Ximian to bring Mono to Mac OS X

nunogawa writes "According to Think Secret, Miguel de Icaza said Ximian will probably be subcontracted to bring Mono (.NET support) to Mac OS X. The article mentions that de Icaza never mentions what company would hire Ximian to do this and surmises that Apple would be the likely candidate. On the other hand, I think Microsoft is another reasonable possibility."

Re:Why are we associating Linux with MacOS?

[jeffy124]

can't recommend due to fundamental security issues

I'm sorry, but I gotta ask: What security issues? OS-X by default is possibly the most secure OS on the market that's suitable for the desktop. By default all the services (apache, sftp, ssh, appletalk, etc) are disabled, and cannot be enabled until after install. By comparison, Win2k has IIS enabled by default, without making it easy to disable it.

Getting updates is incredibly easy, as a tool pops up when you log on saying "there's an update available, would you like to install?" and it installs it for you.

It appears to me that you simply haven't used OS-X or have refused to find out any facts about it.

Re:Why are we associating Linux with MacOS?

[Dephex Twin]

Methinks this guy is trolling.

mark

Re:Why are we associating Linux with MacOS?

[Sethb]

Win2k has IIS enabled by default, without making it easy to disable it.

Actually, here in the real world, only Win2K server has IIS installed by default, workstation does not, and it's pretty easy to turn it off, you just go to the Control Panel, go to Add/Remove Components, and remove IIS.

Re:Why are we associating Linux with MacOS?

[SmittyTheBold]

Actually, Win2k Pro has it too. It's just not turned on by default, and it's a strangely crippled IIS web server, not the whole thing.

The problem is, it's all too easy to accidentally turn it on, and you suddenly have a Code Red target. At least, that's what has happened to many unsuspecting users. They didn't know they *were* server admins, so they didn't know to apply the updates.

Re:Why are we associating Linux with MacOS?

[Sethb]

I wouldn't say it's so easy to turn on that you can do it by accident, it requires you to insert the Windows CD, after choosing to add that component in your control panel.

That's like saying it's too easy to turn my debian box into a mail server, because all I have to do is type apt-get install qmail

:)

Re:Why are we associating Linux with MacOS?

[SmittyTheBold]

Well, it was installed on my machine ever so long ago, and I managed to turn it on just by looking at the docs.

If looking at the man page for qmail installed it in init.d, I'd start to worry.

Now, it may not be installed by default, because I tend to custom-install everything, but if it's there it's extremely easy to start without intending to.

Re:Why are we associating Linux with MacOS?

[jeffy124]

item 2:

Let's take a purely mathematical approach. Entropy S = k ln W where W is the mulitplicity of the configuration: W = N!/nl!nr!. Now, if we let N be the number of OSX machines in existence with nl = number that have been cracked and nr the number that haven't been (yet!), we can plug in some numbers and find that the likelihood of break-in is roughly 87.3%.

What the f*ck is all that!! You just threw a bunch of neat looking variables together and pulled 87.3 literally out of your ass in an attempt to say that an OS-X box has a high risk of intrusion. Show what numbers you use and your sources for them and maybe then someone will believe you.

Wow

[PhysicsGenius]

I hope you don't work in software development or IT infrastructure. I'd hate to think that someone in such a vital position didn't know how to perform basic entropic security calculations or where to find the baseline data.

Re:Wow

[jeffy124]

you dont know jack shit, do you? a real professional would post a link (and include his numbers). your .sig even suggests you would: Human knowledge advances via the thoughtful correction of ideas.

Re:Wow

[ichimunki]

Um, I think you just fell for one of the funnier trolls of the day.

Re:Wow

[jeffy124]

i started to realize that after i made my rebuttal to the entropy crap and looking back at the Win95 comment he made.

Re:Wow

[ichimunki]

It happens to all of us sooner or later.

Re:Why are we associating Linux with MacOS?

[devonbowen]

... and pulled 87.3 literally out of your ass

I see nothing in the original post that indicates that he literally pulled an 87.3 out of his ass. I'm not even sure how one would do that. I'm guessing you meant figuratively?

Devon

I will spell this out in clear fucking terms

[Profane Motherfucker]

de Icaza wants to make fucking money -- dinero, l'argent liquide, cash. Whatever the fuck you want to call it. He's a businessman. And like clever businessmen who wish to remain clever businessman, the fucking guy will do fucking any fucking thing to make some money. If that means he sells his fucking shit to Apple, great. If he fucking sells his shit to some motherfucker at MS, great.

But in terms of the fucklings on slashdot, he is fucking satan (note, _fucking_ as a verb, not adj here) if he sell it to MS. And he is fucking God (note, again, a fucking verb, not adj) if he sells his shit to Apple. I don't fucking get it. Just let this motherfucker do his fucking business without being fucking demonized in the piss and moan linux press.

Re:I will spell this out in clear fucking terms

[gmhowell]

You are indeed a profane motherfucker. But your comments are quite to the point. Remember, Miguel used to work for (or at least applied to) Microsoft. A love of cold hard cash is necessary to even think about working there.

