Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 182

Thread: Mono Developers Go Bye-Bye From Attachmate

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    This is imo a great opportunity for Microsoft to pick up the development of Mono so that C#/.NET is still a viable cross platform solution, that said I doubt it will happen.
    Why would Microsoft want it to be a viable cross platform solution? They make money on Windows, not C# compilers.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    Why would Microsoft want it to be a viable cross platform solution? They make money on Windows, not C# compilers.
    Well, in my opinion the reason Microsoft looked favorably on Mono was because it offered cross platform support for C#/.NET (part of it) which is something it needs to fully compete with Java in the enterprise sector.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Interesting to see how this plays out. I personally never saw the added value of Mono, and the few programs out there using Mono are mediocre at best. I certainly won't miss Mono if it goes away, in fact I hope it and the crippled Moonlight plugin dies. Then Microsoft can either bring a real Silverlight plugin to Linux just as Adobe does with it's Flash plugin or stop selling it's technology as cross-platform.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    Why would Microsoft want it to be a viable cross platform solution? They make money on Windows, not C# compilers.
    They actually do make a lot of money off of Visual Studio. At any rate, they already provide a free C# compiler for Windows, so it is not a stretch for them to continue Mono.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    Why would Microsoft want it to be a viable cross platform solution? They make money on Windows, not C# compilers.
    Oh, they don't want it to actually be a viable cross-platform solution, but for marketing reasons it's important that it appear to be a viable cross-platform solution. That way, they can overcome the objections of prospective customers who are worried about being locked into a single vendor/platform.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    564

    Default

    Is there now an alternative solution? Java is Evil ( since oracle ) and Mono is now dead. And sorry Python or C++ is not an alternative or Languages that run in the JVM .

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nille View Post
    Is there now an alternative solution? Java is Evil ( since oracle ) and Mono is now dead. And sorry Python or C++ is not an alternative or Languages that run in the JVM .
    I know Oracle is doing some nasty stuff but as far as I knew OpenJDK was still FOSS.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by locovaca View Post
    I know Oracle is doing some nasty stuff but as far as I knew OpenJDK was still FOSS.
    I bet Apache or Google say something else. If you Implement your own Runtime and Libary you can be sued by oracle (like google)

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Well, in my opinion the reason Microsoft looked favorably on Mono was because it offered cross platform support for C#/.NET (part of it) which is something it needs to fully compete with Java in the enterprise sector.
    Yeah, that makes sense really.On the other hand, they have been trying to destroy Linux for years, first with FUD, but more recently with legal threats. Initially through their agreement with NOVELL (ironically, already belly up), and more recently attacking Android manufacturers.

    Arguably, they can't support an operating system that they claim violates their IP. They are shooting themselves on the foot really.

    Mono was the perfect solution for them: led by "Linux people" (even though the head of development is fascinated with Microsoft, to say the least), so they could kill the messenger at any time.

    Right now, my best guess is that they'll try to sponsor Mono from the shadows, like they did via NOVELL. How about Nokia? Now they took over another company to destroy, they may as well use them for this.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    196

    Default

    I think we need to make a clear distinction between the .NET Framework(TM) and the Common Language Runtime.

    1. The .NET Framework is a commercial, propriety implementation of the open CLR specification.
    2. The .NET Framework includes commercial, proprietary extensions such as Windows Forms, ASP.NET, and ADO.NET.
    3. The .NET Framework includes commercial, proprietary languages such as VB.NET and (I think) F#.

    Saying that .NET is open source is silly at best. What's also silly is Miguel de Icaza's determination to implement said extensions. This is what opened Novell up to patent-based destruction at the hands of Microsoft.

    And that Microsoft Community Promise happens to be legally binding. Microsoft themselves have released portions of their own .NET implementation under the Microsoft Public License, which has been acknowledged by the FSF as a true, open source license.

    I apologize for the tone of my first post.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •