On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 05:13, Jonathan Stowe wrote: > On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 09:04, RoBiK wrote: > > > > http://searchvb.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid8_gci1019210,00.h > > tml > > "Mono is an attempt by Novell to reverse engineer parts of > Microsoft's .NET Framework." > > A wonderful piece of FUD slinging that.
Where's the FUD, exactly? Parts of .NET are standardized under ECMA, which Mono implements. Parts of .NET are *not* standardized under ECMA, which Mono also implements. (For example, System.Web.UI, System.Windows.Forms, System.Data, etc.) How else could Mono implement the non-standardized parts of .NET than by reverse-engineering? Hell, we likely needed to reverse-engineer parts of the standardized portions, in places where the standard wasn't explicit and we needed to maintain compatibility. Reverse engineering isn't a bad thing. It's what allows competition to exist in many fields. - Jon _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
