Is dreamhost supports asp.net or not??

Is dreamhost supports asp.net or not.....??
or whether it requires some extra payment for asp or asp.net services....
If not then please tell me some other asp.net server(may be partner of dreamhost)
please tell me it's urgent......
Edited by priteshgupta06 on 12/14/07 11:12 AM (server time).

No. DreamHost is a Linux based web host (Debian) and does not offer asp or asp.net services.

--rlparker

There is no support for ASP, a Microsoft proprietary technology, on the DreamHost system. You will need IIS-based hosting for that, although there are a handful of hosts that implement ports such as Apache::ASP.

-- si-blog --

Just a handful? I believe the technical term is "sh*tpot"

The important thing to know is ANYONE that supports ASP will totally let you know on EVERY PAGE they display - in fact, it's probably in every URL their site sends you trying to get you to sign up.

Once again, a simple search would answer your questions. Look into this google thing (www.google.com) and you'll stop annoying others. It may even make you look smart.
Wholly - Use promo code WhollyMindless for discount.Edited by wholly on 12/14/07 08:17 PM (server time).

Yes, you can googling.

But I list 2 that I know (hope that it is not regarded as spam) :
1and1.com
netfirms.com

TTL

What about discountasp.net?

BTW, I want all my friends to ignore the fact that I am forced to read Visual Studio Magazine and program in .NET at work. :)

I am moving to a new development group and will either be helping with one of our java applications. I also might actually get to start our corporate support of Open Source!

Hey, if DH can't help him there's nothing wrong with finding someone that can help.

Although there is something wrong with being a .NET programmer. There's a special place in hell for them.

Wholly - Use promo code WhollyMindless for discount.Edited by wholly on 12/15/07 02:12 PM (server time).

In reply to:
Although there is something wrong with being a .NET programmer. There's a special place in hell for them.

Yes, but ironically, it's where they already are...

Though funny, it's actually not really true. It's actually an amazingly powerful and easy to use environment. I can't speak for the web server parts of it, but as far as coding up web services, .NET 3.0 and WCF are fine.

I can't speak for ASP.NET and such, because we (at work) certainly aren't touching that with a 10 foot pole.

Damn, do you work across the cube from me? We've just come to those same realizations.

(So yes, I've been actually paid to .NET and not touch ASP)

Wholly - Use promo code WhollyMindless for discount.

<minor rant>For anyone who didn't simply respond to the question, I wish people would get off their religious pedestals for questions like this. I don't give a rats arse about Ruby or some of the other languages/stacks that people talk about here but I don't criticize someone's choice of technology.</rant>

This question comes up in this forum a few times per year. I'd put up a survey to see how many people would want to see Mono here, but I'm sure it would be tainted with a ton of religious idiots focused on denigrating technology rather than actually voting on whether adding another one here would be worthwhile. There's also the paradox that the only people who would know about this survey and vote for Mono are people already hosted here - people who found DH doesn't support Mono generally aren't hosting here and can't cast a vote. All that said, it would be nice if DH could find an effective way to get some sense of whether existing customers and occasional prospects would use Mono if it were available here.

As a .NET developer (it's just one tool in a kit with many others) I've been hoping to find some time to put Mono on my account here and run C# code. Rather than trying to get DH to run mod_mono I was thinking about having Perl or PHP script call to my .NET code and pass the response up the line - this way there are no persistent processes, but of course it's not very efficient either.

It would be nice to know if anyone with their own DH Private Server is running Mono with or without ASP.NET (Mono of course). I don't have a good reason to spend $15/month to get a DHPS just for this but it certainly adds to the number of reasons why I might get DHPS.

In the absence of DH itself supporting ASP.NET (obviously only the Mono implementation, not Microsoft's) it might be worth it to consider using DH to accept HTTP calls and then pass the request transparently to another server that uses .NET to generate responses. I'm not sure how to do this elegantly but if I could serve .NET pages from my office through queries to DH I would be real happy. That might involve some scripting for a web service call, or maybe .htaccess redirection which I haven't used for this purpose yet.

Productive suggestions on any of this are welcome.

It's a great idea - but not one ever likely to happen. I personally dislike .NET a great deal as it relies on a Microsoft backend - namely: Windows. You *can* get .NET apps to work in *Nix environments with special modules that others have built, but they are not only NOT supported by Microsoft (for obvious reasons) but have been known to create bugs that don't exist in .NET's native environment (Windows).

