Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Oct 2008 10:37 UTC, submitted by John Mills
Thread beginning with comment 332645
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-07
Personally I think the Mono applications are much better than the counterparts you named. The article you link to is bunk and the author of it clearly doesn't understand what Mono is, claiming that developing applications for Mono is supporting Microsoft. Mono DOESN'T depend on Microsoft technology. The only common dependecy that both Microsoft and Mono rely on is the language and that is a standard. .NET binds to Microsoft technologies. Mono binds to GNOME technologies.
This nonsense makes about as much sense as saying "Developing in C++ supports Microsoft".