Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Sep 2007 18:40 UTC
Gnome Ars has reviewed GNOME 2.20. "GNOME 2.20 was officially released last week after six months of development. The new version includes strong incremental improvements that contribute to a better user experience and provide more flexibility and integration opportunities for third-party software developers."
Thread beginning with comment 274553
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Mono required
by BluenoseJake on Wed 26th Sep 2007 10:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mono required"
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

"no one is denying that (except you)"

Actually, I wasn't really denying that the patents exist, I just wasn't very clear. I guess the problem I have is the word "encumbered" as I also believe that the deal with Novell protects Mono and Linux users from any legal problems with MS. So I guess I look at it as a non issue. So while there is patents on .NET technology, I think were all safe in this case.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Mono required
by elsewhere on Wed 26th Sep 2007 19:27 in reply to "RE[4]: Mono required"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

"no one is denying that (except you)"

I guess the problem I have is the word "encumbered" as I also believe that the deal with Novell protects Mono and Linux users from any legal problems with MS. So I guess I look at it as a non issue. So while there is patents on .NET technology, I think were all safe in this case.


Actually, to clarify, the patent covenant between MS and Novell explicitly excludes applications and technologies that are "cloned" to duplicate existing Microsoft products. So OpenOffice and Wine, for instance, are excluded from the covenant, and that would likely also exclude the non-ECMA .Net stuff, which exists only to clone the Windows application environment.

Having said that, I don't see why people feel that the non-ECMA stuff is any more at risk of patent threats from MS than any of the other various components that Ballmer has mumbled incoherent threats against. OIN and Novell's own patent portfolio are more of a threat to MS than MS is to the community.

I agree with the sentiment that chasing an MS controlled standard is foolhardy at best, and they should just chart mono to be it's own framework. And I think some of the details behind the linux implementation of Silverlight in mono, particularly Microsoft's intent to control the way the community is permitted to use it, should give people the willies, at least until we know more and see how it fleshes out. But personally I think the risk of patent encumberrance is overstated relative to everything else.

I dislike mono simply because it sucked enough resources to dim the lights in my neighbourhood every time beagle or zmd fired up, so I'm hardly endorsing it, but I think if people are opposed the opposition should at least be on technical or practical merit.

edit:typo

Edited 2007-09-26 19:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4