[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet
From: |
Gopal.V |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:42:52 +0530 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
If memory serves me right, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> I still don't understand it, sorry :-( That is, I am developing gnome-db
> (http://www.gnome-db.org), and depend, as people depend on oxygen, on
> Bonobo. That is, any change in Bonobo affects me.
So, I don't think you are working with the Bonobo team ?. You are
*using* Bonobo. What we're talking about is not DotGNU *using* Mono
libs -- but a Mono DotGNU partnership project (as I see it).
> Of course, I am not saying gnome-db/bonobo is the same situation as
> DotGNU/Mono. But I understand this as something similar to this idea. If
> I'm wrong, please correct me and explain me again why you need that
> control.
We can use Mono libs -- like you use Bonobo, but unlike Bonobo
and GnomeDB, DotGNU and Mono are working on the same stuff -- C# libs.
The Control aspect is not the point -- It's about sharing work,
responsibility and accountability. For example , how to make sure
work in the future will not be duplicated, how to implement the
Registry classes in GNU/Linux, how to implement the "PassportIdentity"
class.....
> As you said, it's free software after all, so if there is a
> good cooperation between all people, there is no need whatsoever for
> this control over each other.
The *point* !. Thanks.
All I want to say is that there should be "cooperation" , not
class swapping. We should discuss issues rather than know them by
proxy.
Gopal.V
PS: We just had a MS.NET demonstration at college -- those guys will
do anything to get the whole internet guid'd (pun intended) into
their network.
Rogdrigo: I *really* liked reading this mail. this is the kind of
postive attitude that is needed for co-operation.
--
The difference between insanity and genius is only measured by success
//===<=>===\\
|| GNU RULEZ ||
\\===<=>===//
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, (continued)
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, Rhys Weatherley, 2002/03/17
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, Adam Treat, 2002/03/17
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, Paolo Molaro, 2002/03/18
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, Gopal.V, 2002/03/18
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, Norbert Bollow, 2002/03/20
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, Fergus Henderson, 2002/03/20
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, Gopal.V, 2002/03/20
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, Rodrigo Moya, 2002/03/20
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet,
Gopal.V <=
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, Norbert Bollow, 2002/03/22
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, James Michael DuPont, 2002/03/20
- Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, Norbert Bollow, 2002/03/20
Re: [DotGNU]Call for a truce over mono vs pnet, Adam Treat, 2002/03/17