gen 092011
 

monoCome prima cosa voglio dire che non conosco bene tutto il background sulla vicenda “mono“, licenze e possibili implicazioni, e che sto provando a farmi un’idea dopo aver letto alcuni post  su techrights.org.

In effetti su techrights ho letto parole molto forti ed accese contro questo progetto e quindi voglio provare a capirci qualcosa di più.

Ma come prima cosa: cos’e’ esattamente il progetto Mono ?

Dal sito mono:
Mono è una piattaforma software progettata per consentire agli sviluppatori di creare facilmente applicazioni cross-platform. Sponsorizzato da Novell (http://www.novell.com/), Mono è una implementazione open source di Microsoft .NET Framework basato sugli standard ECMA per C# e il Common Language Runtime.




Qualche informazione aggiuntiva da Wikipedia

Storia

Nel 2000 la società Ximian, fondata e diretta da Miguel de Icaza, specializzata in software open source, aveva intenzione di costruire strumenti di sviluppo software che accrescessero la produttività di sviluppo del software multipiattaforma. Appena la Microsoft presentò il Framework .NET, la Ximian se ne interessò, e il 19 luglio 2001 annunciò il progetto open source Mono alla conferenza O’Reilly.

Quasi tre anni dopo, il 30 giugno 2004 fu rilasciata la versione 1.0.

Attualmente è disponibile la versione 2.0.

Al LinuxWorld 2006, a Boston, Mono ha vinto il premio come miglior piattaforma di sviluppo.

Fondatore

Fondatore del progetto Mono è stato Miguel De Icaza.
De Icaza nell’agosto del 1997 avviò, con Federico Mena, il progetto GNOME con l’intento di creare un ambiente desktop completamente libero per Linux e gli altri sistemi Unix-like. In precedenza de Icaza aveva lavorato sul file manager Midnight Commander, sul kernel di Linux e aveva creato il foglio elettronico Gnumeric.

Nel 1999 de Icaza co-fondò la Helix Code, una compagnia che sviluppa free software, con Nat Friedman, e assunse un gran numero di GNOME hacker. Nel 2001 la Helix Code, ora chiamata Ximian, annunciò il progetto Mono che si prefiggeva di implementare una versione libera della piattaforma di sviluppo .NET per Linux e altri sistemi Unix-like. Nel mese di Agosto 2003, la Ximian venne acquisita dalla Novell. Attualmente de Icaza è il vice presidente allo sviluppo della Novell.

Fino a qua sembra il solito progetto open source, magari migliore perchè guidato da un ottimo esponente del mondo open source e sostenuto da una grande società, ma allora dove stanno I problemi ?

Mono e i brevetti della Microsoft

Hanno avuto luogo molte discussioni riguardo al fatto che Microsoft potrebbe distruggere il progetto Mono tramite brevetti. Il team Mono ha riconosciuto questo rischio ma mette in atto strategie al fine di evitarlo, come si legge dalle loro FAQ:

“Il Framework .NET si divide in due parti: le tecnologie coperte dall’ECMA/ISO e le altre tecnologie sviluppate sopra di esse come ADO.NET, ASP.NET e Windows.Forms. Mono implementa le parti ECMA/ISO, essendo questo un progetto che permette l’implementazione di blocchi a livelli più alti come ASP.NET, ADO.NET e Windows.Forms”

Gli elementi controversi sono i sottoinsiemi ADO.NET, ASP.NET e Windows.Forms. Questi sono convenienti per quanti necessitano piena compatibilità con la piattaforma Windows, ma non sono richiesti per la piattaforma open source Mono, cosí come l’integrazione con l’attuale ottimo supporto per Linux. La strategia di Mono riguardo queste tecnologie è la seguente:

  • “aggirare i brevetti usando tecniche di implementazione differente che mantengono la API, ma cambiano i meccanismi.
  • Se ciò non è possibile, vorremmo rimuovere le parti di codice coperte da brevetti
  • trovare dei precedenti che possano rendere inutilizzabili i brevetti stessi”

Riferimento : http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing#Patents

Inoltre, Mono è anche incluso nella lista dei software che l’ Open Invention Network ha giurato di proteggere.

