OSNews

You are correct about that but given that Apple hasn't said, "implement OpenStep and die" as Ballmer threatened the opensource community with such an announcement - I feel pretty safe. As for Java, they made it clear; the only request was don't call it Java - call it Chocolate Milkshake if you want but if you want to make it Java you have to pay a fee.



If your goal is to make a replacement to C, only use the ECMA standardised components and create a uniquely GNOME integrated .NET like Framework - then all power to them. The problem is that there will be those who expect it to be multiplatform - something that mono needs to state, therefore, that multiplatformness is a secondary priority when compared to making Mono into *the* framework, and C# the language to use.

Its good that they've split the two but I'd like to see an explicit removal of the non-ECMA components from the mono-project altogether. Make it a pure ECMA + Open Source with a declaration they have no interest re-implementing the non-ECMA components.

Nice to see this forum is filled with the usual maggots who moderate posts down they disagree with instead of entering dialogue. Every time I see my posts being marked down it tells me that I am correct and there are a pack of cowards in this site who are intellectually deficient when it comes to mounting a counter argument.

hah. no, it is not! it's about creating a clone of .NET. period. straight from the horse's mouth:



i am so tired of people making this just about patents. of course microsoft is going to continue to make shallow and/or vague patent threats in perpetuity. just like they ALWAYS have.

the only thing this 'promise' does is extend novell's insufficient coverage to others. it still doesn't cover everything.

but even if there was NO patent threat, it is flabbergasting that so many people have no problem with playing a constant game of catch-up, forever and ever. mono will ALWAYS be a 'me-too' or a 'second best implementation'. that is the very nature of the project. considering MS's... errr... history, why would anybody even *want* to take that on?

that simple fact is why a good number of people don't want to be any further entrenched in mono than necessary. that is why we shouldn't be pushing mono as a development platform. a compatibility option, sure. but never installed by default. and NEVER critical.

Agreed. I do believe that Miguel de Icaza's original goal was to make C and C# the dual pillars of Gnome development. And that is where the errant perception likely comes from. But Miguel, smart as he is on technical matters, can be a real fruitcake when it comes to what is reasonably possible in dealing with real OSS developers and real OSS projects.

At most, C# is or will become one language, among many, that one can write Gnome apps in.

Edited 2009-07-07 16:31 UTC

That's one of the goals of Mono, however it is not the only goal. Hopefully this splitting of the mono project will make that clearer.

FFS... this again. Mono is NOT playing catch-up. Mono already implements C# 3.0. Who cares what Microsoft is doing in its stack on top of the ECMA-bits? The Free stack is not a moving target, and that's what's important.