[Mono-list] RE: Is it Mono safe?
Thu, 20 May 2004 20:45:05 -0700
On May 20, 2004, at 7:12 PM, Christopher McGinnis wrote:
>>> you are confusing the issue. it's not the idea that can limit your
>>> freedom, it's the implementation that can.
>>> that said, your concerns becomes moot.
>> I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying.
> Just because .NET is a Microsoft concoction doesn't mean that writing
> applications for Mono's implementation will in anyway lock you into a
> Microsoft technology. The idea is out there and will be implemented
> used. If the implementation runs into legal issues it will change to
> those problems and Mono compiled applications may become incompatible
> the Microsoft version of .NET.
I'm not concerned with lock in, or MSFT taking mono away, or Linux
dying or anything technical like that. I'm concerned, and I think
others should be as well, with ubiquity.
> Also, what does ethics has to do with this conversation thread? We
> all know
> that Microsoft can be a bully. But I'm sure there are a multitude of
> big business that try and bully as much as they can to get more market
> share. That is the nature of business.
Ah. Justification for anticompetitive behavior. I'm sure Bill wished he
had more of that sentiment in Europe recently.
> Worrying about your right choose
> seems like a silly thing to worry about since there we always be a
> whether is be OS/2, Mac OS X, Solaris, Be, Irix, or a band new OS some
> teenager made in his bedroom because he had nothing better to do. Why
> instead worry about what new features you are going to put in your
> application, what direction do you want your product to go in, how can
> improve the development cycle to release better products.
Well what if one of my features requires reading Exchanges calendaring
stuff on Linux?Or how about playing movies in the latest windows media
format? Or I want to write a Visio file manipulator?
> To me these seems
> like things that should be worried about and to not be a paranoid
Indeed. Nothing worse trying to premise an argument based on an
incorrect reading between the lines.
> Your example of a Stalin Soviet Union is way to on the extreme side
> and only
> serves to provide drama.
I suppose it could be read that way, but drama was not what I was
trying to create.
> As I said earlier the nature of business is to
> edge out your competitors as best you can.
Does the end in fact justify the means then?
> Grow, devour, grow, and devour,that's what business does. It's just
> that no other business has be able to perform these actions as well or
> as easily as Microsoft has. If Microsoft started killing babies I'd
> have to stop using it. If a competitor goes
> away, so what.