By the Mono Project’s own admission, there are 2 reasons for mono. One of them is to “assist Windows developers to deploy their applications on Linux”. Let’s see how that is working out for them!
First off, I’ve always thought this was a bogus reason. As a general rule, Windows developers don’t care anything about non-Windows platforms. Period. Windows developers are no more going to target Mono as a build environment than they will target Wine. Sure, you may find a few exceptions – I even know one nice audio project that supports Wine – but those are by far, very far, the exception.
Here’s a look at what some Windows developers and project users/enthusiasts think about Mono when push comes to shove:
As I mentioned in the post, we would have mono support by now if mono supported ASP.NET 100%. It doesn’t.
While mono support in theory would open up umbraco towards enterprises with *nix stacks, I doubt that they would choose anything mono related, due to mono still being experimental.
And after all we are a ASP.NET based cms. And the primary focus should be optimizing umbraco for ASP.NET. And adding official mono support, would mean that we would always be a .NET framework behind, so no LINQ, no WWF, etc. As much as I find mono support cool from a “geek perspective”, I don’t think it’s worth the drawbacks.
[Update: Umbraco's founder comments.]
[.NET development in Linux is] kind of silly. A .NET programmer really needs to run Windows. You don’t have to have server to run DNN, it will run on workstation OS’s just fine, with the limits placed on IIS by the OS. You can easily host on a server if you need to and still develop on a workstation.
As for DNN in MONO – Yes it works. I’ve done it. You will lose many functions that can’t be supported, and I’ve only run it under Apache on Windows, so you still don’t win on the argument of a free Linux distro. Basically, DNN on MONO sucks. Big time. But pretty much any .NET app on MONO sucks too when compared to running IIS.
If your defining choice is that you run on Linux, then you really should rethink your choice of development environments. PHP and Java would be more apporpriate
These are just the first two I picked, because they are the only 2 Windows “Open Source” projects I knew about that weren’t listed on the Mono page. They are both a bit dated, but I think they show the attitude that Windows developers have towards Mono (and GNU\Linux).
Not counting in-house mono apps, are there any significant primary-Windows applications that are targeting Mono? Or is it more of a “it’s up to those Mono guys to provide the compatibility – if they do, great, if not, I don’t really care” sort of thing?
The attitude of Windows developers to mono, especially the perception that Mono will always trail .NET is important. Mono apologists like to say at one moment that Windows developers are a target audience, but then turn around and argue that Mono is not or does not need to “chase” real .NET capabilities. This is clearly nonsensical: you can not target a market by offering them an inferior product.If you want to attract Windows developers you have to offer them at least the same features – and likely a compelling reason to consider using non-Microsoft tools.
Furthermore, Microsoft knows this and discussed it internally. For example, from a 2005 Microsoft internal presentation given by Dan nault to Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and others (PDF):
Maintaining Gap vs. Linux
1. Keep network effect with Applications
- Migrate applications to .NET framework
- BUT keep framework proprietary to Windows
- Patents required to implement clone
[...]
Maintaining Gap vs. Linux
The .NET framework contains the latest developer platform for the future, and it must be licensed like Windows. Subsets have gone about as far as they should go in the standards bodies, but we need a compact subset for phones and TVs. It was noted that we have to be careful because once the horses are out, they are out forever. At the right royalty, we can have discussions around technology beyond this.
There are many such internal documents that clearly show Microsoft understands exactly what standardizing parts of .NET means, and how to keep that offering in control and inferior to .NET. If Mono is not “chasing” .NET, then it fails to meet Windows developers expectations. If Mono is “chasing” .NET, then it both runs the risk of anti-competitive tactics on the non-standard parts, and is undertaking a task not likely to succeed.
#1 by Jo Shields on July 11th, 2009
A couple of counter-examples, if you care in the slightest:
* Second Life. Now Mono-based, for enormous performance increases, see http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mono; additionally, the main SL server app is Mono based, at http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Main_Page
* MindTouch DekiWiki, at http://www.mindtouch.com/products. Powers Mozilla’s development portal on Red Hat 5. Deki is weird in that it uses pure PHP as a front-end to a .NET app – it’s not ASP.NET.
Interestingly, both links you provide relate to ASP.NET, which is one of the technologies over which you have patent fears. Which would you prefer – for those scary patented technologies to stay away, or for some major ASP.NET webapp to be trivially installable? I’ve been thinking about packaging an ASP.NET webapp for a while, but haven’t spent any time on it. Largely because I’m happy with Wordpress and MediaWiki, and don’t see myself changing to something worse just because of the implementation language.
