How is Mono worse than other projects that implement Microsoft technologies?

[Jimmy]

Wine is used as an excuse to write win32 applications instead of cross-platform applications (Qt, GTK, Wx, whatever). It has hurt Linux much more than Mono ever will.

I think its rather rare that that happens.

If so many Win32 developers care that their program runs in Wine (they must if it's an excuse for using Win32) they would test their programs to insure they run well in Wine. Given the volume of programs that are still quite quirky in Wine... kinda hard to buy it.

What if Steam and all its glory comes to Linux? Why wouldn't they just improve how Steam works in Wine? Given how poorly the Steam client runs in Wine, I don't think they're looking at it much.

[yesterday]

It's the same end result. In ether case, it comes down to running applications that were written for Microsoft APIs and Technologies.

If you don't like Mono apps because they target a Microsoft technology shouldn't you dislike Windows apps for same reason? And Wine which only exists for those applications?

What about using Mono for compatibility with applications originally developed for Windows only? Wouldn't that put you in the same camp as Wine?

In truth, I like Wine and mostly don't care about Mono. For me, Wine is useful and fun. Mono really hasn't done much in the sense that there are no killer apps that run on both Linux and Windows. There's real room for criticism of .NET applications developed with Mono that don't run on more than one platform.

The thing I take exception to and the whole reason I started this thread is that people can't seem to get their stories down. If you like Wine, you can't really hate on Mono out of fear for patent litigation. That doesn't stop you from pointing out that Mono is a slow resource hog that lacks any real cross platform applications that people actually want to use (Moonlight is close but even Windows users wont miss Silverlight much if they don't have it).

Nice.

You've constructed a little alternate reality where your strawman critique of Mono is the most relevant one. Well it's not.

The reason Mono is such a pariah in the Linux community is because it is a patent encumbered lanaguage (patents owned by a company with a history of hostility towards open source), and its promoters are trying to tie it to some fairly prominent pieces of the Linux ecosystem (e.g. GNOME). If you can't see the danger of code with patents covered by Microsoft becoming an integral part of GNOME, well, then you are blind.

Now, some members of the SUSE community will tell you that Mono is actually safe because it is protected by licensing agreement with Microsof. Well, that's true ONLY IF YOU USE THE SUSE PROVIDED VERSIONS. Yeah, Novell has a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft, but that doesn't protect Fedora or Ubuntu or Mandriva. So why the hell should we throw our weight behind a technology product that can only be legally utilised by ONE distribution? Plus, this goes against the very ethos of free software. Anyone who pretends that Mono is a viable option on Linux, as opposed to just SUSE, is an idiot.

Wine is a Win32 API implementation. It is not covered by any patents, so it is wholly irrelevant to Mono. Samba/AD ?? Same thing. NTFS? No known patents.

FAT is definitely an issue, but that is hardly a vital component, and there is a fair amount of antipathy towards FAT. Additionally, there are no distributions trying to promote adopting FAT as an integral part of the ecosystem.

Of course, you could've have found all of this for yourself if you decided to do some basic research before jumping in and calling people hypocrites.

[yesterday]

Mono is a white room implementation of .Net, just like Wine is a white room implementation of the win32 API.

Patent problems affect both equally.

Absolutely Wrong.

[kraftman]

If you like Wine, you can't really hate on Mono out of fear for patent litigation. That doesn't stop you from pointing out that Mono is a slow resource hog that lacks any real cross platform applications that people actually want to use (Moonlight is close but even Windows users wont miss Silverlight much if they don't have it).

Like Yesterday said and: I like Wine, because I car run Windows applications which probably wouldn't be made for Linux even if there wouldn't be Wine. There's no other way to run Windows applications on Linux then using Wine (and to have quite good performance and acceleration same time), but there are hundreds of other ways to write Linux only or cross-platform applications then using Mono. Running single Windows game on Linux isn't comparable to have Linux dependent on Mono. Some folks want Gnome to be build using Mono/Moonlight only (or at least to be useless without them). There's need for Wine, but there's no single need for Mono.

[BlackStar]

Like Yesterday said and: I like Wine, because I car run Windows applications which probably wouldn't be made for Linux even if there wouldn't be Wine. There's no other way to run Windows applications on Linux then using Wine (and to have quite good performance and acceleration same time), but there are hundreds of other ways to write Linux only or cross-platform applications then using Mono. Running single Windows game on Linux isn't comparable to have Linux dependent on Mono. Some folks want Gnome to be build using Mono/Moonlight only (or at least to be useless without them). There's need for Wine, but there's no single need for Mono.

C# is an awesome language and developing with Mono/Qyoto/GTK# is several times more efficent than developing for e.g. C++/Qt/GTK+. That's a need right there.

