This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature: C/C++

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

By Bruce Byfield on October 08, 2008 (9:00:00 PM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Few free and open source software projects have attracted such a range of reactions as Mono. On one hand, as an implementation of Microsoft's .Net that's sponsored by Novell, it has been vilified both for the company it keeps and as a possible source of patent claims, should Microsoft choose to get nasty. On the other hand, Mono has been the platform of choice for such major projects as Second Life, which uses it to increase the efficiency of its servers. This week, as the Mono project reached version 2.0, Miguel de Icaza, the project's founder and maintainer, talked with Linux.com about the history of the project, its application and the criticism leveled at it, and where the project goes from here.

Mono 2.0 is a milestone in the project because, as Novell product manager Joseph Hill explains, "We're really signalling that we've completed compatibility with .Net 2.0's API." However, as Hill points out, Mono has already done considerable work on compatibility with .Net 3.0 and 3.5, so Mono 2.0 is "a little more like 3.5 minus several of the big libraries that were added to 3.0 that we're not seeing a lot of uptake on -- for example, the Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) and the Windows Presentation Foundation."

Even more importantly, for de Icaza, the release is a moment to reflect that the project has "come to the point where people consider Mono an alternative implementation" of .Net. For example, he cites the example of the compiler for F#, whose developers "not only test on Mono before shipping, but also provide installation scripts for Linux. Now we're finally regarded as a serious project, and not just a toy project."

The struggle for respect

For de Icaza, the moment has been a long time coming. "When .Net came out in 2000, I had a little bit of envy," he says, "because it looked fantastic, and I felt left behind. I saw the Windows developers getting this incredibly interesting technology -- you know, multiple language support, use of native libraries, a really nice language. And Linux people didn't have that, so we started building support for all that in Linux." For de Icaza, the decision was "all about making the developer happy, eliminating frustration, making sure he enjoys what he is doing, and trying to eliminate as many pain points as possible."

Since then, "we've gone in waves," de Icaza says. "The first wave, up to Mono 1.0, was really focused on improving the status quo of development, and trying to bring that joy of programming to Linux developers by giving them that combination of high performance and tight languages, and the benefits of a managed run-time.

"The second wave was when we started looking at implementing the APIs that people were using on the Windows platform, because that would enable a lot of libraries and components that people were using on Windows to be used on Linux as well. There's a massive component-vendor ecosystem on Windows for .Net technologies, and we wanted to get all that on Linux."

The project suffered a setback when it had barely implemented the basic 1.0 .Net technologies in Mono 1.2, and .Net 2.0 was released. "We had the core features, but we were lagging behind API-wise," de Icaza says. But, since then, the cross-platform support that he sought has started to arrive.

"Today, pretty much every open source .Net routine out there is tested against Mono. When we released Mono 1.2, it was pretty much a novelty. But now, it's pretty much a standard rule that you will test your software on Mono before you ship."

The result has been a widespread uptake in the use of Mono for development. The list of companies and Web projects that use Mono numbers several dozen, ranging from Novell to MindTouch and Wikipedia. And, on the GNOME desktop, de Icaza says, "Some of the best of breed applications that people ship with GNOME are built with Mono: the photo management tool F-Spot, the media player Banshee, and new stuff like Tasque and GNOME Do."

Perhaps the most surprising use of Mono has been in the gaming community. "Second Life has now migrated to using its own scripts on Mono, and we gave them up to 350 times performance increase. That means they can run more in their scripts, and have a lot more complicated effects with the same code," de Icaza says. "And, on the client side, we've been working with a company in Denmark called Unity [Technologies] that builds an IDE for games, and they also have mini-games on the Web that is probably the most popular use of Mono today. But the one that's really exciting is the Wii [gaming console]. We got Mono running on the Wii, and we basically help make better games."

According to de Icaza, "We get a lot of requests from game companies to license Mono," which is released under the GNU Lesser General Public License, and therefore available for both free and proprietary use. "We can't quote names, but the makers of anything that has too many characters on the screens, or too many things happening at once, those are typically the people we get calling us for getting a version for consoles."

Constant criticism

Running counter to this success is a steady stream of criticism that is so strong that, in many free software circles, it is better known than Mono's success. "The hostility started on day one, you know?" de Icaza says. "A lot of people are not pro-something; they're anti-Microsoft. And Mono was criticized early on because Microsoft created the APIs, and Microsoft is evil."