Hence a major issue and probably the biggest reason DH has yet supported .NET apps - the reliance on a Windows-based Server. That said however, you COULD always setup a PS and build support for Mono/.NET yourself and hope it works out - from what I understand most applications work perfectly fine. You're idea of using Perl or a PHP script to call the .NET code and "pass the response up the line" is beyond me and doesn't really sound like an option for others. Most people just want things to "work" out-of-the-box, not jump through hoops to get there (which is also your argument for having Mono/.NET support I understand). Switching to a host that uses windows-based servers and provides full support for .NET apps would really be your best bet.

Starbuck -

That sure didn't seem like a minor rant. I understand your point of asking people to keep their "religious" opinions out of the comments. I fear that you assumed it was "religious" rather than based in frustration.

BUT, you have to accept that the shared servers are so tightly managed that mono would likely fail to support ANY number of users. Just uploading 400 meg of images was more than my gallery install could take. Simple size conversions were being killed by the process killer. Going to a "private" would probably help that as cpu/memory isn't a failing cap (causing processes to be killed).

Don't think that our admittedly harsh responses were because we "look down" on ASP or .net. It is because there is sufficient information on the main dreamhost pages, forums and wiki to have answered the question for himself. I also understand that there might have been a language gap involved. I GUARANTEE that the default 7 day search history on this forum contributes mightily to the number of questions that get repeated. On a 7 day search, you're not going to find much at all.

Both Java and .net have similar business problems, that they are both managed/owned/controlled by groups that just might not have my best interest at heart. I fear for the mono group, that it's going to get just a little bit too good for MS to allow it to continue.

P.S. Reading back through this thread, everyone but me seemed to be nice. I apologize for coming off hard, I really was simply frustrated by a question that is very easily "self answerable" being forced on all of us. None of us are employees, none of us get paid. These forums would be much less useful without us, so we do bring value that way.

Wholly - Use promo code WhollyMindless for discount.Edited by wholly on 12/23/07 01:49 PM (server time).

In reply to:
I wish people would get off their religious pedestals for questions like this.

"Religious pedestals" of all types, and in most instances, are likely to irritate and/or alienate someone whenever they are encountered.

I agree with you that there is no point to going to "Holy War" with anyone over their choice of technology , but I understand why some who have been involved for years in the development of the web are suspicious of *any and everything* that has Micro$*ft's name on it as it applies to the WWW.

Years of dealing with the "eccentricities" of IE, the "improved but still 'borken' " browser that is IE7, and even the recent activities of Micro$*ft in attempting to make MS-OOXML a "standard" have left some feeling "less than enthusiastic" about embracing any technology that is, or appears to be, driven by Micro$*ft.

Linux hosts have been able to "run" asp stuff for years (chilisoft, etc) if they wanted to, and there is Mono for playing in the .NET world, but make no mistake that the "asp and .NET worlds are belong to Micro$oft."

The nice thingis that there is no shortage of hosting available for those that want to work and play in these "Micro$*ft worlds", so there is plenty of "choice" available.

In reply to:
In the absence of DH itself supporting ASP.NET (obviously only the Mono implementation, not Microsoft's) it might be worth it to consider using DH to accept HTTP calls and then pass the request transparently to another server that uses .NET to generate responses. ... Productive suggestions on any of this are welcome.

While there may, or may not, be any real value in doing that, it seems to me that it would be a kludge, at best, that I would rather avoid altogether if I wanted to use that technology; just using an ASP.NET friendly host seems to be a much better solution.

I don't believe that DreamHost should even try to be "all things to all people", and I rather enjoy having DreamHost as a "clean well-lighted place" that focuses their time and attention of maximizing the utility of "open" platforms.

The best, and most accurate, answer to questions about ASP and .NET on DreamHost, in my opinion, is a simple,"Nope, not here!" but there is no reason that answer can't be delivered in a non-antagonistic manner (and maybe even with a smile and or a wink). smile

--rlparker

I do have to apologize. I was too harsh.

Wholly - Use promo code WhollyMindless for discount.

In reply to:
I do have to apologize. I was too harsh.

You *do* realize that I was *not* taking you to task with my last post, right?

I was just sharing my thoughts on that matter (not that anyone asked!) smile

--rlparker

I know that. I just figured that I came across too hot headed and opinionated - but the funny thing about it is that I wasn't intending to be technically "superior" with the post.

Wholly - Use promo code WhollyMindless for discount.

