[Tfug] MS .NET source code--look but don't touch

[Glen Pfeiffer]

On 10/05/2007 10:37 AM, Claude Rubinson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 09:59:28AM -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote:
>> On the other hand, I do know that Miguel de Icaza, co-founder 
>> of Gnome and Mono, was talking about using Mono in Gnome 
>> desktop applications as early as 2002 [1]. But it appears this 
>> has not happened yet. [2]
>>
>> [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/01/gnome_to_be_based/
>> [2] http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_General#Has_the_GNOME_Foundation_or_the_GNOME_team_adopted_Mono.3F
> 
> But also look at the FAQ just following the one that you linked 
> to:
> 
>     Should GNOME programmers switch over to Mono now?
> 
>     Yes, we believe that Mono 1.0 is ready to be used
[snip]
> 
> Which makes it sound like Gnome is an upgrade path to Mono.

I agree with your assertion that Mono will likely be a 
requirement for Gnome in the future, and I am not very happy 
about it. I will consider finding another Desktop for my family 
to use. I use Fluxbox, but my wife really likes Gnome; she thinks 
it is easier than Windows.

But the point behind my post is that as far as I can tell, it is 
not currently a requirement.

> Personally, my fears with Mono aren't so much that MS will sue 
> Novell or Gnome developers or whomever but simply that MS will 
> extend the standard such that Mono developers are left chasing 
> MS' tail.  (See the MS office formats.)

I was going to write about how far behind they are (they were the 
last time I read up on it), but as I gathered my references I was 
surprised to find how much of the API they have covered. [3] 
Regardless, I believe the project will always be behind. They are 
likely to always choose to port MS's work rather than innovate. 
Once they innovate, they would no longer be behind because they 
would no longer be following. Then again, I suppose that would 
contradict their reason for existence.

-- 
Glen 

[3] http://mono.ximian.com/class-status/