Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Mono's demise bad news for open source
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | It's also based on Windows technology. Mono is a "clean-room"
> | clone of Microsoft's .Net development platform, written for
> | Linux and other Unix-like operating systems.
Keep in mind that Microsoft worked with Icaza and still maintains
intellectual property control over much of the libraries and modules
used to make mono actually useful as anything.
Microsoft was willing to give just eneough support to try and retain
market share for .NET vs Java which was truly multiplatform.
> | When Novell's Miguel de Icaza first began work on Mono, people
> | said he was crazy.
Some people still stay so.
> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/tech/0EC99FBB73788FF1CC25723E0007ADDA
>
> Neil McAllister is an Open Source basher. This was said many times before in
> a variety of Web sites, so his views on the trend/event is worth ignoring
> while the demise of .Net is the news worth cheering about. Mono is an IP
> timebomb from Novell.
Keep in mind that there are lots of technologies which require
Microsoft licensed software to be fully functional. For example, if
you want mono to be fully functional you need libraries that are
licensed by Microsoft - which means you have to have a Windows XP
license.
The Vista license does not permit using Vista libraries on other
platforms such as Linux.
The XP license doesn't exclude it, but does require that you have a
legitimate XP license.
Microsoft seems to be determined to slit it's own throat in this arena.
As everyone becomes more and more aware of the consequences of the
Vista license terms, resource requirements, and intellectual property
issues, Linux becomes more attractive, and Vista becomes progressively
less and less attractive. This may be another scenario where corporate
customers decide to delay or hold upgrades, or select new OEM vendors
based on the ability of OEMs to provide Linux/XP based solutions.
This could turn into a replay of Windows NT 3.1.
Time will tell.
|
|
