On 2009-05-16, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <8663g2p6rq.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege_public@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Only a risk if you are usig ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows Forms in your
>> > applications.
>>
>> For someone who chides others on what he sees as mere assertions without
>> proof, you are remarkably reluctant to provide proof for your own
>> assertions.
>>
>> In other words, prove it. Put up or shut up.
>
> The parts of Mono that might be under patents, other than the clones of
> ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows Forms are covered by the ECMA and ISO
> standards. All the patents necessary to implement those are covered by
> a royalty-free RAND license. This is no different than the other
> patent-covered languages that are widely used on Linux systems. Why
> aren't you complaining about those?
What would those be again?
Is support for them a matter of practical necessity or do we go
quite out of our way to make Linux more or less dependent on them?
>
>>
>> > None of those are used when using Mono to write Linux programs.
>>
>> Weell, now I understand why you not merely didn't answer, but even
>> snipped my second point.
>
> You second so-called point was that new versions of .NET would come to
> Windows before Linux. So? If someone is writing a Linux app, they are
> going to use the version of .NET available on Linux--how would the
That's an interesting idea and something that is far more likely
to come about through something like KDE, GIMP, avidemux or mplayer.
> existence of a later version somehow make using the Linux version a
> trojan? Some Google apps and tools come out on Windows before they come
> out on Linux--do you think they are trojans? Java often comes out for
> Solaris before Linux--is Java a trojan?
Probably. Although Sun was always much less of a megalomaniac.
Conflating Sun and Microsoft is clearly irrational and completely
ignores the history of the two companies, how they approach technology
and how they share technology with others.
>
> I dropped that "point" because it was completely senseless, and so there
> seemed no reason to keep it in the discussion other than to embarrass
> you, which would not have been nice.
I remember when the idea of a "java desktop" was first floated. I also
remember that java based office suite. It was considerably before it's time
and went over like a lead ballon. It was crushed under it's own weight.
--
Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their |||
choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider. / | \
|
|