De Icaza suggests that a certain double standard has been present in much of the criticism. He notes, for example, that the same people who criticized Mono, which has always been free software and cross-platform, used to be far more tolerant towards Sun Microsystems'Java when it was still proprietary and ran only on platforms that Sun chose to support.

Still, de Icaza acknowledges that the criticism has probably hurt the project to an extent. "We could probably have more developers if everyone was gung-ho about Mono," he says. "On the other hand, there are projects that have been out there forever, even with monetary backup, and they have trouble getting contributors. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt if everyone loved Mono, but it's hard to dodge criticism."

But, so far as possible, de Icaza tries not to dwell on the criticism. In contrast to what he perceives as the negativity in the criticism, he says, "I like to think of my team as pro-having better tools, pro-bringing more people to Linux. It kind of sounds like a self-help book, but we're trying to be positive and trying to leave a positive mark on the world."

Besides, de Icaza is convinced that, over time, the criticism is dying, or at least being confined to only a small segment of the community. "I think most people have learned to live and let live," he says. "It's hard to tell us that we should give up when you get all these other successes, when it's winning some key customers, helping people consume less power and reducing their data center loads. It's hard to tell us that we're wrong based on an article they read in some rag."

What comes next

De Icaza acknowledges that Mono may always be struggling for parity. "Microsoft is always going to have some APIs we want to get our hands on -- but, for that matter, so will other people. There's always going to be some APIs we want to have." However, he points out that parity goes both ways, and, given Mono's support for projects such as D-Bus, it is also true that "Microsoft has a lot of catching up to do with us," although he admits that such a comment is "probably a stretch."

The immediate priority is to implement the APIs in .Net 3.0 and 3.5 that Mono still does not support, such as WCF. Another priority is improved Mac OS X support. A number of other improvements, such as a rewritten just-in-time (JIT) compilation engine, have been ready for a couple of months, but were not included in the 2.0 release because they needed a longer test cycle.

De Icaza also looks forward to increased use of Mono in GNOME. However, he views GNOME as a multiple-language project, noting that "people have grown very fond of Python" in the GNOME project.

Even the rise of Vala, which many people regard as an effort to sidestep the controversy over using Mono in GNOME, does not unduly disturb him. While he would like to see Vala develop more, and is concerned that it might take years to develop the support necessary to make a language a success, he says that Vala "has some interesting ideas. If people want to use Vala, I have no objection."

Naturally, de Icaza would prefer that people adopt Mono. But, he says, "My object in the end is more applications for Linux, and it doesn't really matter what people are using. We happen to like to bring .Net developers from Windows to Linux, because they have a huge ecosystem. But if people want to use something else, more power to them."

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.123.84.248] on October 08, 2008 09:47 PM
I don't get it, maybe because I use KDE and because I'm not a corporate entity I see no need or reason for Mono. If some one would be kind enough to explain how it benefits the "home user" I'd appreciate it. As for the Gnome apps developed in Mono, considering it's age there's but a few and they seem to be developed by people with a direct connection to the Mono project. And as a former Windows user I never ran into any .net applications other than paint.net.

#

Re: After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 68.52.167.37] on October 08, 2008 10:44 PM
I don't think there are going to be many development environments that are going to excite the "home user". My mom to this day still refuses to get excited about Mono, .Net, Java, Python, Ruby, C, C++, or Perl.

The biggest place Mono can help are the hundreds of thousands of businesses who have written their internal apps in .Net. Without Mono, the barriers to switching to Linux are they have to rewrite all those apps. With Mono, those barriers are significantly reduced. (And if you've ever worked in a business, rewriting a business app is generally a non-starter, because you don't touch things that are working, and in many cases, the person who wrote it is gone, and no one knows how it works.)

#

Internal apps won't run mono

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 195.148.43.9] on October 09, 2008 03:44 PM
Except that the internal apps won't run mono. It's not a full implementation and it's not compatible with the majority (of the few) .Net apps that are out there.

Further, De Icaza has not given any concrete statement on where Mono users stand in regards to M$ software patents.

Developers are going to stick with what is proven to work better, such as Java, Python, Perl, Php and Ruby, and ignore boondoggles like .Net and half-implementations of boondoggles like Mono.

Managers are going to either drink the M$ Koolaid and go for .Net (and out of business) or will steer as far as possible away from the patent minefield that is Mono. To top it off, Java is now open source.

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.123.84.248] on October 08, 2008 09:50 PM

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.238.28.75] on October 08, 2008 09:51 PM
Small correction, the todo app is named Tasque not "Tasks" - http://live.gnome.org/Tasque

#

Re: After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: nanday on October 08, 2008 10:21 PM
Thanks for the correction.

