Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Jul 2009 08:51 UTC, submitted by PLan
Thread beginning with comment 372031
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[2]: Any other ammunition?
by Beta on Tue 7th Jul 2009 10:46
in reply to "RE: Any other ammunition?"
RE[3]: Any other ammunition?
by japh on Wed 8th Jul 2009 18:32
in reply to "RE[2]: Any other ammunition?"
Also, C# isn't really an open standard by many common definitions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
It's pretty much what Microsoft already implemented, which isn't how open standards are created.
RE[2]: Any other ammunition?
by gustl on Tue 7th Jul 2009 14:04
in reply to "RE: Any other ammunition?"
I do not doubt that Bob Muglia and Brian Goldfarb want to do the right thing, but I very much doubt that none of those guys who actually lay out the WORDING want to do it in a way that has no gotchas.
And even if we can be sloppy with other company's wording, we should scrutinize EVERYTHING that comes from Microsoft.




Member since:
2006-11-19
Come on, give them a break already.
MS now has both open standards (ECMA), and open promise not to sue, and you bring on more "doubts". If what you're doing is not FUD, I don't know what it is.