S
Sharon
is microsoft going to develop .Net for Unix?
or at lest CLR for Unix?
10x
or at lest CLR for Unix?
10x
M
Miha Markic
Hi,
I doubt it.
There are alternatives, though:
http://www.go-mono.com/
http://www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/
I doubt it.
There are alternatives, though:
http://www.go-mono.com/
http://www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/
G
Guest
Mono is not available on Unix.
DotGnu is not available for Unix either.
Both however are available for Linux, (the unix emulator)
DotGnu is not available for Unix either.
Both however are available for Linux, (the unix emulator)
C
Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu
Linux is not an emulator. It is a variant of Unix, just as Windows XP is a
variant of Windows.
--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"
ELKNews - Get your free copy at http://www.atozedsoftware.com
M
Miha Markic
You sure?
From Mono FAQ pages:
Question 51: What operating systems does Mono run on?
Mono is known to run on Linux, Unix and Windows systems.
Question 52: What architectures does Mono support?
Mono today ships with a Just-in-Time compiler for x86-based systems. It is
tested regularly on Linux, FreeBSD and Windows (with the XP/NT core).
There is also an interpreter, which is slower that runs on the s390, SPARC
and PowerPC architectures.
Hahaha, good one. Let Torvalds know.
J
Joe Mayo
Sharon said:
Hi Sharon,
In addition to the Mono and DotGnu links already provided, Microsoft has a
..NET compatible implementation, called Shared Source Common Language
Infrastructure, that runs on BSD Unix.
http://www.sscli.net/
Joe
G
Guest
Its not a varient, it came after Minix. It was designed to be a reverse
engineered Unix. Plain and simple.
Linux has nothing to do with Unix except it looks and feels like it.
engineered Unix. Plain and simple.
Linux has nothing to do with Unix except it looks and feels like it.
W
William Stacey
Is there such a thing an a "Unix" anymore? All venders have there own
versions of something that 10-20 years came from the same source base. Will
it compile on your version of some os is the issue.
versions of something that 10-20 years came from the same source base. Will
it compile on your version of some os is the issue.
C
Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu
William Stacey said:
Yes there is, just as much as there is a "Windows".
--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"
ELKNews - Get your free copy at http://www.atozedsoftware.com
E
Evan Stone
In addition to the Mono and DotGnu links already provided, Microsoft has a
Interesting.
This conceivably could mean a version for MacOS X at some point (which is
based on FreeBSD). A very cool notion indeed.
But aren't these Unix implementations rather limited? Has anyone here had
much experience with them?
Thanks!
Evan Stone | Petaluma, CA
Interesting.
This conceivably could mean a version for MacOS X at some point (which is
based on FreeBSD). A very cool notion indeed.
But aren't these Unix implementations rather limited? Has anyone here had
much experience with them?
Thanks!
Evan Stone | Petaluma, CA
W
William Stacey
Ok. Who's version is the unix your talking about?
C
Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu
William Stacey said:
There is no "Unix" just as there is no "Windows". There are versinos of
Windows, XP, 3.1, etc... Just as there are flavors of Unix. BSD, Solaris,
Linux, and soon..
Widnows has flavors too - XP, Longhorn and 3.1 are more "flavors" than they
aare versions. While 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP are more like versions.
--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"
ELKNews - Get your free copy at http://www.atozedsoftware.com
G
Guest
I never seen Unix listed, just Linux and Bsd and Mac etc.
As for my linux emualtor commenct its just a reminder of what it is that
people forget, a reverse engineered Unix.
As for my linux emualtor commenct its just a reminder of what it is that
people forget, a reverse engineered Unix.
G
Guest
Limited on Linux (not unix) in that you MUST take a DEPENDANCY on Wine for
WinForms unless you use the arse about face API for GTK.
WinForms unless you use the arse about face API for GTK.
G
Guest
Yes ask IBM for AIX and HP for HPUX, they sure are Unixes (dont go into that
arguement on the plurality)
arguement on the plurality)
W
William Stacey
There is no "Unix" just as there is no "Windows". There are versinos of
....
You lost me...
....
You lost me...
W
William Stacey
That's my point. I was a system programmer on AT&T System V, AIX S70, and
Solaris and Sun for years. You can't just move binaries or source between
them like everyone says was the benefit (as it was early on.) And almost
never can just compile some generic code without some work (many time a lot
and sometime never) for the local environment. They have their roots in
Unix true, but those OSs bare little resemblence to System V from years
past. So there is no one "Unix" you can point at today - they are all
different now. Really the only thing that brings commonality any longer is
the shells - ksh, csh, etc. Oo and cron, ya gotta love cron. Some of the
kernels and some native APIs are the same, but that is about it. You still
need to target a platform for your apps, just like in Windows. BTW - I like
Unix, like an old friend. However, am glad I am not reading Man pages any
more and battling with X Windows. So back to the point. Linux is as much a
Unix as any Unix, as they are all different and you can't point to one any
longer and say hey, that is Unix.
