Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Jan 2009 10:54 UTC, submitted by Hiev
Thread beginning with comment 343080
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.
RE[4]: Comment by satan666
by adkilla on Mon 12th Jan 2009 05:38
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by satan666"
RE[5]: Comment by satan666
by t3RRa on Mon 12th Jan 2009 09:38
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by satan666"
Mono is just an implementation of .NET created by <Microsoft> which is developed on <Windows>. And therefore it is quite sensible that Microsoft implemented classes to access registry to make .NET to cooperate with its native applications. So to make Mono compatible with .NET as much as possible, they better implement anything that Microsoft implemented. There is no big deal. I don't really get what is the problem with you. So do you want a crippled implementation which wouldn't work near 100% because you don't like some part of it? Then why not just fork Mono, remove unwanted stuff from it and use it in your own sake? Not everyone thinks the same way as you do. Please..





Member since:
2005-11-29
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080228880
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HIT...
Still laughing?
-Ad
None of which are required for the .NET Framework to run. It is perfectly fine for other operating systems to implement their own equivalent of those libraries.
A language and framework being cross platform does not inherently mean that everything written for that language and framework is platform independent.
Just like I do not expect every application I compile with GCC to be write-once, run-anywhere, I do not expect this with 100% of .NET Applications.
Are you done spreading FUD?