[MonoDevelop] Review of MonoDevelop

Stifu stifu at free.fr
Wed Aug 14 06:19:10 UTC 2013

Well, Microsoft is not one person, but many different people with different
goals. There's infighting, people starting something until someone else
pulls the plug, etc. That's why their actions don't seem to make sense at

MarLOne wrote
> Jeff Stedfast wrote
>> If you want to see insanity, see the Talk page.
> Pardon my ignorance. Where is the Talk page?
> Well thanks for many comments on the Mono in Linux. Many of the points
> raised are already known to me as I have been with the .Net (it once known
> as COM3 in Redmond lab) before released to the wild . 
> Other involving potential hidden minefields in the form of patent
> violations are also known to me but since I am not a legally trained
> person, I can't comment on them other than acknowledging that they are
> there if you say so. 
> If one looks at .Net, several things look kind of strange:
> 1) Why does Microsoft spent so much effort to make CLI & C# not only ECMA
> but also ISO standard and releases it if it is just a proprietary platform
> and language. Sure that does not covert the vast and ever growing
> collection of the .Net framework.
> VB (unmanaged) had been there for a long time receiving great popularity
> and no standard was sought. Java likewise is a proprietary language and
> platform. 
> Standardising a platform for just one company seems rather strange and
> illogical.
> 2) .Net's entire architecture is to support cross-platform but MS has
> pulled the horses up at the chasm. Why?
> 3) I know there has been warm relationship between MS and Miguel Da Icazza
> credited for starting Mono. I believe MS shut down Python.Net project and
> gave that to an open-source group in which Miguel is part of it.
> 4) During the beta stage of .Net, Rotor, the open-source version of .Net
> CLI/CLR, is compilable to Windows, FreeBSD and Mac OS. I also heard back
> then a rumour that MS was talking to Corel with the possibility of porting
> .Net to Linux. But my probing led to dead end. Which is the clearest
> indication that .Net is designed to be cross-platform. Could it be that MS
> wanting someone to take up the baton and turning a blind eyes on it? Hence
> Mono has been left to move at its own pace and thrives.
> Just find Microsoft's .Net initiative very intriguing. If those patent
> minefields are there and MS wanting to eliminate competition, they would
> have done so long ago. If they do that, it will make Java the only large
> scale deployed cross-platform language/platform and it could actually come
> back to destroy Microsoft's .Net initiative. That's my take.
> MarL

View this message in context: http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/Review-of-MonoDevelop-tp4660264p4660542.html
Sent from the Mono - MonoDevelop IDE mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the Monodevelop-list mailing list