Verily I say unto thee, that Doug Mentohl spake thusly:
> Today, Mono offers ...
... a lot of *technical* advances over Java, I'm sure, but rather misses
the point that .Net/C# was not created to "advance" anything much except
Microsoft.
The author doesn't really address that issue at all, nor any other issue
beyond technical considerations (i.e. the "pragmatist's" view). Maybe he
should have also considered the following:
. Motive: .Net was *not* created to advance the state if the art, it was
created to destroy Sun's Java, after Microsoft's failed bid to pervert
Java into something tied to the Windows platform (also for the purpose
of destroying the competition)
. Patents: All of .Net is Microsoft's so-called "Intellectual Property".
Some of that "property" is patented. Some of that patented property is
released under a supposedly safe ECMA guarantee, but this guarantee is
*not* a guarantee against litigation, it's only a guarantee that these
patented technologies must be made available at a "reasonable *cost*".
Microsoft could demand payment for use of these patented technologies,
and those who then failed to pay could be subject to litigation. Also,
promises can be broken, and considering the source ... Microsoft, it's
not entirely unreasonable to expect them to break promises, especially
if it helps them destroy the competition (Microsoft's /only/ strategy,
since their products cannot compete on merit alone). So, the fact that
*some* of .Net's patented technology is *currently* available "Royalty
Free" means nothing, since Microsoft are simply not trustworthy.
. Necessity: .Net is simply not necessary technology given the existence
of Java. It may be "better" (FSVO: better), but then the effort poured
into learning and developing .Net could be *much* better spent helping
to improve Java. Why reinvent the wheel? Microsoft's motives are plain
enough, but why should anyone else care?
. Politics: The prudence (and morality) of supporting *any* technology -
and therefore the /company/ which benefits most from its adoption - is
highly questionable, if that company is disreputable. To say Microsoft
is "disreputable" is an understatement in the extreme.
. The Windows development paradigm: Think about what a bloated, insecure
and unstable mess of spaghetti code Windows is, then think about *why*
it's like that, and *who* is responsible. Now consider the consequence
of dragging that development paradigm over to GNU/Linux, via Mono. Now
have a look at the files in the mono-core package, and ask yourself if
this is what you really want GNU/Linux to become. Apparently Miguel de
Icaza wants this desperately, because he's become blindly enamoured by
Microsoft and its "cool technology" ... "cool technology" like ActiveX
for example [1], which may be single-handedly responsible for plaguing
the world with Malware. *This* is de Icaza's "dream", please don't let
it be yours.
[1] http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/gnome-history.html
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It
| is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~ William
| Pitt the Younger
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
04:01:39 up 97 days, 11:44, 4 users, load average: 0.45, 0.20, 0.12
|
|
