Mono project founder Miguel de Icaza claims that Microsoft prevented the open source project from holding a meeting at the company's Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles. Microsoft states on its conference Web site that its 'Birds of a Feather' sessions are proposed and voted on by the community. But the Mono BOF was never listed for voting and therefore received no votes, despite the submission being confirmed, according to De Icaza's blog.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:"Well since the original goal of Mono was to make it easier to port a Windows .Net program over to Linux."
That was not and is not "the goal of mono", even though I can not speak for the project, it has many goals and possible uses. You can read their FAQ to find out their motivations straight from them. In my opinion, this is a secondary concern.
"Just how much of a Windows .Net program will consist of Ecma and ISO standart parts? And how much will not?"
Surprisingly a lot. But many of us are more interested in writing good open source applications, or sharing code for projects that work both on .NET and mono. Both of these can be done with ECMA portions and open source libraries only.
For example, the SharpDevelop to MonoDevelop port could have only changed about 10-15% of the code had it wished, and this is one of the largest .NET apps that I know of. The only non-ECMA part that it now uses is System.Drawing very sparingly. Keep in mind their will probably be more libraries included in the next version of the specification also.
RE[6]: Mono: **Listen up! Trolls, Uninformed and deluded
Member since:2005-07-06
That was not and is not "the goal of mono", even though I can not speak for the project, it has many goals and possible uses. You can read their FAQ to find out their motivations straight from them.
It was and is a primary goal of the project, and anyone who knows about Mono or has read any of the Mono developers goals on the project knows it. If you saw a presentation at Brainshare they took a very simple .Net application written with Visual Studio and ran it on Linux and a Mac. If that's not a goal I don't know what is. If it is not a goal, why ASP.Net, why ADO.Net?! Write your own namespaces and be done with it.
Sorry, but you're just changing your tune and saying it's now not a goal because you can see that it's just not working.
Surprisingly a lot.
Rubbish. You cannot get a working CLR and framework up and running with just the stuff that's in ECMA alone. The Mono guys know that full well.
But many of us are more interested in writing good open source applications, or sharing code for projects that work both on .NET and mono.
I thought you said moving code and applications back and forth between .Net and Mono was not a goal? *ROTFL*.
And if you take out ADO.Net, ASP.Net, Windows.Forms, and the other libraries, you can still get stuff that works?! This is a horse that just won't get out of the stalls.
Member since:
"Parts of mono are covered by Ecma and ISO standards which are more reliable in my opinion. The terms are pretty well spelled out and known industry wide."
Well since the original goal of Mono was to make it easier to port a Windows .Net program over to Linux. Just how much of a Windows .Net program will consist of Ecma and ISO standart parts? And how much will not?