Don't water down your message, though! Being nice is one thing, but I'd hate to see you fail to express your opinion about technologies that should or should not be supported here at Dreamhost.

I do agree that we should be nice to each other - well, maybe not *everyone*, but certainly the civil ones. Even the misguided ones... (JUST KIDDING, JUST KIDDING!)

Guys please don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those zealots on the other side of the fence who's going to bark every time someone says M$ sux. When they do they do. You guys weren't even swinging fists, I inderstand that. My beef here is that people are expressing prejudice about something they don't know much about. If DH doesn't support Mono, let it be for the right reasons. (Please forgive a little repetition here, I'm kinda tired.)

The .NET Framework is an implementation of a published spec. Yes, Microsoft wrote the spec. That doesn't matter, what's important is that they adhere to it closely. The guys who write Mono are coding to spec. Mono agrees with the Microsoft implementation where possible, and Mono does work well over Linux, Windows, Mac OSX, and other platforms. The point regarding DH is that this is just another stack like J2EE, LAMP, or RAILS. If you try it and you don't like it, that's your business. We can say the same about any other stack, technology, language, protocol, or application. Regardless of who wrote the original spec, Mono works, and like WordPress or other packages, there are people who might want to run it here.

Mono is not written by Microsoft. Microsoft does not maintain or support Mono. Mono is FLOSS. How is this any different from anything else we run on these servers? The thing I take exception to here is the broken logic: Microsoft wrote the spec, Microsoft sux, therefore the spec sux, therefore any implementation sux, therefore it shouldn't be hosted at DH. I sort of don't care if Mono is hosted here but if it's not I don't think it should be based on that kind of thinking. Regardless of whether you believe the spec or implementation is crap, why does your opinion of some package that you've never used and your not going to use have bearing on it being available for someone else who does want to use it?

I understand that some people think (right or wrong) that Mono is still M$ technology whether it's got their name on it or not. Personally I disagree but consider that for our purposes it doesn't matter who "owns" it. Mono is a completely independent FLOSS project that's been embraced by Novell (translate that to SUSE Linux). With the coming or Flex, Silverlight, XAML, and these related cross-platform RIA browser/client technologies, Microsoft is highly motivated to ensure the .NET Framework can run in a small virtual machine on any target OS. In short, Silverlight is just like a Java applet. While Mono is independent, Microsoft and Novell have partnered to ensure cross-platform functionality. In the past it was a clear line between Windows and *nix, Microsoft and "everyone else" but that line is starting to blur. I think from a business perspective, DH should consider support for Mono because with the coming of Silverlight there will be new developers looking for hosts that support it - and they aren't any more eager to host over expensive Windows systems than the rest of us here.

So, now that I've made a blithering idiot of myself I'll encourage DH to give this fair consideration from a business perspective, passions aside. Specifically, that includes support for mod_mono, and support for just the runtime aspects of Mono - people can compile their code elsewhere.

Thanks for your time.

In reply to:
Starbuck wrote:

In reply to:

Your fundamental premise is wrong. DH can easily support Mono which is just another FLOSS stack (yes... "open"), and ASP.NET can run via Mono with no Microsoft or Windows involved.

And I've already stated the inherent flaw in doing so - ASP.Net and Mono support for the Apache web server is not officially supported by Microsoft's ASP.Net code and has proven to cause bugs which, when run from an IIS web server, do not exist.
Now granted those are small issues and very uncommon - I personally see no reason why DH couldn't at least try it out. Is there even a suggestion for it in the Suggestion box? I haven't checked, but it might be worth voting on if it's there (or create one if not). Wouldn't be using it personally any time too soon, but it could prove useful in the future.

Starbuck,

Well, I clearly wasn't communicating well what I was trying to say, wink .

I wouldn't consider DreamHost's supporting the Mono implementation as a "kludge" at all; I was talking about your proposed scenario where you suggest "using DH to accept HTTP calls and then pass the request transparently to another server that uses .NET to generate responses". To my thinking, *that* would be a kludge, and that was what I was referring to with my statement that "just using an ASP.NET friendly host seems to be a much better solution".

I don't think you are "picking at nits" here, but I think you misunderstood what I was saying I thought to be a "kludge" (and that is probably because of the way I wrote it - mea culpa).

In reply to:
we have subversion and jabber and webdav and frontpage, and don't forget a bunch of one-click Goodies... and that's not trying to be "all things to all people"?

