Miguel de Icaza has just posted his minute of second mono summit. This provides a lot of interesting information about mono improvements. Among others mentions “stetic” the new Gtk# GUI designer, Gtk# databindings, and a better way to package mono.
Second Mono Summit Notes
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Actually it looks rather good. If they improve the packaging, and than re-double their effort on documentation, than the only question left is Cairo’s 2d graphics. I think that Cairo is a feature attraction of the next line of Linux desktop applications. There isn’t enough discussion about it, yet.
I am surprised MainSoft is involved in Mono since they have access to Windows source code as part of their MainWin product.
finally gnome have an interesting OO language (except python )
i think that the next year will be for mono…..
finally gnome have an interesting OO language (except python )
—
python is used lot more than mono for gtk programs. its heavily undervalued because it hasnt been promoted as much.
redhat has all of its stuff under pygtk. same for canonical(ubuntu). a lot more programs in gnomefiles.org are python based and it doesnt have the patent problems mono could have.
They have plenty of features, and should not follow the Microsoft and Java route of quantity instead of quality. Feature addiction end up like managerial accounting, it’s incremental suicide.
Documentation, tutorials, and examples, that’s what will make it easy to use Mono.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Python is a programming language. Mono is an open source implementation of .NET. Mono, Python, C# can all play nicely together:
http://ironpython.com/
No. If mono has legal problems. Ironpython is not saved from it either. CPython is. thats the difference and with the ironpython guy working for MS now, I am not sure the future is bright there
I think Mono and Python are aimed at two different audiences. It seems to me Mono is focusing at the corporate developers and corporations, while Python is not being promoted at all. Thankfully, a lot of GNOME hackers within and outside the corporate realm use Python notwithstanding. It’s the most popular binding on the platform. It just needs a lot more promotion and…err…hype.
It just needs a lot more promotion and…err…hype.
—
Well that might just be true but I believe that gnome can very well use python instead of mono for *its* development needs. Of course mono and python are different beasts. I am just talking about the gnome view point here
I’m still not convinced that Mono won’t have legal issues in the future. I’m surprised it has gotten this far without Microsoft intervening somehow. Or is there something I don’t understand?
If there were a single installable package for Ubuntu, I’d probably take a look at Mono to see what all the hype is about.
I’m still not convinced that Mono won’t have legal issues in the future. I’m surprised it has gotten this far without Microsoft intervening somehow
—
mono isnt affecting MS now. too early to comment either way. There are definitely patents in .net which could be potential problems
@Mike
deb http://www.getsweaaa.com/~tseng/ubuntu/debs ./
Be sure to check out Tomboy!
RE:Python
Until Parrot becomes mature enough, not a chance. Python is OK for some apps, if you don’t mind the major performance hit.
spank_da_monkey: Thanks. Turns out there is an Ubuntu package for MonoDevelop on a different repository. So a couple of selections in Synaptic and it’s all installed. Now I have to work out the language!
I’m glad they recognize that Mono is a pain to install on any distribution besides SUSE, Fedora and RedHat, and it’s a pain on those distros if you don’t use Red Carpet.
The single biggest boost for Mono’s acceptance would be the creation of two works-on-any-distribution build scripts: One for the runtime, and one for the runtime plus all the development tools and libaries. You know, scripts like Garnome, except that they work. (We are beginning to see the release of a few Mono apps that might actually be useful. But, how useful is an application that cannot ship with a Mono runtime that installs transparently?)
As for MS actions re: patents, I doubt it. Mono is an implementation of public ECMA standards. If the Mono crew uses their collective heads, they’ll be fine. (Remember, being sued isn’t the problem. Losing is the problem.)
This is very impressive, no doubt. Mono, however, will not be ready for prime-time in enterprise systems for another 4-5 years, which is the bare minimum for a technology as disruptive as .NET to stabilize.
