linux-watch.com— The first fruits of Microsoft's and Novell's new-found collaboration are on display today in Barcelona, Spain. Mono 1.2 enables Linux and Unix users to use Microsoft .NET code and applications.
Nov 9, 2006View in Crawl 4
Sorry no...I don't buy that at all. It appears that Sun are being a good citizen as regards the open source community and now intend to offer Java under a fully accepted standard licence (probably GPL) so if Microsoft were really wishing to take part in a similar manner they too would offer code under the GPL or similar licensing rather that by a back-door deal with Novell that appears to me, and many others, more of an attempt to bring as much damage to the open source movement as possible rather than any attempt at co-operation.
Logic? You think this is logical?!"Mono 1.2 enables Linux and Unix users to use Microsoft .NET code and applications."Why the hell are Linux users WANTING to use Microsoft applications?! Oh wait...those same applications are sometimes better than Linux applications. It all makes sense now! Go logic!!
Firstly, I'm not trolling, this is just my opinion.Microsoft has been crying that .NET is "the answer to Java." They market the framework as a replacement for Java because it's platform-independent and even say "hey, look, we have an ECMA standard!"Well, let's drop the bulls**t. I like .NET a lot, but it's not platform independent because Microsoft has hardly given anything about the framework to the public, which makes writing a VM for it somewhat difficult.Mono is good (monodevelop is freaking awesome) but it's only in 1.2, and there are likely bugs and incompatabilities lurking everywhere. Meanwhile, Microsoft already has 2.0 out, 3.0 planned for a post Vista release, and 3.5 fleshed out as well! (<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_framework#.NET_Framework_3.0)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_framework#.NET_Framework_3.0)</a>Mono will continue to do an amazing job catching up, but from the business perspective, businesses will continue to purchase windows machines if .NET is involved.
Microsoft has a long history of investing in competitors when they are down: Borland, Apple, Corel, Novel and others.Personally, I don't get it. Why wouldn't Microsoft want to port every money-making application to Linux? Are they really afraid that will more than proportionally diminish their Windows profits? If the gaps aren't filled by Microsoft they will be filled by others. Another comment--Novell, Wall Street's 1980s darling, born in Provo, Utah which more Inc 500 companies have their roots from than any other city in the USA, has been for the most part a black hole for innovation. Many, including Google CEO Eric Schmidt, have tried to improve things, but little can be done in a culture that doesn't live and breath entrepreneurism. I've wondered for years if Schmidt learned from Novell how not to run a company, or did he just see the light when he got to Google--probably both.Novell, no doubt, has very bright developers though and nice offices, and a great cafeteria.
@nullmind: Mono compiles .Net 2.0 code. They are indeed playing catchup with the framework, mostly in the System.Windows arena though. But that's ok, who would use that on Linux when we've got GTK#?Saying Microsoft is up to .NET 3.0 while Mono is only up to 1.2 and therefore Mono is inferior is kind of like saying IE is up to 7 and Firefox is only up to 2.0, therefore IE is better. Versions between different products simply don't match up like that.
I realize that it doesn't directly effect or have anything to with the kernel, i didn't mean for it to sound like that, i just meant that its a platform that MS can use to write a program that can. But thanks for the brief in sight into the GPL and how derived code can still be 'iffy' even if using the shim, i was wondering about that also
truesatanNov 10, 2006
Sorry no...I don't buy that at all. It appears that Sun are being a good citizen as regards the open source community and now intend to offer Java under a fully accepted standard licence (probably GPL) so if Microsoft were really wishing to take part in a similar manner they too would offer code under the GPL or similar licensing rather that by a back-door deal with Novell that appears to me, and many others, more of an attempt to bring as much damage to the open source movement as possible rather than any attempt at co-operation.
tubatechnoNov 10, 2006
Logic? You think this is logical?!"Mono 1.2 enables Linux and Unix users to use Microsoft .NET code and applications."Why the hell are Linux users WANTING to use Microsoft applications?! Oh wait...those same applications are sometimes better than Linux applications. It all makes sense now! Go logic!!
nullmindNov 10, 2006
Firstly, I'm not trolling, this is just my opinion.Microsoft has been crying that .NET is "the answer to Java." They market the framework as a replacement for Java because it's platform-independent and even say "hey, look, we have an ECMA standard!"Well, let's drop the bulls**t. I like .NET a lot, but it's not platform independent because Microsoft has hardly given anything about the framework to the public, which makes writing a VM for it somewhat difficult.Mono is good (monodevelop is freaking awesome) but it's only in 1.2, and there are likely bugs and incompatabilities lurking everywhere. Meanwhile, Microsoft already has 2.0 out, 3.0 planned for a post Vista release, and 3.5 fleshed out as well! (<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_framework#.NET_Framework_3.0)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_framework#.NET_Framework_3.0)</a>Mono will continue to do an amazing job catching up, but from the business perspective, businesses will continue to purchase windows machines if .NET is involved.
rstevensNov 10, 2006
Microsoft has a long history of investing in competitors when they are down: Borland, Apple, Corel, Novel and others.Personally, I don't get it. Why wouldn't Microsoft want to port every money-making application to Linux? Are they really afraid that will more than proportionally diminish their Windows profits? If the gaps aren't filled by Microsoft they will be filled by others. Another comment--Novell, Wall Street's 1980s darling, born in Provo, Utah which more Inc 500 companies have their roots from than any other city in the USA, has been for the most part a black hole for innovation. Many, including Google CEO Eric Schmidt, have tried to improve things, but little can be done in a culture that doesn't live and breath entrepreneurism. I've wondered for years if Schmidt learned from Novell how not to run a company, or did he just see the light when he got to Google--probably both.Novell, no doubt, has very bright developers though and nice offices, and a great cafeteria.
oneandonlysnobNov 10, 2006
@nullmind: Mono compiles .Net 2.0 code. They are indeed playing catchup with the framework, mostly in the System.Windows arena though. But that's ok, who would use that on Linux when we've got GTK#?Saying Microsoft is up to .NET 3.0 while Mono is only up to 1.2 and therefore Mono is inferior is kind of like saying IE is up to 7 and Firefox is only up to 2.0, therefore IE is better. Versions between different products simply don't match up like that.
Closed AccountNov 10, 2006
It would be a better world without .NET and java, kill em all +_+What a desperate move of mS, try to save their s**t.
wattzNov 10, 2006
I realize that it doesn't directly effect or have anything to with the kernel, i didn't mean for it to sound like that, i just meant that its a platform that MS can use to write a program that can. But thanks for the brief in sight into the GPL and how derived code can still be 'iffy' even if using the shim, i was wondering about that also