Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Mono doesn't suck

www2.apebox.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 84 posts

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#11

Post by bad_user »

davidw wrote: post #6
TomOfTTB wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you miss the point. They already have market. Most Corporate Networks run on Windows Servers. What Mono does is allow those Windows shops with their .Net experienced developers to start experimenting with and hopefully integrating Linux. Without having to change the language and framework they've standardized on. In that way it gives Linux an inroad it didn't have before Mono.

Yes and no. I think that, given all the money and hard work poured into it, Mono is, relative to other languages and things out there, not as popular as it "ought" to be. Here we have a first-rate JIT compiled language that's completely free (no Java ambiguity), with a team of smart hackers behind it, and yet not that many people use it. I don't, nor do I know anyone who does, besides one of the core developers who l…

Mono is unpopular, but I don't think it's because of the negative marketing.

People doing software development on top of Linux tend to choose other languages, like Python, Perl, PHP, Ruby, C++ and Java. That's because these languages have matching cultures and communities.

Personally when I'm investing time learning a tool, if the learning is not trivial, I first take a good look at its community. If you're getting in trouble with Mono, who you're going to talk to?

The core mono mailing list is nice, but other than that you're out of luck. You could join a .NET community for support, but their topics, issues and goals aren't a match for a developer used to work on Unix-related projects. And the signal-noise ratio is rather poor.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#12

Post by jsz0 »

pufuwozu wrote: post #10

What I find silly is that a large majority of developers prefer creating applications in Flash rather than Silverlight. Flash has proved to be very hard to reverse engineer thus has very little open-source support. With Silverlight, Microsoft has sponsored Novell in creating Moonlight which is completely open-source and could be built into every browser at one stage. Yet I still read that people won't touch Silverlig…

That's probably one reason but as history proves people will stick with what is popular and has a big install base unless an alternative exists that is so compelling that there is a real incentive to adopt it and help push it as the replacement. Silverlight apparently is not catching on in that way. Even companies Microsoft paid to use it are jumping off the ship. That cannot possibly be a good sign for its future.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#13

Post by ovidiu »

pufuwozu wrote: post #10

What I find silly is that a large majority of developers prefer creating applications in Flash rather than Silverlight. Flash has proved to be very hard to reverse engineer thus has very little open-source support. With Silverlight, Microsoft has sponsored Novell in creating Moonlight which is completely open-source and could be built into every browser at one stage. Yet I still read that people won't touch Silverlig…

Silverlight is proprietary. And it's just the same type of evil, but maybe at a lower degree (it's still based on proprietary codecs and the main implementation is not free/open source).

Developers choose flash because it's much more popular and has mature tools and a significant pool of experienced professionals who can work with it. It's not only about the technical features of Silverlight compared to Flash (Silverlight doesn't really stand out), it's also about the ecosystem.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#14

Post by jsz0 »

I believe Linux would benefit greatly from more and better Windows ports of popular OSS applications that are common on Linux desktops. If you get people using the software the time will come when switching the OS they run on is an afterthought. Plus you gain the possible contributions of millions of Windows users who have no interest in Linux but may very well want to run good OSS software. I'm not sure this is a viable strategy with GTK or QT as the Windows implementations are subpar at best. Mono is probably the way to go if you're an OSS developer interested in creating an app for everyone to use -- not just the people who happen to accept your personal choice of operating system. Isn't that (basically) the bitch that most Linux fans have about Windows-only software? Seems silly to advocate the same solution replacing win32 with GTK or QT. While they may technically exist for Windows they are not adequate -- probably comparable to running win32 apps on Linux via WINE.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#15

Post by mishmash »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #9
mishmash wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The other sees this as some kind of holy war and is really just using Linux to act like drama queens." No need to deride an entire class of your peers simply because their ideals are different than yours.

It's not their ideals it's that they express them in a way that's counterproductive and designed to draw attention to themselves and not participate in a discussion. Let me give you another example of this type of behavior. I personally disagreed with many of the decisions the Bush Administration made in the U.S. I have had many thoughtful discussions with people who thought differently and have, in some cases, chang…

Great story. Just remember, it is their ideals that give the "other half" linux to begin with. :)

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#16

Post by bad_user »

pufuwozu wrote: post #10

What I find silly is that a large majority of developers prefer creating applications in Flash rather than Silverlight. Flash has proved to be very hard to reverse engineer thus has very little open-source support. With Silverlight, Microsoft has sponsored Novell in creating Moonlight which is completely open-source and could be built into every browser at one stage. Yet I still read that people won't touch Silverlig…

Moonlight for the moment has stability issues. I'm using version 1.9.3, which is a preview, and version 1 which is more stable is worthless since I haven't found many clips compatible with it.