You guys keep saying that there's no need for Mono and then ignore everyone who says, "hey there actually is a need. Mono is awesome and lets me do thing I couldn't (or wouldn't) do otherwise."

Then again, you probably aren't developers yourselves and fail to see what's the big deal with Mono. Sad but understandable.

You know what the difference between Wine and Mono is? The first allows your sorry ass to keep playing your Windows games, indirectly maintaining Microsoft's dominance in that space. The second enables you to create native Linux applications with half the pain of previous tools. Try getting your priorities straight.

Both projects implement Microsoft technologies, however Wine remains firmly in Microsoft's grasp, chasing an impossible goal (compatibility to a huge, ever-changing, proprietary API). Mono, on the other hand, implements (1) a large, standardized API, (2) a small number of non-standardized APIs and (3) a large number of new APIs not found in .Net. It has taken a life of its own and has arguably moved beyond .Net in usefulness. Even if Microsoft were to attack Mono, the project would shed its non-standardized APIs and live on happily. Were Microsoft to attack Wine...

[BlackStar]

Mono is a white room implementation of .Net, just like Wine is a white room implementation of the win32 API.

Patent problems affect both equally.

Absolutely Wrong.

Your eloquent argumentation forces me to admit I was wrong.

[BlackStar]

Here is an example of what Mono allows you to do:

Over the holidays, I was reading an article on OSNews stating how something like Paint.NET was needed for the Linux desktop. [...]

I've been meaning to play with Gtk and Cairo for several years, so I sat down for a few hours and wrote a basic paintbrush on a canvas. Within a few days, I had accomplished far more than I ever expected to, so I continued on. After a month, I was ready to unleash my rough creation to the world.

Check this out: http://pinta-project.com/

If this is how "rough creations" look when using Mono then to hell with the naysayers! This is a one-month old application that looks and works better than most OSS projects installed on my desktop and that includes stuff that's been in development for freaking decades!

[yesterday]

Your eloquent argumentation forces me to admit I was wrong.

Your lack of research and basic understanding of the subject stunned me into silence.

Firstly, the method of code creation has nothing to do with it's patent encumberence. Just because two pieces of code are reverse engineered doesn't mean they are both subject to the same patent concerns. Mono sourced from Novell is in fact protected.

Secondly, to compare Wine and Mono development is disengenous. Wine is reverse engineering a largely undocumented and secret API Implementation. Mono is implementing an ECMA/ISO API and have a number of .NET and C# documentation references.

Finally, please point me to one patent that threatens Wine. Please point to any reputable source that indicates that Win32 API is patented, and that Wine is at risk from patent legislation. On the other hand, the .NET patents are well known, and the patent portfolio is advertised by Microsoft. It is also known that Mono implementations utilise elements not in the ECMA Standard and not covered by the community promise. It is also known that Microsoft and Novell have an agreement to not sue Novell customers ONLY using Mono related patents.

How is this in anyway comparable to Wine?

[BlackStar]

Mono implements non-standard APIs, like System.Windows.Forms, which are not covered by the community promise. Those APIs are implemented in a very similar fashion to Wine APIs and face the same patent concerns as Wine (which AFAIK means no known patent claims but open to possible patent attacks if Microsoft so decides). The rest of the Mono stack is covered by the community promise which puts in a safer position than Wine.

Were Microsoft to attack Mono, Novell would have to stop distributing WinForms and a number of other APIs. Linux applications written for Mono would not be affected at all - such applications rely on GTK#, Qyoto, wx.Net, SDL.Net, OpenTK, ... and would continue working without so much as a hiccup.

[kraftman]

C# is an awesome language and developing with Mono/Qyoto/GTK# is several times more efficent than developing for e.g. C++/Qt/GTK+. That's a need right there.

It's probably not more "awesome" then Java and afaik it has much worse garbage collector. Rather then choosing Mono why not to choose more mature Java? Some developers actually port Mono applications to Java. Some current QT applications are far more efficient and feature rich then some Mono applications (however, someone could check time needed to produce a QT application and a Mono one). I'm aware Gnome needs some boost, but the performance and RAM usage will suffer. Btw. why Mono and not Java? Because Novel wants money?

You guys keep saying that there's no need for Mono and then ignore everyone who says, "hey there actually is a need. Mono is awesome and lets me do thing I couldn't (or wouldn't) do otherwise."

Such people sound like Amway evangelists If they need Mono good for them, but if there are some patent threats Linux and Linux' DE shouldn't be Mono dependent.

Then again, you probably aren't developers yourselves and fail to see what's the big deal with Mono. Sad but understandable.

Again, there's Java, so there's no big deal with Mono. There's QT and QT proved it's far better for writing apps right now (but again, time for writing an app not included).