Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




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.

TJ Haeser
Tuesday, May 11, 2004

What makes you think that it was Novell's backing?. Many open source tools dont have big backers, yet they work.

Maybe it would have taken them a bit more time. But i doubt it.

Karthik
Tuesday, May 11, 2004

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.

Novell gives the project some legitimacy and marketing.

Almost Anonymous
Tuesday, May 11, 2004

With the risk of saying nothing new, what changed with Novell's acquisition is almost entirely the original poster's perspective.

(Novell did influence Ximian in very visible ways - native support for Novell Groupwise and open sourcing the Ximian connector - but I don't think Mono has seen any of the influence yet)

Ori Berger
Tuesday, May 11, 2004

Its not only mono, but even assuming SUN did nothing for open office, i would hazard a guess that openoffice would work great.

Karthik
Tuesday, May 11, 2004

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.

Serious shortcomings would become apparent should it be used for anything not inconsequential.  Sure you could just fix them, but who has the time to patch an open source project as well as implement your own?

contrary opinion
Tuesday, May 11, 2004

Also, pre-Novell-acquisition, Eric Sink from SourceGear paid them to add enough to port his commandline source control client to Linux.

Lou Franco
Tuesday, May 11, 2004

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.

Li-fan Chen
Tuesday, May 11, 2004

I see some care for Mono. How angry would people get if Microsoft did something to stop it ? Is Mono unstoppable ?

Dewd
Tuesday, May 11, 2004

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?

Well, actually, considering the thing even runs on the Playstation 2, maybe Novell isn't dictating anything after all.

TJ Haeser
Wednesday, May 12, 2004

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.

Ori Berger
Wednesday, May 12, 2004

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.

Li-fan Chen
Wednesday, May 12, 2004

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?

Dennis Forbes
Wednesday, May 12, 2004

"I have had a dig through some of the mono code"

That's no "contrary opinion", that's just bullshit. Your opinion after taking a "look" at the code means ... nothing? Yeah, sums it up...

_
Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Don't underestimate the impact that having a near complete spec for what to implement had on the great progress they have made.

Such things often do wonders for big OSS projects.

Chris Altmann
Wednesday, May 12, 2004

"I don't think anyone needs a 64-CPU server, but apparently many people think they do."

People with giant databases strongly disagree.

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Wednesday, May 12, 2004

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.

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.

Ori Berger
Thursday, May 13, 2004

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.

Chris Nahr
Thursday, May 13, 2004

"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."

Err....use two 64-CPU boxes? Seriously, there is no rule that very large systems can't participate in distributed systems.

Dennis Forbes
Thursday, May 13, 2004

Chris: I was referring to a 64-CPU server, not a 64-bit CPU.

Many people would benefit immensely from 64-bit computing and don't know it.

Most people insisting on the need for a 64-CPU server do not actually benefit from it at all.

Dennis: You can, of course, do that. But if it's that easy to distribute over multiple physical machines, why don't you use independent machines to start with? It's extremely NOT cost effective to have on large machine, as the price is much greater than linear in the number of processors -- and you can't upgrade easily.

If you can distribute, use multiple cheap boxes (a-la Google), or Blade servers. There is rarely, if ever, economical justification for a n-way server with shared memory / disks / power supply, for n > 4 (and even n > 2 is debatable, I think).

Ori Berger
Friday, May 14, 2004

Sorry, I saw "64" and "CPU" and mentally inserted the "bit"... need more coffee.

Chris Nahr
Friday, May 14, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home