Why Mono Is Desirable For Linux

[ciplogic]

(...) very good and justifiable reasons to hate Microsoft are very much rooted in development EEE and lockin.

EEE is in my best judgement: someone starts a technology, second company adopts it, and implement a big chunk of the first company technology and some extra proprietary bits that do basically locks you in.
If you mean this EEE (and Wikipedia seems to say so), it seems to me that in equal measure Mono is EEE as is .Net. Can you write iOS applications in .Net? Or Linux ones for that matter. Can you call portable code, just by writing an xml in the current folder a new (native) DLL/SO mapping? Mono did it at least 6 years before Microsoft. So you could write code that works on .Net and works on Mono, with one XML markup, but you could write it just in a Mono only manner.
Claim (that is assumed to be true): EEE is first person does a technology, and the second does an incomplete with not-so-compatible extensions that lead to lockin.
Who does the lockin, and if you are trained in basic logic (like the one that you do it at school at age of 15), please explain to me how .Net is a lockin for Mono users. Also at least for my basic satisfaction, may you describe how you are locked in if you write code that works with Gtk#/Mono (the regular way you'll likely write your code anyway), or if you use Asp.NET MVC3/4, Entity, DLR, IronRuby (or IronPython)?

[directhex]

Why directhex is instantly labelled a shill:

In one sentence:

In another:

Quite a few, very good and justifiable reasons to hate Microsoft are very much rooted in development EEE and lockin. Just what topic are we on right now?

Is Linus Torvalds a Microsoft shill? I quote:

Oh, I?m a big believer in ?technology over politics?. I don?t care who it comes from, as long as there are solid reasons for the code, and as long as we don?t have to worry about licensing etc issues.

In fact, to some degree, I?d be more likely to include it because it?s from a new member of the community rather than less (again, I?d like to point out that drivers are special. They don?t impact other things, so they get merged much more easily than some core changes).

I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease. I believe in open development, and that very much involves not just making the source open, but also not shutting other
people and companies out.

There are ?extremists? in the free software world, but that?s one major reason why I don?t call what I do ?free software? any more. I don?t want to be associated with the people for whom it?s about exclusion and hatred.

You can't tell that he's talking about YOU, kazetsukai, when he says "Microsoft hatred is a disease"?

You're ignoring the real problem in that sentence. I shouldn't have to spell it out for you either.

But you're doing the Fox News thing, making accusations by inference. If you actually believed your statements, you'd be able to make your arguments articulately and plainly. It's not my job to try and guestimate what worst-case nonsense you're trying to claim, because as soon as I aim at that theoretical position, you'll attack me for missing your point.

So make your point in plain English, not with nudges and winks.

My God, can you really, truly not see what I'm implying here?

That you're paranoid and obsessed?

Or even here!?!

Stop implying and try stating.

If your arguments could stand up to cursory examination, you wouldn't be so terrified about making them clearly.

THIS IS WHY you are a shill.

I don't think you even know what that word means.

[kazetsukai]

Why directhex is instantly labelled a shill:

In one sentence:

Of course I see why people are apprehensive about Microsoft.

In another:

I'm saying blind hatred against Microsoft in all cases regardless of context is moronic.

Quite a few, very good and justifiable reasons to hate Microsoft are very much rooted in development EEE and lockin. Just what topic are we on right now?

Anything not running Windows/.NET. You're either using APIs that happen to be implemented in Mono, or you're coding against .NET and only caring about Windows.

So, shock horror, do the former.

You're ignoring the real problem in that sentence. I shouldn't have to spell it out for you either.

It is not in Microsoft's best interest for developers to more easily deploy to other platforms. The conflict of interest here is clear. Is it really all that unreasonable for developers to be wary of this?

Who cares what is or is not in Microsoft's best interests?

My God, can you really, truly not see what I'm implying here?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

So what is the directly comparable scenario for your "fool me once" here?

Or even here!?!

THIS IS WHY you are a shill.

