[Mono-list] open sourcing all of Microsoft .net
nite at achren.org
Fri Sep 6 23:46:54 UTC 2013
I think Martin hit the nail on the head here (on another thread from this
discussion) - in my world, mono simply isn't even on the radar as a
competitor to java (on the server side). Microsoft lost a battle in my
industry a long time ago for kudos, and while they accept it's cool for UI,
wont consider it for the serious business side, letalone an open source
'hobbyist replica' like mono, as they see it. It may not be that, but that's
the perception we're dealing with.
The license would need to be similar to java, and there would need to be a
sizeable investment & push behind it in the linux space (Microsoft has the
power to do this easily through azure and other investments).
Microsoft would benefit massively through renewed enthusiasm from the dev
community and contribution and return to their own massive investment into
that community over the years (someone give the beast some credit, they've
invested more in dev than their nearest 10 competitors put together). Great
timing with the CEO moving out, and someone with a more likely engineering
focus to step in and take the reins.
Mono definitely does the job, no question of that - just needs backing and a
marketing/PR win to take on java in terms of mindshare/adoption - Microsoft
being behind open source .Net would be the first step, another few big
players could make it huge.
There's another thread here that talks about WPF, if we could reproduce xaml
properly on linux it would be amazing (and fix/complete WPF on windows in
the meantime!). Open source VS and fix it as well (performance etc) and I'm
sure the wider dev community would at least stop using it as a butt of
From: Aaron [via Mono] [mailto:ml-node+s1490590n4660813h27 at n4.nabble.com]
Sent: 06 September 2013 19:16
Subject: Re: open sourcing all of Microsoft .net
Hi, interesting discussion you started there. :-)
- Which OSS license would you like to see?
- Can you elaborate on how the community and Microsoft would benefit from a
more permissive .NET license?
- In what way would Microsoft benefit from a .NET branded Linux port? You
mention it would help .NET adoption in those environments, but to what end?
- Why does Mono not already fill this gap? Is it functional? If it's truly
just the lack of a big name behind it, then what are the real reasons for a
requirement like that? Longevity concerns? Support concerns? There may be
ways to satisfy those.
On Sep 6, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Andrew Clancy <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's not open source, that's readable source, you can't fork it or use it,
nor merge it with mono & have an official .net framework for linux etc. My
thoughts are, if we did have this there'd be more appetite/scope to
implement in .net in corporates and environments where linux and/or java
rule. Where I work mono isn't an option as there's no other companies of our
size using it to the scale we use java, but if a Microsoft backed .net made
it to linux it may be an option (and I'm sure if ms open sourced it mono
would do most of the work to merge, ms would just need to stamp approval)
Mono-list maillist - [hidden email]
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
To unsubscribe from open sourcing all of Microsoft .net, click here
View this message in context: http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/open-sourcing-all-of-Microsoft-net-tp4660784p4660817.html
Sent from the Mono - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mono-list