.NET CLI Now Runs On Mac OS X

Oink.NET writes "A new tarball of Microsoft's Shared Source Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) is available for download. It builds and runs on Windows XP, FreeBSD, and Mac OS X 10.2. New in this release is Mac OS X support and class reference documentation. More details are available."

WTF!!! Can it be any more apparent?

[arcadum]

It builds and runs on Windows XP, FreeBSD, and Mac OS X 10.2

No HURD, no Linux?
At least the are consistent.

Burn the GPL I'm boing back to BSD

Re:WTF!!! Can it be any more apparent?

[Utopia]

Take a look at SSCLI for Linux [macadamian.com]

Re:WTF!!! Can it be any more apparent?

[PythonOrRuby]

Well, they have to support FreeBSD, or they wouldn't be able to write software for their own webservers [wehavethewayout.com].

Repeat

[cd_Csc]

This was already covered. See this story:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/1 1/06/0142232 [slashdot.org]

CLI - not Command Line Interface

[Louis_Wu]

When I first read that title, I thought that the CLI was a "Command Line Interface", not a "Common Language Infrastructure". Darn, I was hoping that MS was putting effort into a CLI/shell. Sigh.

Re:CLI - not Command Line Interface

[and by]

Come now, which command line do you prefer, UNIX bash, tcsh, etc. or MS-DOS style command.com?

.Net will be everywhere

[GCP]

.Net will be as portable as Java within a few years. Wherever MS doesn't take .Net, the OSS community [go-mono.org] will.

With or without a full equivalent of .Net, I expect to see a lot of ISO C# implementations, optimized for various interesting tasks and platforms. Nothing about the ECMA C# spec requires IL (.Net's "bytecode"). Apple could certainly create an ISO C# implementation, call it Apple C# (MS released the name with the standard), have it natively compiled to PPC instructions, and have it use some combination of .Net APIs and Cocoa APIs.

Other platforms could do likewise, if MS doesn't do it for them. I think C#, if not all of .Net, is going to be less "pure" than Java (more variants) and ultimately far more broadly used.

Re:.Net will be everywhere

[selderrr]

true, but by dropping the IL, you're not retaining much of the advantage of C# over C++

The argument MS was pushing was 'one binary, mulitple languages'. Without IL, you're never getting there.

Re:.Net will be everywhere

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Yes, .Net will be everywhere. So will the operating system Microsoft is building on top of it. Why don't you all just hand Apple and Linux's marketshare to Microsoft now, complete with silver platter?

You were warned two years ago that Millenium was coming, and that it would attack Macs and open source machines. What part of "Embrace, extend, and extinguish." do you not get? The trial is over, we all lost, and Microsoft has become a monster. Keep the Borg JVM (.Net) off your Macs while the government is still allowing you the luxury of a choice. Otherwise your Mac *will* be assimilated, when Millennium awakens and devours the internet.

There is still some hope, and a battle royale to fight. The anger of Microsoft's customers, and the strength still left to Apple and Linux gives us a chance. Don't blow it by giving in to Microsoft's bait, and giving them a chance at gobbling up your Mac.

"At this moment, it has control of systems all over the world.
And...we can't do a damn thing to stop it."
Miyasaka, "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)

Re:.Net will be everywhere

[Have Blue]

Show me the part where it says that installing the CLI will prevent me from running native Mac programs.

Re:.Net will be everywhere

[k4m3]

a lot of ISO C# implementations,

optimized for various interesting tasks and platforms

An implementation of a language is not really useful, if the libraries don't come along. Inside those libraries, the GUI toolkit is NOT standardized. So we'll have a bunch of C# implementations with incompatible libraries ? And another bunch of people creating cross C# GUI toolkits ? Where's the point ?

misfit

[AndyAMPohl]

Kind of like taking parts from an explosive ford pinto [fordpinto.com], and putting them on something [fairly] reliable and [definately] stylish, e.g. Mercedes.

-Andy

did you see the memory requirements?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe i am out to lunch here but if you compare the system requirements of the .NET CLI and Java there is such a huge difference.

with .NET--win xp/2000, 256 megs required, osx 256-512 megs required, with bsd 512 megs required.

at sun (http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/datasheet.html), their datasheet has 32 megs required (for the jre i am assuming). This is probably on top of the ram required to run the OS but still, java seems to requre way less ram.

if someone could help me out here, why is there such a difference? I mean, I can understand 256 megs on win xp or os x, that is probably the minimum for those platforms if you are doing a lot of multi-tasking anyway. but 512? on bsd especially? i was running bsd on a P133 with 32 megs of ram not that long ago mith X windows and everything. I am sure java on bsd would only require 64-128 megs, with 128 being pretty high.

i am not trying to start a flame war about different platforms or virtual machines. i am seriously wanting to know why that much ram is needed. is the .NET basic api way bigger than java's? does the .NET implementation just deal with C# or does it also deal with C++ and Visual Basic and is that why more ram is required? is the fact that C# has more things available like operator overloading, structs, etc. than java does have anything to do with it?

i know that java was designed originally for small devices and .NET was designed for servers and the desktop (mostly for distributed computing and software as services i am assuming). but that still doesn't rid my mind of the original question.

thanks for your help in advance.

To build, not to run.

[alias]

Those requirements are for the entire SDK, including the ability to build the source, not the minimum requirements just to run it.

The minimum requirements for just the .NET Frameworks redist are 32M ram on a 90mhz machine. See this page [microsoft.com] for more info. (Note: The bottom table, ".NET Framework Redistributable," lists the minimum requirements for the executable.)

Question for the readers

[beigeboy]

Does this mean that one day we can expect to see e.g. Microsoft Office running on FreeBSD?

i.e. is the intention that all of their future software will be layered on top ot .NET ?

Re:Question for the readers

[CapS]

I went to a .NET workshop a few weeks ago, and the Microsoft guy mentioned that the next version of Office will use the .NET framework. Of course the people attending the workshop immediately asked him if this meant Office would run on other platforms, since .NET is being ported to other platforms.

And unfortunately no, the .NET version of Office will only run on Windows; it uses parts of the Windows API that aren't part of the .NET framework. (Of course there are programs like Wine or VirtualPC that can allow you to run these Windows programs, but I'm talking about running Office natively with only the .NET framework installed).

SWEET!

[mary_will_grow]

YES YES YES YES YES! .NET IS HERE!! I am so psyched.
Its a breath of fresh air. I want to do all of my development on a platform created solely by a for-profit company who's interests do not extend past their own wallets!

CLI is a joke

[anarkhos]

CLI makes it sound like it can support any language. However in order to use the C# API you have to use a C# compatible language.

It's like saying the ELF ABI can support any language.

And what can we expect from this common API? I don't expect much. It can't be any worse than the Java API (somebody please kill that abomination) but I still don't expect to be able to author applications which behave like Mac applications. For example it is impossible for a 100% Java app to behave like a Mac app.

If only Apple could reform Cocoa so it would have a genuinely platform independent file object then port the API to Windows. Java and .NET would be wannabes.

Re:CLI is a joke

[Daleks]

If only Apple could reform Cocoa so it would have a genuinely platform independent file object then port the API to Windows. Java and .NET would be wannabes.

I know this isn't quite the same, but OpenStep was available for Windows, NeXTStep, and Solaris and it didn't exactly take the world by storm. The now defunct OpenStep is Cocoa.