For what it's worth, one of the great usages I can see with the current state of Mono is being able to develop ASP.NET apps and deploy them on a linux server without having to shell out for another Windows Server License.
Of course, I've never tried to deploy on a linux server, so I'm taking the Mono guy's word for it when they say that it (1.1 and some of 2.0) is supported. L -----Original Message----- From: J. Merrill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 June 2006 17:36 To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Cool open source At 10:59 AM 6/2/2006, Seref Arikan wrote (in part) >In future, you may consider discussing about a subject without considering everything else your opinion as FUD, and believe me it is a much better way to share your thoughts. You said "Mono is unusable because it's missing X." You did not mention that (a) X is not used in all .Net apps; (b) X is something that MS did not submit for standardization; (c) MS has made it clear that it considers X to be MS proprietary; (d) Novell has said that they have not focused on providing X; (e) it is not difficult to avoid using X if you choose to. I think that your conclusion should be ".Net apps should be built without X if running on Mono is, or could be, important to you." If it's not spreading FUD, what is it to say "Mono is unusable because ..." when that seems not to be justified by the single fact "it's missing X"? Is it sharing your opinion? Spreading "the truth"? (One man's truth is another man's FUD.) J. Merrill / Analytical Software Corp =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
