[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DotGNU]More compelling reasons against Mono...

From: Gopal.V
Subject: [DotGNU]More compelling reasons against Mono...
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 05:46:09 +0530
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

Hi E'Body,
    I'm not here to flame or bitch about Mono. But to quote a Mono
contributer about how Mono is helping Microsoft conquer the Net. It
was a revelation about the effects of Mono on the freedom of its users.

Andy Satori Wrote :
> Mono to this point has done a lot of good for Microsoft, and I think
> they know it.  Mono legitimizes their platform to a target audience they
> cannot effectively embrace.  They are a marketing company and they know
> this.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the work for hire BSD
> and open ended Linux port of the .NET framework that MS contracted to a
> certain 3rd party with Linux experience, never gets completed, because
> even that would not legitimize the platform as effectively as Mono does.
> Even more to the point, with the license change to allow commercial
> software to be built on the Mono framework, the door is now open for
> them to accomplish the one thing that they seem to want most.  With
> their internal commitment to bringing their business software to C# and
> .NET, things like Great Plains Dynamix, Mono becomes the key to them
> bringing a robust revenue generating platform to a previously
> unreachable audience. 
> Windows and Office have such a stranglehold on the marketplace, they
> cannot continue to generate the kind of corporate growth that Microsoft
> needs to maintain to sustain it's fiscal growth.  They have to succeed
> with .NET to leverage themselves into a position where they can continue
> the kind of exponential revenue increases that they have built their
> business model around.  The truth is that there is an enormous risk in
> staking their business on a model that has not proven itself yet, and a
> business model that they have failed at in all previous attempts.
> Microsoft has never been successful at generating revenue on services.  
> Mono is for them a key, a holy grail that they cannot deliver
> themselves, not for technical reasons but for marketing reasons.  If
> they build a .NET for Linux, that is feature for feature equal with the
> Windows version, the shareholders will revolt.  If they deliver it as an
> MS product, without source, the Linux community in general will revolt,
> not too mention the lack of clarity that most people outside the Gnu
> community have about what exactly the GPL means, makes it too gray an
> area for Microsoft to sell to the legal advisors that are busily
> advising the investment groups that represent the shareholders who
> aren't generally technical people but are instead our parents and
> gandparents through pension funds, 401k's, IRA's and other investments
> that depend upon the constant upswing in growth and revenue for their
> increases in value.
> So if you are Microsoft, you cannot come out and publicly say, 'Mono
> presents a threat to the Windows platform' and file a law suit, or
> exploit questionable patents without attracting the additional attention
> from the ongoing anti-trust case, a case that is unlikely to be resolved
> fully for years.  At the same time, they cannot publicly state 'Mono is
> a great thing, it brings the vision of .NET to our competitors and
> offers an opportunity to finally deliver on the promises Java made!'.
> That statement would effectively send the investment community into
> complete apoplexy because it's a tacit admission that Windows is not the
> end all, be all.  This would be completely unacceptable to the legal,
> marketing and investor relations groups. 
> Of course the fact that one of the key men in developing C# and .NET
> came from Borland, a company and a man notorious for keeping cross
> platform options open.  Taking that a step further, the success of the
> Mono development to this stage, to have a natively hosting compiler less
> than a month after the commercial product release of the original
> creators, done without the assistance of the original authors.  To have
> a working interpreter on 2 different hardware architectures.  To have a
> percentage, albeit small, of a working library / framework in such a
> short time is a remarkable feat.  Do I think that Microsoft *can* hurt
> the Mono projects with their patents, absolutely.  Can I see anything
> that gain by doing so?  No. 
> The easiest avenues for them to attack a project like Mono would be to
> bleed Ximian, they could do that, but would that kill the project?
> Unlikely, and more importantly, would such and action warrant the
> backlash and bad publicity.  It's a very fine line they have to walk.

    Makes you wonder doesn't it ?. 
 The difference between insanity and genius is only measured by success

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]