- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Miguel de Icaza Calls For More Mono, C# Games
|
|
|
Comments (37)
17 earlier comments in the full thread.
Definition of political:
"1.Of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country.
2.Of or relating to the ideas or STRATEGIES of a particular party or group in politics."
Microsoft STRATEGY with respect to platforms: "Mission Establish Microsoft's platforms as de facto standards We don't care whether Apple succeeeds in its attempt or not. Their endorsement of the Win32 API on the Mac effectively ensures that ISVs write their apps first for Windows; that the resulting apps work best on Windows; and that the MacOS is the recipient of second-class, ported apps. While the availability of WLM will cause many apps that might otherwise have stayed Windows-only to support the Mac too, each of these ported apps strengthens the WLM standard – which in turn increases the attractiveness of writing to Win32, and hence writing first and best for Windows. " http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351... How to Get Your Platform Accepted as a Standard - Microsoft Style
(Note:this strategy was later updated to reflect the .NET platform,but I don't have that document handy.Note that this document is a simplification and omits some of the advantages for MS of having the their platform dominate.)
Now, please ask yourself, in all honesty, does the INTELLIGENT person refuse to consider his enemy's STRATEGIC INTENTIONS, in deciding how to act himself? i.e. do you just take candy from a stranger without considering his motives?
Think about it.
Microsoft STRATEGY with respect to platforms: "Mission Establish Microsoft's platforms as de facto standards We don't care whether Apple succeeeds in its attempt or not. Their endorsement of the Win32 API on the Mac effectively ensures that ISVs write their apps first for Windows; that the resulting apps work best on Windows; and that the MacOS is the recipient of second-class, ported apps. While the availability of WLM will cause many apps that might otherwise have stayed Windows-only to support the Mac too, each of these ported apps strengthens the WLM standard – which in turn increases the attractiveness of writing to Win32, and hence writing first and best for Windows. " http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351... How to Get Your Platform Accepted as a Standard - Microsoft Style
(Note:this strategy was later updated to reflect the .NET platform,but I don't have that document handy.Note that this document is a simplification and omits some of the advantages for MS of having the their platform dominate.)
Now, please ask yourself, in all honesty, does the INTELLIGENT person refuse to consider his enemy's STRATEGIC INTENTIONS, in deciding how to act himself? i.e. do you just take candy from a stranger without considering his motives?
Think about it.
Second that, in my opinion Mono is just too unpopular to be the 'cross-platform' of choice. Considering only technology, it might be sad, but if MSFT or anybody else really wants .NET to succeed as cross platform then MSFT should:
-Treat all platforms as equal citizens, and not 'anything Linux' as 2nd class. That means MSFT should hire Miguel de Icaza and Mono to integrate it in .NET. -Start treating OpenGL as first class citizen, and cancel all their Direct3D efforts as it's only working against cross platform availability of games.
Probably hell will freeze over first, so considering the technology is being actively developed _not_ to be cross platform and MSFT is actively pursuing to develop .NET in such a way that Mono is always 'buggy' compared to the newest .NET-versions, in first place (like pointed out above) it's a bad idea to bet your horses on it.
I think .NET was developed as a vehicle for MSFT to control developers - and they failed at it. Even they themselves admit, they see Android and iOS developers don't want to learn .NET and Silverlight, and that's why they're slowly dropping it in favour of their Metro / JS interfaces: Non-MSFT developers already know JS / HTML5.
So .NET could have been very popular if there had been 'native' versions (maybe also for PS3 and so on, why not?) of it for other OS'es, and those versions made by MSFT itself. But because they actively used it together with Silverlight to try to lock people into Windows (by treating other OS'es as 4th class and Windows as 1st class), I think the whole idea failed.
Given the plethora of gaming devices, like Wii, PS3, Vita, Xbox, iPads, Android Pads and Nokia handhelds (both Symbian and soon Windows) I think cross platform will not happen for a while, only OpenGL will probably be the common denominator - that is if MSFT also supports it.
Personally I think WebGL is a better way to go, as all you need for it is a browser.
-Treat all platforms as equal citizens, and not 'anything Linux' as 2nd class. That means MSFT should hire Miguel de Icaza and Mono to integrate it in .NET. -Start treating OpenGL as first class citizen, and cancel all their Direct3D efforts as it's only working against cross platform availability of games.
