RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:35:34 +0100, Jonathan Stowe Why not have an option on mcs to have the mcs wrapper create an .exe-specific wrapper? The unix mcs script could create a unix shell script, and the windows mcs.bat could create a batch file. So: mcs -target:exe MyClass.cs -out:MyProgram.exe -wrap would create MyProgram.exe and MyProgram shell script (or MyProgram.bat). In my opinion it's *NOT* up to the compiler to create 'OS' wrappers. It's only task is to compile your source into a binary. You're deployment software (MSI package, Nant, custom setup.exe, etc) should create those wrappers. Regards, Dave Mertens, Senior Software Developer. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 18:38, Thomas R. Corbin wrote: For me, the .dll is fine, it's the .exe. Then wrap it in a shell script just as you say do with Java programs - I don't see what the problem is here. /J\ ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 22:16, Thomas R. Corbin wrote: It would be nice if there was a standard beginning wrapper that could be used until or unless something more advanced is needed. Rename this to the same as your .exe file (but without the extension) and put it in the same directory: #!/bin/sh exec /usr/local/bin/mono $0.exe $@ /J\ ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
I know this doesn't address the original posters problem but gentoo includes a script so you don't need to include mono when executing. Here is a link to the file, http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/dev-dotnet/mono/files/dotnet.init. Setting CLR=mono and starting it at boot is good for me. Mark Gert Kello wrote: That is, what I mean, with best integration in the system, so that there existing a native-feeling by using .net-programs. The problem with giving it a native feel is that it destroys one of the objectives of Mono...to be able to take a .Net program from Windows and just run it. Why so? You can make mono to understand two different (binary) formats: the MS one and the Mono native one. So, MS compiled programs would run fine under mono... But the reverse would not be true. So, the mono would need to compile into two different formats: mono native and MS compatible. The format differences could be minimal (like few additional bytes at the start of file) ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:35:34 +0100, Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rename this to the same as your .exe file (but without the extension) and put it in the same directory: #!/bin/sh exec /usr/local/bin/mono $0.exe $@ Why not have an option on mcs to have the mcs wrapper create an .exe-specific wrapper? The unix mcs script could create a unix shell script, and the windows mcs.bat could create a batch file. So: mcs -target:exe MyClass.cs -out:MyProgram.exe -wrap would create MyProgram.exe and MyProgram shell script (or MyProgram.bat). Niel ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
[Mono-list] missing native feel ?
I have pointed to it, already for a year, but I think, I now ask again, what you think, about a better integration of mono in the system. Have a look at MS-Windows and .NET: To run there a .NET program, called program.exe you only need to type program in the console. Thats the same like running a normal native-code program. And for Windows-developer and -users the feel of .net programs are like native-programs. Thats the same like the DOS-emulation in WinNT and the Win16-support in WinNT. They are not natively running on it. But you don't have the feeling, that the programs are different to the normal Win32-programs. Have a look at the most used languages in Linux/Unix: C, C++, Python, Tcl/Tk, Perl and Shell-scripts. C and C++ are running natively. The other languages are script-languages. But normally you _don't_ start them by typing in perl program.pl. You integrate normally in the first line #!/sbin/perl and chmod it to executable. I know, that it is possible to run mono-programs without writing mono for it: http://www.mono-project.com/about/technical.html#q88 But the binfmt solution alone don't give a native-code feeling. For example: On Linux all Mono-Libraries are ended with .dll, instead of .so . And all programs are ending with .exe . With full native-code feeling I mean the following: - All libraries on Linux/Unix ends with .so instead of .dll. For example: mscorlib.so insted of mscorlib.exe - That mcs program.cs creates on Linux/Unix a program called program, which is chmoded to -rwxr-xr-x insted of -rw-r--r-- - That not MONO_PATH show where to look at mscorlib.so. Instead this it would be better, that Mono looks at LD_LIBRARY_PATH for .net-libraries. - better integration means also support by unix-tools. For example that ldd not only show the dynamic linked libraries of nativecode-programs. It would be nice, if it also shows the .net-libraries of .net-programs. That is, what I mean, with best integration in the system, so that there existing a native-feeling by using .net-programs. Btw: Do anybody know, how far the integration of mono in Windows is? For example: If anybody don't have installed .net on Windows. And only Mono is installed, is it possible to run the programs by typing program.exe in the console, or is it needed to type mono program.exe in it? I think an integration in Windows like the real .net do it, would be nice for ReactOS in the future. Because it is not allowed to install .net on other systems then Windows. Btw2: Do anybody know, how executable-programs looks on Microsofts Rotor? Are they ended with .exe too, or without it? Greatings Freddy _ Wußten Sie, daß Sie Ihren Hotmail-Posteingang auch über den MSN Messenger abrufen können? http://www.msn.de/messenger Jetzt kostenlos downloaden und einfach testen! ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
