Why Mono doesn't suck • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#21

Post by jasonkester » Fri, Jun 12, 2009, 11:01 AM UTC

"Secondly, support for Microsoft.NET is a secondary goal for Mono"

Guys, you're killing me.

I really want to embrace Mono, but there is this fundamental disconnect between what the Mono team think they are building and what the real world needs them to be building.

Mono team, your ONLY goal should be to provide a 100% compatible .NET implementation that runs on Linux. That's it. Simply make my C# code work there, and I'll be happy.

Unfortunately, the Mono team is trying to do something else entirely. They're adding new language features and trying to extend it into their own thing. And nobody outside the Mono team can understand even for a minute why they would want to do that.

So here we are, 4 years into this project, and it still has pieces of .NET 1.1 that are not implemented. That means we can't use it yet. And while we're waiting patiently for a usable framework, the Mono team is off pursuing shiny .NET 3.5 functionality and inventing new functionality of their own. I mean sure, it sounds like fun and all, but us developers are still out in the cold waiting for a framework that the Mono team doesn't seem inclined to actually finish.

So guys, please, I'm begging you. Quit adding new stuff. Go back and finish what you started. Get .NET working on Linux like you promised. We'll all thank you for it!

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#22

Post by didroe » Fri, Jun 12, 2009, 11:29 AM UTC

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…

I thought this was the best bit:

>Mono implements an international standard albeit one from a convicted monopolist. If this is a problem, why do people use C, the standard from convicted monopolist AT&T? Mono implements an improved, Free replacement for a proprietary offering. If this is a problem, why do people use GNU (which provided an improved, Free replacement for proprietary UNIX)?

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#23

Post by cortesi » Fri, Jun 12, 2009, 12:15 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #18

cortesi wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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".

I've heard it, and I personally use OpenBSD much more than I use Linux. There's a whole different discussion to be had about the differences between the BSD and Linux models, and why Linux has soared and the BSDs have not. At any rate, I suspect that, despite recent fireworks on the OpenBSD mailing lists, Stallman and Theo de Raadt agree much more fundamentally about the threat posed by patents and licensing than, say, Stallman and Torvalds.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#24

Post by cschwarm » Fri, Jun 12, 2009, 12:24 PM UTC

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…

> "Do you really think that the stability, low cost and quality of Open Source software is independent of the Free Software ideology?"

Well, I do. Open Source is basically just Economics.

An initial release of source code happens because there's often no (more) alternative usage for it. From a product point of view, it's often unfinished. Turning it into something that could have an alternative use -- such as being sold as Closed Source Software, for example -- usually requires additional efforts; additional investments of time and money. Another reason for releasing the source code is the "death" of former Closed Source Software: Either it was killed by competition or because people's wants and needs changed. No or little future profit is to be expected.

In both cases holds: The opportunity costs of releasing the source code are low or even zero. One looses nothing by releasing the source code. If you'd loose something, you simply wouldn't release it. And every Open Source advocate is fine with that.

As for contributing to Open Source: It simply pays. If a developer is sufficiently annoyed by a missing feature or a bug to justify make a patch, it will happen. It's pure self-interest. It's economic behaviour.

The next stage is the more important one: Why send the patch upstream? That's simply, again. First, the opportunity costs of sending the patch is zero, again. The developer couldn't use the code of the patch for anything else. Second, sending the patch upstream, will save him effort. If he (or she) wouldn't send the patch, that's basically a fork so he or she would have to waste his time solving conflicts, etc. Sending the patch upstream is, in most cases, pure self-interest. It's economic behaviour.

Accepting a patch is usually also rational, for it improves the source code for the original developer.

In other words: each stage of releasing initial source code, making patches that fixes bugs and improves the functionality, and accepting these, is entirely self-interest and economic behaviour.

No need for any ideology.

Your argument that Open Source wouldn't exists without Richard Stallman, is basically useless: How could we know whether it wouldn't? It's an empirical question that cannot be tested with an experiment.

However, we can make some analogies: Solutions are often invented when problems exists. In nature, the eye was invented several times independently because it helped the creatures to survive more often.

So, it seems save to say: Without Stallman, something like Open Source would have been invented by others. In fact, Project Gutenberg -- free distribution of classic texts -- was invented in 1971, already. The first BSD "distribution" was assembled in 1977. Several others released source code without ever having heard about Stallman and Free Software, before.