(Not that that is a bad thing)

Miguel & Microsoft

[__past__]

Remember, Miguel used to work for (or at least applied to) Microsoft.

It's not the first time I heard this - but it always was on /., so forgive me if I dare to be a little sceptic. Are there any more reliable pointers that back this up?

Re:Miguel & Microsoft

[gmhowell]

I actually read it in Linux Journal. (Or maybe Linux Magazine) about... 18 months or more ago. Okay. I found it...

The article is here [linux-mag.com] and the quote is about 5-6 paragraphs in. He did in fact apply at MS.

If the article is taken at face value, it seems that Miguel wanted to be a Bruce Perens type advocate. But... I don't know. I just don't think Miguel is the OSS/Free poster boy that some wish he was. I've got no problem with that viewpoint (much:). I would like to know the 'truth'. Perhaps it is in the article I quote. But the references are such throw aways that not much can be read into it. Or, perhaps, too much, in both directions, can be read into it.

Anyway, there's the quote. Not just a fiction. This appeared in print.

Re:what happens if we just don't care?

[PythonOrRuby]

The impression I've gotten is that it's a potentially cross-platform application framework that will ideally be language-neutral(sort of like how AppleEvents can be accessed by any number of languages, with AppleScript simply being the default).

Even if it does live up to the hype, I fail to see why any Mac developer, and especially Apple itself, would have even the slightest interest in bringing it to Mac OS X.

Mac OS X already has a nice platform-neutral framework. It's called Java(and .NET strikes me as only slightly more than vaporware designed to kill Java by FUD). We also have a really nice native, rapid development, compiled(and thus, fast) framework. It's called Cocoa, and it is fairly language neutral(Obj-C, Java, Python, Ruby, Eiffel) too.

So, if we embrace this new CLx(MS changes the last letter about once a week), and Mono comes to Mac OS X, we can write compelling new programs that also run in Windows. Gee, why not just save some time and just petition Apple to sell Dell machines at the Apple Store?

The Macintosh community has a wonderful set of frameworks and APIs that have been refined over the course of almost two decades. Ditching all of that for Microsoft's "Next Big Thing" would be sheer lunacy.

Re:what happens if we just don't care?

[SteveX]

It's pretty simple. Users seem to like running Microsoft's software, and Microsoft has creating a whole new environment in which software will run.

It's not a big leap to imagine that in the future Microsoft will release software that users will want to use, that will run in the CLR.

If the CLR exists on the Macintosh, then Mac users can run it.

I'm not talking about Word or Excel here because those exist for the Mac today - but plenty of other apps (like Microsoft Money for example) exist only for Windows. It's not real likely Microsoft is going to develop any desktop applications in Java (the only real alternative when it comes to cross platform binaries) but it seems like a given they will for .NET.

So (down the road a bit) if you can run .NET software, you have a whole lot more software to choose from. Having more software available to Mac users will help Apple sell Mac's. That's why Apple should care (even if you personally don't).

- Steve

Re:what happens if we just don't care?

[PythonOrRuby]

I guess I just have a problem with the idea of Apple playing "catch-up" with Microsoft, especially now that the most compelling reasons to use a Mac lie in applications that are exclusive to the Mac.

If Apple starts saying "buy a Mac so you can run Ms Money", people are going to look at this and wonder why they shouldn't just buy a Windows machine in the first place.

And yes, I personally don't like it. I find the playing up of Office while AppleWorks goes neglected a shame. But I also think it makes business sense. Apple has survived because it can distinguish itself and give people a reason to drop a few hundred dollars more.

Re:what happens if we just don't care?

[Refrag]

I'm not talking about Word or Excel here because those exist for the Mac today - but plenty of other apps (like Microsoft Money for example) exist only for Windows. It's not real likely Microsoft is going to develop any desktop applications in Java (the only real alternative when it comes to cross platform binaries) but it seems like a given they will for .NET.

Money uses Jet as its datastore. Until Jet is ported to another platform (including .Net), Money will never appear anywhere but Windows.

Re:what happens if we just don't care?

[RevAaron]

Hmm... another person who doesn't seem to know what .NET really is. .NET isn't some attempt at creating a new Java.

Even if it does live up to the hype, I fail to see why any Mac developer, and especially Apple
itself, would have even the slightest interest in bringing it to Mac OS X.

Not everyone is fooled by Sun's hype. I'm not interested in using Java, it sucks. Not everyone feels that way, and that's what there are still Java programmers. I shouldn't have to put up with Java just because you like it. At least, with .NET if I don't want to use the language you're using, I don't. I can use a different language targeted for .NET and get the same result. Java's VM isn't nearly as language-neutral as the toy implementations of non-Java languages for the JVM.

However, .NET provides more than just a shitty language.

Cocoa isn't language neutral in the way .NET is. In .NET, I can program in Smalltalk. And in this Smalltalk app, I could use libraries written in Python, perl, C++, Java, C# and Haskell, transparently. I could subclass a C# class. You can't do that with Cocoa. If I wrote an app using this cool new CamelBones perl-ObjC bridge, I could go into Objective-C and create an subclass of a perl class in Objective-C.