Probably hell will freeze over first, so considering the technology is being actively developed _not_ to be cross platform and MSFT is actively pursuing to develop .NET in such a way that Mono is always 'buggy' compared to the newest .NET-versions, in first place (like pointed out above) it's a bad idea to bet your horses on it.
I think .NET was developed as a vehicle for MSFT to control developers - and they failed at it. Even they themselves admit, they see Android and iOS developers don't want to learn .NET and Silverlight, and that's why they're slowly dropping it in favour of their Metro / JS interfaces: Non-MSFT developers already know JS / HTML5.
So .NET could have been very popular if there had been 'native' versions (maybe also for PS3 and so on, why not?) of it for other OS'es, and those versions made by MSFT itself. But because they actively used it together with Silverlight to try to lock people into Windows (by treating other OS'es as 4th class and Windows as 1st class), I think the whole idea failed.
Given the plethora of gaming devices, like Wii, PS3, Vita, Xbox, iPads, Android Pads and Nokia handhelds (both Symbian and soon Windows) I think cross platform will not happen for a while, only OpenGL will probably be the common denominator - that is if MSFT also supports it.
Personally I think WebGL is a better way to go, as all you need for it is a browser.
@dinotrac.....Agreed; the actual author topic is on game development using Mono (concerning which I have no interest whatsoever as I am not "into" games) and Tracyanne gave me a very satisfactory answer. But while the word, "Mono" was in front of our minds, I then asked about the use of Mono in the "Enterprise space" out of sheer curiosity. To me, the "Mono front" has seemed pretty quiet over the past few months so I wanted a little more info.
If I have read things right, I would infer from the comments that follow that Mono would only be used on Linux based installations, and I get the "impression" that penetration and usage of the Mono based software is not extensive. So is this gaming suggestion by Miguel a "final attempt" to gain extensive Mono usage in a restricted but viable area, or what ?
If I have read things right, I would infer from the comments that follow that Mono would only be used on Linux based installations, and I get the "impression" that penetration and usage of the Mono based software is not extensive. So is this gaming suggestion by Miguel a "final attempt" to gain extensive Mono usage in a restricted but viable area, or what ?
@mbaehrlxer and Fettoosh, dino has already answered that point for me, on Windows you use the .Net framework, not mono, on all other platforms you use the mono framework.
dino wrote
In my experience that is correct. With the cavaete that there are a few sections of the mono framework that are specifically targeted at UNIX/Linux
dino wrote
Quoting:Write something for Microsoft .Net, it might or might not work on linux, depending on which parts of the platform you use. Write something for mono, and it probably works on linux AND Windows.
In my experience that is correct. With the cavaete that there are a few sections of the mono framework that are specifically targeted at UNIX/Linux
An update re one of the applications I mentioned that I would like to use (the one that makes learning new songs much easier), I mentioned that I'm on their mailing list. I replied to their email and discussed them using C#/Mono, ad pointed them to the Xamarin site, and the PDF this articles points to. They replied this morning that they are interested in investigating the use of Mono, and will folow up on my suggestion.
True they haven't sad they will port their stuff to C#/Mono, but I think that is a very positive start. Perhaps if there are proprietary applications out there that we like we can do this with other applications developers. It certainle can't hurt, if more proprietary applications developers, who might never target Linux, with an application we want were to make that application available using a Framework that would make the application available on Linux.
If anyone wants to see how I phrased the suggestion, let me know, and Ill let them have a copy of my email.
True they haven't sad they will port their stuff to C#/Mono, but I think that is a very positive start. Perhaps if there are proprietary applications out there that we like we can do this with other applications developers. It certainle can't hurt, if more proprietary applications developers, who might never target Linux, with an application we want were to make that application available using a Framework that would make the application available on Linux.
If anyone wants to see how I phrased the suggestion, let me know, and Ill let them have a copy of my email.
> You mean like the ones that come in the bundles where you can pay what you want, even as little as $1 for 5 or more games?
Which only matters if I'm interested in the game. 99% of them I'm not, so I don't seem much reason to bother sifting through them for the remaining 1%. World of Goo is a perfect example. It's a well made game, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't interest me.