In una inattesa mossa di Microsoft: la promessa, annunciata nel suo blog Port 25, di non perseguire legalmente le implementazioni open source del MS.NET Framework, quali Mono e Portable.NET.

Tale promessa, che copre sviluppatori, distributori e semplici utenti, è codificata nel testo della Community Promise (CP), e sarà presto applicata da Microsoft alle specifiche standard ECMA 334 ed ECMA 335: la prima stabilisce come scrivere e interpretare un programma in linguaggio C#, la seconda descrive il formato binario portabile Common Language Infrastructure (CLI). Questi sono i due mattoni fondanti di MS.NET e, di conseguenza, anche di Mono e Portable.NET.

Riferimento: http://punto-informatico.it/2664363/PI/News/microsoft-non-fara-guerra-linux.aspx

Contro Mono

Richard M. Stallman ha pubblicato l’articolo Perché il software libero non deve dipendere da Mono o dal C#, dove ha scritto:

Questo non significa che implementare il C# sia sbagliato. Le implementazioni libere del C# permettono agli utenti di eseguire i propri programmi C# su piattaforme libere, il che è positivo (anche il Progetto GNU ha un’implementazione libera del C#, chiamata Portable.NET). In linea di principio vogliamo fornire implementazioni libere di ogni linguaggio di programmazione in uso.

Il problema non risiede nelle implementazioni del C#, ma piuttosto in Tomboy e nelle altre applicazioni scritte in C#. Se non potessimo più utilizzare il C#, non potremmo più utilizzare nemmeno tali applicazioni. Questo non le rende immorali, ma scriverle ed utilizzarle significa correre un rischio immotivato.

Dobbiamo fare in maniera tale da ridurre al minimo la dipendenza dalle implementazioni libere del C#. In altre parole, dobbiamo scoraggiare i programmatori dallo scrivere programmi in C#. Di conseguenza non dobbiamo includere implementazioni del C# nell’installazione di default (o nel più comune modo di installare GNOME) delle distribuzioni GNU/Linux, ma distribuire e incoraggiare le applicazioni non C# al posto di applicazioni simili scritte in C#.

Un articolo seguente su FSF fu initolato “Microsoft’s Empty Promise” e spiegò i problemi in cui ci si poteva imbattere utilizzando Mono

… Microsoft extended the terms of their Community Promise to implementations of the ECMA 334 and 335 standards. You might think this means it’s safe to write your software in C#. However, this promise is full of loopholes, and it’s nowhere near enough to make C# safe.

Come detto nell’introduzione Roy Schestowitz su techrights.org ha pubblicato una lunga serie di articoli in cui dichiara le motivazioni per le quali è contro l’interesse del mondo Open source quello di adottare Mono e tutte le applicazioni scritte con questo framework, l’ultima ad aver attirato l’attenzione è banshee che è diventata l’applicazione ufficiale in Ubuntu 11.04 come music player.

Guardate l’articolo “Now It’s Official: Banshee Included in Ubuntu by Default” dove ha scritto :

Sommario: Trappola Mono di Novell radicata nel profondo di una distribuzione ubiquitariamente diffusa di GNU/Linux

OMG!Ubuntu! non solo ha promosso Banshee ma ha anche fatto annunci prematuri quando ha affermato che il programma era stato aggiunto al prossimo Ubuntu. Beh, è solo ora ufficiale:

La giornata che abbiamo tutti aspettato è finalmente arrivata. Dopo molto duro lavoro da parte del progetto Ubuntu e Banshee, Banshee è stato finalmente nominato il lettore musicale predefinito in Natty.

Per quello che so lo switch avverrà nel prossimo build giornaliero dell’immagine.

Canonical sta mettendo un cavallo di Troia di Microsoft/Novell nell’installazione di default di tutti.

