Re: Java issues, and Microsoft.NET compatibility (was Re: [DotGNU]Choice of bytecode spec (was: Support Java for .GNU))

[Dan Kuykendall (Seek3r)]

tali streit wrote:
> 
> Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> 
> >We need to be compatible, otherwise, we won't get adoption.
> >
> 
> I am worried about this because i believe that from a PR perspective we
> should not be seen as "playing catchup to .NET". if we are seen as that, we

We had/have been playing catchup to Unix for years now, and I dont think
of this as a failure on our part. Now we are at a stage to start donig
some real innovations... but playing catchup is not always bad.

> 1. give credibility to .NET (why else would we copy it?)

If you think it takes *us* to give .NET credibility, then I think you
need to look at the business world a little harder. Most of big business
could care less what we the free software community thinks of .NET
They want to know what companies like IBM think of it, and IBM is
supporting .NET. So I think that IBM supporting MS.NET gives .NET more
credibility than anything we could possibly do.

Also, should we NOT be giving it some credit? Alot of the concepts are
very cool and can sokve real problems. Should we denounce it simply
because it came from Microsoft?

> 2. are seen as merely trying to catch up

See above statement

> 3. lend to the "unamerican" sentiment that billg is pushing.

Thats silly. Just because Bill G wants to claim that free software is
unamerican (which it wasnt even Bill G that said it) then thats his
right. He is wrong and silly... and giving the statements from MS as
reasons we should not duplicate some of what they are doing is short
sighted.

> Instead i think that we should *strongly* push ourselves as creating
> something far superior to .NET. not even something based on it.
> something that has technological and ideological superiority, and is
> free software. then, make a compatibility "path" (might involve
> converters etc).

I think that we should be creating something far better than where MS
will be able to go. But we should start with compatibility and then move
forward from there.

> this way we are saying that .NET is not worth copying, but something
> needs to be done.

I do think some of .NET is *worth* copying, and whats not really
technically worth it, should still be done for compatibility reasons.
Technically the SMB protocol sucks the big one. But should Samba never
have been started because it was a technically lame microsoft protocol?
I dont think so, I think that Samba has done the free software community
a fantastic service and help expand our user base.

> just my opinion :)

I do very much respect your opinion, and simply disagree. I may be
wrong... 
but this is just *my* opinion

Seek3r