That free association will get me everytime.

- Bruce Byfield ("nanday")
[Modified by: nanday on October 08, 2008 02:31 PM]

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 81.44.131.210] on October 08, 2008 10:11 PM
"the same people who criticized Mono, which has always been free software and cross-platform, used to be far more tolerant towards Sun Microsystems'Java when it was still proprietary and ran only on platforms that Sun chose to support"

.net came to existence just to displace java, which came to existence to solve a problem. .Net was not necessary in the first place, and it was just parasiting java design.
Mono is just helping .net in embracing and extend a technology which nobody wanted.
Miguel says that people hates mono because its API comes from MS, but the fact is, Mono mimics .Net just because it comes from MS.

#

de Icaza's comment is just not true

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 82.192.250.149] on October 08, 2008 10:20 PM
"it's pretty much a standard rule that you will test your [.net] software on Mono before you ship."

This just isn't true. Actually it's so plainly, completely, balderdash that I'm surprised that even Icaza, in his role as over-the-top Mono advocate, would make it. From my observation I would say that about 98% of .net developers don't even know (or care) that Mono exists, and the other 2% know it exists but think it would be a waste of time to bother with it, since they're 100% Microsoft oriented.

That really is what you would expect, since if you want your project to be portable, you use something other than a proprietary technology - Java is free software now, for example, and is mature and multi-platform.

#

Re: de Icaza's comment is just not true

Posted by: nanday on October 08, 2008 11:32 PM
To be fair, you need to take this statement in context. Miguel is talking about open source .net developers, not all .net developers.

- Bruce Byfield ("nanday")

#

My experience with Mono users

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.142.248.208] on October 08, 2008 10:57 PM
From what I can see, the people most excited about Mono are Windows users. As ip 82.192.250.249 pointed out, most Windows developers don't know/don't care. But Mono actually brings some significant ENHANCEMENTS that are not available from Microsoft. For example, the class libraries open up APIs that Microsoft WILL NOT let you have if you are developing on one of their lower end platforms. The fact that Mono and its compatibility tester allow a Windows (only) developer to ALSO potentially move their application to Linux or other OS's is just another plus. So most Mono users that I know ARE Windows folks... NOT Linux folks.

I say... more power to what Mono is doing... it's the BETTER .Net. And I think as the project moves forward, it's possible that the majority of Windows developers will consider Mono to be the PREFERRED .Net.

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 75.168.76.53] on October 08, 2008 11:39 PM
I've never been a Mono supporter, and I see it as just another way for MS to embrace-extend-extinguish Linux and FLOSS, but I don't know much about the language itself and its capabilities; I just dislike what it wants to do -- run closed-source apps on a Free Linux platform.

I do wonder though, does Mono run on Windows?

#

Re: After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 68.166.211.50] on October 09, 2008 02:54 AM
You must also hate the C and C++ programming languages as well, because they allow the creation of closed-source apps on Linux. As well as Java and pretty much any other compiled language you can build software on Linux with.

So, what language would you prefer to see used for, say, kernel development? Because right now, it's C/C++ and assembly, from what I can tell - and even GCC lets you compile (and thus run) closed-source apps on a Free Linux platform.

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 192.168.5.150] on October 09, 2008 01:07 AM
I love how people criticize without even knowing what Mono is or does. Yes, Mono runs on Windows.

#

Re: After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 72.19.170.233] on October 09, 2008 02:47 AM
And Mac!

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 75.87.128.16] on October 09, 2008 04:03 AM
Are there any serious apps written by Windows developers for mono?

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: on October 09, 2008 05:57 AM
My frustration with Mono is that, in my experience, it has not allowed me to run a single .Net app on Linux, and thus as a technology to enable migration to Linux it does not stack up. What it does do is offer FOSS developers a development environment with potential patent liabilities. Mono supporters try to paint criticism of Mono as knee-jerk, anti-Microsoft sentiment. This is a straw man; there exists a real potential for patent problems here, and with Ballmer's sabre-rattling over the last few years that's nothing to ignore.
Personally, I am glad Mono is there because it may remove some roadblocks to FOSS adoption. But I would not choose it as a development environment myself until Microsoft (or the US courts) settles the patent issues once and for all.

#

Re: After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 92.192.33.26] on October 09, 2008 06:27 AM
Regarding the pending patent issue: I agree with you. This is the only reason why I still refuse to spend time on mono. If the FSF states: "Mono is free software and any patent claims will be defeated by us", I'm going to consider it even before the (world wide) patent mess has settled.

