The latest issue of The GNOME Journal features thoughts about marketing GNOME, a review of RSS feed readers for GNOME, a short preview on modeling with K-3D, an introduction to F-Spot, an introduction to Foresight Desktop Linux, and a review of Robert Love's 'Linux Kernel Development', 2nd Edition.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:>And that I don't understand. Why reengineer that
>technology in the first place? To create something 70%
>compatible? To be compared to MS technologies and always
>appear 30% worse than them?
The idea was never to be like MS, they just provided a good solution to a problem that preexisted in the GNOME comunity. So if people consider it to be a pale clone thats their problem. Mono was always about GNOME and will always be about GNOME. You could almost say that its recemblance to .NET is not so important.
>The CLI is an ISO standard. Unfortunately, MS controls
>it. When they push a new version of the standard, guess
>who'll have all the tools needed to support it already
>finished? Mono lagging even more behind, Linux the even
>worse alternative in the great comparison charts.
If I remember right MS wasn't the only one ho had some input on the 2.0 version of tha standard and I think even the Mono project had some say, but don't quote me on that. Other then that I find it funy that Mono isn't having as bad a time geting to their 2.0 version then Microsoft is having. 
Member since:2005-07-06
> If I remember right MS wasn't the only one ho had some input on the 2.0 version of tha standard and I think even the Mono project had some say, but don't quote me on that. Other then that I find it funy that Mono isn't having as bad a time geting to their 2.0 version then Microsoft is having.
Weren't you the one that said that Mono is not blindly following MS? So MS releases 2.0 and Mono sprints after. No community to discuss this, no thinking "how could _we_ do it best for our platform", no, there's a new MS standard, panic, quick, start porting. Open Source at its best.
Member since:
2005-07-06
> I don't think Mono is behind MS, because Mono is not equal .Net.
And that I don't understand. Why reengineer that technology in the first place? To create something 70% compatible? To be compared to MS technologies and always appear 30% worse than them?
The CLI is an ISO standard. Unfortunately, MS controls it. When they push a new version of the standard, guess who'll have all the tools needed to support it already finished? Mono lagging even more behind, Linux the even worse alternative in the great comparison charts.
> And based on this standard we can create a great platform for UNIX.
With a built-in vendor lock-in. We can't get too far away from MS otherwise we'll have that incompatible-with-everything fork, so we're forced to play the chase-MS game.