Tony Gravagno wrote:
Yes, and it feel huge to me. I think I'm too old either a) to learn it
or b) to care about learning it. I'm not sure which is worse -- not
being able to learn or not being able to care ;-)

Yes, I think that is true. You get something very valuable with a
single vendor if you are willing to pay the price and assume the risk.
I'm guessing that MS-centric shops get jerked around by having to pay
for (sometimes unbudgeted) MS upgrades, added components, etc. quite
regularly compared to other environments.

I'm sure there are other good postings to catch up on too, but I better
attend to other matters now, so I'll read more later. --dawn

Simon Verona wrote:
Tony Gravagno wrote:
Tony, do you know this from experience?
That is, have you seen Apache/mod_mono work?
If so, on Windows, or Linux?

--
frosty

JET wrote:
Sure, the Mono project websites themselves run .aspx pages from Linux.
See this site for lots of links to projects and sites that run over
Mono:
http://www.gotmono.net/
Sites that you visit with or without .aspx extensions could be using
Mono, you really don't know unless you're sniffing HTTP headers.

The default OSS mod_mono does not work with Windows Apache yet but
there is one developer who has done the port.

Since no one has commissioned the Research department of Nebula R&D to
investigate the details of deployment, my experience has just been to
try a tidbit of code, verify that it works, then move on to other
things. When I tried to install code to take my research further I
got into Linux dependency hell and gave up.

TG@ removethisNebula-RnD.com

"dawn" wrote:
I have no clients at all who are interested in Windows Forms, everyone
wants a thin-client web solution, even for their LAN users who run
nothing but Windows desktops. No one has even asked for an MV admin
app for their Linux console. (Hmm, I'd probably recommend a Webmin
plugin anyway.)

I don't think it's fair for people to blow off a project like Mono
because it doesn't do something that apparently no one cares about
anyway, which is supporting Microsoft syntax for thick client. The
fact is that you _can_ write desktop clients in Mono that will run in
Linux, Windows, and Mac, and with syntax that's familiar to any C#
developer.

Once again I see a major disparities between Supply and Demand, and
what people say vs what people do: Linux fans are keen on replacing
the Windows workstation with the Linux desktop, but no one in this
community has expressed interest in presenting their apps on the Linux
desktop, except through the braindead Konsole terminal emulation which
no end-user will buy. People here talk about the increasing costs of
deployment and the difficulties of selling apps with multiple
licensing tiers including Windows and Accuterm, but they have no real
interest in eliminating either of those tiers. I dunno folks, the
technology is there, use it.

T

"Glen B" wrote:

I'm sorry Glen but that's not correct either. You can create a class
that inherits from IHttpHandler which when compiled will function like
a mini ASP.NET handler. It works through AddHandler the same way any
other language is invoked in Apache. So you can write a dirt simple
program in C# that processes pages with a ".glen" suffix, and you
don't even need to install mod_mono into Apache. Of course you don't
get all the benefits of a full implementation or even the same
benefits that the Microsoft ASP.NET implementation provides when
serving files from the file system (they've obviously spent a little
more time on this than writing a "dirt simple" program), but you can
do this.

HTH.
TG@ removethisNebula-RnD.com