Which only matters if I'm interested in the game. 99% of them I'm not, so I don't seem much reason to bother sifting through them for the remaining 1%. World of Goo is a perfect example. It's a well made game, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't interest me.
@lxerguest, developers using C#/Mono can write their applications for any platform that supports the Mono Framework, which includes any Linux based OS, Apple's operating System(s), Windows (via the .NET Framework), BSD, probably ReactOS. In order to write for Windows first or only, they need to develop using the .Net Framework, and even then, if they want to make it completely non portable, using sections of the framework that are not available in the Mono framework.
At the moment many, probably most, are developing using C/C++, and while that sounds like it should be nicely crossplatform, in practice it is not, else WINE would not be necessary. I have been inconversation with a company that develops and sells a small application that I would find very useful (for learning new songs), it is currently written in C/C++, and even uses some GPL components (so they are actually written for Linux originally), but the application does not port to Linux, and it doesn't run under WINE.
If that application had been developed using the Mono (NOT the .Net) framework and C#, it would probably work OOTB on Linux and OSX and BSD and any other desktop OS that can use the Mono runtime, or even the .Net runtime.
In addition there are versions of the Mono Framework that have been developed to make the mono runtime available on smartphones (Android iOS) and Tablets.
So the Mono runtime (and the Framework it supports is very widely available)
At the moment many, probably most, are developing using C/C++, and while that sounds like it should be nicely crossplatform, in practice it is not, else WINE would not be necessary. I have been inconversation with a company that develops and sells a small application that I would find very useful (for learning new songs), it is currently written in C/C++, and even uses some GPL components (so they are actually written for Linux originally), but the application does not port to Linux, and it doesn't run under WINE.
If that application had been developed using the Mono (NOT the .Net) framework and C#, it would probably work OOTB on Linux and OSX and BSD and any other desktop OS that can use the Mono runtime, or even the .Net runtime.
In addition there are versions of the Mono Framework that have been developed to make the mono runtime available on smartphones (Android iOS) and Tablets.
So the Mono runtime (and the Framework it supports is very widely available)
@rid
The mono Framework has been ported to iOS and Android as well as MacOSX, Linux, BSD and Windows, but it's not necessary on Windows, as anything written for the Mono Framework will run on Windows via .NET.
So yes and no. It's an attempt to make it widely known that there is a Framwork that developers can use to trivially make thier applications, in this case games, widely available on all platforms. But everything De Icaza says about using C#/Mono for games applies to every other type of software.
Quoting:So is this gaming suggestion by Miguel a "final attempt" to gain extensive Mono usage in a restricted but viable area, or what ?
The mono Framework has been ported to iOS and Android as well as MacOSX, Linux, BSD and Windows, but it's not necessary on Windows, as anything written for the Mono Framework will run on Windows via .NET.
So yes and no. It's an attempt to make it widely known that there is a Framwork that developers can use to trivially make thier applications, in this case games, widely available on all platforms. But everything De Icaza says about using C#/Mono for games applies to every other type of software.
@tracyanne, I didn't say mono/c# is not a handy platform to program on, but it follows after dotnet versions, meaning it is cooperating with the leaked MS strategy to get dotnet accepted as a defacto standard which they control. They are not nice to Linux with things that they can control and steer, like internet explorer plugins, office file formats, DirectX, patents,etc
If De Icaza would not insist on tracking the dotnet versions, he would not be cooperating and his platform would be instantly less threatening to many, so why does he insist? It's funny this small group has been able to keep up with this huge corporation (in dotnet compatibility).There was an interesting quote from De Icaza that he was amazed at somehow there was always outside help that seemed to pitch in to allow to achieve its milestones.;)
For C++ programmers, Qt is a mature and powerful cross-platform option. Java currently runs great for desktop applications, of which I use a couple. If you would fork mono away from dotnet compatibility, that might be a great option too(for more people than now).
If De Icaza would not insist on tracking the dotnet versions, he would not be cooperating and his platform would be instantly less threatening to many, so why does he insist? It's funny this small group has been able to keep up with this huge corporation (in dotnet compatibility).There was an interesting quote from De Icaza that he was amazed at somehow there was always outside help that seemed to pitch in to allow to achieve its milestones.;)
For C++ programmers, Qt is a mature and powerful cross-platform option. Java currently runs great for desktop applications, of which I use a couple. If you would fork mono away from dotnet compatibility, that might be a great option too(for more people than now).