#2 by Jason on July 11th, 2009
Jo,
I think Second Life is the sort of example that says something positive about Mono.
As for the “patent fears” I think it illustrates the sort of thing we see in internal Microsoft memos. I’m not hoping those ASP.NET apps come to Linux – I’m saying that Microsoft is keeping the “good stuff” out of the standard on purpose, so just such situations exist.
#3 by Miguel de Icaza on July 12th, 2009
You can pick rants against Mono all day, I am sure that you will not find a lack of those. But then again, you can find rants against anything.
If your proof are two developers, we can find you two developers that rant about any subject you want. Give me the subject, I will produce “proof” of the same quality as your post.
Of course, you already purchased the domain and are paying for the hosting, so you have a vested interest in pushing your agenda.
Where could we get some stats for applications developers on Windows that want to port to Mono?
Two sources: (a) Moma reports, where some 10,000 windows developers contributed reports to enhance Mono to support their application and (b) some 1,000 Windows developers that have applied for the Mono plugin for Visual Studio program.
#4 by Jason on July 12th, 2009
On the nature of agendas
Yes. Yes I do. In fact, I freely admit so on the “About” page :
My agenda is to keep Free and Open Source safe from a company that wants to co-opt what it can; and subvert and destroy what it can not.
My agenda is discourage people from unwittingly helping Microsoft to do so.
My agenda is to speak out against parties that attempt to benefit from anti-community betrayals; say like cutting secretive deals that add validity to Microsoft’s FUD.
I have a lot of things on my agenda. And I’m not trying to hide it.
So you see, I am quite honest in my motivation. Are you implying you do not have a vested interest in pushing your agenda? Or perhaps you think a vested interest automatically disqualifies anything a person says on a topic?
Let’s go to the numbers, Al
For (b) you mean that one-two hundredth of one-percent of the “20 million .NET developers” are now giving a shit about mono?
At least (a) gets you all the way up to one-half of one-percent, assuming that number actually reflects unique Windows developers.
Also assuming my math is correct, which I wouldn’t gamble my life or even a wooden nickel upon.
Not to be dismissive, but I must say these numbers don’t exactly demolish my skepticism.
#5 by Lex on July 13th, 2009
Wow, you had both Jo Shield and Miguel de Icaza to personally come here and comment. You must be onto something…
Keep it coming!
#6 by Jo Shields on July 13th, 2009
Yeah, it’s not as if I’ve had ten or so trackbacks land in my inbox or anything.
#7 by Jason on July 13th, 2009
You do know you can turn off trackbacks, right? I appreciate your comments and try to give them a fair hearing; but no one is begging you to come around.
Out of honesty and courtesy I try to provide links to original sources, so the Gentle Reader can develop an informed opinion. I’m not treating any site differently from another.
Pro-tip: Less disinformation will mean less trackbacks from this blog.
#8 by Jo Shields on July 13th, 2009
Type your comment here
As I said previously, at least you cite external sources more than yourself
#9 by vexorian on July 14th, 2009
Well, Mono is certainly not effective at all to support my country’s tax system client. I’d like to thank the morons in charge that just picked VB.net+SQL server and activeX garbage for the development of this mandatory tool.
#10 by joe on July 14th, 2009
That Microsoft presentation you listed to was an interesting read. Full of patent threats and paranoia about Linux.
#11 by Jason on July 14th, 2009
@Joe,
Thanks! I’m glad you found it informative. There are lots of good documents in Comes v. Microsoft, but it takes some digging!
#12 by Nik on July 14th, 2009
Well done, Jason. Really. How much efforts to blow away the only chance Linux currently has to provide a contemporary, stable and uniform platform for development of desktop applications.
Please, don’t tell me about Java. Java sucks on desktop and it always did.
#13 by Jason on July 14th, 2009
Nik,
Someone will say it’s easy to criticize. I don’t care. Someone has to tell the plain facts and the sooner we raise our voices, and the louder, the better.
Love,
Jason
#14 by vexorian on July 15th, 2009
Nik: I don’t know what’s the most frightening thing about your post. That you think it is true or that you think that’s actually a good thing.
If Mono, a MS invented, patented and plainly anti-innovation platform (as evident by the ‘we won’t sue you unless you innovate’ clauses in their promises) is the only chance for Linux to have a “contemporary and stable” development platform then we have already lost. We may as well trash the whole Linux altogether as we have failed absurdly.
The good news is that such abomination is not true. Thank goodness.