Ed in un altro articolo illustra possibili conflitti di interessi tra i promotori di Banshee “Mono Boosters in Ubuntu Have Conflicts of Interest, LibreOffice Under Similar Threat” dove si legge sostanzialmente che la principale persona che sponsorizza Mono e Banshee su OMG!UBUNTU! è anche addetta alla pacchettizzazione di banshee.

FLOSS Weekly 91: Boycott Novell – Guest Roy Schestowitz

Pro Mono

Il progetto Mono in questi anni si è molto sviluppato e ci sono ottimi programmi sviluppati con questo framework, tra cui: Banshee, Beagle, F-Spot, Gbrainy, GNOME Do, MonoTorrent, Pinta, e Tomboy.

Oltre a questi softwares è anche disponibile MonoDroid un progetto che mira a portare Mono su smart-phones basati su Android. Questo potrebbe apire la strada a numero App scritte anche su questa piattaforma.

Miguel de Icaza naturalmente è una forte voce a favore di questo progetto in una sua dichiarazione del 2002 chiamata “Mono and GNOME. The long reply.” si può leggere:

“… Ho scritto e mantenuto molte righe di codice come parte del mio lavoro per GNOME mio lavoro. Con Ximian ho sviluppato Evolution, che consiste di circa 750.000 linee di codice.

I grandi progetti software espongono una serie di problemi che possono essere ignorati per i piccoli progetti. I programmi che hanno lunghi tempi di vita hanno una dinamica diversa quando si tratta di gestione della memoria rispetto ai programmi minori.

C’è un punto nella tua vita quando ti rendi conto che hai scritto abbastanza costruttori, ed hai trascorso abbastanza tempo nel cercare un memory leak, ed abbastanza tempo per rintracciare corruzioni della memoria, ed hai trascorso abbastanza tempo utilizzando funzioni insicure a basso livello, e si sono implementate troppe liste collegate [1]

[1], infatti, GNOME utilizza Glib che è un grande passo in avanti rispetto le API di libc di Unix.

Il Framework .NET è davvero incentrato sulla produttività: anche se
Microsoft spinge queste tecnologie per la creazione di Web Services, il
vantaggio principale di queste tecnologie è la produttività aumentata dei programmatori.

Per Evolution ci sono voluti due anni di sviluppo ed al suo picco ha avuto 17 ingegneri che lavorano al progetto. Voglio essere in grado di fornire quattro volte più applicazioni con software libero con le stesse risorse, e credo che questo sia realizzabile con queste nuove tecnologie.

La mia esperienza finora è stata positiva, ed ho esperienza di prima persona sui benefici di produttività che queste tecnologie portano al lavoro. Per esempio, il nostro compilatore C# è scritto in C#. Un bel pezzo di codice.

Si può sostenere che potrei sbagliarmi, e che queste tecnologie sono troppo nuove. Ma la mia esperienza personale e la esperienza di alcuni dei miei amici con questa piattaforma è stata stupefacente. Voglio condividere con altri questa semplicità. E io voglio dare una possibilità agli sviluppatori: voglio dargli la possibilità di creare grandi applicazioni desktop che si integrano con GNOME. ….”

Conclusioni

Beh, non c’è una vera conclusione per me, al momento, ma adesso ho una migliore comprensione di che cosa è Mono e dei suoi pro e contro.
Personalmente in una scala dove 10 è “Vai Mono!” e 1 è “Abbasso Mono!” Mi sento a 3, io sostituirò Banshee con qualcosa di diverso (abbiamo un problema nella ricerca di alternative per un buon lettore musicale? Io non la penso così), e in futuro cercherò di sostituire Tomboy, un programma mi piace davvero molto con qualcosa d’altro, dopo di che rimuoverlò le librerie mono. E voi?

Siete a favore, contrari o neutrali riguardo a Mono ?

Popular Posts:

flattr this!