@lxerguest, more of the usual paranoid delusional rubbish we've had pages and pages of already.
Yes QT is good too. Keeping Mono compsaytible with .NET is what keeps it truely cross platform, and a trivial exercise for Windows developers to also develop for Linux. Fork it away and it will no longer be cross platform, Windows .NET programmers won't take it up, because it will be different enough thst they won't be able to use familiar tools, like Visual Studio, and believe me the lock in, on Windows, that Visual Studio creates for Microsoft oriented developers is far stronger than office.... I speak from experience.... Without Mono and MonoDevelop I could not have broken from Visual Studio, and I probably would not be programming in php or python either.
Mono made it possible for me to gain confidence programming on Linux.
Ok personal stuff aside.
QT hasn't been ported to a smany other platforms, not like Mono has, and probably won't be, Mono fits well with what appears to be Google's idea of what Android is and how it functions, it also fits well with Apple's apparent strategy for their devices, Python is an interpreted language, which means proprietary developers won't want to use it, while C#/Mono compiles and can even be obfuscated.
Staying close to .Net development keeps Mono as widely platform agnostic as possible, it makes it accessible to as many developers as possible, and it suits the proprietary mindset.
Yes QT is good too. Keeping Mono compsaytible with .NET is what keeps it truely cross platform, and a trivial exercise for Windows developers to also develop for Linux. Fork it away and it will no longer be cross platform, Windows .NET programmers won't take it up, because it will be different enough thst they won't be able to use familiar tools, like Visual Studio, and believe me the lock in, on Windows, that Visual Studio creates for Microsoft oriented developers is far stronger than office.... I speak from experience.... Without Mono and MonoDevelop I could not have broken from Visual Studio, and I probably would not be programming in php or python either.
Mono made it possible for me to gain confidence programming on Linux.
Ok personal stuff aside.
QT hasn't been ported to a smany other platforms, not like Mono has, and probably won't be, Mono fits well with what appears to be Google's idea of what Android is and how it functions, it also fits well with Apple's apparent strategy for their devices, Python is an interpreted language, which means proprietary developers won't want to use it, while C#/Mono compiles and can even be obfuscated.
Staying close to .Net development keeps Mono as widely platform agnostic as possible, it makes it accessible to as many developers as possible, and it suits the proprietary mindset.
Quoting:There was an interesting quote from De Icaza that he was amazed at somehow there was always outside help that seemed to pitch in to allow to achieve its milestones.;)
Quite clearly, inspite of the vociferous and paranoid few, there are many free software developers who like and support mono. Even if some of those developers are paid by Microsoft, the code is GPLed, and can if necessary be rewritten to work around planted gotchas.
The thing is it's as much in Microsoft's interests, as the Free Software community's to have a platform that is as widely cross platform as mono is. So if Microsoft is helping out, it works both ways, and costs Xamarin less to get the code written.
When .Net was first developed the idea was to have it fully cross platform, the whole point of a Framework like .Net is that it is trivially cross platform. Balmer and his clique within Microsoft stopped that. Their fear was that by having .Net truly cross platform, it would make other platforms easily accessible and reduce reliance on Windows. Mono has achieved that goal, Windows programmer can develop for almost any OS. Linux programmers can develop for almost any OS.
@tracyanne,the groklaw link from my first post is a direct quote from a MS strategy paper,obtained from court documents.There is no more "paranoia", and hardly even "controversy" on that particular question.So you were wrong...big deal,show me someone who was never wrong.
It doesn't mean you're not a good person or a friend of Linux,just wrong on that particular issue. I also agree that de Icaza is a wonderful programmer,and had fun playing with his mono stuff for a short while,and still love his MC file manager.
It doesn't mean you're not a good person or a friend of Linux,just wrong on that particular issue. I also agree that de Icaza is a wonderful programmer,and had fun playing with his mono stuff for a short while,and still love his MC file manager.
@tracyanne: I'm pretty sure Qt has been ported to all the same platforms as Mono, and then some. There's a lot of embedded devices that run Qt. I've never heard of .NET being much of a player in the embedded space (Windows doesn't after all run on ARM).