#15 by vexorian on July 15th, 2009
There’s another deal, you mention an “uniform platform”. Unfortunately, the language used was never a big problem in these regards. In fact, Linux apps were quite stable in these regards bouncing between C and C++. The real problem (as seen by uniformity freaks) came mostly from package management, and GUI toolkits. Mono fix neither of these issues. i.e. MONO packages are still distro-dependent and the 2 or 5 relevant Mono apps use GTK# so the KDE guys are again out of their reach, how useful.
Not like uniformity was ever as big of an issue as some think it is.
#16 by monoAndGnomeBelongInTheTrash on July 16th, 2009
Jo Shields and Miguel de Icaza it’s so sad to see that you would rather sell out freedom for humanity for a couple of bucks in your pockets.
How will you explain your selling out to your children?
I’m so glad this site is here to shine the light on the truth.
KDE and RMS FTW!
#17 by Your name here on July 16th, 2009
You sad, sad person.
#18 by Jo Shields on July 16th, 2009
Justify your comments. Explain how my work is done “for a couple of bucks in your pockets.”
If you can’t, then one might dismiss you as the kind of incoherent rambling moron that those of us who do anything Mono-related visualize when we think of our detractors.
#19 by Jason on July 16th, 2009
Damn, Jo, you think I am an “incoherent rambling moron”? I thought we had something, man. /sheds tear
Anyway, I don’t think everyone is doing it for money: some are, some just know C# and that’s it, some geniunely do not care one whit about politics, some are probably just trying to pull down a paycheck, some are terribly misguided and some have some sort of wierd self-loathing rebel-against-the-larger-FLOSS-community-and-embrace-Microsoft thing going on. All sorts of reasons, I imagine. Only the last two really bother me.
I honestly do not understand how someone who comprehends the entire situation can come to the conclusion that mono/moonlight is a net positive for the community, but I keep reading and watching.
#20 by Jo Shields on July 16th, 2009
You? I think you’re two-faced and hypocritical, but you seem to at least have an IQ in three digits, which is more than most of your peers.
There are plenty more reasons than your list contains, although the items on your list provide a fascinating insight into your own beliefs
#21 by Jason on July 16th, 2009
Well, to be fair the list is not supposed to be all-inclusive.
I don’t for one second think everyone involved in the promotion or use of mono is an evil person bent on destroying Freedom and subjugating us all to Ballmer’s Sweaty Fist of Oppression.
I do think there is way too much infatuation with Microsoft and focus on “pragmatism” over “ideals”, which can be effective in the short term, but I question if it will work out so well in the long term.
Maybe I’ll work on a more articulated statement for an actual post.
#22 by Jo Shields on July 16th, 2009
The majority of us just don’t care about Microsoft. I mean really, they don’t feature on the radar at all, other than tangentially as a legacy platform which one might want to target cross-platform ports for. I’ve never written any C# on Windows, I don’t own any Visual Studio (including the gratis Express version), and I find the whole Windows platform uninteresting. I certainly don’t know (or care) about how many aspects of Microsoft.NET work whereas I understand the same specifics intimately on Linux with Mono. I don’t know – or care – about either of Microsoft’s ECMA334/335 implementations.
Is there some Microsoft connection there if you trace it back far enough? Sure. But the same applies for plenty of stuff, e.g. Javascript (especially AJAX) and people aren’t remotely as obsessive about the links there. No really, check the names on ECMA262 and ECMA357.
The ones who obsess about Microsoft day in and day out are the critics.
#23 by Jason on July 16th, 2009
Jo, there are some provocative points in there.
I will think on them a bit and try to address that specific issue (my impression of infatuation).
#24 by Dan Serban on July 16th, 2009
Let’s focus for one second on the word “detractor”.
Here’s my definition for a “Mono detractor”:
A “Mono detractor” is a person who is against inclusion of the Mono runtime (and by extension of any Mono apps) in live CDs of Linux distributions (and therefore default install sets).
A “Mono detractor” is pro-informed-choice. If someone wants a Mono app, they need to apt-get it. Otherwise, keep Linux lightweight. Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is.
What a “Mono detractor” IS NOT:
A “Mono detractor” is not out to destroy anyone’s work.
Allow me to go into detail:
- A “Mono detractor” is not out to destroy Miguel de Icaza’s work.
- A “Mono detractor” is not out to destroy Jo Shields’ work.
- A “Mono detractor” is not out to remove Mono from any repository of any Linux distro.
Of course, if you guys keep trying to blur the line, someone will be certain to set the record straight.
#25 by Jo Shields on July 16th, 2009
If you think that your peers are in the same boat as you, you’re sorely mistaken. I’ve seen loads of people demanding complete removal from repositories, personal attacks against me, Miguel, and others, and so on.