  23 Responses to “Mono, è un bene o un male per Linux ?”

  1. I think I’m at around 2 on your scale. I see more dissadvantegaes, bot in pratctical and licensing/philosophical sense. To me mono is more or less a bloated runtime, that we actually don’t need on Linux since we have safer and better options like Python. When it comes to licensing, well from analysis from Groklaw and Red Hat and other lawyers it seams the framework isn’t completely free and not completely safe from software patent threat. And when Microsoft, a well known Linux and free software enemy is behind the threat, well I better stay clear of the threat and not unnedlesleey endenger the Linux/FLOSS community. As I said there is Python and other alternatoves so there is no need for this. And actually the first thing I don on any Linux installation is to remove Mono and any software depending on it.

  2. Come sviluppatore lavoro quotidianamente con molti linguaggi (proprietari o meno), da Ruby a C#, passando per C, C++ e simili.
    A favore di C# posso sicuramente dire che è un linguaggio che apprezzo molto: semplice, snello, senza troppi fronzoli e decisamente scalabile.

    Non posso quindi che essere sicuramente a favore di Mono. Poter utilizzare linguaggi come il C# su tutte le piattaforme, è un plus dal mio punto di vista.
    Sempre per usare il tuo esempio della scala, direi che sono un 8 :)

    C# è un linguaggio standardizzato ECMA e, come tale, di fatto libero da particolari vincoli.
    In questi ultimi anni Microsoft mi pare abbia dato prova di una certa “apertura” verso il mondo open-source… proviamo a dargli credito.

  3. Mono as a .NET implementation is not really portable as you can see there:
    http://codebetter.com/patricksmacchia/2009/01/19/mono-vs-net-framework-public-api-compatibility/

    A C# implementation above the OpenJDK or Portable.NET would be a better solution than Mono in my humble opinion both technically and legally. We cannot expose Linux to Microsoft threats of lawsuits about violations of software patents, Mono is not worth taking such a risk.

  4. Tomboy is easy enough to replace. Someone ported it to C++.

    http://live.gnome.org/Gnote

  5. Of the top five Linux Mono applications most commonly included within Linux distributions, all five of them use functionality within Mono that falls outside of Microsoft’s Community promise.

    http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/mono-unsafe-at-any-speed/

    Wikipedia has a list of function references within the .NET environment grouped into “standard” and “non-standard” namespaces.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Class_Library#Non_standardized_namespaces

    All of those in the “non-standard” group fall outside of the Microsoft Community Promise.

    Hence, all five of the top five most commonly installed Mono programs for Linux fall outside of the Microsoft Community Promise.

  6. An alternative to Tomboy you can find in GNOTE –
    fully compatible with Tomboy and written in C++. Much lighter on computer resources…

    http://live.gnome.org/Gnote

  7. There is no need to patent software / IP in order to protect against litigation. Use it, release it and you have prior art. If anyone files a patent and states they _only_ want to protect against a patent litigation, they try to pull my leg.

    “It is common practice in the software industry to register patents as protection against litigation, rather than as an intent to litigate.” is simply bullshit. Like killing a killer to prevent killing.

    Microsoft is convicted for improper use of monopoly power. They are measured as they act in ECMA standardizations. Microsoft said they freely contributed to open source and in fact they had to, because they breached the GPL.

    If Microsoft likes to have a stand in open source, they have to play it the way the community likes. Not their way. If they would matter about it, Microsoft would not have chosen promises but simply used the GPL or a GPL & BSD license.

    Don’t use Mono or any app depending on it!

  8. I think it would do us good not to insist on fighting yesterday’s wars.

    I mean, looking forward, not backward and stuff. Whatever good came out of this whole Mono-scare until now?

  9. completamente d’accordo con il primo commento.
    il mondo linux (e foss in generale) ha veramente bisogno di mono?
    secondo me no

  10. I would dismiss anything from Roy Schestowitz, mental midget extraordinare.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with Mono, but some people refuse to give it credibility because it contains technology invented by Microsoft, and they have to hate everything ever created by Microsoft.