I'm not at all against DreamHost providing a variety of utility and access to diverse technologies, or "Web Services", and I see nothing wrong with being "many things to many people", but I think there is a point where where it is okay to just say , "Sorry, we don't support that one!".

Your examples of "subversion, jabber, WebDAV, and frontpage" link three "open" technologies with a single "closed" one. I find it relevant to note that, today, the three "open" technologies are not only usable but are likely to continue to provide increased functionality as they mature, while the single "closed" technology (frontpage) works only problematically and will never improve (has been abandoned by it's mother and, being "closed" can't really be "adopted"). wink

In reply to:
the OP didn't ask for Microsoft, he asked for ASP.NET. You guys said Microsoft and then said fergeddaboudit because ASP.NET is irrevocably linked to Microsoft and Windows. Your fundamental premise is wrong. DH can easily support Mono which is just another FLOSS stack (yes... "open"), and ASP.NET can run via Mono with no Microsoft or Windows involved.

I don't believe my fundamental premise was wrong. I believe that ASP.NET *is* "irrevocably linked to Micro$*ft", and that it will remain so as long as Micro$*ft, controls the specification.

This doesn't change because a FOSS project exists to provide interoperability. I view that in much the same way the having Open Office being able to read and write Micro$*ft file formats. Given the choice, I'd still prefer to avoid the formats altogether rather than rely upon the FOSS project to continually struggle to provide me with access to vendor A's or Vendor B/s "format d'jour". The Mono project may be open, but I still maintain the Micro$oft controls the destiny of ASP.NET, and I'm not interested in investing myself in that and waiting for the inevitable "gotcha" that I feel will come at some point. I realize that YMMV. wink

All that said, I don't see DreamHost supporting Mono as being a "bad thing", just an unnecessary thing, as there are so many "full on" ASP.NET hosts about that would not be limited to the MONO implementation only. It seems to me that is where I would want be if I were using ASP.NET

I don't know about whether or not you could implement Mono on a DH PS server, or any of the particulars of rules regarding providing services.

--rlparker
(off in search of my usual common sense)

In reply to:
The .NET Framework is an implementation of a published spec. Yes, Microsoft wrote the spec. That doesn't matter, what's important is that they adhere to it closely.

Today, that may be true, but that is no gurantee that it will remain so. Micro$oft not only "wrote the spec", but can change it as they see fit, at any time. To those who have followed MS Word document file formats' history, the lesson in this should be obvious. wink

In reply to:
Mono is not written by Microsoft. Microsoft does not maintain or support Mono. Mono is FLOSS. How is this any different from anything else we run on these servers? The thing I take exception to here is the broken logic: Microsoft wrote the spec, Microsoft sux, therefore the spec sux

I know that MONO is not written by Micr$oft.

I think it is different that "anything else we run on these servers" in that nothing else *I* am aware of is completely dependent upon a proprietary specification that can be changed at the whim of a single company. I think you "took exception" to "broken logic" that you didn't understand.

My thoughts run more like this: Micro$*ft controls the specification, irrespective of whether Micr$*ft sucketh or not, or whether the spec sucketh or not, why invest resources in supporting a specification controlled by a single commercial entity with a history of anti-competitive practices and poor standards compliance.

In reply to:
Mono is a completely independent FLOSS project that's been embraced by Novell (translate that to SUSE Linux).... While Mono is independent, Microsoft and Novell have partnered to ensure cross-platform functionality.

Of course Mono is FLOSS project. That said, you are not likely engender feelings of comfort or trust by reminding folks of the whole patents issue and how Novell "partnered" with Micro$*ft in regards to SUSE Linux. wink

In reply to:
In the past it was a clear line between Windows and *nix, Microsoft and "everyone else" but that line is starting to blur.

I don't see that line blurring at all, in spite of Micro$*ft's attempts to "play in both camps"

In reply to:
I think from a business perspective, DH should consider support for Mono because with the coming of Silverlight there will be new developers looking for hosts that support it - and they aren't any more eager to host over expensive Windows systems than the rest of us here.

I'm sure that, as is often the case, users of Micro$*ft technologies would like to avoid as much of the Micro$*ft "tax" as possible, but I'd far rather see mod_perl installed and available on DreamHost than I would mod_mono (though I would enjoy playing with Mono!) wink

--rlparker

In reply to:
I wouldn't consider DreamHost's supporting the Mono implementation as a "kludge" at all; I was talking about your proposed scenario where you suggest "using DH to accept HTTP calls and then pass the request transparently to another server that uses .NET to generate responses". To my thinking, *that* would be a kludge, and that was what I was referring to with my statement that "just using an ASP.NET friendly host seems to be a much better solution".