I doubt that a lot of the Mac community will embrace Mono or .NET (if there's an official MS version of it for OS X). There's too much ignorance and distrust. Too many people that think you're selling out if you use MS software on a Mac. .NET/Mono stands to provide a lot for a developer, and because of upped productivity, better and more available apps for users.

Re:what happens if we just don't care?

[PythonOrRuby]

Actually, I'm not especially fond of Java. However, I'd like to see something better shove Java out of the way, rather than it getting railroaded based on a promise Microsoft has made about the potential of .NET.

As it happens, I've recently become quite interested in the work going on with Parrot, because of the possibility for language neutrality.

Re:what happens if we just don't care?

[RevAaron]

Parrot is cool, but it's still not usable for anything real. That is, I can't pick it up and start subclassing perl classes from ruby today, whereas I could with .NET, except I've no machines capable running Windoze. :P

I've no political interest .NET. I'm just a pragmatist. With GNU Mono as a Free option to satisfy these ends, I'm interested in it. If parrot pans out, fine- but I'm not going to sit around on my hands, neglecting cool technology just because.

Re:what happens if we just don't care?

[PythonOrRuby]

You've had experience then with .NET? If so, does it manage to avoid the lowest common denominator trap, where languages forfeit some of their more intriguing benefits to be able to utilize the CLR?

Oh, and one of the things that will set Parrot apart from .NET and the various JVMs is that it's being designed specifically for dynamically typed languages, so it might mesh better with Ruby, Perl, Python, etc. if those types of languages are where your interest lies. The fact that it's being designed as a software emulation of a (Super Complex)CISC processor, with registers, stacks, an assembly language, and all that other good stuff, is quite interesting, as well.

Re:what happens if we just don't care?

[RevAaron]

That's all fine and dandy, but until Parrot is actually useful, Mono is looking pretty nice.

we knew this in January

[ubiquitin]

"In one January report at ITworld.com, de Icaza said, "We're planning on supporting Mac OS X as soon as we're done with the Linux port."

To hell with Mono. Let's see Red Carpet!

[Snowfox]

Mac users actually pay for shareware and such.

I'd bet they'd be really receptive to a commercially-supported set of ports of the more common X-based tools.

There are already a couple X servers for Mac OS X. How much more would need to be done to see Ximian Red Carpet and the major components of Ximian Desktop up under Mac OS X?

Re:To hell with Mono. Let's see Red Carpet!

[Wesley Felter]

Fink [sourceforge.net] already includes GNOME and apt. Red Carpet is nice on Red Hat where you don't have apt by default, but if I used Fink I probably wouldn't need Red Carpet.

I use GNOME and Red Carpet on Linux, but I wouldn't even consider installing them on my OS X machine. I want native apps. (Just my opinion, of course.)

Not funded by Apple (I'm betting)

[kwerle]

However, he didn't specify what company would hire Ximian. "I suppose he meant Apple," speculated one eyewitness...

What a dumb idea. Apple has a healthy (ehem) relationship with M$. Why would they pay Ximian for a port of .net? Why not wait for M$ to do it? Seems like they probably will, since they will probably need it for Office...

What's more, Apple are dealing with the Java port in-house. It's not like they are lacking the expertise.

Finally, I would expect Apple to say something publicly if they were funding this. They would probably have to disclose it in their quarterlies anyway.

Re:Not funded by Apple (I'm betting)

[kwerle]

Microsoft .NET for OS X has indeed been announced. I wouldn't expect any development tools however.

Reference? Why post as an AC? Most won't read it...

A Favor?

[usr122122121]

My main issue with this article is that it tries to give us the impression that they're doing us a FAVOR by porting .NET.

I, myself, could never justify installing the port on my computers (or any I maintain).

Aren't we all supposed to be minimizing potential vulnerabilities?

just my opinion.
-braxton

Re:A Favor?

[Wesley Felter]

What's the vulnerability in Mono?

Re:A Favor?

[usr122122121]

It appears I may have been a bit off in my wording.
Here's my logic:

• A search for microsoft security on versiontracker.com [versiontracker.com] yields such results as: Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01 Incorrect VBScript Handling Can Allow Web Pages to Read Local Files Q318089 [versiontracker.com]
• Microsoft REALLY has not been famous for code security. I'm sure some would debate that with me, but I would rather not get into that /too much/.
• If Microsoft consistently develops insecure programs with major security holes, why should we trust them to develop a very secure application framework?
• There is already one documented virus for the .NET framework. I believe it's documented on their virus alerts page [microsoft.com].

I really am not pinning any blame here on Ximian. It's really cool that there are such avid people in the community that would like to port programs (and frameworks) over to OS X...
I just question whether or not .NET is really needed/wanted on Mac OS X at this time.
-braxton

Microsoft will do the port

[_fuzz_]

It's more than likely that Microsoft and Apple will do the port together. MS is already porting to FreeBSD. The OS X port would likely be based on the same code, but optimized and complete with Forms.