Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Sep 2009 13:35 UTC, submitted by Hiev
Mono Project If you don't like personal, blog-style reporting, you might want to skip this item. A few days ago, during a speech at Software Freedom Day in Boston, Richard Stallman has, at least in my book, crossed a line that I thought he would never cross.
Thread beginning with comment 386258
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What about...
by eprubio on Fri 25th Sep 2009 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE: What about..."
eprubio
Member since:
2008-01-09

I still fail to understand the fuss...
Both Mono and DotGNU developers aim to provide a re-implementation of the .NET runtime and core libraries, or so I think. Mono seems to have a little bit more ambitious scope and their developers try to implement and/or repackage Microsoft libraries; they also implement several own libraries... Am I right so far?
Or is the blessing and support from Microsoft the cause of such wrath? The "I don't trust legally binding promises" holier-than-thou attitude? The "Miguel is chasing taillights" thought that ignores the same chasing from the DotGNU project? Something different from plain zealotry?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: What about...
by Ed W. Cogburn on Sat 26th Sep 2009 05:12 in reply to "RE[2]: What about..."
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

I still fail to understand the fuss...
Both Mono and DotGNU developers aim to provide a re-implementation of the .NET runtime and core libraries, or so I think.


If by ".NET runtime", you mean CLR/CIL/C# as defined by their ECMA standards, then you're correct.

Mono seems to have a little bit more ambitious scope and their developers try to implement and/or repackage Microsoft libraries; they also implement several own libraries... Am I right so far?


Yes, also correct, and these extensions, including Winforms and ASP.NET, which are NOT part of the CLR/C# ECMA standards are also NOT part of dotGNU, and never will be. That is the major difference between the projects.

Or is the blessing and support from Microsoft the cause of such wrath?


Don't know about wrath, but MS's support of Novell and Icaza is why Mono is much further along than dotGNU.

The "I don't trust legally binding promises" holier-than-thou attitude?


If there were "legally binding promises" about the issues that concern everyone, e.g. the patent questions about significant parts of Mono and Silverlight, then there wouldn't be much of a fuss at all. Problem is, such "legally binding promises" from MS don't exist.

The "Miguel is chasing taillights" thought that ignores the same chasing from the DotGNU project?


Not at all, and this is why dotGNU is virtually unheard of, as AFAIK, dotGNU has only a couple of devs working on it, with no momentum of its own. All that is likely for the same reasons why Mono has critics, thus anyone not planning on using Mono, is not going to use dotGNU either.

Something different from plain zealotry?


More like common sense. MS has a long history, and until it demonstrates that its truly changed its ways, there will be many who will simply not trust it, nor anyone representing it.

Reply Parent Score: 1