@hkwint: Re: OpenGL vs. DirectX: From what I've read, 3D graphics programmers greatly prefer the DirectX API to OpenGL, and think it's better from a technical perspective, so it actually wouldn't help MS to make OpenGL a "first class citizen" over DX.
@hkwint: Re: OpenGL vs. DirectX: From what I've read, 3D graphics programmers greatly prefer the DirectX API to OpenGL, and think it's better from a technical perspective, so it actually wouldn't help MS to make OpenGL a "first class citizen" over DX.
[@Khamul
Yes QT is on a lot of embedded devices, is it on Android and iOS? Mono is definately on the embedded devices that developers are chasing right now, Android and iOS, and Windows and Mac OSX, and one they would be happy to port to if it doesn't cost too much.... Linux desktops.
@ lxerguest, thankfully your type of paranoia doesn't hold much sway among the the people who will benefit from using Mono. Yes .Net was supposed to be a Microsoft Framework that runs everywhere, Microsoft chickened out, for one very important reason... the old guard, personified by Balmer feared it would make Windows less relevent, and reduce lock in. Mono is achieving that, but it's also a win situation for Windows programmers, especially those who never learned C/C++, but instead come up via the Visual Basic stream, and there are a hell of a lot of us.
Quoting:There's a lot of embedded devices that run Qt. I've never heard of .NET being much of a player in the embedded spac
Yes QT is on a lot of embedded devices, is it on Android and iOS? Mono is definately on the embedded devices that developers are chasing right now, Android and iOS, and Windows and Mac OSX, and one they would be happy to port to if it doesn't cost too much.... Linux desktops.
@ lxerguest, thankfully your type of paranoia doesn't hold much sway among the the people who will benefit from using Mono. Yes .Net was supposed to be a Microsoft Framework that runs everywhere, Microsoft chickened out, for one very important reason... the old guard, personified by Balmer feared it would make Windows less relevent, and reduce lock in. Mono is achieving that, but it's also a win situation for Windows programmers, especially those who never learned C/C++, but instead come up via the Visual Basic stream, and there are a hell of a lot of us.
@tracyanne,OK if you say so,I guess that trumps court evidence.Remind me to avoid any jury trials where you live.My sympathies to your inlaws.Good Night.
@Khamul, I'm pretty sure the DirectX API in Mono, at least on Linux and probably also on MacOSX uses OpenGL for Graphics renering, much the same as WINE uses OpenGL under the DirectX API.
Sorry hk, I missed your comments. You do have a point. However, I do know that the Mono runtime for iOS and Android has been acceptred onthose respective platforms, which means that the C#/Mono implementation of .Net is available on the such devices, and that makes mono a viable cross platform framework, in spite of Microsoft's backing off from Silverlight. Silverlight/Moonlight does not appear to have ever been part of De Icaza's strategy for using the Mono framework on embedded devices, or on any other type of desktop. If you read the PDF, you will not see it mentioned. Instead you will see a number of technologies that .Net/mono exposes to developers, all of which take advantage of the cross language/cross platform capabilities of Mono, which is inherent in the .Net specification, but never taken advantage of by Microsoft.
Of course you do realise that, from Microsoft's viewpoint, all that HTML/Javascript/css that Metro relies on, is supposed to be developed using the .Net Framework and Visual Studio, which is why there will be frameworks built into .Net on Windows that Windows developers will be steered towards depending on, even though it can all be done without need for all the Visual Studio bells and whistles. And in a Microsoft development shop, developers won't be able to work anyother way. I know this from bitter experience, but managed to avoid it in large part, and not have to rely on the latest and greatest version of Visual Studio, because I was 1/ a contractor working from my own office, and 2/ I was the only person working on the project I handed back on the 31st of January. Now they are going to have to work out how to integrate all the Javascript I wrote, into the .Net paradigm, ::shrug::
Of course you do realise that, from Microsoft's viewpoint, all that HTML/Javascript/css that Metro relies on, is supposed to be developed using the .Net Framework and Visual Studio, which is why there will be frameworks built into .Net on Windows that Windows developers will be steered towards depending on, even though it can all be done without need for all the Visual Studio bells and whistles. And in a Microsoft development shop, developers won't be able to work anyother way. I know this from bitter experience, but managed to avoid it in large part, and not have to rely on the latest and greatest version of Visual Studio, because I was 1/ a contractor working from my own office, and 2/ I was the only person working on the project I handed back on the 31st of January. Now they are going to have to work out how to integrate all the Javascript I wrote, into the .Net paradigm, ::shrug::
No worries TA, your other post in the other topic "Admits Moonlight/Silverlight are basically dead" clarified a lot I guess.
