[Mono-list] FAQ additions - resubmitted v2.0

[Fergus Henderson]

On 09-Jul-2001, Bob Salita <bsalita@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Why should we direct such considerable resources to such a marginal and 
> risky project? Aren't these precious resources better directed elsewhere?

Good question.

> 2. Can't MS thwart Mono by creating technical or intellectual property 
> roadblocks?

That depends to some extent on what the aim of Mono is.

If the aim is to make something that is supposed to be compatible
with ".NET", then almost certainly yes.

If the aim is just to develop an implementation of the ECMA specs,
rather than aiming for broader compatibility, then probably not.

Which of these is the aim?

> 3. Don't existing open source projects offer capabilities equivalent to 
> .Net? Can't we use them instead of mono?

I don't know of any open source projects that provide capabilities
equivalent to the .Net framework.  The JVM provides many similar
capabilities, but it is not as good for multi-language interoperability;
getting decent performance for non-Java-like languages is very hard.

BTW, please use precise language -- say "the .Net framework", not ".Net",
if that is what you mean.  Questions about ".Net"'s capabilities are
pretty meaningless since ".Net" is a meaningless marketing brand name
for a bunch of quite different technologies.

> 5. Why are RedHat, IBM and others refusing to directly support Mono with
> funding and public commitments? What do they know but won't say?

Supporting Mono would help MS, by increasing acceptance of .Net;
why would RH & IBM want to do that?

See also 1.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.