    Ignore them, sites like techrights are completely worthless and do nothing but harm the community.

  11. Problem here we do know MS will submarine patents. Classic example is Fat file system long file name support.

    So part of the patent fear over mono is the once bitten twice shy. Also mono threw Novell protection from patents ends at the end of this year.

    “Over the lifetime of the project these concerns have proven to be unfounded.” Of course there is no action the agreement between Novell and MS basically prevents it until the end of this year.

    Basically 2012 MS could due to the end of the agreement if its not renewed attack Mono.

    Things that are wrong. We were promised an ECMA conforming version of Mono that would be legally fine. That is missing in action.

    Go ask tomtom what they think of these two options
    * Work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, they would

    * Remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also

    They will tell you bluntly both of these actions will be too late. MS sued and when to block tomtom from having its products imported due to being in breach of patents.

    Also there is a worrying trend on the mono project site. http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page . Mono Tools for
    Visual Studio was free and open source now you have to buy it.

    MonoTouch Also was free and open source at one point you have to buy it.

    http://www.novell.com/products/mono/ Now explain this. Novell is the funding arm behind mono. Yet to use it on SUSE there own distribution you have to pay a fee to use ASP.net feature completely? What the hell is going on here.

    Is mono going to become slowly but surely if you want to use the latest features of .net you have to pay a fee? Remember SUSE Linux Enterprise Mono Extension was at one point a another free and open source part.

    Basically there are signs of bad thing happening to mono. Question is how bad is it going to get. Yes the closer the end of agreement comes the faster the rate of mono becoming a paid for product is appearing.

  12. Do not lose time cleaning up Ubuntu. Simply install Trisquel GNU/Linux: http://trisquel.info

    It is a 100% Free (as in Freedom) derivative of Ubuntu. Instead of Tomboy, you will have Gnote. Instead of Banshee, Exaile. Instead of F-Spot, Shotwell.

  13. > Do not lose time cleaning up Ubuntu. Simply install Trisquel GNU/Linux: http://trisquel.info

    >It is a 100% Free (as in Freedom) derivative of Ubuntu. Instead of Tomboy, you will have Gnote. Instead of Banshee, Exaile. Instead of F-Spot, Shotwell.

    Alternatively, one could always install Kubuntu. Instead of Tomboy, you can have Basket Notes. Instead of Banshee, Amarok or Juk. Instead of F-Spot, digikam.

    Kubuntu is a 100% free-of-mono version of Ubuntu released and supported by Canonical.

  14. Techrights is not a serious site that should be taken as a source for anything.
    It’s run by a psycho who calls himself a doctor, and refers to himself as “we” and “us”, while he’s clearly all alone. Also, he has way too much free time and seems to post dozens of articles each day. I have troubles imagining him not being unemployed.
    On a side note, he should stop making up bad puns about product names, followed by “[sic]“, as it’s painfully clear he’s misusing the word sic. This just makes him sound more stupid.
    (I don’t want to rant too much, but that reminds me of an article he posted, where he apologized that you had to use “Adobe Trash” to view some video… Blindly bashing proprietary products, yet using them. Laughable.)

    His site would certainly give a very distorted view of the truth, and is a bad start for beginners.
    If you do not like Mono (whether for ideological, legal or technical reasons), that’s fine, but quoting him or his site would crush your credibility, IMO.

    That said, you’re doing the smart thing by questioning the anti and pro sides to make up your opinion, and I think you should keep looking around and keep an open mind about it.

  15. STIFU please show some respect. Dr Roy Schestowitz is his correct title he does have a PHD in Medical Biophysics. So if you want to call him a psycho who is a Doctor fine. Its a lot of work to have a PHD in anything. Does not mean you are a nice person of course.

    Really STIFU personally your Reply should be deleted for being FUD and Pure insulting. Do I have to state what University you have to contact to confirm his PHD?

    Yes its people like STIFU who are the true master of FUD. Roy does not hide the fact his reporting is bias in places. “Blindly bashing proprietary products, yet using them.” I hate windows yet I repair peoples computers with Windows. Yes I know I am BIAS but it what gets me paid.

