On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 11:23, Jonathan Pryor wrote: > 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.
Yes this all true but (and possibly only in my reading) the "attempt by Novell" phrase appears to be trying to give it an entirely negative connotation. -- This e-mail is sponsored by http://www.integration-house.com/ _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
