Linked by Andrew Youll on Fri 15th Jul 2005 17:11 UTC, submitted by Claus Schwarm
Permalink for comment 5069
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 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
> If I remember right MS wasn't the only one ho had some input on the 2.0 version of tha standard and I think even the Mono project had some say, but don't quote me on that. Other then that I find it funy that Mono isn't having as bad a time geting to their 2.0 version then Microsoft is having.
Weren't you the one that said that Mono is not blindly following MS? So MS releases 2.0 and Mono sprints after. No community to discuss this, no thinking "how could _we_ do it best for our platform", no, there's a new MS standard, panic, quick, start porting. Open Source at its best.