|
From: | tali streit |
Subject: | Re: Java issues, and Microsoft.NET compatibility (was Re: [DotGNU]Choice of bytecode spec (was: Support Java for .GNU)) |
Date: | Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:41:38 +1000 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i686; en-US; rv:0.9.1) Gecko/20010622 |
Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
We need to be compatible, otherwise, we won't get adoption.
I am worried about this because i believe that from a PR perspective we should not be seen as "playing catchup to .NET". if we are seen as that, we
1. give credibility to .NET (why else would we copy it?) 2. are seen as merely trying to catch up 3. lend to the "unamerican" sentiment that billg is pushing.Instead i think that we should *strongly* push ourselves as creating something far superior to .NET. not even something based on it. something that has technological and ideological superiority, and is free software. then, make a compatibility "path" (might involve converters etc).
this way we are saying that .NET is not worth copying, but something needs to be done.
just my opinion :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |