Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Christopher Smith wrote: >> Either way, going after a language based on the forces that supported >> its development is quite similar to an ad hominem. > > Absolutely. > > However, in this instance, the ad hominem has merit. Microsoft is a > convicted monopolist and has engaged in huge amounts of dirty tricks > to force their will upon a sometimes unwilling market. So... we're justifying an ad hominem with an ad hominem? > I don't use C# or the CLR because it gives support to a company which > is out to extract maximal money from us without regard to our wishes. Oddly, by doing so, ensuring that both remain strictly under their control to use to their own ends.... > The only reason C# and the CLR aren't completely closed is that it > serves Microsoft's current purposes to not have them completely closed. AT&T is also a convicted monopolist that has engaged in huge amounts of dirty tricks to force their will upon an often unwilling market, and they invented C++ and Unix. At various points it served their purpose to close Unix. They were unable to. In the case of C++ it was inevitably *counter* to their purposes to close it. There are lessons to be learned there. > C# and the CLR aren't advanced enough over Java and the JVM to risk > allowing Microsoft to get that close. This is especially true now > that Java and the JVM are genuinely open source. Aside from that silly patent on specific libraries (which is highly questionable at best, particularly since a lot of those libraries are practically deprecated already, and also 'cause the Mono/open source world generally doesn't use them), most of the patents that Microsoft has regarding C# and the CLR apply equally well to Java, not to mention a number of other languages we all embrace. They have no copyright, trademark or trade secret claims that apply to Mono or DotGNU. So, what specific claims do they have to control over C# and the CLR?
So you have to ask yourself two questions: 1) What really is the underlying concern here? 2) Whose interests does it serve to focus on this concern? --Chris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
