| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
You've correctly pointed to the biggest difference, but not the implicationsYou've correctly pointed to the biggest difference, but not the implicationsPosted Jul 17, 2009 16:46 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: The FSF warns (again) against Mono by epa Parent article: The FSF warns (again) against Mono
RMS is not arguing against the existence of Mono, or its use to run C# programs on free operating systems, or even against including it by default in Linux distributions, but rather he warns against writing new free applications in C#. Exactly. Because mono is good for existing C# programs: may be you'll be used by Microsoft in the future, may be not, but in the end - without CLR implementation you can not use such programs at all. The trouble is, all these 'Microsoft patent' arguments apply equally well to Samba, and distros are happy to ship that... By the same logic samba should be shipped and used where it's unavoaidable (for example to work with existing Windows-based systems), but not for the tasks where it can be replaced with something else (for example you should use real LDAP server, not Samba's AD replacement in pure Linux environment). AFICS Samba is used exactly in this fashion: it exists for interoperability with Windows, but not for anything else. It's the sad world we live in (Samba really can be better for some things then "native alternatives") but we can not easily swap it for other and so yes, we should treat Samba like mono: use it for interoperability with Windows, but for nothing else.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||