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

Simon Per Soren Kagedal simon@cs.uoregon.edu
Tue, 10 Jul 2001 00:59:21 -0700

bored enough to try and answer some of these questions...

> 1. Why should we direct such considerable resources to such a marginal and 
> risky project? Aren't these precious resources better directed elsewhere?

Because it is 
* interesting (lots of fun technology)
* important (we do want to stop MS monopoly)
* standardized (ECMA)
and most importantly,
* useful (even if all compatibility fails, we will still have a cool 

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

No, nothing can stop Mono from doing what it currently aspires to do
(CLR, C# compiler, class library)

> 3. Don't existing open source projects offer capabilities equivalent to 
> .Net? Can't we use them instead of mono?
No.  Similary maybe (which, though? java hardly even qualifies), but
definately not equivalent.

> 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?

Ask RedHat, IBM and others.

> 7. MS is releasing shared source on FreeBSD. Isn't it better to convert to 
> FreeBSD rather than fight the .Net battle? Isn't the gain in open vs. shared 
> source too small for such a major effort?

Absolutely not.  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

> 8. Isn't Mono a foil in negotiating .Net licensing for Linux? Won't mono 
> project be dropped if .Net for Linux is licensed?

No, unless another free software implementation of the .NET
development framework comes along, Mono will live on.  (that's my guess..)

> 11. Is the real purpose of Mono to counterpunch MS?
> 12. Isn't Mono important only because .Net will be popular?

Dude, look at http://www.ximian.com/mono/faq.html, question 9.
Don't suggest new FAQs that are already answered in the FAQ just
because you don't believe the answer.

> 13. Is MS trying to bash Linux by offering .Net on BSD? Isn't it a divide 
> and conquer gambit? Is it really about licensing terms?

Ask MS.

> 14. Do we really know if .Net achieves an acceptable performance level?

pretty much yeah.

> 15. Isn't Sun's controlling attitude responsible for MS need for .Net?

Partially, yes, I guess...  but what does this has to do with Mono???
> 16. If Mono succeeds, who are the winners and losers?

We will all be winners.

> 17. This is a MS play. They'll win no matter what.

That's not a question.

> 19. Isn't .Net vaporware?

What are you talking about?  .NET as the framework Mono is trying to
implement?  No, go look at the ECMA specs.  Microsofts implementation?
No, look at VS.NET beta 2.

> 20. If mono succeeds, won't MS quit sharing source?

1. Ask MS.
2. We don't care.  Shared Source is not free software.