Title: RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ? -Original Message- From: Freddy BL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 7:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mono-list] missing native feel ? I have pointed to it, already for a year, but I think, I now ask again, what you think, about a better integration of mono in the system. With full native-code feeling I mean the following: - All libraries on Linux/Unix ends with .so instead of .dll. For example: mscorlib.so insted of mscorlib.exe - That mcs program.cs creates on Linux/Unix a program called program, which is chmoded to -rwxr-xr-x insted of -rw-r--r-- - That not MONO_PATH show where to look at mscorlib.so. Instead this it would be better, that Mono looks at LD_LIBRARY_PATH for .net-libraries. - better integration means also support by unix-tools. For example that ldd not only show the dynamic linked libraries of nativecode-programs. It would be nice, if it also shows the .net-libraries of .net-programs. That is, what I mean, with best integration in the system, so that there existing a native-feeling by using .net-programs. The problem with giving it a native feel is that it destroys one of the objectives of Mono...to be able to take a .Net program from Windows and just run it.
Re: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
That is, what I mean, with best integration in the system, so that there existing a native-feeling by using .net-programs. The problem with giving it a native feel is that it destroys one of the objectives of Mono...to be able to take a .Net program from Windows and just run it. Why so? You can make mono to understand two different (binary) formats: the MS one and the Mono native one. So, MS compiled programs would run fine under mono... But the reverse would not be true. So, the mono would need to compile into two different formats: mono native and MS compatible. The format differences could be minimal (like few additional bytes at the start of file) -- Gert smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 11:27, Gert Kello wrote: That is, what I mean, with best integration in the system, so that there existing a native-feeling by using .net-programs. The problem with giving it a native feel is that it destroys one of the objectives of Mono...to be able to take a .Net program from Windows and just run it. Why so? You can make mono to understand two different (binary) formats: the MS one and the Mono native one. So, MS compiled programs would run fine under mono... But the reverse would not be true. So, the mono would need to compile into two different formats: mono native and MS compatible. The format differences could be minimal (like few additional bytes at the start of file) Or an additional file/script or whatever. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
That is, what I mean, with best integration in the system, so that there existing a native-feeling by using .net-programs. The problem with giving it a native feel is that it destroys one of the objectives of Mono...to be able to take a .Net program from Windows and just run it. Why so? You can make mono to understand two different (binary) formats: the MS one and the Mono native one. So, MS compiled programs would run fine under mono... But the reverse would not be true. So, the mono would need to compile into two different formats: mono native and MS compatible. The format differences could be minimal (like few additional bytes at the start of file) But the spirit of the CLI is to have exactly one run anywhere. Why would we want to segregate formats? Only (perhaps) to push the Linux agenda forward by releasing software that runs only on Free Software (mono for windows and linux). It's true Microsoft is influencing Linux in this way by putting .exe and .dll back into the lives of Linux users, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Perl scripts end with .pl. Java classes end in .class. CLI programs end in .exe or .dll, depending on their executability. My position is, Linux isn't being betrayed or tainted by keeping .exe and .dll's. It's actually consistent because file types typically have unique extensions, and a .so is very different from a .dll. Just my take on things. No endorsements. Andrew Arnott smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 13:34, Andrew Arnott wrote: That is, what I mean, with best integration in the system, so that there existing a native-feeling by using .net-programs. The problem with giving it a native feel is that it destroys one of the objectives of Mono...to be able to take a .Net program from Windows and just run it. Why so? You can make mono to understand two different (binary) formats: the MS one and the Mono native one. So, MS compiled programs would run fine under mono... But the reverse would not be true. So, the mono would need to compile into two different formats: mono native and MS compatible. The format differences could be minimal (like few additional bytes at the start of file) But the spirit of the CLI is to have exactly one run anywhere. Why would we want to segregate formats? Only (perhaps) to push the Linux agenda forward by releasing software that runs only on Free Software (mono for windows and linux). It's true Microsoft is influencing Linux in this way by putting .exe and .dll back into the lives of Linux users, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Perl scripts end with .pl. Java classes end in .class. CLI programs end in Perl scripts, python scripts, bash scripts that I execute do not have a .pl, .py, or .sh extension. As for java, I wrap all the java programs with a shell or batch file to make it easier on my users. For that matter, all the commercial java applications that I use do so as well. .exe or .dll, depending on their executability. My position is, Linux isn't being betrayed or tainted by keeping .exe and .dll's. It's actually consistent because file types typically have unique extensions, and a .so is very different from a .dll. For me, the .dll is fine, it's the .exe. Just my take on things. No endorsements. Andrew Arnott ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 13:38, Thomas R. Corbin wrote: On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 13:34, Andrew Arnott wrote: That is, what I mean, with best integration in the system, so that there existing a native-feeling by using .net-programs. The problem with giving it a native feel is that it destroys one of the objectives of Mono...to be able to take a .Net program from Windows and just run it. Why so? You can make mono to understand two different (binary) formats: the MS one and the Mono native one. So, MS compiled programs would run fine under mono... But the reverse would not be true. So, the mono would need to compile into two different formats: mono native and MS compatible. The format differences could be minimal (like few additional bytes at the start of file) But the spirit of the CLI is to have exactly one run anywhere. Why would we want to segregate formats? Only (perhaps) to push the Linux agenda forward by releasing software that runs only on Free Software (mono for windows and linux). It's true Microsoft is influencing Linux in this way by putting .exe and .dll back into the lives of Linux users, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Perl scripts end with .pl. Java classes end in .class. CLI programs end in Perl scripts, python scripts, bash scripts that I execute do not have a .pl, .py, or .sh extension. As for java, I wrap all the java programs with a shell or batch file to make it easier on my users. For that matter, all the commercial java applications that I use do so as well. .exe or .dll, depending on their executability. My position is, Linux isn't being betrayed or tainted by keeping .exe and .dll's. It's actually consistent because file types typically have unique extensions, and a .so is very different from a .dll. For me, the .dll is fine, it's the .exe. ... then WRAP it like everything else. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 14:09, MET wrote: On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 13:38, Thomas R. Corbin wrote: On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 13:34, Andrew Arnott wrote: That is, what I mean, with best integration in the system, so that there existing a native-feeling by using .net-programs. The problem with giving it a native feel is that it destroys one of the objectives of Mono...to be able to take a .Net program from Windows and just run it. Why so? You can make mono to understand two different (binary) formats: the MS one and the Mono native one. So, MS compiled programs would run fine under mono... But the reverse would not be true. So, the mono would need to compile into two different formats: mono native and MS compatible. The format differences could be minimal (like few additional bytes at the start of file) But the spirit of the CLI is to have exactly one run anywhere. Why would we want to segregate formats? Only (perhaps) to push the Linux agenda forward by releasing software that runs only on Free Software (mono for windows and linux). It's true Microsoft is influencing Linux in this way by putting .exe and .dll back into the lives of Linux users, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Perl scripts end with .pl. Java classes end in .class. CLI programs end in Perl scripts, python scripts, bash scripts that I execute do not have a .pl, .py, or .sh extension. As for java, I wrap all the java programs with a shell or batch file to make it easier on my users. For that matter, all the commercial java applications that I use do so as well. .exe or .dll, depending on their executability. My position is, Linux isn't being betrayed or tainted by keeping .exe and .dll's. It's actually consistent because file types typically have unique extensions, and a .so is very different from a .dll. For me, the .dll is fine, it's the .exe. ... then WRAP it like everything else. I will - but isn't one reason to use computers is to get stuff automated, to make our life easier? It would be nice if every programmer out there didn't have to do this by hand. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
