Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59

Thread: Mono Working Close With Microsoft, Gets $12M USD

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,388

    Default Mono Working Close With Microsoft, Gets $12M USD

    Phoronix: Mono Working Close With Microsoft, Gets $12M USD

    Xamarin, the company behind the controversial Mono software platform that was born by Miguel de Icaza and Nat Friedman when the Mono developers got let go from Novell, has announced a series-A financing round worth twelve million USD. They're also continuing to work closely with Microsoft...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE0NTg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Controversial?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    And in another thread someone had the nerve to claim that money isn't involved.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Can we see Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), Workflow (WF), Windows Presentation Framework (WPF), Entity Framework (EF) now?

    Then maybe we can have full support for ASP.NET.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KameZero View Post
    Controversial?
    Yes, because when it (mono) first came out there were a lot of suspicions about motives. Microsoft have often used dubious practices. The fear was that once people had invested time/money/effort, MS would pull the rug out from under them.

    Even after the various assurances from MS, there were still grey areas. The two outstanding problems I'm still aware from my reading when it first blew up are:
    1. There are significant sections that are not reimplementable, (i.e. the DRM stuff, and the GUI stuff I think)
      This makes the cross-platform claims rather ridiculous!
    2. The Community Promise was ambiguous about future versions
      If I remember correctly they promised not to attack with patents against the current version, but there was no assurance about subsequent versions.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,269

    Default

    The question is, how many of those companies are shells for MS / have MS on board seats / MS as the biggest owner etc etc. Investigative journalism anyone

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kiwi_kid_aka_bod View Post
    Yes, because when it (mono) first came out there were a lot of suspicions about motives. Microsoft have often used dubious practices. The fear was that once people had invested time/money/effort, MS would pull the rug out from under them.

    Even after the various assurances from MS, there were still grey areas. The two outstanding problems I'm still aware from my reading when it first blew up are:
    1. There are significant sections that are not reimplementable, (i.e. the DRM stuff, and the GUI stuff I think)
      This makes the cross-platform claims rather ridiculous!
    2. The Community Promise was ambiguous about future versions
      If I remember correctly they promised not to attack with patents against the current version, but there was no assurance about subsequent versions.
    Not sure about DRM stuff (or where in the .NET spec there is DRM stuff; could be there but I haven't come across it), but the GUI stuff works pretty well. The look and feel isn't identical because gtk is used instead, and iirc it wasn't part of the specs MS opened up, however our internal gui apps written in .NET run flawlessly on linux with mono.

    What doesn't work is of course any native code, com interfaces, and shell commands. For that you need wine.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Maybe now they can create a PowerShell implementation?

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCycoONE View Post
    Not sure about DRM stuff (or where in the .NET spec there is DRM stuff; could be there but I haven't come across it), but the GUI stuff works pretty well. The look and feel isn't identical because gtk is used instead, and iirc it wasn't part of the specs MS opened up, however our internal gui apps written in .NET run flawlessly on linux with mono.

    What doesn't work is of course any native code, com interfaces, and shell commands. For that you need wine.
    Ah bugger! I got mixed up with the Silverlight/Moonlight. That's where the DRM cack is (or rather isn't) which is why Linux can't access Netflix and friends.

    Regarding the GUI stuff: Point being that if you target mono (as opposed to .NET) as well as the look and feel differences, there are sections you can't use because as you say the specs for those components are not opened up.

    And actually the Wikipedia page on mono covers the outstanding uncertainties quite well.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Can we see Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), Workflow (WF), Windows Presentation Framework (WPF), Entity Framework (EF) now?

    Then maybe we can have full support for ASP.NET.
    Entity Framework was released as Free Software a couple of weeks ago, under a GPL-compatible license, joining others (like ASP.NET MVC)

    So I wouldn't rule it out just yet.

Posting Permissions

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