Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Mar 2008 21:49 UTC
Editorial "I used KDE as my primary desktop from 1996 through 2006, when I installed the GNOME version of Ubuntu and found that I liked it better than the KDE desktop I'd faced every morning for so many years. Last January, I got a new Dell Latitude D630 laptop and decided to install Kubuntu on it, but within a few weeks, I went back to GNOME. Does this mean GNOME is now a better desktop than KDE, or just that I have become so accustomed to GNOME that it's hard for me to give it up?"
Permalink for comment 306554
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Not going to happen. That would be a remarkably stupid move. And why would they even do that?

I haven't read all of these, and I repeat my earlier caveat that this comes from a biased source, but there is a potential "follow the money" reason why Novell & hence SLED in particular would want to see a mono dependency in the Linux desktop:

Novell alone amongst the major players has a "patent covenant" from Microsoft for its Linux distribution.

Just as you can only get Windows from Microsoft, Novell would (apparently) very much like to make it so that you could only get (US legal) Linux from Novell. The major thrust for achieving this comes via the major push towards siverlight that Microsoft is undertaking at this time.

The hope is that in order to view online content, one would need siverlight (or moonlight on a Linux desktop). To get moonlight, one needs mono. Microsoft will claim mono as one of the technologies for which Microsoft owns patents (not siverlight itself, because they are trying to push THAT as a web standard and a cross-platform technology). The idea is that you will need mono on a Linux system in order to run moonlight or any of a number of programs that are written in .NET and are currently Windows-only but could be ported to Linux via mono.

This is all part of Microsoft "interoperability" push. To Microsoft, "interoperability" means other desktops using Microsoft proprietary interfaces (and paying a royalty to Microsoft), rather than Microsoft supporting open standards (such as ODF and Ogg Vorbis, etc).

... at least, that is the way that the theory and the FUD goes, anyway.

There is a logical consistency to this argument, and a strong correlation to Microsoft's tactical moves, that makes it carry more weight than just being a "lunatic rant".

Edited 2008-03-25 10:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2