I don't think of this kind of proxying as a kludge. It's common - and in fact is standard for all the Tomcat/java configurations I'm familiar with. Partially this is so that different parts of your site can be served using different technology - one of my apps had one section that was perl and the other Tomcat/java/jsp. Partially this is to be able to run all the Apache plugins one "needs" to run in order to do the things you need to do - basic auth, mod_ssl, etc.

The new proxy funtion in DreamhostPS works this way.

The main problem I see with Mono at Dreamhost is that it would have to be supported, which means that it would actually have to work reliably for most people without too much support. Perhaps after a few years with people trying it out under their DreamhostPS accounts it might be more of a possibility.

In reply to:
I don't think of this kind of proxying as a kludge. It's common - and in fact is standard for all the Tomcat/java configurations I'm familiar with. ... The new proxy funtion in DreamhostPS works this way.

I see your point, and you are correct about it being used in the ways you have described; I shouldn't have referred to that process that way.

Still, wouldn't it be preferable to just use an ASP.NET host or to actually run MONO? wink

--rlparker

In reply to:
Still, wouldn't it be preferable to just use an ASP.NET host or to actually run MONO?

Yes, though I think the idea is to run Mono with mod_mono or mod_proxy to get the requests through to Mono running ASP.NET.

I think the "real" problem with the idea is that I think all current implementations have a persistent Mono/asp.net server rather than a server that starts up for every request. I think you *can* configure mod_mono to only let the Mono server run for a certain amount of time and then be killed, then figure out how to start up a new server when appropriate.

I think you are on the right track in thinking about what's the most appropriate use of these technologies. I think both Java and .NET are (persistent) enterprise web server technologies - they were not designed to be non-persistent web scripting languages. [Note: there are other non-web uses for Java and .NET that I don't mean to address in my statements]

Thank you kindly for your patient, well considered, and as-usual cordial responses. I'm not trying to be controversial here, just presenting another view (and maybe do a little educating), and I think you guys "get" that - so thanks.

I think there are some concepts that a couple of you are not understanding about the Mono/ASP.NET thing. Just because someone uses .NET doesn't mean they're enamored with Microsoft, any more than a Java developer has some special affinity for Sun. The fact that the framework is available for Linux means those of us who appreciate Linux and OSS can now use our framework of choice over our OS of choice. I have no desire to run a website over Windows - that's why I'm here at DH. But I also don't want to have to use PHP, Perl, Python, or Ruby to code my websites. I have over 20 languages under my belt and I just don't find these options to my liking for day to day development. YMMV of course. I think a lot of people have gravitated to these languages for web development because that's all that has been available for server-side development. It's not that these languages were particularly good, leading to their adoption, it's that they simply were "not Microsoft" and completely free, so they were adopted at shared hosts, and it became the defacto standard for people to learn the languages in order to do their web development. Really, could it be at all possible that absolutely everything that comes from Microsoft is unworthy of use at a shared host? Aren't people voting against the company regardless of their technologies? Personally, I don't mind most of the LAMP stack, I just prefer to not use the P part. I think .NET is a good stack and would like to get more use of it over Linux. The fact that it's not even provided by Microsoft is a bonus.

Why do I feel that way? I think .NET is an excellent solution to a lot of problems, regardless of the OS. There are versioned assemblies which can prevent versioning issues in deployment, the various libraries of the framework are neatly structured, well integrated, feature-rich and complete for most development needs, and fairly well documented. .NET includes many technologies and languages. ASP.NET happens to be one of them. One of the primary purposes of ASP.NET is serve as a middle-tier between developer code and the web server, to generate pages dynamically with less coding effort on the part of the developer. The Mono implementation of ASP.NET is completely independent of IIS. I don't want to run IIS either, I like Apache, so again, now I can write code the way I want, and get the features/benefit I want without having to use an undesirable web server.

Coming back to languages, it's not that ".NET" is the goal for me. I like to develop with powerful OOP languages. I could be using Java and the JEE framework which is similar to .NET, but I prefer not to for reasons that are unimportant here. Mono gives me the opportunity to write code with C#, VB, and other languages because they all compile down to the same runtime code.

