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

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

On 25 Jul 2001 23:00:08 +1000, tali streit wrote:
> Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> 
> >Jeremy Petzold <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >>you do have a good point though, if we make it our public goal to be
> >>compatible with .NET than, yes, that would be bad PR, however, designing
> >>the system to support it, then putting a good spin on it when the
> >>feature is announced would just make us look more flexible.
> >>
> >
> >>"with our software, you will not only be able to save a large amount of
> >>money from licensing, but you will be able to keep those old .NET
> >>applications."
> >>
> >
> >I like the sentiment, although I wouldn't focus on the money issues.
> >
> >Anyway, I think a good PR spin is: "DotGNU will work with existing
> >Microsoft.NET applications, without restricting freedom or privacy".
> >
> this sounds good to me, but i know what DotGNU is.
> 
> i work (for money only) on the windows platform with a lot of ms 
> blinkered people. there is a definte amount of good publicity associated 
> with "Linux Software". (these people think of apache on NT as "Linux 
> Software").
> for them, reading that line might be equivalent to saying: "DotGNU is 
> .NET with encryption"
> 
> how about "DotGNU is a network orientated framework with an emphasis on 
> freedom and privacy. DotGNU is backwardly compatible with MS .NET"
> 
> or how about simply "Forget .NET, DotGNU can do more" :)

Well, if you are already talking to people how look on Linux
favorably, then I'd say something like:

     DotGNU is to .NET, as Linux is to Windows.  If you like
     Linux, then you will love DotGNU.

Or something like that.

See ya

     Charles Iliya Krempeaux