By that time, who knows what the technology landscape will look like? I am glad that Mono is there limping along and I wish them the best of success, but I hope Gnome never comes to depend at all on it, because it is a techinical and legal quagmire. Moreover, it is an unneeded reinvention of the wheel for the purpose of staying Microsoft competitive in the technology arsenal. What Miguel is missing is that you cannot outdo Microsoft in its home turf. You cannot win when they make the rules.
If this tremendous amount of effort that is going into Mono had gone into improving Gnome in terms of hardware/softare integration, we would be much further along. Apple does not have any .NET stack and they are doing quite well.
As for MS actions re: patents, I doubt it. Mono is an implementation of public ECMA standards. If the Mono crew uses their collective heads, they’ll be fine. (Remember, being sued isn’t the problem. Losing is the problem.)
—-
as far as patents are concerned ecma standars mean totally nothing. ecma standars allow for RAND policy incompatible with free/open source software. nothing short of a written patent grant is safe
I wish Miguel and the Monistas all the luck in the world, but personally I’d be happier if the next-gen agile languages like ruby and python became the open-source standards. Of course if ruby and python could boost their popularity by using .net CIL bytecode, that would be good too.
>>ecma standars allow for RAND policy incompatible with free/open source software.
<QUOTE>
Microsoft has granted RAND+Royalty Free licenses to any patents they
might own that are required to implement the ECMA 334/335 standards.
So at least our core VM, classes and compilers are safe from any
litigation from *Microsoft*.
</QUOTE>
http://lists.ximian.com/archives/public/mono-list/2004-March/019042…
Please, please, let’s not rehash this old argument. Microsoft, as a corporate entity, has *not* publicly produced any legally binding document that guarantees RAND + Royalty-Free licensing. This (mis)statement is usually backed up by quoting *one* Microsoft developer who said something like this in a mailing-list posting. Not exactly your legal gold standard…
And, in any case, RAND + Royalty-Free does not equal “no strings attached” or “(L)GPL compatible”.
So, no, Mono is *not* to be considered safe. Which is not to say that Java is safe, or that Python/Perl/Ruby/???? are necessarily safe. Except that it is likely that whatever patents MS holds on .NET would be more directly applicable to Mono than to Parrot, say. [And this also does not mean that MS’s patents are necessarily valid] [And, finally, I do not know whether Miguel & co. are actually trying to persuade MS to provide a suitable legal assurance of no litigation] [Oh, I forgot—IANAL].
Microsoft has granted RAND+Royalty Free licenses to any patents they
might own that are required to implement the ECMA 334/335 standards.
——
where is the legal agreement. dont point to mailing lists.
royalty free license still require everyone using this particular technology to sign up with MS and is still incompatible with free/open source software. what is required is a patent grant or alteast point me to the LEGAL document by MS and others for a royalty free license
Your Microsoft bias is so evident. You always attack Open Source and defend Microsoft. The only time when you will come to the defense of an open source project is when it is one such as this one that might be encumbered by Microsoft patents, which Microsoft only will wield once Mono has gained some ground.
Since customers will be loathed to re-write their apps, they will switch to the unemcumbered Microsoft version. And I suspect that this is why you are here misleading people claiming that Mono’s relationship to Microsoft technologies is not an issue.
Are you a Microsoft employee? Do they pay you for this? I hope the pay is good.
I think he made a valid point (but the other Anonymous (IP: 61.95.184.—) has a good point too). Attacking him doesn’t prove he is wrong.
I’ve really thought recently that Mono has all it’s priorities mixed up. Personally I see it as a “filling the gap” technology and that’s why some things are strange to me. (By filling the gap I mean making Linux development much easier)
For example they only support gnome 2.2 and gtk 2.2, and have for some time and I could’t find anything on updates. Also, as far as I know there are some missing bindings that allow such things as applets and such. However, they have 3 guys working on SWF’s and it really looked like this was a huge priority. Furthermore they have an apache mod and even their own webserver for ASP.net, defenitley something that doesn’t really fill a gap (if there is one area Linux doesn’t need much help it’s in the web space).
So I guess it’s good to see that they are further concentrating on GTK# bindings and such. I also wish they had some pictures of the GTK interface designer deal.
