mm. have to politely disagree. If MS *wanted* .NET to run on everything (like Java), then they would have ported .NET to linux themselves, and distributed it as Sun distributes the JVM (which is closed-source, but essentially free). Mono is an open-source project started by Miguel de Icaza, not MS.
MS really only wants .NET to run on Microsoft platforms, therefore windows-lockin. Whether they can do anything about Linux machines running .NET (via mono), or care, is another thing. What they want to do is make money. and they do that by selling Windows.
i don't know it's a tough call i see it both ways
windows lockin can occur either way
MS does not make money from .NET framework, or compilers or languages. You can get C# for free, and a ASP.NET supported web designer for free from MS. you get the runtime for free. MS does not make money from these packages. they make money from services and software bundles and support, and dev tools. They make money of things built ontop of this architecture
MS does wierd things to attract a different crowd. Did you know NT4 there was a port for POWERPC, SPARC, and other systems? There is even full unix development kit (almost as big as cygwin) for unix developers to convert to windows.
yeah, they give .NET away for free, understood, but only for Windows platforms. -You still need to buy Windows to use Microsoft .NET. They have not released Microsoft .NET runtime or developer tools for other operating systems. (which is where mono comes in)
<Analogy>This would be like Sun releasing Java, but only for Solaris (assuming they charge for Solaris, which I think is still true). Lets call this .JAVA Then, hey some guy comes along and makes something called Meningitis that will run .JAVA apps on Linux and windows. Now maybe Sun thinks that's cool, maybe it doesn't. All it cares about is selling Solaris. </Analogy>
And yeah, they made and sold NT4 OS for other CPUs, but that doesn't really have anything to do with this.
highly agree with that, MS wants to push CE and Win on every desktop possible, and that's highly understandable, they own the market then.
but there is no fued, or rivarly really so far. these guys even attend the same ECMA meetings (team mono and MS). Pushing .NET to another platform is both good and bad for MS. Pros are they can sell vis studio developer tools to linux developers, use services by MS (passport amongst other MS libraries that USE .NET), sell office products.
It's a huge MS method is to let people taste what they have and make every possible means to get them convert over. Thats what I mean about the NT ports, even the unix services package. It's a ploy to get developers over. Without developers and a great foundation of developer support you have no OS. *nix just happens to have many confused random developers with no primary direction. MS started out with a highly extensive developer foundation. I can see it the more I work with *nix systems. MS just 'seems' to always have the next best solid, extensive, working developer technology.
However, I sit on the line in MS vs UNIX debate. But it's just what I've seen and read working for both sides.
I hear you. you've probably got much better perspective on this than I do, being you've actually used .NET, and I assume at least looked into Mono.
haha that analogy was awesome
I do see your point about C# and the CLI being an ECMA standard, I guess that would keep Mono safe.
Yeah this is one of the first times MS has ever gone to a standard committee, not only ECMA but also ISO. And the first time they have ever supported C++ standard committee
For me that is a big, big deal. Just like POSIX, just like C89/99, just like C++99, standars are a key not only for porting but mainly for the limit on mistakes and idiosyncrasies between different implimentations