[Mono-list] MonoDevelop 0.7

Carl Olsen carl at carl-olsen.com
Sun May 22 16:49:44 EDT 2005

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: mono-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com
[mailto:mono-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of peter
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 3:16 PM
To: mono-list at lists.ximian.com
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
>to be working, so I'll consider myself fortunate that this is the only
>I've lost.  Whoever posted the instructions for upgrading to Mono 1.1.7
>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
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.



Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list at lists.ximian.com

More information about the Mono-list mailing list