Summary: A look at how Novell promotes proprietary software, among users and developers alike

SETTING ASIDE the fake hype surrounding Apple's hypePad [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], we do find that Apple loses some developers, such as this guy who has just abandoned hypePhone (and hypePad) development because of Apple's draconian attitude.

I’m Abandoning iPhone Development. Mobile Orchard To Stop Publication.

[...]

That’s wrong. It’s been wrong. And, with the extension of this approach to the iPad, it’s becoming ever more wrong. And this week’s news that “Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript” — making verboten Corona, iPhone Wax, and Unity 3D, destroying one of the most innovative areas in iPhone dev — is more wrong still.

For quite some time now we have shown that Novell is promoting Microsoft's APIs inside Apple's proprietary software/hardware products. The hypePad is no exception based on the news from Novell, namely:

1. Novell Releases MonoTouch 2.0; Enables Development of Apple iPad Applications Using Microsoft .NET Languages

Novell today announced support for Apple iPad application development with the availability of MonoTouch 2.0.

2. Mono Touch 2.0 released by Novell

The company said that the new version now supports development of applications for Apple's new iPad tablet computer in addition to its support for the iPhone and iPod Touch, allowing developers to take advantage of the iPad's larger touch screen and the new features of the device.

This is proprietary software from Novell -- and software that would not even run on GNU/Linux. Here is what The H wrote:

Novell has announced the availability version 2.0 of MonoTouch, based on the open source Mono .NET development framework. Using MonoTouch, developers can write applications for Apple's iPhone OS platform using Mono and C#.

To repeat what we wrote many times before, MonoTouch is about making Microsoft and Apple stronger. What does that give to GNU/Linux? Zero, zilch, nada. The reason for repeating these statements so many times is that a lot of people still can't see it (or conveniently refuse to see it and then accept it). ⬆