What I do like about it is that Microsoft supports it. The first time I installed Moonlight was because of a page that required Silverlight, and on clicking the "Install Silverlight" button, I got redirected to the Moonlight page. That's pretty neat.

Silverlight has great potential, because you can reverse-engineer it more easily, has support for multiple languages and you only need a text editor to create a Silverlight clip. And in version 3 they are introducing an API for plugable codecs, which is making it possible to stream OGG/Theora and Vorbis files with a Silverlight applet.

Flash is more popular because of inertia, and because many designers use Macs and have invested heavily in Adobe tools. Microsoft Expression only runs on Windows. They would have a lot more to gain if they released a Mac port.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#17

Post by cortesi »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #2

It's a good article though I'd go so far as to say the piece it responds to isn't worthy of a response. Take this quote... "Nothing that comes from Microsoft can be for our good and benefit. They are dedicated to our destruction and downfall. Mono has infected Gnome. Ubuntu uses Gnome. I switched to Kubuntu and am happy with it. Now Moonlight is infecting Linux." There are two parts to the Linux community. One part s…

"There are two parts to the Linux community. One part sees Linux as a legitimate tool they can use to bring down costs while maintaining stability. The other sees this as some kind of holy war and is really just using Linux to act like drama queens."

Do you really think that the stability, low cost and quality of Open Source software is independent of the Free Software ideology? If I was being as derisive as you are above, I'd say that I hear this argument mostly from ignorant youngsters who have been lucky enough to inherit something marvellous that their elders fought hard for, but are now in danger of squandering everything through a moronic and self-centered lack of insight.

The truth is that the two things go hand in hand. Without a Richard Stallman who is idealistic and paranoid enough to worry about things like patents and personal freedom, Open Source would be in much worse shape than it is now. Without a Linus Torvalds to pragmatically build excellent software within the framework put together by the community, we would be much diminished. We need both. Open Source software is often the "best tool for the job" in a technical sense precisely because it is Free, with all that implies.

I personally think that we are right to be worried about Mono. We don't need to be alarmist, but we need to be wary. It's up to the Mono community to convince people that there is no licensing danger - the best way to do this is to lobby Novell and Microsoft to officially clarify the situation.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#18

Post by gaius »

cortesi wrote: post #17
TomOfTTB wrote: post #2

It's a good article though I'd go so far as to say the piece it responds to isn't worthy of a response. Take this quote... "Nothing that comes from Microsoft can be for our good and benefit. They are dedicated to our destruction and downfall. Mono has infected Gnome. Ubuntu uses Gnome. I switched to Kubuntu and am happy with it. Now Moonlight is infecting Linux." There are two parts to the Linux community. One part s…

"There are two parts to the Linux community. One part sees Linux as a legitimate tool they can use to bring down costs while maintaining stability. The other sees this as some kind of holy war and is really just using Linux to act like drama queens." Do you really think that the stability, low cost and quality of Open Source software is independent of the Free Software ideology? If I was being as derisive as you are…

There's an old saying, "BSD is for people who love Unix, Linux is for people who hate Microsoft".

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#19

Post by gaius »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #7
davidw wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. I think that, given all the money and hard work poured into it, Mono is, relative to other languages and things out there, not as popular as it "ought" to be. Here we have a first-rate JIT compiled language that's completely free (no Java ambiguity), with a team of smart hackers behind it, and yet not that many people use it. I don't, nor do I know anyone who does, besides one of the core developers who l…

Well as the head of an IT department that does use Windows servers I can tell you you're right but the reason has little to do with Mono itself. Here's the thing you have to understand about corporate IT: Support is king. Unlike startups which are filled with technical people company's have only a few IT people and usually only one whose knowledge is at a high enough level to even think of editing the source of an op…

Indeed - people forget that outside of the software industry itself, software and IT is usually viewed by the business as a cost.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#20

Post by gaius »

dunk010 wrote: post #5

I always thought that it was a bit of a marketing blunder naming it the same as the slang term for glandular fever.

Only in the US. Everywhere else in the world calls it "glandular fever".
Post reply on HN