[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]extension APIs (was Re: [Website]Preparing for dotgnu meet-
Re: [DotGNU]extension APIs (was Re: [Website]Preparing for dotgnu meet-a-thon)
Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:08:04 -0500
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020608
James Mc Parlane wrote:
The flip side of this argument is, why replicate what already works, is
maintained by other equally dedicated groups, and would arguably run much(?)
faster until dot.gnu has JIT compiler capabilities on par with GCC's
Speed isn't as important as portability or ease of installation. If one
doesn't have some of these libraries....it's not good to tell every user
"you must have x, y, z libraries installed for this app to work." A "you
must have DotGNU SEE and Portable .NET installed (standard, right?)"
would be much better.
I think that having pure pnetlib implementations would be a good thing.. but
I also think that being able to say.. look.. dot.gnu its here.. its now..
and its based on libs that are already out there and running on production
Yes, but Linux (the kernel) is running on production servers, and so is
Windows NT. I came to DotGNU because I find the traditional development
environment inadequate; I believe the reason it's here is because the
production server is inadequate and could use a sprucing-up, DotGNU style.
I agree that it's a trade-off either way.
DotGNU `Contributor' -- http://www.dotgnu.org
My views about copyright take an hour to expound, but one general
principle applies: it cannot justify denying the public important
freedoms. As Abraham Lincoln put it, "Whenever there is a conflict
between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."
Property rights are meant to advance human well-being, not as an
excuse to disregard it.
-- RMS, "The GNU GPL and the American Way"