It seems a little bit churlish to blame Microsoft for that, unless anyone has evidence that they’re holding the process up?

It is their fault anyway, isn’t it? We wouldn’t be having this ghost standard if they didn’t push it…

implying the Mono specifically infringes MS patents

Well, of course mono infringes MS patents, whether intentionally or not. It is meant as a project to replicate MS’ code instead of innovate, nevertheless MS probably has made its patent ambiguous enough so that any implementation of .net infringes patents.

But let’s stop talking about software patents here, they are after all mythical everywhere, and if MS began trying toget Linux users to pay them, I would still use Linux and not pay them.

The real problem, and that’s were your link is soo right is the whole “follow the leather” philosophy that has plagued Novell and is clear in Miguel Icaza’s blog. For some reason they are pushing so hard for Linux to become an imitator of MS technologies, instead of making actual innovation, whether intentionally or not, this will render Linux a second class citizen.

“See? You can have most of .Net … but you can’t write a GUI because Windows Forms is held back. If you try to port Windows forms to another platform, so that a program originally written in .Net using Windows forms can be easily ported to that other platform … Microsoft would certainly sue.

Absolutely classic Microsoft behaviour, that.

For Silverlight … the piece of that that Microsoft have held back for themselves exclusively is the content creation part.

You can only create Silverlight content on a Windows platform. “

http://www.osnews.com/comments/19745

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2445

\r\nTo sum up, here we have another case study exemplifying total disregard, market abuse, distortio…

http://www.finedigg.com/computer/

This would have been ideal for my mom but she’s running an EEE with Linux Mint now.

Keep up the good work, and never mind the asstroturfers! Many of us are counting on you!

UhOhXML is dog poo. He said ..She said.. The standard is full of problems. There will be no interoperability. Monopolysoft poo-poo’d all over the place, and people will never regard it as anything but another gross example of Monopolysoft lack of ethics (I know, “ethics” is a word that doesn’t exist in some people’s mind when it comes to $$$). Well, actually, it won’t be like just any other such example. Monopolysoft went too far this time.

What’s this I hear? Another drop falling into the Monopolysoft expense bucket? Why yes, yes it is. http://www.digistan.org/hague-declaration Just a few more days left to sign up.

You seem to be unable to read or understand English. Try carefully reading this story again. There are people here who can help you to understand some of the big words, and also help you to learn how to expand your vocabulary to include more than four-letter words. If you are in fact a kindergarten student, please disregard this comment and enjoy your nap-time this afternoon. Have fun playing your Windows games!

The output of the BRM is instructions to the editor on how to change the text. The editor puts the final text today, and JTC1 is supposed to distribute it.

It seems a little bit churlish to blame Microsoft for that, unless anyone has evidence that they’re holding the process up?

It’s not really in their interest to hold it up whichever side you butter your toast.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

It should be up to someone.

Microsoft proxies or parties that it hires (ECMA has Microsoft as a customer for example).

Microsoft has spent a lot of money trying to buy this standard. Can it not afford to bribe a little more to make the process quicker? Oh, well… I guess hurrying up _at this stage_ isn’t actually serving its needs. Now it can just urinate on all the formalities.

And that’s just why everyone loves Microsoft.