High Plains Thumper wrote:
> Tony Manco wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Mono actually is dangerous
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> In a recent iTWire article titled "The elusive,
>>>> royalty-free patent licence for Mono", Sam Varghese
>>>> contacts Ecmea for the patent terms surrounding Mono.
>>>> Remember that the mono camp always throws the argument at
>>>> people that mono follows an Ecmea standard and as such is
>>>> free to implement?
>>>>
>>>> [....]
>>>>
>>>> He reaches a very simple conclusion: "To me, it looks this
>>>> licence is as real as the unicorn. Or maybe Santa Claus. I
>>>> think Mono fans need to think of a fresh defence when
>>>> people talk about the dangers of patent suits arising over
>>>> this technology. The licence talk has worn more than a
>>>> little thin."
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for a great piece of investigation to Sam.
>>>>
>>>> Now, can we please take a real look into this before we
>>>> rip out Rhythmbox in favour of Banshee in Ubuntu and can
>>>> we please reinvestigate making Gnome depend on mono
>>>> (currently by virtue of Tomboy)?
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://nocturn.vsbnet.be/node/152
>> And yet some more proof that Mono is dangerous. Great post!
>
> I did a search for Mono in Synaptic on my main desktop. I then
> uninstalled all Mono features and 2 applications using it,
> including Tomboy. It was easier than switching off the uninvited
> Windows .Net extension in Microsoft's recent FireFox "patch".
Did you purge it? (Complete Removal) :-P
> (Seeing Flatfish has accused Linux advocates of "latent
> homosexuality", it would not surprise me that he gravitates
> toward the likes of "TomBoy".)
>
Haha, nice one :-P
--
It's a bird..
It's a plane..
No, it's KernelMan, faster than a speeding bullet, to your rescue.
Doing new kernel versions in under 5 seconds flat..
~Linus Torvalds
|
|
