Re: GNOME dependent on Mono

[jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>]

On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 18:44 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 3:13 PM, Luis Villa <luis tieguy org> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 8:31 AM, BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne gmail com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Nov 29, 2007 1:33 PM, Luis Villa <luis tieguy org> wrote:
> > > > I'll second this. The fact:fiction ratio of boycottnovell is just
> > > > incredibly, incredibly bad.
> > >
> > > RMS message read "If part of it is not accurate, I hope someone will
> > > explain." Do you care to sort out what is fact and what is fiction?
> >
> > Jeff has ably debunked this particular fiction already in the thread,
> > and more generally ably debunked the FUD that Novell somehow controls
> > the Foundation. As to the rest, I have better things to do with my
> > life than to debunk the rest of boycottnovell post-by-post.
> 
> No. The boycottnovell site and the OP alluded to that there would be
> moral, philosophical and or legal problems with GNOME depending on
> Mono and or C#. Is that fact or is it fiction?
> 

Its hypothetical 

The fact that its optional means its also irrelevant in any case

IMO microsoft technology (outside the realms of genuine interoperability
like wine or samba) is  pretty much irrelevant to the wider GNOME
community too. Any attempt to add MS stuff in the future is likely to be
optional. If it ever becomes mandatory, Gnome would probably fork and
its as simple as that. The official GNOME approved desktop and platform
is really the lowest common denominator for all its members - at least
that is how I understand how they approve stuff for it.

BoycottNovell are really "trolls r us" and are anti-gnome as much as
they are anti-novell

jamie