Why Mono doesn't suck • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#81

Post by gaius » Sat, Jun 13, 2009, 8:38 AM UTC

jm4 wrote: post #61

DannoHung wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If IT is only a cost, and not a competitive advantage, then your company doesn't need IT in house and should outsource entirely.

Being considered a cost and providing a competitive advantage are not mutually exclusive. An IT department that meets its goals at a lower cost than an alternative could be a competitive advantage.

An example of an IT department that's a revenue-generator is Amazon's, in the sense that they sell services outside of the company. But that's quite rare. At most, some IT departments chargeback internally, but that's just made-up money.

Then again, I think it was Bezos himself who described Amazon as a technology company that happened to sell books too.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#82

Post by jasonkester » Sat, Jun 13, 2009, 8:40 AM UTC

migueldeicaza wrote: post #75

jasonkester wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like we're doing similar stuff. The code I'd like to run under Mono is neither ASP.NET nor WinForms. It's plain vanilla string processing and HttpRequesting with some minor crypto and SSL thrown in to use AWS. That's the stuff I'd expect to be there and it's not.

Care to detail exactly what is missing? And if you do not know what is missing, download our tool, and it will do the work for you: www.mono-project.com/Moma

That's the fun part. The tool says everything is good to go. That's partially why I felt so burned by it, having assurances that everything I was doing was implemented. Running the code, it doesn't even thow. It just quietly exits.

After a few weeks running into issues like that, I just quietly exited myself. Windows EC2 boxes are only 25% more expensive than Linux ones, and they run .NET natively and correctly, so my particular problem is solved.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#83

Post by rbanffy » Sun, Jun 14, 2009, 5:14 AM UTC

fatdog789 wrote: post #80

rbanffy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Neither does Microsoft who has repeatedly spread FUD over all the free-software and open-source ecosystem. Can you provide any declaration Microsoft supports Mono and promises will not sue those users not under their IP cross-licensing deal with Novell? Until then, it is a minefield. And that is what a minefield is about - you never know when you step on one or even if there are any mines.

MS doesn't need to. 1) C# is a standardized, open spec language. Mono is an implementation of that open spec. The development of that specification is driven by MS's .Net platform. 2) Here's a crucial bit of patent/IP law: by releasing the specification of the language to the "public", MS is barred from suing over it in a court of law. So again, there's no need for it say that it won't sue, since it's already prevent…

Isn't Mono more than the C# implementation, covering much of the whole .NET API, which is not, IIRC, covered by ECMA-334.

And even if by publishing the spec they would have given up their right to sue implementors (which they did not) they would be free to sue anyone that used any technique on which they own valid patents on any jurisdiction insane enough to allow such patents.

And while I doubt their willingness to test such patents in court, I also acknowledge the potential for long and painful lawsuits is more than enough an incentive use other technologies that are every bit as nice to the developer as .NET while negating completely any litigation risk.

Re: Why Mono doesn't suck

#84

Post by billpg » Mon, Jun 15, 2009, 11:18 AM UTC

uriel wrote: post #68

billpg wrote: post #53

Mono lets me write stuff in C# to run on Linux. What's not to like?

C#? There are probably hundreds of open and free languages out there better than C# that can run under pretty much any platform under the sun.

And yet, people still write stuff using C#.