6 ms·

Mono 4.0.0 Release Notes

106 points by dawkins 11y ago

baldfat 11y ago
Mono was the worst witch hunt in the Open Source Free Software movement. I think the whole it is Microsoft so even though it is an open standard and that Microsoft is flying people in from the mono project and publicly helping mono you are setting yourself up for a lawsuit. So many projects in Linux we abandoned by users and people made clones of working software. Such wasted time and such a negative turn in our community.
- baldfat 11y ago
  Don't downvote without saying why. This isn't how conversations are made or stopped. Here is RMS fiurst post on Mono and C# - https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono “[...] we know that Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think it’s dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono.” –Richard Stallman I am glad that RMS is an advocate for Free Software and we certainly have been helped by his strong convictions. I think he was wrong with Mono and hurt specifically GNU/Linux (For RMS' sake) by limiting the use of a language due to pressure against developers using it. The fight was won and mono projects were dropped by distros. P.S. Long time OpenSUSE user which was also strongly discouraged by the community due to Novell's and Microsoft's relationship and agreements.
  - streptomycin 11y ago
    What exactly was RMS wrong about? MS didn't try to sue Mono out of existence, but they could have. If Mono had become a critical part of the Linux world, they very well might have. If MS didn't want the free software community to be wary of that threat, they could have made legally binding promises not to sue over patents (no, making something an "open standard" does not do that [1]). Failing that, RMS seems correct that it would have been dangerous to depend too greatly on technology that could be clearly be thwarted by lawsuits from MS. Ironically, if MS had encouraged the free software community to use C# back then, MS would probably be better off today. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_standards_covered_by_patents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_standards_covered...
    - baldfat 11y ago
      He was wrong in seeing this as a hidden attack strategy by MS. RMS sees issues with many licenses and discourages many languages. This was an attack on a language which was MUCH less than others in terms of concerns, but the community attacked mono with such fervor. Java - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html X Windows trap - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html How about javascript https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html There are many projects that use javascript in Linux. Gnome has made javascript the default configuration language. I find that the reason mono was so focused was that it came from Microsoft. It was a witch hunt that was guided by a conspiracy theory. Answers by Mono Project http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/concerns-about-mono/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/concerns-about-m...
      - streptomycin 11y ago
        He was wrong in seeing this as a hidden attack strategy by MS. Just because an attack never happened doesn't mean there was no strategy. In part due to RMS's effort, there was basically nothing for MS to attack. And even if there really was no strategy, there very clearly could have been. You can't fault RMS for not being a mindreader. That's why lawyers and contracts exist - if MS didn't want it to look like they were scheming, they very easily could have done that. Like Sun did with Java, as described at the top of the Java link you posted. There are many projects that use javascript in Linux. Gnome has made javascript the default configuration language. Please read the article you linked to and tell me what it has to do with GNOME using JavaScript (hint: nothing, it's about JS in the browser). And from that last link: In our opinion, nothing about Mono is different than other projects like Samba or Wine, that also substantially reproduce a Microsoft created technology or protocol. RMS would be horrified if GNOME decided to write some core apps using Wine. But... they didn't. If they did, there would be an outcry even bigger than the one against Mono. RMS's problem isn't Mono (as described in your original link, he thinks it's good to have a free implementation of C#), it's relying on it for important applications. I apologize if this comes off as a personal attack, but honestly, you seem to be more concerned with slinging mud at RMS than understanding the issues.