Next thing: Documentation. I would love to see documentation chald full of examples. MS defenitley sets the benchmark on this.
Mono is great. I just started using it today.
Are there good editors for Windows? I am currently using Visual C# 2005 Express Edition Beta to do my CSharp coding.
Forgot to mention the program I am coding in C# using Mono – it is an address standardization program that interfaces with USPS’ Address Standardization API.
The addresses are in an Access database.
Hello,
We are supporting the Gnome 2.2 platform as opposed to
the latest and greatest on purpose. It turns out that there
are still plenty of distributions that ship the old libraries
and we wanted to make sure that Gtk# targetted something
that was wildly available:
For a current list, see:
http://vektor.ca/gnome2-versions.html
More details on the work we are doing on Gtk# can be
found here: http://lists.ximian.com/archives/public/gtk-sharp-list/2004-July/00…
As you can see there is code already on CVS to support
new versions of Gtk, we have just chosen not to ship it
for the reasons exposed above.
As for web servers, `xsp’ is a test server for running
applications from the command line, nothing out of the
ordinary, and mod_mono is a module that allows you to host
ASP.NET applications on your Apache server, without this
you could not run .aspx files.
Miguel.
I am not a lawyer, but IMHO just because of nobody sue Python with software patents at this moment doesn’t mean it is impossible. IMHO nobody know what existing software licenses can sue python or gnome or any open (or closed) source project.
I think Mono the platform as opposed to Python the platform or put another way, .Net classes versus Python libraries. A language is pretty useless for RAD unless it has good libraries, which is Mono’s strength but also weakness since those libraries are Microsoft’s creation largely.
If I got you mixed up with somebody else, my apologies.
But I doubt it. I seem to recall your arguments in a different thread about why Linux was no good for the desktop.
It could be that I confused you with that smartpatrol asshole. Some many damn trolls in this site, it is hard to keep track.
It said in there that they are bringing Gtk# up to Gtk+ 2.8. That the work is almost done.
For the past few months after the 1.0 release, Mike has been updating Gtk# as part of a full API audit to ensure that the code produced by our binding generator is correct fixing problems as we go. So far the API audit has covered glib and gdk and gtk is mostly complete.
The current priorities are:
* Complete the audit of the gtk+ library
* Complete the audit of the gnome library.
After this we will branch Gtk# for the new release. The new release of Gtk# moves the binding from wrapping Gnome 2.2 to wrapping the Gnome 2.6 APIs. This work has already been done by some folks in the community and most of the work is merging the gtk-sharp-2-4 branch into the HEAD branch.
…or maybe it said 2.6, not 2.8.
In addition to these, we will be looking at adopting the System.ComponentModel for the core widgets (to support databinding) and to add support to this to our GtkTreeModel/TreeList (see separate section on this for details).
As for Pango, we believe that we will need to roll a hand-made binding for all of the components that the generator can not handle today.
Another post 1.0 feature is to look into CLS compliance for Gtk# as today Gtk# is not a CLS compliant class library.
…regarding lawsuits, if Microsoft started to fail before shifting horizontally in the market, than they could sue Mono, however if they shift, than Mono could beat .NET (whatever that means).
I think that Mono should be compatable with the .NET 1.0 API, but now it should change course and focus on Linux and BSD.
“Massimiliano has started a JIT port to the ARM cpus on his copious spare time. The ARM machine we got for him is smaller than a box of cigarettes, runs Linux and has a wireless interface. The AC power adaptor is larger than the machine itself.”
Is that a Gumstix or something even more exciting?
Does anyone have screenshots of stetic?
Does someone know why they started coding on stetic? So far glade + glade-sharp have worked very nicely for me, so that I don’t see why we need something new… Are there new features or is this just to make embedding in monodevelop easier?
I’m very happy to see that work on System.Windows.Forms is going on at Novell.
If there’s a usable SWF implementation I definitely *will* start to port our 250.000+ lines-of-code – project to Mono.
