Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncementsFree MagazinesWhite PapersSubmit Content
Discussion GroupsASP.NETWindows FormsLanguages.NET FrameworkVisual Studio.NET
Articles.NET FrameworkASP.NETToolsWindows Forms
.NET DirectoryOpen Source ProjectsUser GroupsWeb Resources
Related Topics
Visual Basic 6SQL ServerMS AccessOther DB ProductsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ...

.NET Forum / .NET Framework / .NET SDK / August 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

.NET on Linux

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Tarundeep Singh Kalra - 27 Jul 2004 11:18 GMT
Hi ,
i want to design my new application keeping in mind Linux and other OS's.
I have heard there is .NET framework for it (MONO).
Is it good idea to shelf Java and choose .NET to develop when you wanna keep
in mind OS independence.
TIA

Signature

Regards
Tarundeep Singh Kalra

www_dot_tarunsadhana_dot_com.

tarun_at_removeAT_tarunsadhana_dot_com.remove_dots

Eugene Mayevski [SecureBlackbox] - 28 Jul 2004 12:13 GMT
> i want to design my new application keeping in mind Linux and other OS's.
> I have heard there is .NET framework for it (MONO).
> Is it good idea to shelf Java and choose .NET to develop when you wanna keep
> in mind OS independence.

Not at all. Both Mono and Portable NET have serious compatibility
probrlems.

Signature

Eugene Mayevski
EldoS Corp., CTO
Networking and security solutions, development and consulting services
http://www.eldos.com

Ross Jones - 28 Jul 2004 12:29 GMT
Eugene

 Could you elucidate on this? I'd be interested to know in which areas you
think Mono is incompatible.
I was under the impression it was a fairly complete implementation, or are
you alluding to the S.W.F support?

Regards

Ross.

"Eugene Mayevski wrote
> Not at all. Both Mono and Portable NET have serious compatibility
> probrlems.
Eugene Mayevski [SecureBlackbox] - 28 Jul 2004 16:58 GMT
>   Could you elucidate on this? I'd be interested to know in which areas you
> think Mono is incompatible.
> I was under the impression it was a fairly complete implementation, or are
> you alluding to the S.W.F support?

I didn't say incomplete, but incompatible. There are many things made
differently or behaving differently in many areas.

Sincerely yours,
Eugene Mayevski
Mike Newton - 06 Aug 2004 14:17 GMT
I wouldn't go with that FUD...

Mono is mostly compatible.  Things like Windows.Forms are not complete
yet, but most everything else from ADO.NET to ASP.NET works.

If you want .NET forms platform portability, use gtk# for forms, since
gtk runs on nearly every platform.
http://gtk-sharp.sourceforge.net/

Mono's homepage is here:
http://www.mono-project.com/about/index.html

Mono follows the specification for the framework as well.  It runs on
windows as well as Linux.  It has two separate stacks, however...  one
is the mono stack,which is not complete, but not necessarily compatible
with Microsoft.NET, and the .NET stack, which is aimed at compatibility.

Anyways, if you really want a full fledged and mature cross-platform
framework, use Java.  Nearly everyone outside of the world of mono is
pushing Java as the cross-platform solution (IBM, Sun, etc).  The
upcoming release is supposed to have massive improvements in speed and
programmability.

> Eugene
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>Not at all. Both Mono and Portable NET have serious compatibility
>>probrlems.

Free Magazines

Get these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...

Oracle MagazineNetwork ComputingComputer WorldBio-IT WorldeWeekInformation WeekInfosecurity
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.