[ciplogic]

I am not completely against Xamarin. I haven't yet tried to do this so I can't say if it works but in theory you should be able to convert android java code to C# with IKVM.NET and then use MonoTouch and MonoAndroid and port your app work on ios and make it on android run faster (because you said that .Net is faster because of the better Jit).

Edited: directhex duplicate my thoughts. So there is no point to repeat it.
Just the link to results: http://tirania.org/s/71de890b.png

[directhex]

I am not completely against Xamarin. I haven't yet tried to do this so I can't say if it works but in theory you should be able to convert android java code to C# with IKVM.NET and then use MonoTouch and MonoAndroid and port your app work on ios and make it on android run faster (because you said that .Net is faster because of the better Jit).

IKVM.NET doesn't convert Java code to C#, it converts Java bytecode to MSIL.

Microsoft used to have a free tool called JLCA which did a source-level conversion, though.

But now that you mention it, here is Xamarin's port of Android from Java to C# (using a tool called Sharpen), whose performance is orders of magnitude faster than Dalvik: http://blog.xamarin.com/2012/05/01/android-in-c-sharp/

[ciplogic]

Wow you certainly would make a great salesman. You don't try to sell a product. People pay for it voluntarily because it is so awesome...
All I see is Xamarin trying to convince devs to use Mono/C# on Linux and Co so that they can cash them to be able to deploy their code on Android and Co. Please prove me wrong by listing free alternatives to MonoTouch/Mono for Android.

As for IDEs to develop Android, and as far as I know they don't cost a penny:
- IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition, you don't need any plugin
- Lazarus IDE
- Qt with Necessitas
- Mono if you compile it by your own. No one stops you doing this, and no one has the duty to give it for free integration with Visual Studio, MonoDevelop, to write a visual designer and so on
- any HTML5 application (yes, you have a browser in Android) and you have a lot of tools for doing this: JQuery/JQuery UI (for JS side), combined with Ruby on Rails for example, or Mono with MVC3/4 on server side

Note: Lazarus' integration with Android is alpha quality, and Qt/Necessitas is beta quality (at least in my view).

At the end, as you probably know: Android is not Linux, you cannot write for example Gtk applications, or if you can, please point to me the tutorial where I can do this. Or an X11 application, or an OpenGL (not OpenGL ES) one. So even the discussion that Xamarin sells tools for iOS or Android will not target Linux, excluding that paying customers that use MonoDevelop report bugs that will get into MonoDevelop Linux offerings.

[directhex]

All I see is Xamarin trying to convince devs to use Mono/C# on Linux and Co so that they can cash them to be able to deploy their code on Android and Co.

You're deluded if you think the number of people who want to port their C# apps from the Linux desktop to Android or iOS is anything more than statistical noise.

What they're actually selling is a path to code sharing - keeping 80+% of your code base common across Android and iOS is something none of the default development environments offer. Buying Xamarin's products (rather than other things like Phonegap) enables that, plus code sharing with Windows Phone (for what little market share that's worth). If that means code sharing with existing desktop (inevitably Windows) apps, then all the better for the developer.

Xamarin isn't trying to convince anyone to use Mono/C# on Linux. They gave up. They keep their existing apps etc running - and the community continues to do its job of submitting patches and packages - but Xamarin is not a Linux desktop company by any stretch of the imagination.

Please prove me wrong by listing free alternatives to MonoTouch/Mono for Android.

That would depend on what, exactly, you're actually asking for. What would you consider "an alternative to MonoTouch"?

[log0]

First of all is obvious that we don't try to sell any product. Mono is free and most people get it for free. Even some people pay for it, they pay for a full toolset that gives a consistent experience to use it that worth the price (MonoTouch and Mono for Android), so is obvious that we don't sell.

Wow you certainly would make a great salesman. You don't try to sell a product. People pay for it voluntarily because it is so awesome...
All I see is Xamarin trying to convince devs to use Mono/C# on Linux and Co so that they can cash them to be able to deploy their code on Android and Co. Please prove me wrong by listing free alternatives to MonoTouch/Mono for Android.

