Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Dec 2010 19:27 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Mono Project For the most time, I've been firmly in the largest camp when it comes to the Mono debate - the 'I don't care'-camp. With patent lawsuits being hotter than Lady Gaga right now, that changed. For good reason, so it seems; while firmly in the 'ZOMG-MICROSOFT-IS-T3H-EVILL!1!!ONE!'-camp, investigated the five most popular Mono applications, and the conclusion is clear: all of them implement a lot of namespaces which are not covered by Microsoft's community promise thing.
Thread beginning with comment 453370
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Evil Companies
by lemur2 on Mon 13th Dec 2010 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Evil Companies"
Member since:

"Maybe you are right to be scared of Microsoft, but then stop using Linux Kernel, it has an implementation of FAT!
The difference here, of course, is that Microsoft did not release .Net under the GPL and then turn around and claim they need to be paid because of the usage of one file. .Net is also unquestionably Microsoft's invention. There's is no one else in the mix with prior art as there is with FAT and protocols like SMB. That's another weak argument dropped around by many Mono advocates, the notion that somehow this is all just the same as any other patent threat. There is something to be said for reducing your risk...... "

Samba has specifications supplied by Microsoft, and the SMB protocol itself is originally an IBM invention.

Any patent on FAT itself has long expired by now.

FAT and Samba are both "interoperability" functionality, and in many cases that would mean that other implementations are permitted by law - anti lock-in laws if you like.

.NET has none of these considerations.

Thankfully, Mono-based applications on Linux are simply not required. One can easily replace all of the Mono-based applications for Linux, and not miss a single thing.

Reply Parent Score: 3