[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangere
From: |
Rhys Weatherley |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs? |
Date: |
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:17:22 +1000 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.4.3 |
On Sunday 12 October 2003 06:47 am, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> But being selective about what you consider to be
> thin-wrapper, and what you don't is just an exercise in deception.
That's out of line and you should apologise. It was based on a careful
analysis of the API's and other similar API's in the past (MFC of 10 years
ago does everything that you listed as "massive departures").
In any case, it has already been made clear in this thread that we are hedging
our bets: we'll switch to Qt# or Gtk# in a heartbeat should Microsoft
disagree with our analysis. What? We can't have it both ways?
If you have no interest in co-operating with us in a productive and
non-hostile fashion, why don't you just say so? Attacking our judgement is
hardly conducive to a productive working relationship.
I suspect that the real problem here is that you desperately don't want
Windows.Forms to succeed (either Mono's or pnet's). Because who in the world
would use Gtk# if Windows.Forms applications worked everywhere?
Cheers,
Rhys.
- [DotGNU]Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Norbert Bollow, 2003/10/10
- [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Miguel de Icaza, 2003/10/10
- [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Norbert Bollow, 2003/10/10
- [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Miguel de Icaza, 2003/10/11
- RE: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Thong (Tum) Nguyen, 2003/10/11
- RE: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Miguel de Icaza, 2003/10/11
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?, Kamen Yotov, 2003/10/11
- [DotGNU]Windows.Forms (was Re: Collaboration... ), Norbert Bollow, 2003/10/17
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?,
Rhys Weatherley <=
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Miguel de Icaza, 2003/10/11
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Rhys Weatherley, 2003/10/11
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Miguel de Icaza, 2003/10/11
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Rhys Weatherley, 2003/10/11
- Re: [Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Ian MacLean, 2003/10/12
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?, Seth Johnson, 2003/10/11
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Gopal V, 2003/10/12
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?, Seth Johnson, 2003/10/11
- Re: [Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Paolo Molaro, 2003/10/12
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Norbert Bollow, 2003/10/13