A few days ago we published an analysis of Mono in Ubuntu. That post has been viewed close to 6,000 times so far and it generated ongoing discussions such as this one in LXer. Some people attack the messenger and others appear to make incorrect assertions. Among my latest observations:
Mono comes in separate forms depending on what’s covered and documented and what’s not, IIRC. There are bits that are bound to come under scrutiny, shall one want to scrutinise them. The Mono project divided them up recently.
Have you seen the Novell contract (redacted) with Microsoft? Have a look. See how it treats Mono and WinE. Then, look at the Linspire and Xandros ones. Not the same. Not a coincidence, in my humble opinion.
People would be wise to refrain from attacking individuals and suggesting that I spread FUD (against Linux). Those who know my activities on the Web would laugh at the idea of me spreading FUD against Linux, so such accusations take us nowhere.
A few hours ago, the following analysis of Debian GNU/Linux “Lenny” came up. Let this quote do its thing:
Simple mental exercise: Identify the OS!
Hint: Replace the backslashes with slashes, then prefix each path with /usr/lib/.
The correct answer is: no, it’s not Microsoft Windows, it’s Debian GNU/Linux “Lenny” (testing), with the minimum dependencies needed to run F-Spot! (Actually, I guess that all not the files are needed, but this is how they package them, and how the dependencies are set.)
Is this the future of GNU/Linux and the Free Desktop? Need something be done to address this? █
Novell’s idea of Linux (Mono is a Novell project and it supports MSOOXML)