Seems I missed out on some important parts, like once .NET was meant to be 'cross platform' but Ballmer clique halted it. Nowadays lots of shareholders cry for Ballmer (+clique I guess) to leave anyway, so I think we both agree that would actually be a good thing.
No, sorry, I didn't realize that as I don't live in the MS-spectrum, and last time I did the HTTML/JS/CSS combo I used vi, gedit or whatever. I believe all the things about the VisualStudio lock-in and VB6 programmers, it's just that I and probably lots of other LXer readers are not that familiar with it. Maybe because last time I checked a 'full' version of VS was pretty expensive compared to 'our free' stuff like KDevelop (and later MonoDevelop), I don't know.
However, I see a large shift at MS:
The docs LXerguest linked too are pretty old nowadays. 'Insiders' tell us there's always some kind of 'war' in MS, like the one you told me about (.NET being cross platform or not), perpetual backwards compatibility or not (meaning continuing VB6 support or dropping in favour of .NET) and more.
It seems since MS lost it's stronghold / doesn't have any in the mobile space, the only way they can join is by pushing 'their' MS-cetric developers to use 'non-MS'-standards, like HTML5 and JS. I guess an Apple-centered developer who made websites to display nicely on a iPhone can write HTML5 / JS apps for Metro without going through all the hoops getting / installing / learning how to work with VS, as I think that was the point of Microsofts choice for HTML5/JS in first place.
So paranoid people like me should not forget that MSFT is ever changing, and isn't the same MSFT as that of 15 years ago, about when those 'Evangelism is WAR' documents popped up.
Indeed, I've been searching a little bit on the web and I think apart from WebGL, when it comes to games there are not that many ways to make it cross-platform; probably Mono right now is about the only one - at least the only one I could find.
Guess if I would be making a game, I would want to make sure that I'm not dictated by a company. That Apple doesn't keep 50% of the profits of my work. That Google doesn't put spy-methods in my game. That Microsoft doesn't control on which OS my game works best. If Mono could meet those concerns and people like me would start to think more rationally towards this platform, it might as well be the best chance to get anything working cross-platform.
Not that I'm a developer, I got my toes wet in WebGL and did some OpenGL-on-Windows 'study-program' some time ago. But once I planned to make a simple CAD-program (mainly for educating myself and for fun) and I can tell doing it in JS/WebGL would be pretty hard, unless you have really thorough JS understanding (beyond 95% of JS-books available, as you need more functional programming skills for such an attempt).
If such a thing would be easier in Mono / Monodevelop, I might as well consider it and spending some free time in it as it probably means I could add '.NET-familiarity' to my resume.
Nonetheless, concerns about the intention of .NET and the lack of a native port for Linux written by Microsoft itself still remain in the back of my head, and probably I'm not the only one. All the Silverlight-websites which I couldn't play, even if I installed the newest version of Moonlight (which I always refused as I boycotted the whole Silverlight-thingie anyway) leaves a very, very bad taste in my mouth. Probably one of the last failed attempts of MSFT to control the internet, and I hope the last one.
At the same time, it seems Ubuntu wants to get rid of Mono in the default-install... So to come back to Ridcully's question as well: I'm not sure how much of the actual Linux-desktop installs support Mono...
Seems I missed out on some important parts, like once .NET was meant to be 'cross platform' but Ballmer clique halted it. Nowadays lots of shareholders cry for Ballmer (+clique I guess) to leave anyway, so I think we both agree that would actually be a good thing.