We're talking about freedom to choose here. This has nothing to do with Microsoft or their business practices or future directions. I want to write feature-rich websites and I don't like to be restricted to the capabilities of the P languages. When people suggest that Microsoft will somehow break Mono, you're talking about two completely separate entities who are dealing with different code sets. Microsoft can't break Mono any more than someone can break-in and mess up Perl or PHP. Speaking of someone messing things up, just consider the fiasco with Perl v5 and 6, both complete re-writes of a very popular language, and the related issues have caused former Perl people to seek alternatives. Who knows what will happen to Mono any more than anything else we use today. Most technologies seem to have a shelf-life of only a couple years, if they're lucky enough to get that far. For now, Mono has excellent worldwide developers, a good roadmap, proven track record, it's OSS, and it has corporate sponsorship - it has all of the hallmarks of a successful package that anyone here would welcome - except the popular and misguided perception is that it's quality is influenced by Microsoft. There is also a lot of potential to port code from M$ shops to non-M$ shops (which I'm trying to help foster here) - and that is a feature that DH and other shared Linux hosts can't get by adopting other packages.

So I see Mono as being a good option for development today, and again with the coming of Silverlight and the RIA explosion in general, I think shared hosts should really consider whatever technologies can be used over the next couple years - with personal passions aside.

Thanks again.

As you've noticed, I'm not running any anti-Microsoft arguments, just some practical technological ones for Dreamhost shared hosting. I hadn't noticed any response to my observations but I'd appreciate them!

BTW, I do think you should look at Ruby on Rails. It's not Java and it does have a good reputation for being even easier to use than Java. It's also designed to be lightweight enough to run comfortably under the shared hosting configuration here at Dreamhost.

That was a great post, and makes some excellent points! Thanks for taking the time to write it up, and for sharing with us! smile

--rlparker

Starbuck - Thanks for sticking with us to make sure we really understand your points. You could have given up by now and just dismissed us.

I agree that having a choice is a good thing. But business wise Mono's got some serious troubles.

1. Keeping up with MS. Between 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 and beyond, Mono just can't keep up - but we don't need all of these.

2. MS has not published everything in these frameworks. MS can (and might) cut off Mono at any time.

Personally I'm not excited about having MS hold that much power over me. (Remember Steve Ballmer? He doesn't seem like the kinda guy you want to give sharp things to).

I do understand that these are opinions and not technical issues.

Wholly - Use promo code WhollyMindless for discount.

Wholly, if you haven't, you should really take a look at the history and current status of the Mono project and the steps that Microsoft has taken in submitting parts of their work to ECMA for creating and maintaining the language and environment standards for C#, C++/CLI, and the CLR.

Use promo code 50DISK50 for 50% extra disk and $50 off
More Dreamhost coupons

Agreed. Wholly, I've mentioned a couple times the Silverlight connection. In essence, Silverlight is .NET code running in the browser client, like the JVM for applets or Lingo/Flash5 for Shockwave. Microsoft can easily do this for IE but they need Mono to get Silverlight into Linux and Mac browsers. It seems to me that they are highly motivated to ensure this is done properly. While I'm already "sold" on the .NET model, Microsoft is trying to reach a wider audience of developers and end-users, and Silverlight is their vehicle which competes with Flash and Flex to do this. For this reason I don't see them messing up in the standards department.

I wrote a long blog entry on exactly the point you've mentioned about Mono never being able to keep up with Microsoft. (LOL, I need to see if I posted that). I agree that this creates an imbalance when writing code. However, I wrote that when Mono was at v1.1 trying to catch up to 2.0, and now that Microsoft is at v3.5, Mono is (pretty much) at 2.0 working up to 3. The point here is that they're behind the curve, no doubt, but few of us absolutely need the most bleeding edge syntax, so I have no problem keeping my code at the levels supported by Mono - as long as they aren't behind too many releases, at which point the flag goes up and I start reconsidering.

We have the same platform issues with Perl and ActiveState, or with any other OSS project where support for kernel x and gcc y isn't supported over chip z - and of course none of it works with browser a, b, or c. :) This stuff works itself out over time. We can't look at the long-term shelf-life of these products to determine how we're going to act now, or we'll always be in a state of "wait n see". From the business perspective, the sooner DH can support Mono the sooner they/we can advertise them as being one of the few shared hosts that do support it - that will bring new business, new financing, and that helps all of us in the long-term. If Mono or Novell or Microsoft flake out, those of us who adopted it will move on to something else - that's the way it always works.

Really appreciative of your patience here guys.

Is dreamhost supports asp.net or not??