This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2008/09/19/why-not-mono-car-analogy/.
Posted in Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 8:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Those who work at Novell and also sympathise with Microsoft sometimes say so. Those who work at Novell and dislike Microsoft (or Windows) would put their job at risk by criticising Novell’s big partner and new source of revenue. The same goes for .NET — and by association Mono — so we expect no public outburst or resentment towards this direction coming from inside Novell.
=> sometimes say so | new source of revenue
It is important to understand why Mono is dangerous. Mono is Novell and Novell is growing closer and closer to Microsoft as time goes by. As a reader points out, “we really don’t know, what is happening behind closed doors, but there is nothing good to be expected.”
=> why Mono is dangerous | growing closer and closer to Microsoft as time goes by
The same reader has prepared a short document, which he thought might be useful for people as they try to give a clearer picture why exactly it is different comparing DotNET vs. Mono than DotNET vs any other technology.
“Like the Google comic, sometimes a picture says more than words and sticks in the minds better,” he wrote. So here goes:
DotNet gets you there, like doing a simple mathematical operation like 1+1 = 2 Mono does it in the same way, emulating DotNET as closely as possible. So MS could argue that Mono does not only resemble its “original” a great deal, It basically incorporates the same internals.
Let’s say that DotNET has a diesel as motor, so does Mono.
“Demanding royalties on so-called IP, knowing its competitor uses a derived model with the same internals to make it “tick”.”Generally, every car uses a some kind of motor. But it would be very much more likely to be successful to sue for a company. Demanding royalties on so-called IP, knowing its competitor uses a derived model with the same internals to make it “tick”.
E.g. if DotNet uses a special hybrid-motor, it would be more likely for MS to make its case in the public opinion (which is crucial for the moral acceptance if MS decides to sue) sound “legit”, than if it would try to sue “Python”, which also uses the “4-wheel-technology”, has a motor and brings you from a to b (e.g. also arrives at the conclusion that 1+1 = 2), but ultimately shares this with any vehicle and would make it much harder for MS to attack while not being viewed as an “SCO-like”-attack.
Then the risk of Python itself (as the inventor of the Python-model) suing other “car-makers” based on their Python-technology is infinitely smaller compared due to its open-source-nature as opposed to MS as the DotNET-car-maker regarding its Mono-Clone… █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).