Solaris and Sun for years. You can't just move binaries or source between
them like everyone says was the benefit (as it was early on.) And almost
never can just compile some generic code without some work (many time a lot
and sometime never) for the local environment. They have their roots in
Unix true, but those OSs bare little resemblence to System V from years
past. So there is no one "Unix" you can point at today - they are all
different now. Really the only thing that brings commonality any longer is
the shells - ksh, csh, etc. Oo and cron, ya gotta love cron. Some of the
kernels and some native APIs are the same, but that is about it. You still
need to target a platform for your apps, just like in Windows. BTW - I like
Unix, like an old friend. However, am glad I am not reading Man pages any
more and battling with X Windows. So back to the point. Linux is as much a
Unix as any Unix, as they are all different and you can't point to one any
longer and say hey, that is Unix.
R
Rob Teixeira [MVP]
Before going any further, i'll say that i do agree with you.
Just one thing that i find interesting since someone said Linux wasn't Unix,
is that before the SCO tangle, it seemed like everyone liked associating
Linux with its Unix roots, and even had a blanket "*nix" nickname for the
whole group. Now it seems like the group wants to distance itself as far
from Unix as possible. Interesting what a law suit can do to a community.
But to answer the root question, i've read that people have gotton Mono to
work on Unix (BSD and Debian if i remember correctly). In fact, they do have
a beta program under way for an OSX version, which is Darwin(ish).
Microsoft's ROTOR implementation of the .NET framework also runs under Unix
(officially FreeBSD, but i don't know if it's gone any further than that so
far).
-Rob Teixeira [MVP]
Just one thing that i find interesting since someone said Linux wasn't Unix,
is that before the SCO tangle, it seemed like everyone liked associating
Linux with its Unix roots, and even had a blanket "*nix" nickname for the
whole group. Now it seems like the group wants to distance itself as far
from Unix as possible. Interesting what a law suit can do to a community.
But to answer the root question, i've read that people have gotton Mono to
work on Unix (BSD and Debian if i remember correctly). In fact, they do have
a beta program under way for an OSX version, which is Darwin(ish).
Microsoft's ROTOR implementation of the .NET framework also runs under Unix
(officially FreeBSD, but i don't know if it's gone any further than that so
far).
-Rob Teixeira [MVP]
N
Nick Malik
Chad,
I programmed in Unix for six years. AT&T Unix, derived from the original
codebase from Kernigan and company at Bell Labs.
I also programmed on BSD Unix. Interesting that... BSD is based on the same
code base, only it was sent to UC Berkley (sp?) where a long series of
modifications were made to improve it.
Unix is not a single operating system. It is a code base that inherits from
Bell Labs. Anyone who paid for rights to that codebase can get it, and
modify it... and many folks did. The same code base spawned AIX and HP-UX,
although I couldn't tell you their geneology. One or more may have derived
from BSD.
To say that BSD is not Unix is foolish. It shows your poor understanding of
Unix.
Linux is simply a version of Unix that does not derive from the original
codebase. Remember that thousands of the Unix utilities were already in the
public domain by the time Linus Torvalds started working. He simply had to
write the Kernel so that the shells and utilities would run on it.
If you run awk or vi or korn shell on Linux, it is no different than running
it on BSD. The application does not know that it is not running on original
Unix.
Therefore, to say that Linux is not a "real" Unix is absurd. Let the
codebase decide what a "real" Unix is.
Add to the fact that there are probably more installed copies of Linux in
production today than any of the variants of the original codebase, and your
argument runs completely out of gas.
I won't go into your comparison of Windows "versions."
I'm doing my best not to belittle you but it is not a simple task. Suffice
it to say that I find your remarks ill-informed at best.
--- Nick
I programmed in Unix for six years. AT&T Unix, derived from the original
codebase from Kernigan and company at Bell Labs.
I also programmed on BSD Unix. Interesting that... BSD is based on the same
code base, only it was sent to UC Berkley (sp?) where a long series of
modifications were made to improve it.
Unix is not a single operating system. It is a code base that inherits from
Bell Labs. Anyone who paid for rights to that codebase can get it, and
modify it... and many folks did. The same code base spawned AIX and HP-UX,
although I couldn't tell you their geneology. One or more may have derived
from BSD.
To say that BSD is not Unix is foolish. It shows your poor understanding of
Unix.
Linux is simply a version of Unix that does not derive from the original
codebase. Remember that thousands of the Unix utilities were already in the
public domain by the time Linus Torvalds started working. He simply had to
write the Kernel so that the shells and utilities would run on it.
If you run awk or vi or korn shell on Linux, it is no different than running
it on BSD. The application does not know that it is not running on original
Unix.
Therefore, to say that Linux is not a "real" Unix is absurd. Let the
codebase decide what a "real" Unix is.
Add to the fact that there are probably more installed copies of Linux in
production today than any of the variants of the original codebase, and your
argument runs completely out of gas.
I won't go into your comparison of Windows "versions."
I'm doing my best not to belittle you but it is not a simple task. Suffice
it to say that I find your remarks ill-informed at best.
--- Nick
W
Wayne M J
I never seen Unix listed, just Linux and Bsd and Mac etc.
As for my linux emualtor commenct its just a reminder of what it is that
people forget, a reverse engineered Unix.
No it isn't, it is a copylefted Unix variant.