.NET is free software?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| mbaehrlxer Aug 09, 2006 4:52 AM EDT |
based on the open-source framework .NET now that would be major news. but i am afraid this is simply a mistake. (maybe meant to say "the open-source framework based on .NET) |
| hchaudh1 Aug 09, 2006 6:06 AM EDT |
Remind me again why something about Mono is news. Frankly I don't see the need for Mono when there are a ton of OSS alternatives available to .Net. |
| devnet Aug 09, 2006 7:14 AM EDT |
hchaudh1, Mainly because there are tons of OSS CMS's available based on the .NET programming language and Mono allows users to run this on Linux...which really is a robust language and provides for rapid application development. Too bad it's from the evil MacroCrud....but hey, it's in business and it isn't going away. Regardless of what people think...there are tons of Free and Open Source software available for the Windows platform...and we shouldn't as pundits of FOSS...dismiss it. Now if you're a LibreNazi...by all means, dismiss it, but don't dismiss peoples right to choose. I use Umbraco for an intranet page for my company and it runs on Linux and Mono. I'd not be able to use this open source software on Linux were it not for Mono...and God knows I don't want to run it on IIS...what a nightmare. As for alternative CMS's...none come close to the functionality I get with Umbraco. With this line of thinking you're propagating...I can proclaim "tell me again why Win4Linx, Cedega, and CrossOver Office is news? Frankly, I don't see the need for [Insert one of those three or all of them here] when there are tons of OSS alternatives available" |
| hchaudh1 Aug 09, 2006 8:10 AM EDT |
devnet, I understand what you are saying about tons of software available for .Net. However, my point is, why propagate something which MS is not going to support in the forseeable future, or ever. Why get stuck in the rut of matching .Net implementations feature for feature and end up with a "me too" framework. Case in point, Beagle and F-spot. These are good appps by any measure. But why are they running on Mono when they could just as easily have been implemented in C++ or Java. After all, Beagle runs on Lucene which was firstly a Java project. My question, why this sudden urgue to promote Mono on Linux. When the efforts should be going towards promoting alternatives to MS technologies. Writing code for Mono to me is a self defeating purpose. If Mono and C# is the best that the OSS crowd can do, let's just drop this whole OSS, FOSS, Linux thing and move back to windows. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 9:02 AM EDT |
>when they could just as easily have been implemented in C++ or Java I think you're getting to the point. "Easily implemented" is not a phrase that belongs with either C++ or Java beyond the sort of thing you would do in a CS class. First -- let's not mix apples and oranges. C++ and Java are programming languages. .Net is -- I'll be damned. I'm not really sure what to call it, but it's not a programming language. It is, in fact, programming language independent. Maybe more equavalent to the JVM with some beans tossed in. Framework is probably the right term. Seriously, though, the people I know who have worked in both C++ and .Net, or Java and .Net (or C++ AND Java and .Net) seem to really like use C# (the programming language) and .Net (the framework). Apparently faster and easier and all that. |
| herzeleid Aug 09, 2006 9:46 AM EDT |
>Seriously, though, the people I know who have worked in both C++ and .Net, or Java and .Net (or C++ AND Java and .Net) seem to really like use C# (the programming language) and .Net (the framework).
Apparently faster and easier and all that. (shrugs) c# is just another language, essentially a java clone. I had an opportunity to play with it a bit in a recent programming languages course. Nothing all that exciting or revolutionary there. But you did touch on one relevant point - those who drink the ms kool aid do love the integration with the ms developer, developer, developer environment... |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 10:03 AM EDT |
>shrugs) c# is just another language, essentially a java clone. I had an opportunity to play with it a bit in a recent programming languages course. A disclaimer: I do not use C# or .Net. I have no qualms about using them, but tend to use the things that pay my bills, and, at the moment, that's dinosaur technology: C, perl, apache, MySQL, and XML/XSLT. The one thing I would remind you is that life is not a programming course. In real life, people have to get things done, meet schedules, and go on to what's next. |
| herzeleid Aug 09, 2006 10:30 AM EDT |
> The one thing I would remind you is that life is not a programming course. In real life, people have to get things done, meet schedules, and go on to what's next. Thanks for the clarification. You'd think that after 12 years as a unix admin in corporate america I'd have known these things already. I'm not sure what your point was about the programming class. Are you saying that my impression of c# is invalid because it occurred in an academic context? |
| hchaudh1 Aug 09, 2006 10:33 AM EDT |
dinotrac,
No disrespect, but that's the line I have seen to be used by MS people the most. That was the point of my earlier post. If MS has a marketshare of 80% or more or less (don't know the numbers) and if we are developing apps for these MS users, why bother with OSS at all. As said earlier, C# is essentially a Java clone. More importantly, its just another language. I don't think it can be easier or harder than other languages. As far as integration with windows goes, .Net is better at that. And the reason is obvious too. The point is why is developing in .Net easier and better integrated with Linux as you implied. I don't think its true at all. I know development on .Net is easier in Windows for windows development. But when it comes to cross platform dev, web dev particularly, I don't see your point. As I said earlier, "If Mono and C# is the best that the OSS crowd can do, let's just drop this whole OSS, FOSS, Linux thing and move back to windows." I don't see any enterprise Mono deployments in the near future. Its just not there. So, why not work for a true OSS language/platform/framework rather than play catch up to every feature/change that MS pushes through and waste all this effort. Personally, Novell's (and later Red Hat's for Fedora) decision to include Mono in the default install is why I will not install Suse or Fedora. I just don't see any reason to encourage/develop on Mono. I am in the anti-Miguel camp on this one. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 10:53 AM EDT |
