But that's not Window's fault is it? I'm no Windows fanboy but if it was the Year of the Linux Desktop and everyone ran Ubuntu, people could be tricked just as easily to type sudo sh notmalicilousatall.sh.
But whether he believes it's safe or not, the fact is that people are put off by the potentially dangerous parts, and just because he's splitting those doesn't mean he agrees with them, just that he wants them to not be put off from using Mono.
What do you mean breaking their promise? The point is that they can't sue you from now on because they promised to let you use it. They can't win the case, and therefore can't break the promise.
No, he's splitting the parts that other people consider to be dangerous and are potentially off-putting to businesses. That doesn't mean he considers the rest unsafe, just that other people (obviously) do.
"Q: Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?
A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies. As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft's implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of "suspension" clause is common industry practice."
tl;dr they can't sue you, ever, unless you sue them over patents.
Also, Mono contains
1) parts that are covered by the ECMA standard (C# and the CLI)
2) original namespaces (like Mono.Simd)
3) open-sourced Microsoft stuff (like ASP.NET, under the OSI-approved MS-PL license)
4) parts that are in.NET but not covered by the standard (like Winforms)
which is why Miguel de Icaza says they'll be splitting their distribution up into now definitely safe (1 and 2) and potentially dodgy (3 and 4) packages, which is what already happens on Ubuntu for instance.
The point is that if you're paranoid about Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot and killing Mono as their long history of antitrust cases would suggest, you'd have to say that GNU was just as dangerous when it was started.
GNU's a Unix clone whether you like it or not. It is (was?) in exactly the same relationship to AT&T as Mono is to Microsoft, but I don't hear anyone saying itsatrap every time someone someone mentions GNU/Linux on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's not Window's fault is it? I'm no Windows fanboy but if it was the Year of the Linux Desktop and everyone ran Ubuntu, people could be tricked just as easily to type sudo sh notmalicilousatall.sh.
Except this is the opposite, because if Microsoft sues you, you can just point out this promise and go home free.
What do you mean worthless? It's legally binding!
But whether he believes it's safe or not, the fact is that people are put off by the potentially dangerous parts, and just because he's splitting those doesn't mean he agrees with them, just that he wants them to not be put off from using Mono.
What do you mean breaking their promise? The point is that they can't sue you from now on because they promised to let you use it. They can't win the case, and therefore can't break the promise.
No, he's splitting the parts that other people consider to be dangerous and are potentially off-putting to businesses. That doesn't mean he considers the rest unsafe, just that other people (obviously) do.
I think it's to prevent a case where a patent troll sues them for .NET and they can't retaliate because of this promise.
I think he's right to say there wasn't any danger in the first place, but now there's a Mono even the most paranoid can use.
It seems to me that it's a defense for them against overzealous patent trolls. They say it's standard industry practice.
Because now there's a legal basis for it.
It's legally binding. They can't sue you for using C# or the CLI even if they wanted to.
Mono has implemented the ECMA standards ages ago.
No, J# is Microsoft Java. Educate yourself.
Not an issue.
It's not "loosely affiliated", Port25 is a Microsoft site and the guy who announced it works for them.
"Q: Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?
.NET but not covered by the standard (like Winforms)
A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies. As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft's implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of "suspension" clause is common industry practice."
tl;dr they can't sue you, ever, unless you sue them over patents.
Also, Mono contains
1) parts that are covered by the ECMA standard (C# and the CLI)
2) original namespaces (like Mono.Simd)
3) open-sourced Microsoft stuff (like ASP.NET, under the OSI-approved MS-PL license)
4) parts that are in
which is why Miguel de Icaza says they'll be splitting their distribution up into now definitely safe (1 and 2) and potentially dodgy (3 and 4) packages, which is what already happens on Ubuntu for instance.
The point is that if you're paranoid about Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot and killing Mono as their long history of antitrust cases would suggest, you'd have to say that GNU was just as dangerous when it was started.
What made GNU any different back in the day with AT&T?
That wasn't the case when GNU was started.
Forget SCO and explain how GNU is different from Mono.
Again, you're saying GNU was a bad idea because they made an open source clone of a monopolist's technology?
OK, care to point out what ubiquitous parts of 3.5 Mono doesn't support?
GNU's a Unix clone whether you like it or not. It is (was?) in exactly the same relationship to AT&T as Mono is to Microsoft, but I don't hear anyone saying itsatrap every time someone someone mentions GNU/Linux on Slashdot.
So why not use Mono and Apache if you want?
Mono already supports the most widely-used parts of .NET and even some stuff .NET doesn't have, like SIMD.