You have your fluffy view of your own role, I have my own experience of reality.
#26 by Dan Serban on July 16th, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
#27 by Jo Shields on July 16th, 2009
Oh, so pretty much every BoycottNovell “contributor” is in fact a pro-mono person looking to discredit themselves?
Life’s far too short for that kind of shit. Sorry.
#28 by Dan Serban on July 16th, 2009
Jo,
I’d like to see an article on your blog where you clarify where you stand on the issue of informed choice mentioned above, specifically on why you think informed choice is bad. Your stance on having Mono preinstalled by default is automatically anti-informed-choice.
#29 by Jo Shields on July 17th, 2009
Already covered. Sorry, but I won’t rehash it in a new posting.
My stance is this: If a user wants to use a distro which bombards them with choices on installation, then they should do so. “Use Firefox or Epiphany? Warning, Firefox uses Xulrunner. Warning, Epiphany uses Webkit” and so on. If they want to use a barebones distribution which doesn’t give them any apps, then that’s fine too.
If people want a distro which comes with a selection of apps pre-integrated to make a coherent experience, then they should do that too. If the guys picking apps for a distro want to pick A rather than B, then they should do so – and as trickle-down, users of that distro end up with A rather than B. That’s a choice for the distribution folks to make, if they make that kind of distro. It’s a pre-made choice for users of that distribution.
None of the above is specific to Mono – it applies equally to any pre-selected app, e.g. Ubuntu’s recent change from Pidgin to Empathy.
Any stance which singles out one piece of Free Software as somehow unacceptable for no tangible reason is specifically about removing choice from the folks making a distribution – and helping to promote mediocrity in Free Software systems.
If an app made in Python is best, it should be used. If an app made in C++ is best, it should be used. If an app made in COBOL is best, it should be used. If an app made in C# is best, it should be used. If an app made in Perl is best, it should be used. That’s all there is to it.
#30 by Dan Serban on July 17th, 2009
Any stance which singles out one piece of Free Software as somehow unacceptable for no tangible reason …
I thought the tangible reason was pretty obvious: Mono is licensed under a non-copyleft license. The rest of the software you mentioned is copyleft.
Related news:
Today, Microsoft attacked Linux again with patents:
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/07/microsoft-signs-linux-patent-d.html
#31 by Jo Shields on July 17th, 2009
As the cool kids put it, “lol wut?”
Mono is released under a mix of licenses (as is normal for large projects) – the mix being GPL, LGPL, MIT/X11, and Ms-PL.
How is absence of copyleft a bad thing? You are aware that Mit/X11 is a Free license under every known definition, right?
#32 by Dan Serban on July 17th, 2009
Here’s a very good question:
If you make a clone of someone’s patented technology, and they “release” some carefully selected bits of that technology under a non-copyleft community promise, can you still release the clone under a copyleft-type license, or is it really legally irrelevant wishful thinking on your part?
This is a really subjective question. It might not be a bad thing for you, but some of us care about copyleft. Please don’t assume everyone thinks like you do. Whereby we’re back to the issue of informed choice.
#33 by Jo Shields on July 17th, 2009
You can release code under a copyleft license anyway – DeCSS doesn’t have a patent license but is still Free.
However, in this specific case, it’s much more clear cut. A patent license applying to everyone everywhere ever is copyleft-compatible, as all recipients have the same coverage as you do. See also: Sun & IBM’s patent pledges.
I hope you don’t use any evil non-copyleft code like, say, OpenSSH.
#34 by Dan Serban on July 17th, 2009
Because they are not copyleft, neither DeCSS nor OpenSSH are part of the live CD / default install set of my Linux distribution of choice. The same standard applies to Mono in said distro. The same standard should apply to DeCSS, OpenSSH *and* Mono in all distros – is my point.
I do use OpenSSH, but had to go out and install it explicitly, as mentioned above.
#35 by Niels Hartvig on July 27th, 2009
We’d love to add mono support, but there hasn’t been anyone in the team with the right competences and everything is a matter of priorities.
The post you’re quoting is more than a year old, which is decades in das interwebs time
I think that both Umbraco and the Mono framework have seen loads of progress and I’m sure that we’ll see official Umbraco support on mono in a not too distant future.
Best,
Niels Hartvig
Founder, Umbraco
#36 by Jason on July 27th, 2009
@Niels,
Thanks for the comment!
I heard several times people mentioning that Umbraco was dismissive of Mono, so it is good you come to set the record straight, as it were!
#37 by zekopeko on July 27th, 2009
@Jason
I hope you will edit your post to reflect the new information.