<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Quick Mention: Windows ISV Tries to &#8216;Shove&#8217; .NET into Mobile Linux Consortium</title>
	<atom:link href="http://techrights.org/2008/01/09/limo-mono-novell/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://techrights.org/2008/01/09/limo-mono-novell/</link>
	<description>Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:00:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lukas</title>
		<link>http://techrights.org/2008/01/09/limo-mono-novell/comment-page-1/#comment-4822</link>
		<dc:creator>Lukas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:10:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boycottnovell.com/2008/01/09/limo-mono-novell/#comment-4822</guid>
		<description>My response was meant in response to Victor&#039;s comment. Sorry for the confusion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My response was meant in response to Victor&#8217;s comment. Sorry for the confusion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roy Schestowitz</title>
		<link>http://techrights.org/2008/01/09/limo-mono-novell/comment-page-1/#comment-4812</link>
		<dc:creator>Roy Schestowitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:58:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boycottnovell.com/2008/01/09/limo-mono-novell/#comment-4812</guid>
		<description>No, it&#039;s not related to Novell and Microsoft and I did not make this claim either. In fact, I haven&#039;t evened mention that item in this Web site despite the fact that I saw it several times this week. It&#039;s only mentioned here as a &#039;by the way&#039; comprising half a dozen words.If Mono gets feet, then it&#039;ll get harder and harder to escape as time goes by.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, it&#8217;s not related to Novell and Microsoft and I did not make this claim either. In fact, I haven&#8217;t evened mention that item in this Web site despite the fact that I saw it several times this week. It&#8217;s only mentioned here as a &#8216;by the way&#8217; comprising half a dozen words.If Mono gets feet, then it&#8217;ll get harder and harder to escape as time goes by.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lukas</title>
		<link>http://techrights.org/2008/01/09/limo-mono-novell/comment-page-1/#comment-4810</link>
		<dc:creator>Lukas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:14:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boycottnovell.com/2008/01/09/limo-mono-novell/#comment-4810</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure I follow the logic of Microsoft being behind Mono on OLPC - the article published on LinuxToday linked to some random guy&#039;s blog who got his Mono program working on the OLPC. He&#039;s neither involved with Microsoft nor Novell afaict.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure I follow the logic of Microsoft being behind Mono on OLPC &#8211; the article published on LinuxToday linked to some random guy&#8217;s blog who got his Mono program working on the OLPC. He&#8217;s neither involved with Microsoft nor Novell afaict.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Victor Soliz</title>
		<link>http://techrights.org/2008/01/09/limo-mono-novell/comment-page-1/#comment-4807</link>
		<dc:creator>Victor Soliz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:47:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boycottnovell.com/2008/01/09/limo-mono-novell/#comment-4807</guid>
		<description>MS is obviously on the offensive to fill Linux with MONO, even OLPC which is a point of concern, I still wonder how come there are little defensive actions against this. Linux is finally getting more attention thanks to mobile devices and OLPC and it would be a shame for MONO to ruin it by adding a .net dependency to them (which seems totally unnecessary )</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MS is obviously on the offensive to fill Linux with MONO, even OLPC which is a point of concern, I still wonder how come there are little defensive actions against this. Linux is finally getting more attention thanks to mobile devices and OLPC and it would be a shame for MONO to ruin it by adding a .net dependency to them (which seems totally unnecessary )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

