Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th May 2011 20:41 UTC, submitted by lemur2
SuSE, openSUSE The first major effect of Attachmate buying Novell (and thus, SUSE) has come into, uh, effect. Novell, of course, is the birth place of Mono, the open source implementation of Microsoft's .NET framework. Reports indicate Mono developers have been fired as part of the streamlining process, but according to Attachmate's CEO, they weren't fired because of Mono.
Thread beginning with comment 471966
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Slambert666
Member since:
2008-10-30

Any developer who targets multiple platforms should avoid .NET entirely (if you must use C#, use it within the Qt framework, not Mono). Doing so is the only way to put down the footgun.


I so do not agree with this. Any application that must run on different OS'es must have the UI and interaction designed for each specific OS or risk sucking big time.

While QT is ok on KDE, halfway decent on Windows XP it does not look ok on OSX or modern windows and usually the apps only has good integration with the OS on one single platform.

Mono is targeting a situation where you write a different UI for each OS so that iOS, OSX, Android, Windows, Web, Gnome and KDE each has a separate UI that is tailored for that OS and environment.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Any developer who targets multiple platforms should avoid .NET entirely (if you must use C#, use it within the Qt framework, not Mono). Doing so is the only way to put down the footgun.
I so do not agree with this. Any application that must run on different OS'es must have the UI and interaction designed for each specific OS or risk sucking big time. While QT is ok on KDE, halfway decent on Windows XP it does not look ok on OSX or modern windows and usually the apps only has good integration with the OS on one single platform. Mono is targeting a situation where you write a different UI for each OS so that iOS, OSX, Android, Windows, Web, Gnome and KDE each has a separate UI that is tailored for that OS and environment. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smplayer-vista.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VirtualBox326.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DAZ_Studio_1715_screenshot.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clementine_0.6_in_Windows.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scribus-1.3-Linux.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Texmakertop.png

The applications look similar under different environments, and are no more "alien-looking" than other applications built for the one environment but using different toolkits.

Qt SDK 1.1, targetting Qt 4.7, has been released, BTW.

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Nokia-releases-Qt-SDK-1-1-12...

Enjoy.

Edited 2011-05-06 03:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

I so do not agree with this. Any application that must run on different OS'es must have the UI and interaction designed for each specific OS or risk sucking big time.


That might have been true at one time, but it isn't anymore. Neither Microsoft or Apple follow their own HIG guidelines anymore. Just look at the difference between say, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Internet Explorer. Neither one has a menu bar anymore, and the interfaces are totally different from each other.

But also, lets face it. The desktop application, with few exceptions, is dead. That makes the whole discussion about Qt vs. GTK vs. WPF vs. Windows Forms vs. Cocoa basically irrelevant. How many people even use a thick email client anymore for example? I know I don't. I just run GMail in a browser tab with desktop integration turned on so Chrome notifies me with a little popup in the bottom right corner when I have new email.

How many people still run thick personal information managers anymore? I don't. It's all in Google calendar.

These days, software runs on the server. And has a client front end written in JavaScript or Flash. And when it comes to writing server side software, I just don't feel Mono is ready for production use unless you are writing a "toy application" where down time and bugs in the framework are acceptable.

If you are going to program in .NET, and you are doing serious work where downtime and instability means lots of lost money and potential lost customers, then realistically, right now, you are locking yourself into deploying on the Windows platform. That's perfectly fine, if you are creating a 100% SAAS model where you will always host the application yourself, and you will always have control over the servers they are deployed on, and you are willing to commit to deploying on Windows servers.

But in my case for example, I have some customers that due to the nature of their data, absolutely have to deploy the software on their own internal servers. Letting me host the app for them is not an option. And because of that, I need to ensure my application is compatible with their platform. I can't do that with .NET

Several years ago, I worked for a company that had decided to develop and deploy on the .NET platform. They had exactly that situation come along. A company wanted to buy our software, because it was the best in the industry by far. But their own policy prohibited them from deploying server side applications on Windows. The company I worked for ended up basically doing a re-write of the application in Java just so it could get this customer. In fact, that is why I was hired there. To rewrite their .NET application in Java.

I learned a valuable lesson from that experience. And that is why today, I will never write anything in .NET unless I am 100% sure it will only be hosted on a Windows server, and there's no chance a customer might come along who needs to deploy it on a non-Windows platform.

Don't get me wrong, I like .NET, and it has a lot going for it. I will use it sometimes when I can. But if there is any doubt about whether the application will ever need to be deployed on any platform other than Windows, than I won't use it.

Edited 2011-05-06 03:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1