- amyjess 11y ago
  It's sad. It used to be that FUD was something perpetrated by Microsoft against Linux and other FOSS, and FUD was condemned as dirty tactics. For the last decade or so, the vast majority of FUD has come from within the FOSS community, who seem to be celebrating these dirty tactics. It's really soured me on the FOSS community in general.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    I think it's human nature to find the boogyman wherever they can. Everything from religion to political alignment... people assume the worst from those they don't agree with on some issues. Given, MS deserved a lot of the ill-will they received at that time and I think that as a whole, they are much better today. That said, some of us tried to point out that it was FUD at the time. Even when MS-PL projects came out, it was attacked as FUD... today with MIT projects, they are attacked as FUD for not containing the extra provisions that MS-PL provided regarding patents. It's almost a no-win situation. For me, my largest concerns are cost and lock-in, in that order... I am pragmatic about it and do pay for some things, but will usually prefer an open (floss) solution. It really depends. All of that said, I don't think it was meant as a dirty tactic so much as a stance on RMS' somewhat religious views regarding software.
- bad_user 11y ago
  In case you don't remember, the then CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer, has spread more FUD than the Linux community combined. Microsoft has also funded the SCO lawsuits against Novel, IBM and Linux in general. And even now Microsoft is threatening Android phone makers for things such as the FAT patent. Microsoft is extracting more money from Android through extortion than what they earn from Windows Phone. The new Microsoft that people are talking about apparently has a personality disorder, since they are also a patents troll. So no, it wasn't a witch hunt.
dawkins 11y ago
The apt install with their packages worked well in Ubuntu so no more build from source for me. I always had trouble with dependencies. http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-started/install/linux/#debian-ubuntu-and-derivatives http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-started/install/lin...
- luxpir 11y ago
  Struggling with dependencies on Debian Jessie via apt-get from the mono package repo. Anyone managed it yet?
  - josteink 11y ago
    For me on Ubuntu, I had to manually install mono-devel first. For some reason apt-get wouldn't automatically install it, despite it being a dependency.
evjan 11y ago
It's going to be interesting to see how Mono going to be affected by the Microsoft's recent cross-platform activity.
- piqufoh 11y ago
  There's a good few lines about that here http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/releases/4.0.0/#microsoft-source-code-adoption http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/releases/4.0.0/#... of note (to me) is the replacement of significant mono modules with the MS equivalents; Decimal, LINQ, Threading.Tasks, and on - a list that looks like what some people might call the 'tricky bits' ...
- higherpurpose 11y ago
  Everyone here seems to be flagging this to hell now, so I'm guessing not very well.
  - skrebbel 11y ago
    How can you tell?
- fekberg 11y ago
  Compiling and running ASP.NET vNext requires Mono 4. The mono project will most likely leverage a lot from Roslyn and vise-verse.
- ghuntley 11y ago
  Mono are harvesting classes left right and center from MSFT source: https://trello.com/b/vRPTMfdz/net-framework-integration-into-mono https://trello.com/b/vRPTMfdz/net-framework-integration-into... :-) Check out each card for hints as to what is yet to come: "The Mono Core Runtime basically will implement the same interface that the .NET Core runtime will. Allowing Mono to be deployed alongside the application and shipping only with a very limited set of assemblies that integrate the VM with the operating system."
- mhd 11y ago
  I'm still wondering whether MS will encroach on Xamarin territory, especially if it's free.