[ciplogic]

It's sweet of you to try to sell a product to us we don't need or want just out of a sense of "justice", fighting all of the anti-Microsoft prejudice just because it's the right thing to do... However, even if the 2 of you make 1000 posts in this thread and finally manage to get the last word in, outlasting 1000s of people who think you're complete morons, I'm quite sure that you will have convinced exactly zero people to start using Mono.

Maybe your time would be better spent working on improving the codebase of Mono/Monodevelop so that they actually work, that would go much further towards convincing people to use it. OTOH, Wine has insane amounts of time, money, and effort invested in it, and it's still an utter failure. Therefore, there's no reason to think Mono will ever be good either, that time and effort is better invested in native Linux solutions.

First of all is obvious that we don't try to sell any product. Mono is free and most people get it for free. Even some people pay for it, they pay for a full toolset that gives a consistent experience to use it that worth the price (MonoTouch and Mono for Android), so is obvious that we don't sell. The numbers don't add up, I would grant to you that are more people complaining, but are obviously people that are neutral, including Michael, that he accepted to put the article (at least for controversy side), a lot of people that do not care if the last Humble Bundle embeds Unity and with it Mono.

At the end, we fight with the falsehoods that most people put against Mono, because we need a nice environment to work with, we want Mono applications, we want to use Linux as is. This is why we did not promote Wine in our talks. We don't want Windows to come on Linux, we want an easy to use language/platform that we are comfortable with and we see no reason to not be a part of Swiss knife developer tools on Linux.

The contention that is better to spend time improving Mono/Monodevelop it would imply that:
- Mono, MonoDevelop does not work and all Unity applications, Second Life, MonoTouch and so on, prove that they do
- we don't contribute to Mono, MonoDevelop directly or indirectly, which is also false. I compiled at least Mono runtime and takes some time, and to make it over all platforms as packaging is time consuming, so directhex is obviously contributing. As for me, my contributions are much smaller, but I a fairly important patch to Pinta (look in Pinta> Help About, for Ciprian Mustiata, and you will find me there), I reported bugs to MonoDevelop (like this link: http://answerpot.com/showthread.php?...project+errors )

At the end, why Wine is an utter failure? Don't you like to play games and if developers are not kind enough to spend time porting their applications (maybe because someone will say that they use Mono to make it happen and that's why is slow, not because of video drivers), to not have any other way than running them in Windows? As for me, as I'm not in myself a gamer, I see Wine even more important, I could switch to Linux for basic applications but there will be always an application that I would want to run it that is Windows only.

If you do think that Wine is not for you, please stay away of it, the same about Mono.
But what we can't stand, or at least I can't stand are the falsehoods. Are you afraid of Microsoft, fine, stay away of whatever you think Microsoft does. But don't say that people are paid to support Mono, or that Mono is slower than Dalvik, or that games run slow because they run on Mono. Claims come with at least some kind of evidence, not speculations. Just spend 1 minute in Google and find where you get the information from. Look for the source of your information, if there is a source, and is it credible?
Look this informative clip about sorting falsehoods: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdnZ1l5TxJk

[o247492]

Presumably because in 2012, their customers demand it. Same reason they're spending so much time on things like Linux support in Hyper-V. 2012's developers demand more visibility on their frameworks than 1999's did.

It's sweet of you to try to sell a product to us we don't need or want just out of a sense of "justice", fighting all of the anti-Microsoft prejudice just because it's the right thing to do... However, even if the 2 of you make 1000 posts in this thread and finally manage to get the last word in, outlasting 1000s of people who think you're complete morons, I'm quite sure that you will have convinced exactly zero people to start using Mono.

Maybe your time would be better spent working on improving the codebase of Mono/Monodevelop so that they actually work, that would go much further towards convincing people to use it. OTOH, Wine has insane amounts of time, money, and effort invested in it, and it's still an utter failure. Therefore, there's no reason to think Mono will ever be good either, that time and effort is better invested in native Linux solutions.