By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
457,939 Members | 1,541 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 457,939 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Dot Net for Unix?

P: n/a
is microsoft going to develop .Net for Unix?
or at lest CLR for Unix?
10x
Nov 15 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
18 Replies


P: n/a
Hi,

I doubt it.
There are alternatives, though:
http://www.go-mono.com/
http://www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/

--
Miha Markic - RightHand .NET consulting & development
miha at rthand com
www.rthand.com

"Sharon" <ta*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:er*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
is microsoft going to develop .Net for Unix?
or at lest CLR for Unix?
10x

Nov 15 '05 #2

P: n/a
Mono is not available on Unix.
DotGnu is not available for Unix either.

Both however are available for Linux, (the unix emulator)
"Miha Markic" <miha at rthand com> wrote in message
news:uh**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hi,

I doubt it.
There are alternatives, though:
http://www.go-mono.com/
http://www.gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/

--
Miha Markic - RightHand .NET consulting & development
miha at rthand com
www.rthand.com

"Sharon" <ta*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:er*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
is microsoft going to develop .Net for Unix?
or at lest CLR for Unix?
10x


Nov 15 '05 #3

P: n/a
<.> wrote in news:O1**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl:
Both however are available for Linux, (the unix emulator)


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

Nov 15 '05 #4

P: n/a
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.

"Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu" <cp**@hower.org> wrote in message
news:Xn****************@127.0.0.1...
<.> wrote in news:O1**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl:
Both however are available for Linux, (the unix emulator)


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

Nov 15 '05 #5

P: n/a

<.> wrote in message news:O1****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Mono is not available on Unix.
DotGnu is not available for Unix either.
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.

Both however are available for Linux, (the unix emulator)


Hahaha, good one. Let Torvalds know.

--
Miha Markic - RightHand .NET consulting & development
miha at rthand com
www.rthand.com
Nov 15 '05 #6

P: n/a
"Sharon" <ta*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:er*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
is microsoft going to develop .Net for Unix?
or at lest CLR for Unix?


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
--
http://www.csharp-station.com
Nov 15 '05 #7

P: n/a
> There is no "Unix" just as there is no "Windows". There are versinos of
....

You lost me...
Nov 15 '05 #8

P: n/a
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.

--
William Stacey, MVP

<.> wrote in message news:ev*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Yes ask IBM for AIX and HP for HPUX, they sure are Unixes (dont go into that arguement on the plurality)
"William Stacey" <st***********@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:#K*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
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.

--
William Stacey, MVP

<.> wrote in message news:OW**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
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.

"Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu" <cp**@hower.org> wrote in message
news:Xn****************@127.0.0.1...
> <.> wrote in news:O1**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl:
> > Both however are available for Linux, (the unix emulator)
>
> 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
>



Nov 15 '05 #9

P: n/a
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]

"William Stacey" <st***********@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uk**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
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.

--
William Stacey, MVP

Nov 15 '05 #10

P: n/a
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

"Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu" <cp**@hower.org> wrote in message
news:Xn******************@127.0.0.1...
"William Stacey" <st***********@mvps.org> wrote in news:#qvy5xs4DHA.1052
@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
Ok. Who's version is the unix your talking about?
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

Nov 15 '05 #11

P: n/a
<.> wrote in message news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
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. :D


No it isn't, it is a copylefted Unix variant.
Nov 15 '05 #12

P: n/a
No it was reverse engineered, go as Linus he states that. I think he would
know :D

I like Unix but Linux is the chance to move on, its starting to get stale
and the amount of work to maintain, customse etc is just alot compared to
competing platforms thesedays and this is an important factor on the desktop
nevermind the server room.
"Wayne M J" <no*@home.nor.bigpuddle.com> wrote in message
news:Ot**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
<.> wrote in message news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
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. :D


No it isn't, it is a copylefted Unix variant.

