Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Mar 2009 18:43 UTC, submitted by elsewhere
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Any discussion about GNOME vs. KDE is sure to end in tears. It's basically impossible to discuss which of these two Free desktop environments is better than the other, mostly because they cater to different types of people, with different needs and expectatotions. As such, Bruce Byfield decided to look at the two platforms from a different perspective: if we consider their developmental processes, which of the two is most likely to be more successful in the coming years?
Permalink for comment 356204
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: There is no argument
by segedunum on Wed 1st Apr 2009 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: There is no argument"
Member since:

This is entirely incorrect. You don't need a .NET environment to run Mono. I think you are confusing terminologies.

Hmmmmm, no. I'm not. You need at least part of the .Net environment in order to get Mono running or to use any of those class libraries you say are all so neatly independent.

Mono is an implementation of the C# language/CLR with TOTALLY DIFFERENT class libraries other than the few bits that have been standardized.

No. Like I said, stop trying to separate class libraries and things that you believe to have been 'standardised'. Whether you add your own class libraries and namespaces to an implementation of the .Net environment really doesn't matter.

You also don't seem to realise that the ECMA specifications specify very little that you will need to get a CLR actually running, with the classes that you need - rather like Rotor. Rotor was absolutely useless for running any practical applications with the framework. Mono has had to reverse engineer a reasonable amount to get to where it is.

Yes Mono also ships .NET compatible libraries but this isn't the basis for any GNOME applications.

The .Net compatible libraries aren't at issue. They are libraries with names and no more.

Why single out Mono then? Javascript is an ECMA standard.

Because JavaScript is not a submission that is the work of only one company, it has umpteen implementations proven and running on umpteen platforms and ECMAScript is also an ISO standard.

You're tying to pretend this is about ECMA standards when it's really about your hatred of Microsoft. Why else single out Mono?

Ahhhhhh. Someone give him a hug. When you're in a tight corner then tell everyone that it's because they hate Microsoft. Listen to yourself.

On a mailing list some time back someone brought this up and the Mono guys sheepsihly stated they had a letter from Microsoft and HP that the RAND licensing would not be revoked. Needless to say, it never materialised. That is what I'm talking about.

The ECMA is pretty much worthless as a standardising body because what I've described is exactly what it allows. It allows RAND licensing for the duration that it is an ECMA standard. ECMAScript being an ECMA specification would be worthless if it wasn't submitted by an independent body and it hadn't also become an ISO standard.

Do you even know what .NET consists of?

.Net is a generic term so asking what it consists of is pointless, but if you're using a CLR then you are using the most important part of it.

If your worry is that Microsoft will call out patent claims then you might as well hide under a rock because anyone can get hit with software patent claims at any time, it isn't a Mono specific threat.

Ahhhhh, and here we have the standard, generic response - tell everyone that this isn't a Microsoft-specific thing.

As I've said, I'm afraid that Microsoft cover you by stating that it applies if you are running within an ECMA compatible CLR. If you were to create the same kind of code or innovation running in a JVM for example, you're OK. Their claims actually state that.

What Microsoft is doing is a very clear "You can do whatever you like, but keep off our turf" message, but you just do not want to see it do you?

Reply Parent Score: 4