[DotGNU]Re: Java issues, and Microsoft.NET compatibility

[tali streit]

Dan Kuykendall (Seek3r) wrote:

> tali streit wrote:
>
> > Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> >
> > I am worried about this because i believe that from a PR perspective we
> > should not be seen as "playing catchup to .NET". if we are seen as that, we
>
> We had/have been playing catchup to Unix for years now, and I dont think
> of this as a failure on our part. Now we are at a stage to start donig
> some real innovations... but playing catchup is not always bad.
Unix had a long history before GNU.
.NET and DotGNU are both new.

> > 1. give credibility to .NET (why else would we copy it?)
>
> If you think it takes *us* to give .NET credibility, then I think you
> need to look at the business world a little harder.
People who might otherwise wait to see what we come up with may decide 
to start in MS land and switch over when we have something. I do not 
think this in our best interests.

If we manage to create a media storm about DotGNU, many companies 
(particularly those with unix) will be very interested.

the difference between a bunch of "compatible projects to .NET" and "a 
whole project  superior to .NET", is ".NET is the way" and "hang on, 
what is this alternative?"

that said, i am talking about a PR advantage, not a technical one.

> Most of big business
> could care less what we the free software community thinks of .NET
> They want to know what companies like IBM think of it, and IBM is
> supporting .NET. So I think that IBM supporting MS.NET gives .NET more
> credibility than anything we could possibly do.
In the end the proof is in the pudding. people switch sides. we have 
nothing to show as yet... but that will change. how we deal with our PR 
in the first weeks of release will probably be one of the most important 
moments in DotGNU development. (IMO)

> Also, should we NOT be giving it some credit? Alot of the concepts are
> very cool and can sokve real problems. Should we denounce it simply
> because it came from Microsoft?
yes, because it is flawed. if it is not flawed, what are we doing here? :)

> and giving the statements from MS as
> reasons we should not duplicate some of what they are doing is short
> sighted.
technically, i agree with you 100%
all i am saying is from a PR point of view we should not be seen to be 
duplicating it.

> I do very much respect your opinion, and simply disagree. I may be
> wrong... 
> but this is just *my* opinion
good, that is what this is all about :)