Originally posted by BlackStar
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
How is Mono worse than other projects that implement Microsoft technologies?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by susikala View PostWhile that's true on a general basis, this person's opinions and (claimed) activity hurt Linux.
Linus himself may be a pragmatist more than an ideologist and that may have led to the success of Linux, but the kernel is still under the GPL.
Promoting reduction of freedom or speaking for promotion of reduction of freedom in a system where one of its basic, core principles is the one of freedom is a bad thing to do and requires removal from the system, it's REALLY simple. I don't understand why are you defending the promono stance.
If the software is bad, it will sink on its own merits (like Java did). If it is good, it will rise. Trying to take away that freedom, trying to enforce your personal preferences on everyone else, that's what hurts Free software.
Remco said it best:
"I take the "live and let die" approach. I won't use Mono software, but I won't harm the Mono community either. Everyone has the right to their own opinions and decisions, based on their own values and priorities."
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by susikala View PostMono, on the other hand, is like poison that touches everything that uses it. If Microsoft decides to act differently, on a whim, then you (not you even, distributions, and thus practically EVERYONE) have problems using some of their applications. Who would take the blame then for letting people use and get used to something whose legal situation isn't even clear, and then suddenly pulling it out, you or the distributions?
The best Microsoft could do is shut down implementations of non-standard APIs, like WinForms or WPF. This doesn't affect Linux applications. At all. Nada. Zilch. GTK#, Qyoto, wx.Net, SDL.Net, OpenTK, the runtime, the C# compiler, the BCL, the native bindings, Banshee, Tracker, F-Spot, Pinta and everything else would continue working as before.
Don't use Mono if you don't like it but don't spread FUD about it. It does nothing but hurt the cause.
(Developers keep asking me if it is worth testing their applications on Linux, fearful of the anti-Mono sentiment. Good job, zealots, on reducing the value of Linux for everyone. Fewer developers, fewer users and fewer useful applications because of your FUD. Way to go.)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Remco View PostEveryone has the right to their own opinions and decisions, based on their own values and priorities.
Linus himself may be a pragmatist more than an ideologist and that may have led to the success of Linux, but the kernel is still under the GPL.
Promoting reduction of freedom or speaking for promotion of reduction of freedom in a system where one of its basic, core principles is the one of freedom is a bad thing to do and requires removal from the system, it's REALLY simple. I don't understand why are you defending the promono stance.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by susikala View PostAnd I don't want any people as you either in ecosystem, promoting that evil. I suggest you go (back) to Windows.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BlackStar View PostThat's why I never dismissed the notion that Wine is useful.
What I dismiss is baseless assertions that that Wine is safer than Mono, because it isn't. "As safe as Mono", maybe, but "more safe than Mono" not by a far shot.
Mono, on the other hand, is like poison that touches everything that uses it. If Microsoft decides to act differently, on a whim, then you (not you even, distributions, and thus practically EVERYONE) have problems using some of their applications. Who would take the blame then for letting people use and get used to something whose legal situation isn't even clear, and then suddenly pulling it out, you or the distributions?
Now I don't know about you, but as someone who uses Linux to a very large extent because it's FOSS, and as someone who applies himself restrictions (as a diehard Diablo fan I would really like to play the third installment when it comes out -- but wouldn't unless it comes to Linux) -because- of that, I don't want any -ifs- in my ecosystem. It's as simple as that. And I don't want any people as you either in ecosystem, promoting that evil. I suggest you go (back) to Windows.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by yesterday View PostAnyone, your absolute statements have no meaning. There is no way to quantitatively measure how much Wine helps Microsoft or Linux. Dismissing the notion that running certainly Windows applications on Linux is at the very least desirable for some in the short-term is ridiculous.
What I dismiss is baseless assertions that that Wine is safer than Mono, because it isn't. "As safe as Mono", maybe, but "more safe than Mono" not by a far shot.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by yesterday View PostThe "protection" granted by the Community promise is the issue. It is certainly not strong enough to warrant entities like Red Hat investing heavily in it. There are enough identified issues with the Community Promise that it is stupid to start integrating any C# based technology heavily into major components like GNOME. The FSF and SFLC have written enough about the numerous valid problems with the Community Promise.
Wine has no such issues.
(a) Mono has some degree of formal protection against patent litigation.
(b) Wine has none.
(c) hence Wine is safer than Mono.
Wait, what?
Leave a comment:
-
Seriously, wine helps Microsoft more than it hurts them. It provides a measure of compatibility but doesn't allow developers to write first-class applications for Linux. In other words, it maintains the platform lock-in. What's not to like about that?
Anyone, your absolute statements have no meaning. There is no way to quantitatively measure how much Wine helps Microsoft or Linux. Dismissing the notion that running certainly Windows applications on Linux is at the very least desirable for some in the short-term is ridiculous.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BlackStar View PostMono implements non-standard APIs, like System.Windows.Forms, which are not covered by the community promise. Those APIs are implemented in a very similar fashion to Wine APIs and face the same patent concerns as Wine (which AFAIK means no known patent claims but open to possible patent attacks if Microsoft so decides). The rest of the Mono stack is covered by the community promise which puts in a safer position than Wine.
Wine has no such issues.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: