devs usually working in a MS dominated environment.

I know about prj2make but as I said: It is *not easy* (not impossible) to open MS VS projects under monodevelop.

You doubt if I am (was?) a Mono user? mono-asp.de is (was) my website running xsp.exe/MySQL on Ubuntu.

And I am not against Mono because I have choose Mono because of the superior .NET/Mono framework design. But the dark site of Mono is the MS dominated environment (as I mentioned: the most .NET/Mono based projects were developed in a MS environment).

Of course your are furious about my statement because Mono is "your" project and it is very difficult to stay impartial in such discussions.

Btw, a troll is not a person that criticizes something relying on facts.

Reply Parent Score: 5

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

No trolling intended. But...

Is this real 1.2 or release candidate?
Sources are flagged as 1.2 while spec for rpm says:
Source0: mono-1.2.tar.gz
...
Provides: mono = 1.2-rc0.novell

wasn't it said that 1.2 will ship with gmcs merged in mcs (or instead, as far as I got it gmcs was mcs with generics and other 2.0 features)?
Mono 1.2 ships with complete C# 1.0 and C# 2.0 compilers, called mcs and gmcs respectively

does mkbundle now eliminates need for mono installed aka. complete binary or this just works for libraries it depends on, I was testing it long ago, and couldn't do zilch without mono.

one more question regarding inotify? Just my little "conspiracy theory" curiosity:) (I might be even wrong here, if so please do correct me)
Is the implementation of FileSystemWatcher limited to single folder as inotify or does it enable watching subfolders. Later might be a problem when used improperly or without thinking over. limits of inotify are 4096 (or so) watched instances. Which could result in unpredictable problems if not extra specified. Example. Few global locks on very large (or even not so large) storage devices could simply present problem where the first would take all the locks and second would get errors. Just asking this as question, because if I'm right problems could arise with inotify implemented the MS way.

btw. Wonderfull I/O layer solution for crossplatform apps. One big problem is nailed (in ease of creating crossplatform apps) with that. And damn good job in speeding up Windows.Forms

Reply Parent Score: 1