A Bare-Bones Linux+Mono+GUI Distro? 158
nimble99 writes "I am a computer software engineer, focused mainly on the Windows platform — but most of my development time is spent in .NET. I would like to move my .NET development to Linux in the form of Mono, in an attempt at building a media-center type of device. All I require, is a base operating system with simple hardware support, Mono, and a window manager that (preferably) does nothing but act as a host for mono applications. Is this available? I dont know a lot about Linux, so I thought I would ask if there is already something like this available. Obviously a 'Mono Operating System' would be the cleanest solution, but a similar thing could be achieved with the barest minimum of Linux distros right?"
Re:Monoppix? (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing it himself seems like the best bet. Certainly if he's planning to develop a commercial product based on this, it's worth figuring out a custom distro that does exactly what he wants.
Try SuSE (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I'm quite happy with Fedora, Mono packages are included, and if you need something more recent than the last Fedora version you can easily compile it yourself.
Your job is to be a software developer, not a desktop-customization weenie. So forget about spending time on making or finding a 'minimal' environment. Any modern Linux distribution won't get in your way and will let you get on with porting your apps to Mono.
Tell us more (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that exact arrangement pre-made? Probably not. Why don't you let us know what you're trying to accomplish so that we can steer you in the right direction?
I'm a KDE guy, but my first suggestion would be to install Ubuntu with the stock Gnome desktop. Just because you can run other applications doesn't mean that you have to.
yeah, it's called... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mono is not
So, basically, what you want is one of the basic Gnome or XFCE distributions, with the additional
Everybody occasionally dreams of getting rid of all the "old stuff" and just replacing it with something "modern" written entirely in the language-du-jour. But there are several reasons against that: (1) the old stuff works well enough, (2) it's not clear that you can do better, and (3) the old stuff has proven that it has staying power; C# may be gone in three years and you have to start from scratch.
I would also recommend against programming in
Re:Don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent down (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless you're recommending it as a packaged solution already installed on the box, I'd recommend you STOP pushing MythTV. It's bloody impossible for 99% of people to install and configure correctly.
That and the fancy "M$" thing pretty much tell me you're just peddling it because of extremism - not functionality, convenience or reality.
Wait until things actually work (and I mean end to end) before you go advocating their use. You'll be much more helpful to FOSS that way. Joe Public is not going to be happy when he tries your solution, and in the end he's just going to to a commercial product anyway. He doesn't care about freedom, Linux, apple pie or your hatred of "M$". He just wants to record TV shows.
Re:Don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
But more to the point, inlining a function is more than just about changing a jump into a compare. It is also about the code matching up with the caller so that registers are not shuffled around and whatnot. It's about determining that the object allocated by the caller and then passed down three levels of function calls never has a reference taken so it can be allocated on the stack.
If you think inlining means 'just avoiding a jump' then you couldn't be more wrong. But what Anders said does accurately describe CLR... it will never be able to inline effectively due to its type system ('real' generics) and bytecode (have to track types, no interpreting) and other defects conspiring to make deep inlining mostly impossible. CLR is always going to be slow at running 'safe' code because it was designed on false assumptions like 'no final == slow'.