Quoting:Of course you do realise that, from Microsoft's viewpoint, all that HTML/Javascript/css that Metro relies on, is supposed to be developed using the .Net Framework and Visual Studio
No, sorry, I didn't realize that as I don't live in the MS-spectrum, and last time I did the HTTML/JS/CSS combo I used vi, gedit or whatever. I believe all the things about the VisualStudio lock-in and VB6 programmers, it's just that I and probably lots of other LXer readers are not that familiar with it. Maybe because last time I checked a 'full' version of VS was pretty expensive compared to 'our free' stuff like KDevelop (and later MonoDevelop), I don't know.
However, I see a large shift at MS:
The docs LXerguest linked too are pretty old nowadays. 'Insiders' tell us there's always some kind of 'war' in MS, like the one you told me about (.NET being cross platform or not), perpetual backwards compatibility or not (meaning continuing VB6 support or dropping in favour of .NET) and more.
It seems since MS lost it's stronghold / doesn't have any in the mobile space, the only way they can join is by pushing 'their' MS-cetric developers to use 'non-MS'-standards, like HTML5 and JS. I guess an Apple-centered developer who made websites to display nicely on a iPhone can write HTML5 / JS apps for Metro without going through all the hoops getting / installing / learning how to work with VS, as I think that was the point of Microsofts choice for HTML5/JS in first place.
So paranoid people like me should not forget that MSFT is ever changing, and isn't the same MSFT as that of 15 years ago, about when those 'Evangelism is WAR' documents popped up.
Indeed, I've been searching a little bit on the web and I think apart from WebGL, when it comes to games there are not that many ways to make it cross-platform; probably Mono right now is about the only one - at least the only one I could find.
Guess if I would be making a game, I would want to make sure that I'm not dictated by a company. That Apple doesn't keep 50% of the profits of my work. That Google doesn't put spy-methods in my game. That Microsoft doesn't control on which OS my game works best. If Mono could meet those concerns and people like me would start to think more rationally towards this platform, it might as well be the best chance to get anything working cross-platform.
Not that I'm a developer, I got my toes wet in WebGL and did some OpenGL-on-Windows 'study-program' some time ago. But once I planned to make a simple CAD-program (mainly for educating myself and for fun) and I can tell doing it in JS/WebGL would be pretty hard, unless you have really thorough JS understanding (beyond 95% of JS-books available, as you need more functional programming skills for such an attempt).
If such a thing would be easier in Mono / Monodevelop, I might as well consider it and spending some free time in it as it probably means I could add '.NET-familiarity' to my resume.
Nonetheless, concerns about the intention of .NET and the lack of a native port for Linux written by Microsoft itself still remain in the back of my head, and probably I'm not the only one. All the Silverlight-websites which I couldn't play, even if I installed the newest version of Moonlight (which I always refused as I boycotted the whole Silverlight-thingie anyway) leaves a very, very bad taste in my mouth. Probably one of the last failed attempts of MSFT to control the internet, and I hope the last one.
At the same time, it seems Ubuntu wants to get rid of Mono in the default-install... So to come back to Ridcully's question as well: I'm not sure how much of the actual Linux-desktop installs support Mono...
Quoting:Nonetheless, concerns about the intention of .NET and the lack of a native port for Linux written by Microsoft
I think I'd be more worried, the other way around, if there was a micosoft port of .Net to Linux. Imagine the affect that would have if they were to decide to no longer support it, being Proprietary there would be no other recourse but to move an entire code base to Windows, in order to continue using code that had been developed on Linux for Linux.
Mono is FOSS, we are better off with Mono, even though it is often several months behind .Net in new functionalities. But you need also to understand that De Icaza ensures that really important technologies, from the viewpoint of FOSS get folded in very quickly, and while they have made what in hindsight appear to be mistakes... Moonlight, it did at the time look like a framework that would be necessary at the time it was implemented.
So long as the Mono devs implement Languages and related Frameworks, and don't stray to far from that, Mono will stay relevent. What they need to be careful of im plementing is Microsoft centric Frameworks, like Silverlight and WPF and perhaps anything Metro related, although there may be some interesting and useful Frameworks related to compiling higher level code to Javascript, that they could work on.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
You mean like the ones that come in the bundles where you can pay what you want, even as little as $1 for 5 or more games? Most indie games are quite cheap. :/
http://humblebundle.com for example, right now. Some popular titles on there, including World of Goo, which can count as casual.