Re: Java issues, and Microsoft.NET compatibility (was Re: [DotGNU]Choice of bytecode spec (was: Support Java for .GNU))

[tali streit]

Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:

> Jeremy Petzold <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > you do have a good point though, if we make it our public goal to be
> > compatible with .NET than, yes, that would be bad PR, however, designing
> > the system to support it, then putting a good spin on it when the
> > feature is announced would just make us look more flexible.
>
> > "with our software, you will not only be able to save a large amount of
> > money from licensing, but you will be able to keep those old .NET
> > applications."
>
> I like the sentiment, although I wouldn't focus on the money issues.
>
> Anyway, I think a good PR spin is: "DotGNU will work with existing
> Microsoft.NET applications, without restricting freedom or privacy".
this sounds good to me, but i know what DotGNU is.

i work (for money only) on the windows platform with a lot of ms 
blinkered people. there is a definte amount of good publicity associated 
with "Linux Software". (these people think of apache on NT as "Linux 
Software").
for them, reading that line might be equivalent to saying: "DotGNU is 
.NET with encryption"

how about "DotGNU is a network orientated framework with an emphasis on 
freedom and privacy. DotGNU is backwardly compatible with MS .NET"

or how about simply "Forget .NET, DotGNU can do more" :)