[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?

[Rhys Weatherley]

On Sunday 12 October 2003 06:47 am, Miguel de Icaza wrote:

> 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?

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 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?

Cheers,

Rhys.