Mono, however, will not be ready for prime-time in enterprise systems for another 4-5 years, which is the bare minimum for a technology as disruptive as .NET to stabilize.
While arguable, Mono’s initial targe is not the enterprise space. It’s the desktop space, hence all the work in System.Drawing, Gtk#, and System.Windows.Forms, as opposed to more enterprise-targeted features such as System.EnterpriseServices and System.Messaging (both of which have virtually no support in Mono).
The real goal of Mono is to provide a modern development environment for Gnome which provides cross-language support. See:
http://www.mono-project.com/about/rationale.html
As such, we don’t care about what the industry will be like in 4-5 years; we want to use it now, for current apps.
…you cannot outdo Microsoft in its home turf. You cannot win when they make the rules.
While this is arguable, I won’t debate it. What I will say is that you certainly can’t win when you refuse to use any/all good ideas that have been developed in the industry.
Gnome was written in C because (1) it’s portable, (2) everyone knows it, and (3) it’s easy to write language bindings for it. Compare the Gnome language bindings to Qt; while Qt certainly has bindings, it required writing a C wrapper for the C++ code for the bindings to use. There are also many developers who don’t like C++, for whatever reason.
While C is great, it has it’s problems. Consequently, there are many efforts to provide a more modern infrastructure for writing Gnome apps, so that Gnome can be competitive with Microsoft/KDE/Apple. Mono is an effort to provide this infrastructure, as are the Python, Scheme, and Java bindings.
Apple does not have any .NET stack and they are doing quite well.
Apple has Cocoa/Objective C, which serves (effectively) the same purpose as .NET: a runtime system to simplify the development process. Consequently, Apple doesn’t need a .NET wrapper (or any equivalent).
Actually, Apple does have a .NET equivalent: Java, which is nicely integrated into the OS. However, Java isn’t widely used, and doesn’t integrate as nicely as Cocoa does, which is why it isn’t the language of choice for OS X.
“I’m still not convinced that Mono won’t have legal issues in the future. I’m surprised it has gotten this far without Microsoft intervening somehow. Or is there something I don’t understand?”
Mono could run into problems for cloning ASP.NET, which is a proprietary part of .NET and not part of the standard that Microsoft made available.
But we also need to remember something else. Microsoft is more interested in power than money at this point. My understanding is that Microsoft’s .NET engineers have been very helpful to the mono people at helping them understand aspects of .NET that were unclear and such.
The fact that mono basically plays into the hands of Microsoft by helping a Microsoft standard gain more control over the Internet is one very big reason to avoid it in my opinion.
PyGTK and Python rocks. I just spent the last 5 days out in the sticks, with no internet access, writing lots of Python code. But C# and Python are two different animals. C# is a static typed systems language. Python is dynamically typed. They both have their uses and I expect dynamic languages to start playing a greater role in small to medium-sized applications. I haven’t played with IronPython yet, but it’ll be interesting to see how that performs in the future.
Nobody is worrying about Mono legal problems except for deranged fanboys who are bitter that de Icaza had “the gall” to do a .NET clone. If these morons had their way, it would be illegal to run .NET on Linux.
Stetic is the new Gtk# GUI designer, written from scratch. Stetic is being developed by Dan Winship and he demoed his current designer. We will report more as progess is made on Stetic.
The goals of Stetic are to produce a modern GUI designer, learning from modern GUI designers and to provide good integration hooks with third-party IDEs (like MonoDevelop or Eclipse).
So Stetic is only a gtk# thing? I was under the impression that a replacement for Glade was in the works. Do I detest glade’s MDI interface.
I worry about Mono legal troubles when I see IL disassembled from Microsoft assemblies in some mono developer’s weblog. I also worry now due to learning of MainSoft’s involvement.
Also, Glade UI is not MDI. I take it you mean you do not like all the separate windows? If so, me too, but Glade has been serving me great so far (except for recent compatibility problems due to GTK 2.4 toolbar change).
