[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [DotGNU]More compelling reasons against Mono...

From: David Sugar
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]More compelling reasons against Mono...
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:21:07 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020107

I think a much more apt and fair comparison would be if the GNU project had chosen only to create gcc and then chose to either ignore or avoid the much broader issue of all the software around the compiler (the operating system, libraries and tools) being non-free. While, as you correctly note, gcc in itself does not address any of the broader issues of software freedom alone, it certainly does so within the context of the GNU project as a whole. It is in this context which DotGNU exists for and around individual projects like pnet, and for which that I see Mono fails or chooses not to address.


Paolo Molaro wrote:

On 03/15/02 Gopal.V wrote:

If memory serves me right, Roland Ljungh wrote:

Since when? Mono is designed to be a developer environment for linux...

        Exactly it does not tackle any of the privacy/security/freedom concerns
of .NET .

GCC does not tackle any of the privacy/security/freedom concerns
of .NET . Wow, gcc must be evil, then....

Yeah, right! Come on now, why would a compiler and a jit and a classlibrary not work without ms software?

You bootstrapped off MS software -- so without MS providing CSC in the first place , you would be going *fast* nowhere writing a compiler in C#. So you see MS software does come up in the Mono picture.

Of course, the GCC you use was first bootstrapped on a GNU/Linux system
booted by a free-software BIOS on a computer with schematics provided
for all its circuits (oh, the CPU was designed with a free-sofware tool,
too). I wish that could be true, but desire doesn't change history.


reply via email to

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