Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: the case for supporting and using Mono ..

  • Subject: Re: the case for supporting and using Mono ..
  • From: Homer <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:01:59 +0000
  • Cancel-lock: sha1:LSW7BuNb/kFeBoj1kzW+CK1mcD4=
  • In-reply-to: <gmfil3$92d$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Openpgp: id=BF436EC9; url=http://slated.org/files/GPG-KEY-SLATED.asc
  • Organization: Slated.org
  • References: <gmfil3$92d$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-GB; rv: Gecko/20090105 Fedora/ Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
  • Xref: ellandroad.demon.co.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:734830

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

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


| "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
 04:01:39 up 97 days, 11:44,  4 users,  load average: 0.45, 0.20, 0.12

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index