Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:00:29 +0000
> 7 <web_has_email@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Micoshaft is reliant on using you to propagate it - and are using
>> asstroturfers to attack anyone on the internet that critise mono or
>> ask foro its removal.
>
> Post a realistic, logical, and well-thought out argument on why Mono
> should be removed, using fact and not personal opinion or religion as a
> basis for the argument, and it might _actually_ be considered.
>
> A few facts for you that you seem to have missed:
All those clever marketing terms and yet not one
mention of what you seem to have missed:
The kernel or core of micoshaft end of the system is proprietory
and not controlled by any standards bodies.
That means you can write whatever the fcsk takes your fancy
in mono but the kill switch for your mono application deployed
in a micoshaft environment is still controlled by micoshaft corporation.
Thats why they don't transfer the control of that to standards
bodies.
And it shows! - some 30 different API ways to open a database.
WTF?
They can release another one and drop support for any of the previous
ways and your applications are truly FUCKED.
Good luck to you if you want to committ to micoshaft control again
by promoting it and/or writing application for it.
You are better off sticking to the rule of breaking everything down into
simple tasks and writing small applications in C/C++
and use 100% free and open scripting languages to mix and mash.
Your applications will run faster, more engineers can support it,
and the scripting languages are not under anyone's control with a kill
switch to kill your application when you find success and deploy widely.
|
|
