I bought SuSE 9.1 Pro for around $90, and then, shortly thereafter, paid another $60 to upgrade to SuSE 9.2 Pro, just to get Mono 1.0 instead of Mono 0.3 (which was working perfectly until I tried to upgrade to Mono 1.1.x). I see SuSE 9.3 now has Mono 1.1.x, but I've already paid them what I would have paid for Windows XP that has been out for several years now and the upgrades (service packs) are free. Yes, it's tempting to try to upgrade for free. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with the upgrade without monodevelop. I'm just cautioning people to explain the consequences of trying to upgrade, in case someone is particularly relying on monodevelop to keep functioning. In my case, I can get along fine without it until I'm ready to pay Novell for another upgrade to SuSE 9.2 Pro. I have three Window XP machines and three Windows 2003 Server machines, so it's not like I bought SuSE instead of Windows. I'm learning a lot more about C# and .NET by using Linux than I would by strictly using Windows. This is not a complaint about Mono. I'm a little upset with Novell for charging so much for SuSE. They should offer free upgrades on minor versions.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of peter Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 3:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Mono-list] MonoDevelop 0.7 Carl Olsen wrote: >I'm just going to live with the fact that monodevelop isn't going to run on >My SuSE 9.2 Pro now that I've upgraded to Mono 1.1.7. Everything else seems >to be working, so I'll consider myself fortunate that this is the only thing >I've lost. Whoever posted the instructions for upgrading to Mono 1.1.7 made >it sound as simple as running a couple red carpet commands from the command >line. It's not as easy as it was made to sound. > >I'm trying to develop an application using Npgsql and ASP.NET on >Apache/Linux, and I don't have time to figure out why monodevelop isn't >working right now. I'm having enough trouble figuring out how to set up >Npgsql using three different classes for the database communications, the >connections strings, and the business logic, so that everything is >abstracted and my connection strings don't show up every time there is an >error on one of my ASP.NET pages. > >Carl Olsen >http://www.carl-olsen.com/ > > I can see your problem, Carl. It's tempting, isn't it, to say that it shouldn't be this way, but I think Adam made a good point about the maturity of monodevelop. Perhaps we shouldn't expect too much too soon. But I do hope that Novell (who I don't think are directly responsible for monodevelop, by the way) are listening and put some serious work into helping the monodevelop team get things sorted out. Maybe they already are. As to your other problem, I use separate data access objects (remote objects as it happens) that are called from the presentation layer. The developer can therefore ensure that something sensible is returned from the call and decide what to do about it - like putting up an error page, or whatever. It's not too hard, so if you're interested in knowing more please feel free to contact me off-list and I'll give you what help I can. Cheers Peter _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