Again, no need for any ideology.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#25

Post by limmeau » Fri, Jun 12, 2009, 12:30 PM UTC

jasonkester wrote: post #21

"Secondly, support for Microsoft.NET is a secondary goal for Mono" Guys, you're killing me. I really want to embrace Mono, but there is this fundamental disconnect between what the Mono team think they are building and what the real world needs them to be building. Mono team, your ONLY goal should be to provide a 100% compatible .NET implementation that runs on Linux. That's it. Simply make my C# code work there, and…

"your only goal should be" or "I want you to"?

Perhaps they just want to be able to program in a decent statically-typed language with a GC and a JIT compiler and Gtk bindings?

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#26

Post by jm4 » Fri, Jun 12, 2009, 12:34 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #19

TomOfTTB wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is a cost. Many IT people/developers like to think otherwise but to do so is truly delusional and can be a roadblock to career advancement.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#27

Post by h1bored » Fri, Jun 12, 2009, 12:50 PM UTC

jasonkester wrote: post #21

"Secondly, support for Microsoft.NET is a secondary goal for Mono" Guys, you're killing me. I really want to embrace Mono, but there is this fundamental disconnect between what the Mono team think they are building and what the real world needs them to be building. Mono team, your ONLY goal should be to provide a 100% compatible .NET implementation that runs on Linux. That's it. Simply make my C# code work there, and…

I lead a dev team in the real world, using mono for all our work, and I don't need them to do any such thing. Your definition of the "ONLY" goal for them is utter claptrap and certainly not a definition of what the "real world needs".

Stop confusing your desires ("Simply make my C# code work there, and I'll be happy") with the only sane direction for them to go.

I certainly wouldn't thank them for slavishly copying .net 1.1 or any such thing. If you want that so badly, feel free to submit patches, I'm sure they'll gladly accept.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#28

Post by cortesi » Fri, Jun 12, 2009, 12:54 PM UTC

cschwarm wrote: post #24

cortesi wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> "Do you really think that the stability, low cost and quality of Open Source software is independent of the Free Software ideology?" Well, I do. Open Source is basically just Economics. An initial release of source code happens because there's often no (more) alternative usage for it. From a product point of view, it's often unfinished. Turning it into something that could have an alternative use -- such as being s…

We agree that the open source ecosystem is incentive-driven - most actual code contributions are made due to simple economic incentives (though not nearly as simple as you make out, but that's a whole different discussion). So, approaching things from this angle, I would say that although most people are simple rational actors who contribute code because they stand to benefit directly, someone has to take a larger view, and try to make sure that impediments that gum up the free operation of this incentive system are removed. The intellectual property trap is just such an impediment, and the people who bother to take the long-term view are the ideologues.

I say again: we need both. I for one hope that the argument between ideologues and pragmatists is never decisively settled in either's favour.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#29

Post by jasonkester » Fri, Jun 12, 2009, 12:57 PM UTC

limmeau wrote: post #25

jasonkester wrote: post #21

"Secondly, support for Microsoft.NET is a secondary goal for Mono" Guys, you're killing me. I really want to embrace Mono, but there is this fundamental disconnect between what the Mono team think they are building and what the real world needs them to be building. Mono team, your ONLY goal should be to provide a 100% compatible .NET implementation that runs on Linux. That's it. Simply make my C# code work there, and…

"your only goal should be" or "I want you to"? Perhaps they just want to be able to program in a decent statically-typed language with a GC and a JIT compiler and Gtk bindings?

That seems like a reasonable thing to want to do, and a worthy reason to split off a fork. It's certainly not worth hijacking as big or important a project as Mono to do so.

Mono needs to get a direction and follow it. At the moment, they're heading in a bunch of directions at once. If they don't want to be "A .NET Runtime That Works Anywhere", then they should say as much and stand aside so that somebody else can do it.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#30

Post by DLWormwood » Fri, Jun 12, 2009, 1:05 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #16

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 pa…

> Flash is more popular because of inertia, and because many designers use Macs and have invested heavily in Adobe tools.

A minor irony, Flash has had a bad reputation peformancewise on the Mac platform for a good decade now... and the migration from PPC to Intel hasn't helped matters much, as is my understanding.