Re: [DotGNU]More compelling reasons against Mono...

[S11001001]

James Michael DuPont wrote:
> Dear DOTGNU members,

My role is limited to hacking when I can on pnetlib, the tasklist, and posts to 
this group, but I believe I can try...

> Hopefully you take my following question as a postive
> one, even if not a informed one :

It has been anticipated since the beginning as a common perception problem.

> One thing is not coming out in that articel, how is
> DOTGNU different? What is your position on microsoft?
>
> Can you explain how DOTGNU is different than mono in
> for those of us who dont know the projects that well?

DotGNU is not a GNU implementation of .NET, it is a replacement. .NETisms like 
C# and CLI are just things it would like to support. Now I'm going high-level 
here, so bear with me....

Mono is designed to work with Microsoft's envisioned internet infrastructure, 
with Passport providing auth, and software services over their runtime and 
SOAP. Mono does not work without Microsoft software.

DotGNU is designed to replace all aspects. As such, some parts are built on 
some of the ideas from .NET, such as CLI. Particularly of note is that pnet 
started as a separate project, though the original spec did call for 'backward 
compatibility'. Of particular importance is the selection of an alternative to 
MS's centralised auth model. But compatibility with .NET is not an absolute 
design goal; for example, there will be no Passport support.

> I am new to this topic,
> but for me DOTNET is a marketing campain built around
> new technologies. An attempt at brand-naming some good
> innovation in technology.

M$ is getting into the habit of labelling everything it puts out as .NET. Your 
perception is correct.

Now, I don't know if Gopal.V has already gotten back to you on this, but here's 
my take, FW

(sorry Gopal.V, I can't get Moz-0.9.9 to focus on the recipient list :( )

--
Oh, I've seen copies [of Linux Journal] around the terminal room at The Labs.
        -- Dennis Ritchie