Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Mar 2008 23:28 UTC, submitted by irbis
Mono Project "Does GNOME co-founder Miguel de Icaza's backflip over the Novell-Microsoft deal a few days ago mean that he has finally been convinced that he is on a one-way path to nowhere? Has he realised that his own project, Mono, is actually putting GNOME on a development track that can leave it open to patent claims one day? And has he realised that creating Moonlight, a clone of Microsoft's Silverlight, (with which the company hopes to trump Adobe's Flash) is not going to advance the cause of free software one iota?"
Thread beginning with comment 304772
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Mono is a trojan horse
by fretinator on Wed 12th Mar 2008 20:13 UTC in reply to "Mono is a trojan horse"
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

True, that Linux dude really made a mistake when he decided to make a Free implementation of that Unix stuff. He put us all at risk. He should have known that ATT, er... Novell, er... SCO, er... TigerDirect would come after us some day to get that UNIX license from us. It was all a secret plot by Linux to get us to submit to running AIX.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Mono is a trojan horse
by fretinator on Wed 12th Mar 2008 22:11 in reply to "RE: Mono is a trojan horse"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

True, that Linux dude really made a mistake when he decided to make a Free implementation of that Unix stuff. He put us all at risk. He should have known that ATT, er... Novell, er... SCO, er... TigerDirect would come after us some day to get that UNIX license from us. It was all a secret plot by Linux to get us to submit to running AIX.


Bad spelling, too late - replace Linux above with Linus.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Mono is a trojan horse
by segedunum on Thu 13th Mar 2008 01:49 in reply to "RE: Mono is a trojan horse"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

True, that Linux dude really made a mistake when he decided to make a Free implementation of that Unix stuff.


Independent implementations were developed that followed the Unix model loosely, as well is implementing a genuinely open standard such as Posix. GNU stands for GNU is Not Unix, remember. Implementing a set of standards that are licensed for an unspecified amount of time under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, and where you're following these standards, is a bit of a different ball game and it's simply not one worth playing.

As a comparison, you could create a runtime environment inspired by the CLR, but which doesn't follow the ECMA core, and create APIs that look vaguely like the .Net framework but which don't map to it one-to-one, and you'd be in the clear - and Microsoft's own patent text would confirm it for you!

Reply Parent Score: 2