Nov 15 '05 #13

P: n/a
:-) Fellow AT&T System V guy? I remember going to Dayton, Ohio in the Labs
for two weeks for classes. That was fun. I don't really remember the os
that much. I remember having fits with LifeKeeper, however :-)

--
William Stacey, MVP

"Nick Malik" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:meJQb.117418$nt4.483357@attbi_s51...
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

"Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu" <cp**@hower.org> wrote in message
news:Xn******************@127.0.0.1...
"William Stacey" <st***********@mvps.org> wrote in news:#qvy5xs4DHA.1052
@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
Ok. Who's version is the unix your talking about?


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


Nov 15 '05 #14

P: n/a
"Nick Malik" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in
news:meJQb.117418$nt4.483357@attbi_s51:
To say that BSD is not Unix is foolish. It shows your poor
understanding of Unix.


Where did I say BSD was not Unix? I said it was a variant / flavor of Unix.

Its all interwined with no real fine lines.
--
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

Nov 15 '05 #15

P: n/a
oh my god i'v created a monster.
let me revise:
is it microsofts intention to make MSIL runtime host (CLR) available
for a number of platforms other than windows?
just like VM is available for windows.
"Sharon" <ta*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:er*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
is microsoft going to develop .Net for Unix?
or at lest CLR for Unix?
10x

Nov 15 '05 #16

P: n/a
The CLI specification is out there, does Microsoft make a C runtime for
Linux? no. I would presume its up to 3rd parties, hence rotor was released.
Everybody has the ECMA specs.

"Sharon" <ta*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#P**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
oh my god i'v created a monster.
let me revise:
is it microsofts intention to make MSIL runtime host (CLR) available
for a number of platforms other than windows?
just like VM is available for windows.
"Sharon" <ta*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:er*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
is microsoft going to develop .Net for Unix?
or at lest CLR for Unix?
10x


Nov 15 '05 #17

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:28:31 -0500, William Stacey wrote:
There is no "Unix" just as there is no "Windows". There are versinos of

...

You lost me...


I'm not sure if I completely with Kudzu but here's the way I understand the
situation.

Unix is a trademark owned by the Open Group "http://www.opengroup.org/").
The trademark Unix can only be legally used by operating systems that they
certify as being a Unix system. There are only a few select operating
systems that have this certification. These include AIX and Sun Soloris.
There is also confusion because people may often speak of Unix-like
operating systems which are designed to have the same look and feel as
Unix.

In fact, as I recall, there was a lawsuit recently between Apple and the
Open Group where the Open Group claimed that Apple was misusing the
trademark. Apple's counter-suing claiming that the term Unix has become so
generic that the trademark is now invalid. Such things have happened
before with words such as aspirin, escalator, and thermos.

--
J. Peter Mugaas - Chairperson, Distribution Team, Indy Pit Crew
Internet Direct (Indy) Website - http://www.nevrona.com/Indy
Personal Home Page - http://www.wvnet.edu/~oma00215
If I want to do business with you, I will contact you. Otherwise, do not
contact me.
Nov 15 '05 #18

P: n/a
Thanks for the info.

--
William Stacey, MVP

"J. Peter Mugaas" <om******@mail.wvnet.edu> wrote in message
news:yy****************************@40tude.net...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:28:31 -0500, William Stacey wrote:
There is no "Unix" just as there is no "Windows". There are versinos of ...

You lost me...


I'm not sure if I completely with Kudzu but here's the way I understand

the situation.

Unix is a trademark owned by the Open Group "http://www.opengroup.org/").
The trademark Unix can only be legally used by operating systems that they
certify as being a Unix system. There are only a few select operating
systems that have this certification. These include AIX and Sun Soloris.
There is also confusion because people may often speak of Unix-like
operating systems which are designed to have the same look and feel as
Unix.

In fact, as I recall, there was a lawsuit recently between Apple and the
Open Group where the Open Group claimed that Apple was misusing the
trademark. Apple's counter-suing claiming that the term Unix has become so generic that the trademark is now invalid. Such things have happened
before with words such as aspirin, escalator, and thermos.

--
J. Peter Mugaas - Chairperson, Distribution Team, Indy Pit Crew
Internet Direct (Indy) Website - http://www.nevrona.com/Indy
Personal Home Page - http://www.wvnet.edu/~oma00215
If I want to do business with you, I will contact you. Otherwise, do not
contact me.

Nov 15 '05 #19

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.