Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Nov 2006 23:18 UTC
Permalink for comment 181095
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-24
"""They didn't do that because they thought .Net was the greatest thing since sliced bread, they wanted to clone the .Net framework and create a situation where .Net applications could be copied and run under Mono.
Certainly for Novell, 100% .Net compatiblity is the only selling point of Mono, and therein they will always be stuck trying to achieve that non-achievable goal."""
... at the expense of anyone who stands in their way.
To be fair, though, I think Miguel *does* think that .Net is the best thing since sliced bread.
And maybe it is good. But that does not mean that it is the best for OSS software.
I view Mono much as I view Samba. I'm exceedingly glad that we have it (somewhat less exceedingly in the Mono case), but wish we didn't need it, and hope that we don't depend upon it any more than absolutely necessary.
Edited 2006-11-10 20:23