[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the
Miguel de Icaza
11 Oct 2003 19:58:27 -0400
> > But being selective about what you consider to be
> > thin-wrapper, and what you don't is just an exercise in deception.
> That's out of line and you should apologise. It was based on a careful
> analysis of the API's and other similar API's in the past (MFC of 10 years
> ago does everything that you listed as "massive departures").
> In any case, it has already been made clear in this thread that we are hedging
> our bets: we'll switch to Qt# or Gtk# in a heartbeat should Microsoft
> disagree with our analysis. What? We can't have it both ways?
Nobody said that. All I am saying is that Norbert's position on
`everything is tainted except ECMA and Windows.Forms' is wrong. Either
everything above ECMA might be tainted or none of it is. Thats what you
cant have both ways.
If you did such a careful study with your lawyer, would you mind
publishing it so others can review it? I assume you also did a careful
study of every other API not included in ECMA, because it seems they are
tained. I would also like to see that one, it will be useful material
Can you and your lawyer produce these documents?
> If you have no interest in co-operating with us in a productive and
> non-hostile fashion, why don't you just say so? Attacking our judgement is
> hardly conducive to a productive working relationship.
I disagree with your conclusion, you pointed out a careful study, I want
to see the careful study to convince myself. You are bringing a serious
issue to the table to discuss, and I want nothing less than seriousness
in this discussion. And a visual-inspection-and-this-is-my-hunch is not
a solid foundation to start from.
And I suspect that you guys have not done the study, and this is all
> I suspect that the real problem here is that you desperately don't want
> Windows.Forms to succeed (either Mono's or pnet's). Because who in the world
> would use Gtk# if Windows.Forms applications worked everywhere?