hc - >I don't see any enterprise Mono deployments in the near future I don't know about that, or what constitutes enterprise. I know of at least one person who implement a mono solution in a large corporation because he liked C# and .Net, but mono had much stronger support for serial I/O. I am very familiar with another large corporate environment, whose heritage has included a lot of growth by acquisition, that looks to be a great candidate for mono, but doesn't realize it yet. Consider these factors: 1. A long time Novell customer 2. A Unix shop migrating to Linux 3. Must (and I do mean must) interact with customers who use .Net on Windows 4. Acquisitions and a couple of internal groups who were formerly part of a different organization pre spin-off from the mother all use .Net under Windows. 5. One major enterprise Java app running under WebSphere and communicating with Oracle. If Novell can't find a good sales pitch for mono to companies like this one, they aren't trying very hard. Picture this: Mono will let them preserve a substantial piece of their current code base, continue to use existing skills, and maintain an expertise base for dealing with .Net based customers. It will also let them jettison Windows and consolidate other systems on a very robust Linux cluster, improving overall reliability and performance while simplifying the task of Disaster Recovery. You don't have to buy, but it is a good pitch. |
| hchaudh1 Aug 09, 2006 11:39 AM EDT |
The factors you listed above are the very factors which I think might be Mono's undoing. If all the shops you mentioned use .Net that heavily, why would it be in MS's interest to have them migrate to Linux using Mono. If these kind of scenarios build up to a critical mass, what's to say MS will not try to jeopardize it. Secondly, your premise is based on the assumption that Mono is 100% compatible with .Net. Which it is not. And never will be (given a short timeframe e.g. your company wants to takeover some .Net shop which is using the latest and greatest .Net libraries and Mono has not reached that level of compatibility yet). A more reasonable scenario would be the .Net shops remain .Net and interoperate with other infrastructure using WebServices (or some other interoperability technology). I still don't get why all this .Net to Mono porting effort is required in the first place. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 11:57 AM EDT |
hc - I don't give a rat's a** about what's in MS's interest, and neither does the company in question. The critical question is what's in their interest. Please understand that, if MS goes to far out in making .Net incompatible with mono, it will actually make mono more attractive for shops like the one I just described. In that scenario, it will be cheaper, faster, and easier to move to mono than to stay with .Net. As to .Net to Mono porting, I'm not sure what you refer to. The mono project itself is not a "port" of .Net. It is a Unix implementation. For companies like the one I described, porting .Net code to mono would let them unify their computing environment on Linux without tossing all their applications code OR applications programmers. As to why it's required... You could ask the same question of python, Ruby, etc. Why are so many CMS's required? With Postgresql in place, who needs MySQL, firebird, or any other database. Is there a need for any Linux distribution but Debian (or Ubuntu, Slackware, SuSE, Gentoo, etc, etc, etc)? You might as well ask why there is air. |
| hchaudh1 Aug 09, 2006 12:25 PM EDT |
Dinotrac,
I still don't get what you are trying to say. Its not about what is in whose ineterest. Its about if shops start to move away from Windows infrastructure running .Net apps to Linux infrastructure running Mono apps, MS will not allow that to happen easily. After all, windows, and not .Net is their cash cow. .Net is just a way to make shops buy Windows lisences. IIS does not even run on XP Home. That is the level of control MS maintains over its software. Do you think MS will sit silently and let shops move from Windows to Linux. "it will actually make mono more attractive for shops like the one I just described. In that scenario, it will be cheaper, faster, and easier to move to mono than to stay with .Net." The whole point of Mono is to make .Net apps compatible with the Linux platform. Its not to spawn off an alternate framework. And, if Mono is not compatible with .Net, why would anyone move from .Net to Mono and rewrite their code for Mono instead of just keep on using .Net. Mono is a "port" in the sense that it emulates the CLR. Not "emulates" in the technical sense, but in the sense that it implements the .Net framework. Its whole purpose is to "copy", for lack of a better word, the way the CLR functions. If I were the architect in that company, I would let the .Net apps run on .Net and make them talk to other infrastructure using web-services or something similar. And I don't agree with your air, python etc. analogy. I am not too much for analogies. But I would just say instead of trying to copy .Net feature for feature, make the efforts to improve truly OSS frameworks. Interoperability can be achieved through other means. Also moving a .Net workforce to a Mono workforce is not that simple. I imagine it would be quite an effort to train Windows people on Linux, then dealing with Mono's quirks vis-a-vis .Net etc. Training them in other technologies IMO would be a much fruitful effort. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 12:43 PM EDT |
