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

[krazy]

What the hell is wrong with you guys?

Let me rephrase your sentence:

"Using [...] Java to create Linux programs that have nothing to do with Solaris compatibility, that's something I don't agree with. That's ripping off Sun"

What the hell? I enjoy writing Linux applications. I also enjoy using C#. For this reason I enjoy writing C# Linux applications (that have nothing to do with Windows compatibility).

You are saying this is bad... for what reason, exactly?

IMHO if people want to use C#+Mono then they will and that's fine - what business is it of anyone else what people code in?

However I still think that the FSF's concerns are genuine and I will steer clear of any project which depends on mono (this is another thing which makes GNOME less attractive to me).

I've been using Qt in my projects anyway, and find nothing in mono worth switching for.

[BlackStar]

(This is a fake edit: delete & repost. Please fix that, Michael!)

I regard Sun as a Linux company. Look, it's the same as iPod clones. I won't buy a Korean clone. I will buy a Cowon.

Cough cough, ahem, yeah right. Sun is a Linux company. Especially now that it's been acquired by Oracle.

I'm just saying I don't agree with that. I won't be running that application.

I know, which is why I'm asking for a reason. Just trying to understand if there's a logic to this hate.

@kraftman: Mono's GC is pretty similar to the .Net GC used on XBox as far as performance is concerned. It doesn't suck but it also doesn't allow you to be lazy and expect good performance out of it. The new Mono GC (as well as the GCs found in desktop .Net and Java) perform better, which means developers can be more lazy if they wish. That's a good thing, by the way.

The Java runtime generally offers superior performance to .Net, by merit of more advanced optimizations. On the other hand, the .Net (and by extension Mono) runtime is generally thought to be better designed than Java, plus it allows for easier fallbacks to native code (assembly, C) for performance-sensitive code. Both perform better than most other managed runtimes, such as Python, Ruby, Haskell (duh), anyway. As far as I am aware, only Ocaml offers a runtime that is all-around faster than those two.

Fake edit: scratch that, both Mono and Java seem faster than Ocaml here. The only clean win is Lua, AFAICT.

[krazy]

I know, which is why I'm asking for a reason. Just trying to understand if there's a logic to this hate.

My logic is: why take the risk? especially when there are similar tools without said risk available.

After all, the 'safety' of mono relies solely on the largess of Microsoft...

[Remco]

Cough cough, ahem, yeah right. Sun is a Linux company. Especially now that it's been acquired by Oracle.

I don't know what Oracle is going to do. I'm a little worried about that.

I know, which is why I'm asking for a reason. Just trying to understand if there's a logic to this hate.

Morals are rarely logical. Using Microsoft technology as a general purpose tool doesn't feel right. I've been bitten so much by Microsoft that I don't want to deal with them anymore. If I had your stoic mind, I could still be using Windows, indifferent to its creator. I'm a lot less serene though, so I switched to something I could support.

[kraftman]

@kraftman: Mono's GC is pretty similar to the .Net GC used on XBox as far as performance is concerned. It doesn't suck but it also doesn't allow you to be lazy and expect good performance out of it. The new Mono GC (as well as the GCs found in desktop .Net and Java) perform better, which means developers can be more lazy if they wish. That's a good thing, by the way.

The Java runtime generally offers superior performance to .Net, by merit of more advanced optimizations. On the other hand, the .Net (and by extension Mono) runtime is generally thought to be better designed than Java, plus it allows for easier fallbacks to native code (assembly, C) for performance-sensitive code. Both perform better than most other managed runtimes, such as Python, Ruby, Haskell (duh), anyway. As far as I am aware, only Ocaml offers a runtime that is all-around faster than those two.

Thanks, this is something I wanted to hear

[DeepDayze]

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.

This is the salient answer boys and girls

Why hasn't MS gone after the Wine guys yet then?

[kUrb1a]

I've been wondering,why in the right mind would Novel start working on Mono or .Net.Seriously!What path lead them to conclusion to start developing on something which is not cross-platform,windows locked,patent locked(pick those two) and say:"Hey everything in Linux world sucks when it comes to programing.

And that's why we have to make it more complicated and turn a blind eye to every other project(language) and start using what Microsoft uses,which will always lack in support and features and performance!"

Not only,what I hear,has to be built from scratch and takes accordingly to BlackStar very long.

To me Mono is huge cumber stone for Linux world and a waste of money.And yes i know,I programed in it and in Java and python and C/C++,mostly C/C++ but i can't tell how many projects i have made in java and c when it comes to algorithms and object based apps. for college and in general.Maybe it's my inexperience that's talking,I don't know,but it's definitely better that I don't like it.

[monraaf]

Sadly (or not), every C# application I used is slow. People complain about F-Spot, Tomboy, because they're slow. Not only runtime is slow. If the Garbage Collector is a mess in Mono (and afaik it is) then there isn't a big chance to optimize the code, is there?

In this thread there's a nice picture why some (probably many) users don't like Mono:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=804639

Yeah, if C#/Mono is so freaking awesome then F-Spot is a really bad poster child for it. Btw. it must be very hard to correctly handle date, time and Exif data in Mono

http://daniel-bartholomew.com/wordpr...dered-harmful/

[BlackStar]

This is the salient answer boys and girls

Why hasn't MS gone after the Wine guys yet then?

A few possibilities:
1. wine indirectly helps them make money
2. going after wine would hurt their public image
3. and might attract counter-suits by major Linux players (including IBM - that's mutual assured destruction)
4. the danger of losing the lawsuit is too great to risk. Safer to spread FUD instead.
5. they have a sadistic sense of humor and like seeing OSS developers chase an impossible dream
6. core wine developers have pledged their firstborn sons to the empire, in exchange for patent protection

Seriously, wine helps Microsoft more than it hurts them. It provides a measure of compatibility but doesn't allow developers to write first-class applications for Linux. In other words, it maintains the platform lock-in. What's not to like about that?

Most of these points apply to Mono, too, with two small - but significant - differences: (a) unlike wine, Mono actually works; (b) Mono allows first-class Linux applications and has moved beyond the featureset found in .Net. (This wasn't always so. Mono <= 1.9.1 used to suck hardcore and Mono <= 2.4.2 used to suck softcore. It's only with versions 2.4.3/2.6 that Mono becomes positively awesome).

Right now, Mono is a great tool that goes beyond mere .Net compatibility. It provides features like vector instructions, trivial embedding, continuations that are not found in .Net - right now, it makes sense to write specific applications (like games) for Mono even on Windows.

I understand why some people might like to avoid Mono and, frankly, there are parts of it that I dislike. (Libraries like Moonlight, Mono.XNA will always play second fiddle to Microsoft, even though the core runtime can hold its own. However, none of those is part of the Mono core, so it's not that big a deal).

Ultimately, I consider Mono as nothing else than another useful tool in an OSS programmer's tool-belt.

[yesterday]

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.

The "protection" granted by the Community promise is the issue. It is certainly not strong enough to warrant entities like Red Hat investing heavily in it. There are enough identified issues with the Community Promise that it is stupid to start integrating any C# based technology heavily into major components like GNOME. The FSF and SFLC have written enough about the numerous valid problems with the Community Promise.

Wine has no such issues.