Mono makes me wanna be a better man
Amazing what the backing of a big company (Novell in this case) can do to speed things up. It seems like just yesterday this thing was pretty much useless.. merely a toy for the curious among us. And now, all of a sudden, you can do real work with it. It's perfectly deployable. Cool.
What makes you think that it was Novell's backing?. Many open source tools dont have big backers, yet they work.
The Mono project has always had unbelievable momentum. Novell didn't do anything to speed things up. Mono was nearing full usefulness before the takeover.
With the risk of saying nothing new, what changed with Novell's acquisition is almost entirely the original poster's perspective.
Its not only mono, but even assuming SUN did nothing for open office, i would hazard a guess that openoffice would work great.
I have had a dig through some of the mono code, some of it is very good, most of it is absymal and looks very rushed. Inconsistent styles are used throughout, there are few comments and poor 'clarity' of code. Then again - it's probably good compared the average hack job in software development. I get the feeling that it's missing that last 10% that makes software 50% better than it would be otherwise.
Also, pre-Novell-acquisition, Eric Sink from SourceGear paid them to add enough to port his commandline source control client to Linux.
I second Karthik, yes, some of these mono leads are are under Novell's employment so some thanks must be given. However the project was getting to 0.9 pretty much before Novell had anything to do with Ximian.
I see some care for Mono. How angry would people get if Microsoft did something to stop it ? Is Mono unstoppable ?
Take a look at the list of platforms supported by Mono. Is that really a case of the Mono people having nothing better do to than to port the thing to the SPARC or StrongARM architecture, or is it the influence of Novell's strategy?
I don't think anyone needs a 64-CPU server, but apparently many people think they do. These people, at the moment, have mostly SPARC as a choice of platform.
Porting is important. These other architectures and chipsets, while completely inconsequential to the average PC users, are used widely in embedded systems. Telcom, defense, etc--basically the hidden half of the trillion dollar IT economy demands this kind of attention to porting. Without it it won't be taken seriously. That's why one of the reasons why Java has so many ports, although most of us desktop users use the Sun and Microsoft port at the end of the day.
What's a better position to be in - to have a great job, or to have a great job with lots of open offers from other firms should the situation warrant it?
"I have had a dig through some of the mono code"
Don't underestimate the impact that having a near complete spec for what to implement had on the great progress they have made.
"I don't think anyone needs a 64-CPU server, but apparently many people think they do."
Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
People with giant databases should NOT be using one server 64-CPU strong. They should load balance across multiple co-operating servers which are physically independent.
The point about using 64-bit CPUs with big databases is that 64-bit CPUs can (directly) address more RAM which means they can cache a larger subset of the database.
"Mostly because a giant database always grows larger, where as a 64-CPU box doesn't (You can sometimes upgrade the CPUs, but you can't add 16 more unless it has 16 more free sockets."
Chris: I was referring to a 64-CPU server, not a 64-bit CPU.
Sorry, I saw "64" and "CPU" and mentally inserted the "bit"... need more coffee.
Fog Creek Home