Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Jun 2009 17:11 UTC
Debian and its clones Last week we talked about whether or not the Debian project would include Mono in its default GNOME installation. This incited some heavy debate on OSNews, but sadly, the Mono debate also lead to some very nasty blog posts in the Debian community. Time for damage control, Debian project leader Steve McIntyre must've thought.
Thread beginning with comment 368808
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: It should include it
by robmv on Tue 16th Jun 2009 18:22 UTC in reply to "It should include it"
robmv
Member since:
2006-08-12

.NET sprang from the fact that MS was prohibited from distributing Java.


and the reason was they did not followed the Java license, they created a "Mono-platform" (pun intended :-P) Java (Windows only), they did not implemented for example the Java 1.1 GUI event model, and still wanted to be called Java. Sun sued, so they threw the towel trying to kill Java that way, so they created a Mono-platform Java clone called .Net, with the advantage of fixing some mistakes with CLR, but still with many hooks to Windows APIs than even Mono is not a full .Net implementation.

They could not control Java they cloned it. On a parallel Universe, MS could have joined to the Java Community Process to express their opinion of what they want for the future of Java, and in that universe too, they could have joined Oasis to help with the OpenDocument standard instead of creating MSOOXML like they did on our universe.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: It should include it
by DrillSgt on Tue 16th Jun 2009 18:26 in reply to "RE: It should include it"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

You are absolutely correct. I never said nor implied otherwise. Just stated on why they developed .NET. But then I forget that putting facts in OS News will almost always instigate negative moderation by the folks who disagree with them and live in that parallel universe you mention ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: It should include it
by StaubSaugerNZ on Tue 16th Jun 2009 21:05 in reply to "RE: It should include it"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

".NET sprang from the fact that MS was prohibited from distributing Java.


and the reason was they did not followed the Java license, they created a "Mono-platform" (pun intended :-P) Java (Windows only), they did not implemented for example the Java 1.1 GUI event model, and still wanted to be called Java. Sun sued, so they threw the towel trying to kill Java that way, so they created a Mono-platform Java clone called .Net, with the advantage of fixing some mistakes with CLR, but still with many hooks to Windows APIs than even Mono is not a full .Net implementation.

They could not control Java they cloned it. On a parallel Universe, MS could have joined to the Java Community Process to express their opinion of what they want for the future of Java, and in that universe too, they could have joined Oasis to help with the OpenDocument standard instead of creating MSOOXML like they did on our universe.
"

True. FYI the intermediate lanuage between Java++/MS Java and C# was codenamed "Cool". I remember reading something from the developers of Cool they were very surprised no one commented on the fact that it was so "close" to Java (a blatent rip-off in fact at first).

Microsoft lost the court battle because they tried to add extensions so that Java apps would lose their run (nearly) anywhere aspect. They did win by fragmenting the developers to that a choice must be make between developers targeting "Windows-only" (essentially .NET) and those targeting both "Windows *and* everything else" (Java).

This wastes the effort of developers who have to *still* deal with platform-porting issues in this day and age. The developers shouldn't have to care about the platform (except when embedded-device physical constraints are significant).

Reply Parent Score: 4