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.
Thread beginning with comment 332743
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Amazing
by smitty on Tue 7th Oct 2008 06:26 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Amazing
by Soulbender on Tue 7th Oct 2008 06:31 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Amazing
by sbergman27 on Tue 7th Oct 2008 07:24 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 Parent Score: 7