In article <1837585.e2cNdtANZD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | # rpm -i --force openoffice.org-common-3.0svn13475-1mdv2009.0.i586.rpm 2>&1
> | |
> | grep mono
> | libmono.so.0 is needed by
> | openoffice.org-common-3.0svn13475-1mdv2009.0.i586
> | mono(mscorlib) = 1.0.5000.0 is needed by
> | openoffice.org-common-3.0svn13475-1mdv2009.0.i586
> | mono(mscorlib) = 2.0.0.0 is needed by
> | openoffice.org-common-3.0svn13475-1mdv2009.0.i586
> `----
>
> http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2008/09/12/06/09/30-defeated-the-comm
> on-sense-by-man
If you read the author's remarks in the comments there, they are
interesting. He would have a similar objection if OO required Perl, or
Python, or pretty much anything else (including QT or GTK+). He seems
to think it should be a pure C or C++ program, using no libraries other
than the lowest level system libraries and the lowest level X libraries.
...
> Here is Microsoft saying that it's patent poison:
> http://boycottnovell.com/2006/11/19/mono-officially-a-minefield-is-ooo-too/
Really? When did Microsoft acquire boycottnovell.com and use that to
make official statements?
Wait, they didn't. That link is to you making your usual made-up claims
about Mono.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