>MS will not allow that to happen easily. And what do you think they'll do? Come in with Tommy guns and shoot the place up? They could offer great discount pricing, I suppose. In the case of the company that I described, however, it does not much come into play. They are, at core, a Unix shop moving to Linux. .Net applications are legacies of older organizations that have been joined together. Again, who cares what Microsoft thinks about all this? |
| devnet Aug 09, 2006 4:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:Why get stuck in the rut of matching .Net implementations feature for feature and end up with a "me too" framework.Because they can. If they can appeal to macrosuck's audience and get them to move over to Linux...chances are that audience will be more succeptable to try other open source products and applications. Everyone wins except gates and the gang. Quoting:Its not about what is in whose ineterest. Its about if shops start to move away from Windows infrastructure running .Net apps to Linux infrastructure running Mono apps, MS will not allow that to happen easily. Oh yes they will...they'll let you do this for the mere fact that you'll be using their programming language...they know they'll be able to peddle their wares to a shop that needs .NET and they'll do it with flair just like they always have. Honestly, you need to think about this...a business, ANY business, will do whatever it takes to get the job done for the least amount of money. If they can't afford to upgrade (not just license but platform) to their newest version CMS that they've had running with an SQL backend that is now being programmed in .NET and C#, then they will go hunting for cheaper things. Open Source CMS's aren't there in every aspect and aren't a glove-like fit for every organization. So they'll want to stick with what they have and by looking at Mono as an alternative, they can stick to it. Linux is free, Mono is free. WooT! Hook it up! That's what a business thinks about. I'm not saying you don't know how a business runs...I'm saying you don't know how many other businesses run. Some are cut-throat...some are placid...some die quickly...others fade slowly. But know that EVERY business will implement whatever they can afford through whatever means they can to get the job done. They don't get caught up in the politics of the matter or stop to wonder why someone can't natively program something in Linux. One last thing...Windows isn't their cash cow. Office is their cash cow. They've made more cash selling office than they could ever hope to selling Windows. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 5:14 PM EDT |
>One last thing...Windows isn't their cash cow. Office is their cash cow. They've made more cash selling office than they could ever hope to selling Windows. Absolutely. All you need to know about that is to realize that the correspondence of Office PCs to Windows PCs is close enough to 1:1 not to care about the difference. Just compare the price of Office to the price of Windows, and remember that OEMs don't pay anwhere near the retail price on Windows. |
| grouch Aug 10, 2006 7:08 AM EDT |
Perceptions and beliefs don't always match facts. Myths are created in the strangest ways. Microsoft has 3 cash cows. In order, highest to least revenue, these are "Client", "Information Worker", and "Server and Tools". From link provided in http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/66681/index.html Form 10-Q, "For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2006" http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/00011931250609... From "SEGMENT PRODUCT REVENUE/OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)": "Client consists of premium edition operating systems, including Windows XP Professional, Media Center Edition, Tablet PC Edition, and other standard Windows operating systems, including Windows XP Home. Premium offerings are Windows operating systems sold at a premium above Windows XP Home. Client revenue growth correlates with the growth of purchases of PCs from OEMs that pre-install versions of Windows operating systems because the OEM channel accounts for over 80% of total Client revenue." Revenue, in millions, Nine months ended March 31, $9,833 ----- "Information Worker consists of the Microsoft Office system of programs, servers, services, and solutions designed to increase personal, team, and organization productivity. Information Worker includes Microsoft Office, Microsoft Project, Microsoft Visio, SharePoint Portal Server CALs, and other information worker products including Microsoft LiveMeeting and OneNote. Our Office system offerings generate over 85% of Information Worker revenue. Revenue growth depends on the ability to add value to the core Office product set and expand our product offerings in other information worker areas such as document lifecycle management, collaboration, and business intelligence." Revenue, in millions, Nine months ended March 31, $8,623 |
| dinotrac Aug 10, 2006 7:52 AM EDT |
I stand corrected. Has that been the case historically? I know there is some back-and-forth depending on when new releases of software come out, but that Windows sales are more a matter of hardware sales... |
| devnet Aug 10, 2006 10:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:the OEM channel accounts for over 80% of total Client revenue. There's the kicker. Take out the OEM and it'll fall flat on its face. If we're talking about the "direct to consumer" cash cow...Office is still #1. I've always been led to believe that since a 1:1 ration exists for office in most large companies, that at 300 bucks a pop the revenue would be far greater than that paid for the OS through OEM. Of course, this is the way it was at the corporation I worked at previously...everyone had office and I remember designing a PO for half a million dollars just for upgrades to office. However, upgrades to XP didn't cost me near that much. So I assumed that Office was their cash cow numero uno. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!