    Now the true problem here is by the time beginners get to his site school system should have taught they about bias reporting. Wait school system world wide does not work. Because if it did half the crap mono people say to make out everything is fine would be seen straight through.

    Also another funny one is Roy does not give to open source. You can find lot of open source code by him for a closed source program called MATLAB. That he is now correcting his way on. Techrights is not his only activity.

    Someone has be believing basically trash about him generated from the Mono side. Now this is normal don’t have valid arguments against treat the person as trash to try to hide the fact the arguments they are saying have base in fact..

    A true debate needs two parties fighting with facts for there side. Tech-rights does a great job of the Anti-Mono. Now where is the mono correct counter arguments not smoke screens.

  16. Dr. Roy Schestowitz has a doctoral degree in Medical Biophysics, so he IS a Doctor.

    Techrights.org has a really collective content, managed by Roy.

    Techrights really shows what is discovered by a group, and what a lot of people think.

    Intelligent people do not asks about the “Dr.” before the Roy’s name, intelligent people are grateful by his hard work to inform us, to guarantee our freedom.

    If you want to collaborate with the website, go to the IRC channel: http://techrights.org/irc-channel

  17. First, let me start by saying that I am no fan of Microsoft or
    proprietary/closed software. I’ve been involved with the Linux and Open
    Source/Free Software world for over 20 years (yes, twenty years). But I
    have been involved with the IT/IS world for just under 30 years. My
    perspective on this issue depends on which hat I’m wearing (see attached
    image); Open Source advocate or IT professional.

    Proprietary programming languages and libraries have an inherent
    problem. They are under the control of an entity that can unilaterally
    change, remove or discontinue the product. If you don’t like the
    changes, tough. Plus, you never really know what is going on inside
    them. They could be monitoring everything you do. Not to mention all
    the reasons RMS, et. al., mention.

    However…

    As a pragmatic computer programmer, C# and .NET have allot of goodness
    to them with respect to developing programs. Mono allows this goodness
    to function and grow on non-Microsoft platforms. This allows for more
    options and solutions when looking at developing and deploying
    applications.

    So, for me, the bottom line is that, while I’m not going to run out and
    standardize on .NET/Mono, I’m not going to summarily throw it out just
    because I don’t like the license or company. It’s all about balancing
    trade offs.

    That’s my opinion.

    Joe

  18. @oiaohm:
    “I hate windows yet I repair peoples computers with Windows. Yes I know I am BIAS but it what gets me paid.”

    This is either hypocrisy or stupidity (likely the former, but who knows). By fixing Windows computers, you’re promoting Windows. You could find a job on Linux or Mac if you really wanted to.

  19. @Stifu,

    I tend to agree with you… but in real life, although I work as a system engineer for linux, I also support a few machinces with Windows.

    I put a clip on my nose, and do it with bad feeling, but there simply no choice sometimes…

  20. Mono has run its course, its found to be buggy ,slow and unfit for consumption as it leads to high fever and undue risk, as outlined many times not only by the well written articles of Groklaw , Linux very own Richard Stallman who warns we should not be programming in C# nor including applications written in them, and many other contributing members of Linux society who take OSS very seriously and risks to it even more so, but this poster as well.

    It makes you wonder then, why ‘some’ Linux distributions who claim to support ‘Linux and OSS’ , unashamedly push mono and some of their apps in their default installs, thereby pushing risk and helping to alienate OSS to those who can least afford it; ordinary unsupsecting poor users. The sad reality is also that, Gnome being one of the supporters of Mono through its use of tomboy instead of Gnote, also unashamedly is pushing Mono, just as Richard Stallman and other staunch supporters of OSS have warned against. This is not what OSS stands for, and as long as its happening, apps and environments that are continuing to embrace Mono should be as outcasts.