106 points by dawkins 11y ago

Mono was the worst witch hunt in the Open Source Free Software movement. I think the whole it is Microsoft so even though it is an open standard and that Microsoft is flying people in from the mono project and publicly helping mono you are setting yourself up for a lawsuit. So many projects in Linux we abandoned by users and people made clones of working software. Such wasted time and such a negative turn in our community.

baldfat 11y ago
Don't downvote without saying why. This isn't how conversations are made or stopped. Here is RMS fiurst post on Mono and C# - https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono “[...] we know that Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think it’s dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono.” –Richard Stallman I am glad that RMS is an advocate for Free Software and we certainly have been helped by his strong convictions. I think he was wrong with Mono and hurt specifically GNU/Linux (For RMS' sake) by limiting the use of a language due to pressure against developers using it. The fight was won and mono projects were dropped by distros. P.S. Long time OpenSUSE user which was also strongly discouraged by the community due to Novell's and Microsoft's relationship and agreements.
- streptomycin 11y ago
  What exactly was RMS wrong about? MS didn't try to sue Mono out of existence, but they could have. If Mono had become a critical part of the Linux world, they very well might have. If MS didn't want the free software community to be wary of that threat, they could have made legally binding promises not to sue over patents (no, making something an "open standard" does not do that [1]). Failing that, RMS seems correct that it would have been dangerous to depend too greatly on technology that could be clearly be thwarted by lawsuits from MS. Ironically, if MS had encouraged the free software community to use C# back then, MS would probably be better off today. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_standards_covered_by_patents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_standards_covered...
  - baldfat 11y ago
    He was wrong in seeing this as a hidden attack strategy by MS. RMS sees issues with many licenses and discourages many languages. This was an attack on a language which was MUCH less than others in terms of concerns, but the community attacked mono with such fervor. Java - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html X Windows trap - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html How about javascript https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html There are many projects that use javascript in Linux. Gnome has made javascript the default configuration language. I find that the reason mono was so focused was that it came from Microsoft. It was a witch hunt that was guided by a conspiracy theory. Answers by Mono Project http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/concerns-about-mono/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/concerns-about-m...
    - streptomycin 11y ago
      He was wrong in seeing this as a hidden attack strategy by MS. Just because an attack never happened doesn't mean there was no strategy. In part due to RMS's effort, there was basically nothing for MS to attack. And even if there really was no strategy, there very clearly could have been. You can't fault RMS for not being a mindreader. That's why lawyers and contracts exist - if MS didn't want it to look like they were scheming, they very easily could have done that. Like Sun did with Java, as described at the top of the Java link you posted. There are many projects that use javascript in Linux. Gnome has made javascript the default configuration language. Please read the article you linked to and tell me what it has to do with GNOME using JavaScript (hint: nothing, it's about JS in the browser). And from that last link: In our opinion, nothing about Mono is different than other projects like Samba or Wine, that also substantially reproduce a Microsoft created technology or protocol. RMS would be horrified if GNOME decided to write some core apps using Wine. But... they didn't. If they did, there would be an outcry even bigger than the one against Mono. RMS's problem isn't Mono (as described in your original link, he thinks it's good to have a free implementation of C#), it's relying on it for important applications. I apologize if this comes off as a personal attack, but honestly, you seem to be more concerned with slinging mud at RMS than understanding the issues.
amyjess 11y ago
It's sad. It used to be that FUD was something perpetrated by Microsoft against Linux and other FOSS, and FUD was condemned as dirty tactics. For the last decade or so, the vast majority of FUD has come from within the FOSS community, who seem to be celebrating these dirty tactics. It's really soured me on the FOSS community in general.
- tracker1 11y ago
  I think it's human nature to find the boogyman wherever they can. Everything from religion to political alignment... people assume the worst from those they don't agree with on some issues. Given, MS deserved a lot of the ill-will they received at that time and I think that as a whole, they are much better today. That said, some of us tried to point out that it was FUD at the time. Even when MS-PL projects came out, it was attacked as FUD... today with MIT projects, they are attacked as FUD for not containing the extra provisions that MS-PL provided regarding patents. It's almost a no-win situation. For me, my largest concerns are cost and lock-in, in that order... I am pragmatic about it and do pay for some things, but will usually prefer an open (floss) solution. It really depends. All of that said, I don't think it was meant as a dirty tactic so much as a stance on RMS' somewhat religious views regarding software.
bad_user 11y ago
In case you don't remember, the then CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer, has spread more FUD than the Linux community combined. Microsoft has also funded the SCO lawsuits against Novel, IBM and Linux in general. And even now Microsoft is threatening Android phone makers for things such as the FAT patent. Microsoft is extracting more money from Android through extortion than what they earn from Windows Phone. The new Microsoft that people are talking about apparently has a personality disorder, since they are also a patents troll. So no, it wasn't a witch hunt.

dawkins 11y ago

The apt install with their packages worked well in Ubuntu so no more build from source for me. I always had trouble with dependencies. http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-started/install/linux/#debian-ubuntu-and-derivatives http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-started/install/lin...

luxpir 11y ago
Struggling with dependencies on Debian Jessie via apt-get from the mono package repo. Anyone managed it yet?
- josteink 11y ago
  For me on Ubuntu, I had to manually install mono-devel first. For some reason apt-get wouldn't automatically install it, despite it being a dependency.

evjan 11y ago

It's going to be interesting to see how Mono going to be affected by the Microsoft's recent cross-platform activity.

piqufoh 11y ago
There's a good few lines about that here http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/releases/4.0.0/#microsoft-source-code-adoption http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/releases/4.0.0/#... of note (to me) is the replacement of significant mono modules with the MS equivalents; Decimal, LINQ, Threading.Tasks, and on - a list that looks like what some people might call the 'tricky bits' ...
higherpurpose 11y ago
Everyone here seems to be flagging this to hell now, so I'm guessing not very well.
- skrebbel 11y ago
  How can you tell?
fekberg 11y ago
Compiling and running ASP.NET vNext requires Mono 4. The mono project will most likely leverage a lot from Roslyn and vise-verse.
ghuntley 11y ago
Mono are harvesting classes left right and center from MSFT source: https://trello.com/b/vRPTMfdz/net-framework-integration-into-mono https://trello.com/b/vRPTMfdz/net-framework-integration-into... :-) Check out each card for hints as to what is yet to come: "The Mono Core Runtime basically will implement the same interface that the .NET Core runtime will. Allowing Mono to be deployed alongside the application and shipping only with a very limited set of assemblies that integrate the VM with the operating system."
mhd 11y ago
I'm still wondering whether MS will encroach on Xamarin territory, especially if it's free.