| |||||||||||||
GNOME and high-level languagesGNOME and high-level languagesPosted May 12, 2005 12:16 UTC (Thu) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458)In reply to: GNOME and high-level languages by dhess Parent article: A new Harmony Project
I am surprised people are just accepting RedHats stance on this. Gnome is one of the largest open source projects around, and RedHat is simply saying that a cool piece of technology can't be included, but they won't say why. This makes it impossible to have a technical discussion of the problem, and thus impossible for the community to solve it. That kind of closed source mentality should not carry _any_ weight in an open source project, even if is coming from a behemoth like RH.
If the good folks at RH signed away their right to even discuss what is wrong with Mono, then they made a _huge_ mistake, and will have to bite the bullet. Either break the NDA or whatever is keeping them from discussing this and risk having to pay millions or accept that Gnome will move on without them. This does not mean Gnome would have to be forked, simply that RH would have to ship a crippled version of Gnome, just like they today cripple Gstreamer and Xmms.
(Log in to post comments)
C# patent problem ?? Posted May 12, 2005 13:01 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] It's one thing for Microsoft to publish a language spec as a standards proposal. But have they got patent claims on C#/mono technology users ? They might be most happy for the supposedly free world to get exited about mono if they can raise patent revenue from it from all corporate users behind closed doors.
C# patent problem ?? Posted May 12, 2005 14:30 UTC (Thu) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link] Patents are not bound to a specific standard. Given that Virtual machines all look quite a bit like each other, no matter if they parse CLR or Java bytecode, arguments about Mono being more 'dangerous' than Java, Smalltalk or Python is mostly FUD.
GNOME and high-level languages Posted May 12, 2005 13:49 UTC (Thu) by hp (subscriber, #5220) [Link] Nobody is just accepting our stance that I see.
My post said simply: if we have to bite the bullet we will bite it. I am not trying to veto what GNOME does.
It's possible we can figure out how to ship Mono eventually, even. But as I said, I don't yet see the light at the end of that tunnel.
GNOME and high-level languages Posted May 12, 2005 13:53 UTC (Thu) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link] The way I see it, the fact that no Mono applications are included in Gnome means that the foundation is accepting your stance.
GNOME and high-level languages Posted May 13, 2005 0:10 UTC (Fri) by dberkholz (subscriber, #23346) [Link] How about DotGNU?
|
|||||||||||||