-- Maik

#

Stop comparing Mono with Java -let's think about how to make Java integrate better with Linux

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 15.203.249.124] on October 09, 2008 10:14 AM
There are some nice aspects of the CLR architecture, such as its language neutrality. but the .NET API is a thin wrapper around the Windows OS; the semantics of the filesystem, of the execution of other programs, the graphics -all windows. And WCF is a misguided approach to distributed computing, given that REST is gaining so much momentum.

So why not leave Mono alone, take the best ideas of the CLR: cross language datatypes and the P/Invoke operation, and get them into Java, so we can use it to write tightly integrated Linux code. That would give us a way forward that is in OSS control, instead of trailing MS and trying to emulate the whole of Win32

#

Re: Stop comparing Mono with Java -let's think about how to make Java integrate better with Linux

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 200.105.171.82] on October 09, 2008 02:41 PM
"So why not leave Mono alone, take the best ideas of the CLR: cross language datatypes and the P/Invoke operation, and get them into Java, so we can use it to write tightly integrated Linux code. That would give us a way forward that is in OSS control, instead of trailing MS and trying to emulate the whole of Win32"


Icaza would never approve that, because it is not pro MS enough.
--
If Mono actually helped port code from .net projects it would be helpful, but it doesn't. The problem is that .net, very much like Optionally-Open-XML is... optionally open, you open your visual studio IDE and you instantly use windows.forms, which aren't even protected by the loussy protection from the "Microsoft promise not to sue", so in fact, then you keep using it, and you include sql server and some random active X control, or if it is a game the whole freaking directx. Then this app would obviously not run in Mono, this is the reason Mono is USELESS to make apps run in Linux, all the current .net apps that run in Mono are just those garbage apps that already have better alternatives in Linux, all the important things (Like my country's tax system) will never run in Mono.

Mono is there just to make people STOP developing stuff for Linux, Mono (.net) is attempting to replace Linux as a development platform, and those gnome apps Icaza gloated so much for in this article, all come from Novell or Mono devs, and they are simply attempting to move people away from Linux to Mono, then Novell can simply make up their own Kernel that is better powered for Mono apps and force people into their proprietary platform.

#

Yes Miguel, there is a double standard

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 200.105.171.82] on October 09, 2008 03:08 PM
If Novell was doing with Java what they are doing with Mono - Trying to push developers to use it and only it, and trying to replace gnome apps with Java apps, I for one would be complaining as much, and I am sure as heck, Icaza would be complaining as well, so, I got to say, there is a double standard, and it is on Miguel's side.

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 93.97.209.126] on October 09, 2008 03:20 PM
Nice thread explaining lots of the issues ppl have with Mono:

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/75mh6/whats_so_evil_about_mono_linux_today_blog/

If anyone is familiar with DeIcaza and his past projects he will see that Miguel has an affinity for copying
Microsoft technologies. And that is exactly the problem with Mono. It is a sub-par clone of microsoft's implementation
with no reason to exist whatsoever. Java was there before Mono but it wasn't chosen because of FUD and politics
from the Mono camp. Now that it is opensource, it will finally nail the coffin shut.

I see the arguments about portability and developers moving from windows to linux because of mono as a bad
joke. One must have lost touch with reality to use these delusions as arguments.

#

Re: After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 88.117.121.214] on October 11, 2008 10:43 PM
It's not a bad joke! It's fact.

I am a Windows developer for about 9 years and since MONO 1.0 I kept an eye on the progress of the MONO project because it is simply exciting and attractive to have the possibility of porting your application to many other plattforms with easy (often plattforms you didn't dreamed of as a Windows developer).
Yes you are right; at first it sounds wonderfull but after the first contact with MONO you can see that not every app written with Microsoft.NET runs out of the box with MONO (I have not tested MONO 2.0 yet...). But it worked good enough that we have been compiling and testing our non-GUI apps (API's, server components) at our company during the last 4 years and we can now see light at the end of the tunnel that we will be able to ship it for all plattforms MONO supports.
FYI: We haven't asked our boss to do that ... it was our developer-heart that forced us to try it (often in our spare time). And it worked!

I hope this post will calm down this "flame war" because from my side Miguel de Icaza is absolutely right that LINUX will get much more developer support because of his wonderfull MONO project! (at least it got me and some of my friends)

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 216.239.79.51] on October 09, 2008 03:29 PM
>But now, it's pretty much a standard rule that you will test your software on Mono before you ship.

