| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Open-source .Net takes shape | |
|
||
| Time: 01:22 EST/06:22 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Builders of the Mono open-source development project released an update on Tuesday that will let programmers write Microsoft .Net applications for Linux and Unix operating systems. The goal of the Mono Project, spearheaded by open-source desktop software company Ximian, is to create an open-source version of Microsoft's .Net development software. .Net encompasses development tools, online services and software that allows applications to run on any version of the Windows operating system. Once the Mono Project is completed next year, developers will be able to build .Net applications that run on Linux and Unix. As part of the ongoing work, contributors to Mono are creating extensions to the Gnome development software for Microsoft's C# language, which should enable Linux programmers to write .Net-compatible applications. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:35:36 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/13/2002 1:26:56 AM |
| quite a gamble. where are they getting all their money? |
| #2 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/13/2002 3:00:50 AM |
| Slight correction: Microsoft has submitted C# and the CLI to ECMA and ISO not ECMA and W3C. |
| #3 By 931 (67.35.48.225) at 12/13/2002 5:18:20 AM |
|
of course they will but ms will not do that till version 2+ of the cli lol
|
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/13/2002 10:35:33 AM |
|
Crossplatform with .Net means the developer chooses whether or not to be cross platform.
Java was another form of coercion... i.e. "Developers are too stupid to know any better, so we will design the platform such that they can never screw it up." Anyway, I'm excited to see what happens with Mono. Miguel is one of the few true visionaries working with Linux, and it's funny to see how much flak he receives from the old-school types. |
| #5 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 12/13/2002 11:06:34 AM |
|
#7 - Soda - exactly right.
And I also agree with Miguel being a real leader in the Linux community, as apposed to the majority of users and zealots who are so blinded by their hate for MS they miss great technologies like .NET. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/13/2002 12:51:06 PM |
| It's greatto see soda making the exact same argument that he says is impossible when applied against Microsoft. Oh, how I love hypocrisy. |
| #7 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/13/2002 1:03:28 PM |
|
MS has already promised to make the new features in .NET v2 standards. One example is Generics (a form of Templates for you C++ developers out there). They already have an open example that runs on Rotor (the Shared Source example implementation of the C# and CIL ECMA standards).
I see good things coming from Microsoft. So far, they are doing .NET "right" and "Good(tm)". I laugh when I see some stupid article writer say that Java is "open" and .NET is "proprietary". Where's that Java ECMA standard, Sun? Twice Sun has started the ECMA process and twice it has backed out at the last minute. Still no Sun Java standard. Sure, they have the JCP which allows external input, but Sun is not obligated to listen to anything the JCP says. Sun still owns the Java trademark and has 100% veto power in the JCP process and have used it on occasion. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/13/2002 3:18:33 PM |
|
Which argument would that be, jerky boy?
|
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/13/2002 4:53:50 PM |
| The suggestion that you are coerced into making non-MS multiplatform code with Java. That's what Java is; if you choose to use it, that was your choice. There is never any expectation that you can code MS-only code with Java, nor is there any force to make multiplatform code. If you choose it, you choose it. |
| #10 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/13/2002 5:42:15 PM |
|
jerk, it seem that there is an element missing here.
Pure Java - 100% cross platform (assuming you don't use JNI to talk to Solaris). I should note that JNI is part of the Java spec, so all 100% Pure Java which is Sun Certified isn't cross platform. Sun has numerous platform specific (Solaris specific to be exact) Java libraries. "MS" Java - 100% cross platform (assuming you don't use J/Direct to talk to COM objects) Microsoft's Java tool allowed developers to write pure Java OR platform specific Java. Sun was upset that Microsoft let developers choose between the two. That, if I understand blue, is his argument. I don't see that as hypocritical on Microsoft's part. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/13/2002 5:55:33 PM |
|
People aren't coerced or forced into using WIndows or Office, Bob, but if they use Java they are coerced into making crossplatform code? What the fsck do you call that but hypocrisy??!! As for Microsft's Java--there is no such thing. There never was such a thing.
I don't see any mention of this so-called "Microsoft's Java" anyway, soda was referring to .Net. I didn't call Microsoft a hypocrite; I called soda a hypocrite. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/13/2002 5:59:03 PM |
|
LOL
I never said anybody was coerced into using Java... just that once you made that decision, you either abided by the cross-platform goal or Sun would sue you. I view lawsuits as coercion. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/13/2002 6:06:07 PM |
|
"Java was another form of coercion..."
Did "Java" become a synonym for "lawsuits", something not mentioned in your post at all, without my knowing about it, or are you just lying out of your @ss, soda? |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/13/2002 6:15:16 PM |
|
Let's look at your statement further, hypocrite:
"just that once you made that decision, you either abided by the cross-platform goal or Sun would sue you" so you can choose to use it, and not be coerced or you can choose to use it, and then make another choice entirely contrary to the original one to do something else completely contrary? where's the coercion? The legal right to assert your copyright and IP ownership? Are you suggesting that's illegal now? or that someone who breaks the cross-platform requirement didn't choose to? Are you trying to be an idiot or are you really trying to defend yourself from being called a hypocrite, hypocrite? |
| #15 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/13/2002 6:53:30 PM |
| jerk - oh. I have a knee jerk reaction when Microsoft and Java appear. I think I'll try to save what face I have left, and bow out. |
| #16 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/14/2002 2:02:49 AM |
|
#20: So the commutative law doesn't apply to Java?
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutative If a == b, and b = c, then a must equal c. If lawsuits = coercion and Java = coercion, then lawsuits must equal Java :) Not only does mathematical principal apply, but common sense and observable behavior as well. -d |
| #17 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/14/2002 2:16:37 AM |
|
#21 - "Not only does mathematical principal apply, but common sense and observable behavior as well."
Well, if you consider "Coercion" to be a set, and both Java and Lawsuits are both members of coercion, then no, Java does not equal Lawsuits... they are simply part of the same set. Anyway, I think we need to define coercion. I think it's possible to coerce somebody without resorting to physical force... but I do not think it's possible to "force" somebody without physical force. Sun reserves the right to sue the hell out of you if you create something that allows Java to operate better on Windows than on other platforms - even if that modification still preserves the ability to write purely cross platform code. Sun ignores the fact that nearly EVERY JVM implementation - not to mention J2EE implementations - do this. IBM does it all over the place! Sun is selectively allowing certain companies it likes to modify Java for their own benefit, but suing Microsoft when it does the same. This is coercion because it forces Microsoft into the position of either not including their Java in Windows, or including one that is slower than competing platforms. It is the government that forces Microsoft to abide by a court's decision. In a sense, Sun is a monopoly when it comes to Java... and they are using exclusive contracts to enforce that monopoly. But they are forcing nobody to do anything... that's the government's job. Similarly, Microsoft never FORCED anybody to do anything... yet, as I remember, many people on this board, including sodajerk, argued that Microsoft did indeed force both companies and consumers to use IE, or Windows, or whatever the argument happened to be for that day. THIS is hypocrisy. If you think the suit against Microsoft was warranted and just, then you MUST also think that Sun's java suit was anti-competitive and unlawful. Sun has a monopoly over Java (just as Microsoft has a monopoly over Windows), both are platforms for development, and both used exclusive contracts to enforce their monopoly. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 163 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:35:36 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
