"Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:87ps3bq1de.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> "jim" <jim@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:87odivexh1.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "jim" <jim@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:reply_in_group-251A52.08405401072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> In article <4hgkl4-28a.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> > ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>> >| The Mono project team created a desktop widgets environment
>>>>>> >similar
>>>>>> >| to SuperKaramba or gDesklets. While in early development the C#
>>>>>> >based
>>>>>> >| project has interesting features like running separate or combined
>>>>>> >| sandboxes.
>>>>>> > `----
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/moonlight-desklets-mono-desktop-wid
>>>>>> > gets/
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, let's all work really hard to get everything proprietary as
>>>>>> quickly
>>>>>> as possible. Who needs GPLv3, eh? Why don't we all just give up
>>>>>> now,
>>>>>> just as we are about to win.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mono is not proprietary. It's under GPL and LGPL, and would have no
>>>>> trouble whatsoever in a GPLv3 world, and would in fact work just as
>>>>> well
>>>>> if it went to GPLv3 itself.
>>>>
>>>> Unforttunately, since it is just a copy of Microsoft's work, it will
>>>> always
>>>> be at least a step behind Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> Novell really should just waddle away from that crappy project and move
>>>> on
>>>> to something with more potential, like REALbasic.
>>>
>>> And REALbasic is used for how much distributed computing?
>>
>> And Mono is used for how much desktop computing?
>>
>> It doesn't matter. The point I am making is that Novell has set itself
>> up
>> for failure by playing second fiddle to Microsoft's C#. Whenever you
>> attempt to clone someone else's work to the extent that Mono does, the
>> very
>> nature of the cloning means that you will be at least one step behind.
>> Add
>> to that the closed source C# and you are actually SEVERAL steps
>> behind.
>
> Maybe I missed something. Doesn't mono give LINUX apps the ability to
> communicate with existing .net distributed objects and services? And
> even if not (althought there is a CORBA implementation), so what if it
> is a step or two behind? It works for many credibale projects:
>
> http://www.mono-project.com/Software
>
>>
>> Being behind your competitor in this way is always bad. It makes
>> Microsoft
>> look like the innovator and Mono look like a cheap knockoff (which is
>> exactly what it is).
>
> So what do you propose? The original statement seemed to indicate
> ploughing resources into something totally different like REALBasic.
>
> .Net is a proposed standard
>
> ,----
> | The project implements various technologies developed by Microsoft that
> | have now been submitted to the ECMA for standardization.
> `----
Proposed by who? Microsoft. Microsoft threw out this red herring to keep
their competition busy while they moved forward. Microsoft is one of the
best in the world with smoke and mirrors. They act like they're giving you
something, when they are busy coding away at the next level that will make
your attempts look shaby.
MS knows that ratification will take years. They also know that IF it
happens, they will have had years to get ahead of the ECMA standard. This
is a calculated risk that works in favor of MS.
It is a strategy that Microsoft employs well. Linux shops should stop
falling for it.
Who, here, thinks that Microsoft is going to give the world ANYTHING that
would make it equally as easy to code and run apps on Linux and Windows?
>>
>> Besides that, Mono is not meant for the same mass adoption by all levels
>> of
>> programmers. That means that it is not suitable as a vehicle for growing
>> the adoption of Linux as an alternative OS like VB did for Microsoft.
>> REALbasic is better suited for that task.
>
> Different things. Mono extends Linux into the distributed world.
Exactly. While they may make Linux gurus and white fleshed server room
hostages quiver with delight, it does absolutely NOTHING to help Linux gain
ground on the desktop.
>
>>
>> Mono is great for backend grunt work. But, I have yet to see one "must
>> have" desktop application written in Mono. And, this isn't likely to
>> happen
>> anytime soon.
>
> Same as you wont see many desktop apps using CORBA.
This is Linux Advocacy. A langauge that supports the desktop is more
advantageous for Linux than the very best server room technology in the
world. People adopt desktops, not server rooms.
>
>>
>> REALbasic has more potential to add more coders and users to the Linux
>> base
>> than Mono. REALbasic can currently compile code for Mac, Linux and
>> Windows
>> from the same source code. REALbasic sompiles to a single EXE with no
>> required runtimes, making for smaller application footprints and making
>> installation a breeze.
>
> REALbasic is a language, but lacking "there and now" features. There are
> already heaps. Java, perl, tcl, c, c++ etc etc.
REALbasic is easier to learn and use than any of those alternatives.
Therefore, it mostly resembles VB in the ability to gain OS converts for
Linux the way VB did for Windows.
>
>>
>> REALbasic has a long way to go before it is right for a lot of the lower
>> level coding required by backend servers. And, REALbasic needs more
>> components coded for it. It is by no means a perfect solution. However,
>> it
>> is a better solution than Mono when considering the growth potential (in
>> applications and desktop adoption) that it brings to Linux.
>
> But it isn't aiming at what Mono is.
Right. It is aiming at the hobbyist to mid-level coders. The people that
are most likely to develop apps that make the OS popular and a hit on the
desktop.
>
>>
>> REALbasic for Linux (doesn't compile for Mac and Windows) is free. The
>> full
>> version that compiles for all 3 OSs is around $600.
>
> It would be better if it was cross platform ....
Like Java? That went over well. Look at all of the must have applications
for the desktop that Java produced.
>
>>
>> I see REALbasic as a way to spread Linux. Whereas Mono seems, to me, to
>> be
>> a self-imposed limit on Linux to stay x steps behind Microsoft's C#.
>
> No. it's there to provide an easy to use cross platform distributed
> environment amongst other things.
It's there (by Microsoft's design) to hold Linux back and off of the Windows
desktop.
|
|