What color is the sky in your world Senor Miguel?
I just IM about 2-3 dozen developers on my projects at work this morning... most of them answered "Hahahahahahaha".

>We happen to like to bring .Net developers from Windows to Linux,

Yeah about that....it aint gonna work. Windows developers arent going to switch and that's what .net developers are...windows developers, they could care less about Linux.
But hey, anything that can entice then tie up developers in the murky legal waters of using Windows-based technologies is a big plus for Microsoft.


Anyways, this the man who told us that OOXML was a brilliant piece of work, so let's just say I believe him less than I do a politician.

#

Mono....

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 68.220.206.160] on October 09, 2008 03:40 PM
The name says it all. Mono is an infectious disease that if not treated properly (gotten rid of) is potentially fatal.

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.136.232.222] on October 09, 2008 03:50 PM
Maybe Mr. de Icaza can comment on the abandonment of Novell's ifolder project immediately after the deal with Microsoft was signed. Could it be that it was in direct competition with Microsoft's own Sharepoint server product that they were pushing so hard at the time?

#

Re: After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 24.218.111.14] on October 09, 2008 04:46 PM
iFolder was abandoned at Novell two years before the Novell/Microsoft agreement.

The code continues to be maintained today, but it is no longer fully staffed as it once was.

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 195.242.168.194] on October 09, 2008 04:39 PM
There are three separate issues here: C#, the CLR virtual machine, and dot-net.

C# is defined as ECMA (ECMA-334) and ISO (ISO/IEC 23270).
The CLR is defined as ECMA-335
The dot-net APIs are not standardised.

I haven't researched what patent policies Microsoft agreed to when working with the above ECMA/ISO standards. But if *you* don't know either, then I suggest investigating before sounding off too loudly; it might save you making a fool of yourself. Standards usually do require patent releases from the parties involved, and quite a few open-source-friendly groups are involved in the above standards committees which I sincerely doubt would be the case if there were not appropriate patent releases as part of the standards agreement.

The dot-net apis are of course a different issue, but they are *optional*; mono is useful without them.

See here for further details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language)
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_General

#

Actions speak louder than words - Miguel doesn't take critcism.....

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 74.237.224.66] on October 09, 2008 05:32 PM
Pro-this that and the other thing? Get a grip.

He can't even politely answer someone who asks a question about the legal issues without an aggressive flame. Believe me - I've been personally scorched in the effort.
He pro-what-he-wants - not much more than that, and not even willing to hear criticisms.

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 206.224.254.17] on October 09, 2008 06:18 PM
Could not be more close to the truth:
"anything that can entice then tie up developers in the murky legal waters of using Windows-based technologies is a big plus for Microsoft."
Icaza on it's latest interview (http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7746284247.html)
answering: Is Novell seeing a lot of commercial licensing around Mono at this point in time?
"That's right. But Novell does not allow me to talk about financial matters." (So it's a NOVELL interest divert developers to it's Microsoft side knowing that they're the only ones not to be sued by it's master)
answering if there's a trojan horse on mono
"I'm surprised people were able to figure out our evil plot."--Don't tell us he was kidding-It's Microsoft design to destroy in Courts what it deems its NUMBER ONE competitor: GNU/LINUX.
If Icaza is really: " am certainly against software patents." Why the hell to play with a minefield that it is Mono? It's only because NOVELL it's signed a "patent agreement" with the giant and the neighborhood bully is there to protect them.
Finally talking about Moonlight codecs he acknowledges licensing issues that whoever wants it has to go to MS site: "Everybody will be able to use them, but they need to be downloaded from Microsoft. This has to do with licensing issues too complex to go into here."--Those issues that he didn't want to talk about are the same ones that lurke upon any developer that wants to play with Mono"
Thanks to keeping people aware about how Microsoft is trying to destroy freedom: GNU/Linux

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 192.168.1.9] on October 09, 2008 08:03 PM
> Windows developers arent going to switch and that's what .net developers are...windows developers

Are you serious? Many Windows developers want to switch, they just don't find a comfortable environment. A problem that Mono is solving.
I run Linux. My customers run Windows. Until recently I used to develop exclusively on Windows. I've tried Glade, GTK Python, wxPython, I even considered PHP+GTK once, but I didn't switch until I found Mono.

For those Windows developers who where never interested interested in Linux, Mono makes porting to Linux easy and attractive.

> Miguel de Icaza: "When .Net came out in 2000, I had a little bit of envy," he says, "because it looked fantastic, and I felt left behind."