I would like to say that, for those people claiming that Mono will have problems (or they are not sure Mono won’t have), please, please, please, go and take a look to the documentation as much as you can read (what the patent system works, what a standard is, etc etc). I hate to see people that know nothing about these facts, claim that Mono will have problems because ‘it’s a idea from MS’. If you honestly don’t know about the thing, it would be great, really great, yo keep your mouth close.
Second, I think that when a new technology appears, lot of developers working with older platforms begin to have fear (beacuse the time you invested, because you don’t want to learn another language, etc etc). This is the same, if you have something to say, don’t say FUD. This is not a post about Mono Vs [Python/Ruby/the tech you like the most]. In a tpic like that, I’m sure you will have to talk -even if you are having a bad opinion-. But here, saying that Mono will have problems or saying that another technology is better (just because you like it) will improve nothing.
Carlos.
Most of it is not FUD. There are areas where mono could run into some legal trouble.
But as far as saying another technology is better, I noticed something interesting about the mono Web site. All of their claims about Java being slow on Linux have been removed after a thread started up over on Javalobby asking why the mono project was telling lies about Java, and referencing tests from another thread that show Java to be significantly faster than mono on Linux at performing most tasks.
It is not FUD; it is discussion. In my day job, I am a MS .NET developer. Naturally, I became interested in the opportunity to consolidate my toolsets. I understand that many parts of Mono are fairly safe.
In my project, Kino, we are in development of the second generation and have been closely looking at alternatives to our current approach with C++ and Glade/GTK. However, other aspects of Mono concerned me like patentable ideas the System namespace API represents and whose implementations can become burdened.
So, I discussed it with my brother who has a masters degree in computer engineering from MIT and graduated from Stanford law school studying copyright and patent law. He was not exactly clear with his lawyer-like approach, but the impression I got was not total comfort.
Now, I learn about Mainsoft’s involvement and see things like the IL in the following post and become concerned about practices:
http://codeblogs.ximian.com/blogs/cesar/archives/000380.html
There are no absolutes in this controversy (yet). As project leaders of Free Software, myself and others have to make difficult decisions to live with. This is one of the forums where we _continue to evaluate_ and discuss. And more recently, I am becoming less comfortable due to the above.
I am not feeling disappointed about legacy code. We have already defined the end of the road for this codestream and willing to rewrite most of our application for the next generation (please don’t spolsky me). Our current experiments with Ruby and its GTK bindings are very interesting.
If you’re worried about submarine patents on ECMA 335 and 336, then I hope you’re not programming in Java also. Sun’s future is a lot more precarious than Microsoft’s and with Schwartz and McNealy having almost schizophrenic attitudes towards both Linux and Microsoft I would be a lot more worried about Sun.
If you write 500 lines of code you’re probably infringing on someone’s patent. If you want to hide under the covers for the rest of your life, then do it. Myself and others choose to use interesting technology whether it came from “evil” microsoft or not.
except osnews, who is interested by mono ?
except osnews, who is interested by mono ?
Well, let’s see. It’s a .Net clone. 95% of the world’s desktops run windows. The future of code on the windows platform is .NET. You do the math McFly.
The IL code reported on that blog entry is not IL code
from a MS assembly, if you had read it you’d now. It’s the code produced by the JS compiler for the javascript snippet at the top of the blog.
Yes Java has Patents on it. However it also has a patent grant to all of Sun’s patents as part of the Java certification process. So should the GNU Classpath ever get to the stage when it can go for the tests and get certified, it will gain an immunity from Sun’s patents because of that grant. It should not be used as a base for Free Software the moment, but it can overcome it’s direct patent problems.
Mono cannot as there is no patent grant. There is very little to say that Microsoft will not get aggressive in future, they did after all recently hire the man that created IBM’s strategy for getting money from patent licensing, particually if Mono means that GNU/Linux starts to threaten its core Windows monopoly. Which GNU/Linux will have to do to grow it’s market share, there is simply nowhere else! Hence why people are worried about it being used as the base for Free Software projects.
Thank you for the correction re the IL, which was generated by the compiler and not dlasm. I do want to be made more comfortable using and be convinced to use Mono for Free Software projects.