But the spirit of the CLI is to have exactly one run anywhere. Why would we want to segregate formats? Only (perhaps) to push the Linux agenda forward by releasing software that runs only on Free Software (mono for windows and linux). Let me tell you: when I compiled hello, world using csc on Windows, ran it there, then copied the binary to Linux and ran it there using the Mono runtime, and saw it work, I got a small sparkle of hope in my heart. That's what interop is all about. If you want to run on Free Software Only for some political reason, just develop with GTK# instead of Windows Forms. Cheers, / h+ ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
... then WRAP it like everything else. I will - but isn't one reason to use computers is to get stuff automated, to make our life easier? It would be nice if every programmer out there didn't have to do this by hand. No one forces you to use the .exe file ending, but doing anything else is confusing to your uses. I believe that mcs can output file instead of file.exe just fine, and mono should be able to execute file instead of file.exe without any issues. However, mono will *still* need to execute file, its not magic. We are writing software, not making rabbits jump out of hats. Regardless, I recommend manually wrapping it with a shell script, as that allows you to put private dlls in your AppBase without poluting /usr/bin with a bunch of .dlls. That is by far the best way to go. But its a problem that has lots of different solutions. Pick the one that works for you, and use it. --Todd ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 14:53, Todd Berman wrote: ... then WRAP it like everything else. I will - but isn't one reason to use computers is to get stuff automated, to make our life easier? It would be nice if every programmer out there didn't have to do this by hand. No one forces you to use the .exe file ending, but doing anything else is confusing to your uses. If you are suggesting just leaving off the .exe, then I don't think that really gets what's been suggested above, you couldn't just execute foo as opposed to foo.exe. You'd still have to do mono foo. I believe that mcs can output file instead of file.exe just fine, and mono should be able to execute file instead of file.exe without any issues. However, mono will *still* need to execute file, its not magic. We are writing software, not making rabbits jump out of hats. I don't know, mono seems like a pretty fine magic! Regardless, I recommend manually wrapping it with a shell script, as that allows you to put private dlls in your AppBase without poluting /usr/bin with a bunch of .dlls. That is by far the best way to go. It would be nice if there was a standard beginning wrapper that could be used until or unless something more advanced is needed. Or maybe not even a script, there's got to be a better way. But its a problem that has lots of different solutions. Pick the one that works for you, and use it. I will end up wrapping stuff manually, but only because there doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm for doing anything else. I know, I know I could try to add it myself, but I don't think it would get accepted. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ?
Hello, I don't know what you're talking about. A real normal user expects a start button (on every os), looks for the correct icon, and clicks it. Even better, a shortcut exists on his desktop. These shortcuts do not bear an extension, so I don't know what all the fuzz is about. The only native feel a user expects is a native look and feel, not a grey / purple looking app that doesn't fit in your os... Greetz, -- Rob. -Original Message- From: Thomas R. Corbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 11:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Mono-list] missing native feel ? On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 14:53, Todd Berman wrote: ... then WRAP it like everything else. I will - but isn't one reason to use computers is to get stuff automated, to make our life easier? It would be nice if every programmer out there didn't have to do this by hand. No one forces you to use the .exe file ending, but doing anything else is confusing to your uses. If you are suggesting just leaving off the .exe, then I don't think that really gets what's been suggested above, you couldn't just execute foo as opposed to foo.exe. You'd still have to do mono foo. I believe that mcs can output file instead of file.exe just fine, and mono should be able to execute file instead of file.exe without any issues. However, mono will *still* need to execute file, its not magic. We are writing software, not making rabbits jump out of hats. I don't know, mono seems like a pretty fine magic! Regardless, I recommend manually wrapping it with a shell script, as that allows you to put private dlls in your AppBase without poluting /usr/bin with a bunch of .dlls. That is by far the best way to go. It would be nice if there was a standard beginning wrapper that could be used until or unless something more advanced is needed. Or maybe not even a script, there's got to be a better way. But its a problem that has lots of different solutions. Pick the one that works for you, and use it. I will end up wrapping stuff manually, but only because there doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm for doing anything else. I know, I know I could try to add it myself, but I don't think it would get accepted. ___ 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