That's what I've felt too. I hate to admit it, but .NET is the best development platform I've ever used. It came from Microsoft, who would have thought. I still like it.

I don't get this idea that if you are open, you are good; if you are proprietary, you are bad; if you are open but proprietary-friendly you are the worst.
I think It's how the big companies (Novell, Sun) create open source apps. They are not taking away my right to use and create open source apps in the old fashion.

#

Re: After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 189.35.3.58] on October 10, 2008 12:30 AM
.Net is nice, but isn't thaat great.. For example, for web development Ruby on Rails can be much more productive (well, at least if you have a HTML coder on your team), and even MS is copying some things from Rails with that Linq thing.

For desktop applications, you have QT4, that let you program in C++, Ruby, Python, and even Java, it's very easy to develop, and have awesome technologies like Widget on Canvas, Phonon, etc..

I don't thing it's easy, or even possible, do things like this on .Net:
http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2007/11/22/widgets-on-the-canvas-integrated

One more thing, for me it's very nice to program in C++ Qt, because I can program easily on Linux and when I want to compile to windows, I just copy the code to a windows machine, and do a "qmake clean", "qmake -windows", "make", and it generates a windows binary with NO modifications to the source, you have a much faster C++ application without boring with multiplataform details, it's just awesome

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 189.35.3.58] on October 10, 2008 12:20 AM
.Net is indeed a good technology, but is developed with Windows in mind, so it will never be optimized for multiplataform programming, no matter how much effort Mono's team put on it, it will always behind official .Net version...

And there's always the patent FUD from Microsoft, you can never be 100% safe when you are talking about Microsoft.. Just look at their history.

And besides all of that, I don't think .net is a so great technology that it worth the problem, we have awesome technologies like Qt4 that are much faster than mono, and very easy to develop, and much more powerful too (I don't think you can do things like Widget on Canvas on Mono)

#

Re: After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 88.117.121.214] on October 11, 2008 10:54 PM
I don't know the systems in detail but if you are comparing MONO with the features you can use in Qt4 than you should compare the MONO Gtk# bindings and not the Windows.Forms implementation.

#

Why .NET?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 99.238.105.117] on October 10, 2008 04:17 AM
Really. Why did Microsoft even bother to develop it? It's really not all that useful. The .NET applications I've seen would have been better off written in Visual C or Visual Basic. So waste time trying to imitate a dead end? C# is a sad joke,

#

Re: Why .NET?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 88.117.121.214] on October 11, 2008 11:01 PM
From my position I can only say that using C# with Visual Studio is the most straight forward aproach instad of using VC++ with MFC / COM or something like that. MS had VB for RAD and VC++ for the hard stuff. Now with .NET you get (nearly) both in one comfortable package. And you boss will also be happy if you can produce your apps in much less time with the average developers available on the market.
And the nice thing is --> with every step Monodevelop and the MONO project is getting better using a CLR based language gives much more flexibility.

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 80.139.210.44] on October 10, 2008 10:48 AM
Well, I like mono.

I have to use windows + visual studio + c# @work, but in my home office I check out the code and keep on developing in mono. Never had problems with that approach for the last ~2 years.
Btw, c# itself is fine - I simply like that language. Ok, I like Java at least as much as c#, but that is not the point - my Boss makes me use c# and not java - so only mono gives me the freedom not to use windows @ home office - thanks to novell, thd miguel de icaza

#

Wikipedia

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 82.155.86.1] on October 10, 2008 04:06 PM
Wikipedia does not use Mono at all. Do not believe what is written here:
http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono

Here is something straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Lucene-search

Wikipedia search uses Java, not Mono C#. Stupid Icaza doesn't even bother to check if his "sucess stories" are up to date.

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 213.139.48.131] on October 15, 2008 09:00 PM
Qt / C++ = native performance and look + portability + freedom.

#

After 2.0 release, Miguel de Icaza reflects on Mono's past and future

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 85.107.198.88] on October 22, 2008 03:08 PM
The second wave was when we started looking at implementing the APIs that people were using on the Windows platform, because that would enable a lot of libraries and components that people were using on Windows to be used on Linux as well. There's a massive component-vendor ecosystem on Windows for .Net technologies, and we wanted to get all that on Linux. http://www.iplayfreegames.net play free games What it does do is offer FOSS developers a development environment with potential patent liabilities. Mono supporters try to paint criticism of Mono as knee-jerk, anti-Microsoft sentiment. This is a straw man; there exists a real potential for patent problems here, and with Ballmer's sabre-rattling over the last few years that's nothing to ignore.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya