>
> Wow, I hadn't heard that. That's like Microsoft offering to help Digital
> Research come up with DR-DOS. Nothing like a dirty "clean room".
Yeah, ain't life great?
> Samba's been a _great_ thing for allowing more Linux servers to be
> insinuated into formerly Microsoft shops.
>
> The best reason I can imagine for an Open Source .Net (Mono) is the hope
> that it will compete adequately with Microsoft.
I think that Open Source .Net is fantastic! Not only will it prevent vendor
lock in, people will finally have an alternative when there's a security
breach, for example. Let's say that someone finds a security hole (oops,
can't move the house away from the sinkhole). Who do you think will have a
quicker response time? Not M$! People will be able to RUN not walk, to the
nearest alternative that shows it has better service and responds to customer
needs more quickly. Monopoly power broken? I don't know about that. As we've
talked about before in this list, M$ can't seem to embrace and extend GPL'd
software. But that doesn't mean that they can't compete. I don't want Mono to
compete adequately with M$, I want them to show the big boys how it's done!
>
> Do I think the hope is reasonable? I dunno.
>
> Paul
Sometimes the best hope isn't reasonable. The real question is whether people
will trust the Mono group. We know that they either a) trust M$ way too much,
b) trust them only as far as they can be thrown, or c) don't trust them at
all but have no choice.
Mono doesn't have a history of profits, which some people equate with trust,
honesty and the like. (I don't know why???) Of course, this becomes a
completely different subject. Linux Magazine has a good interview with Dirk
Hohndel on the profitability side of the Linux equation.
Russell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:09:48 EDT