    Ubuntu ships mono, and so does its cousin LinuxMint , and others. There are valid counterparts to these applications, so there is no reason to ship mono or any of its applications. There is zero reason to do this and the risk is unacceptable. If people want to install Mono apps after the OS is installed, that is their right to which I would also stick up for, but Mono apps out of the box in the default install of any Linux Distribution is exacting undue risk for its unsuspecting userbase, and its not right. We don’t need no Mono software….We don’t need our thoughts controlled..just another brick in the wall.

    From FSF webpage, article by RMS on July 22,2010:

    ” Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions or in their principal ways of installing GNOME, and we should distribute and recommend non-C# applications rather than comparable C# applications whenever possible. ”

    I’ve not used Gnome in ages for that reason, and Linus now is using Xfce instead of gnome3 and congrats to him ( his own reasons); a few less users infected with Mono,
    and their new confusing interface.

  21. Before I comment on this I have to say that I’m not a big Microsoft fan – in fact if there is anything in software that is inherently evil then it would have a Microsoft logo attached to it.

    However, I’ve been in the professional software business for over 20 years now, and as a language C# is in my opinion a first class language (and in over 20 years I have programmed in many computer languages). The problem with C# is Microsoft and not the language itself.

    To be able to use C# in Linux using Mono has made life a lot easier for me – I find it much more efficient to program in than Java/C/C++. And for my type of work it gives the same cross-platform support as the other languages. To be honest I wouldn’t recommend it when using asp.net, ado.net, or windows forms on Linux, but outside of that I would. And to give some indication of the type of work I do my applications normally are full-on OO utilising multiple threads – I’m not writing “Hello World” applications.

    Now I agree with others that this doesn’t mean it should form the core of any Linux distribution. However, as a professional developer I believe the risk of Microsoft pulling the plug on Mono in the future is outweighed by the productivity gains I get from using this language in the current environment. I accept that if things change down the line I may have to port my applications to another language, but that is a risk I am prepared to take (I believe the cost implications of this possibility is less than the cost benefits I get at the moment using Mono).

    And in my experience I have not found Mono to be buggy or leaky. I have many programs written in C that have been prone to being buggy and leaky, but not the ones I have written that use Mono. To be honest if an application needs to be as fast as possible then I would still go down the C route, but with the cost of hardware this is quite rare.

    To summarise I would suggest that if you need to write software to earn money, and that software needs to run on Linux, then you shouldn’t discount C#/Mono out of hand just because of your dislike for Microsoft. I’m not saying I’m right, but If you are a professional developer just note that myself and Joe have been in the business a very long time, and we both have similar conclusions.

  22. Agree with Bubba. Work on .NET for last 9 years (from 1.1 version) and goes to C# from C++,Delphi, Java. For today C# is ultimately clear object language which natively force good quality of coding and refactor. Almost all my work are web and database oriented and i can launch them both on Windows (.NET) and Linux (MONO) even without ecompilation (in most cases). Most of pruducts are licensed under Apache 2.0.
    I have not any problems with C#, .NET, MONO, patents and non-matched realization (don’t use nor Windows Forms not GTK not Win/Linux special things).
    IMHO All that i have read above in this thread is paranoidal and holywar.
    MONO is very good thing with normal open-source licensing and with far less threats from MS than you imagine. And while paranoids will port C# projects to ANSI C and be proud about their FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOULS , practician developers will be still using Java from WORST OF ALL ORACLE , MONO from terrible Novell and .NET from horrable MS. And will earn their money from open source and proprietary projects. Good Luck. May be we can ask “is it good or bad Linux for MONO”? Why not?

  23. >To me mono is more or less a bloated runtime
    Nah people have no idea what they’re talking about. Using mkbundle (shipped with mono) I was able to deploy a stripped, standalone version of the runtime that only incuded mono.exe and mscorlib.exe, the whole size being 1-2 MB (copy & run, no outside settings)

    and all the fuzz about patents comes from nowehre and is based on paranoia and rumors, there was no word from Microsoft against mono for the past 10 years the project exists

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>