Talk:DotGNU

This page was proposed for deletion by BrianRandal (talk · contribs) on 17 August 2011 with the comment:
Non-notable
It was contested by Squideshi (talk · contribs) on 2011-08-21 with the comment:
Notable

Welcome to the DotGNU talkpage

I am concerned about the neutrality of the recent edits. "FUD from Mono" seems like it expresses a point of view that would go better in a technical editorial than an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. The meeting of the dotGNU team and the way to access to their cvs are'nt at their place... Aneglus A.

Comparing with Mono page on wikipedia

Guess DotGNu page lack a History and See Also sections.

Is it real?

Yes Mono is sponsored and yes DotGnu isn't mentioned on the FAQ page of mono...

But I thought they were collaborating and sharing code.

Typical

I'm used to GNU hippies being irrational, but the line "To counter the perceived challenge to open systems posed by Microsoft's .NET platform, and fears that the company intends to dominate the web services space as it has the desktop" is pathetic. Microsoft's .NET Framework fully supports a myriad of open standards such as HTTP, SOAP, XML, XSLT, etc. so who cares what framework a web service uses? It will talk to everything else using these open standards!

Why does DotGNU exist?

I've heard a lot about Mono, but didn't know of DotGNU before noticing that this Wikipedia article exists. The obvious question for me is: "Why does DotGNU exist? Why not just use Mono? If the projects have only slightly different goals, why not still use the same codebase with different options (similar to gcc "--pedantic" option, for instance)". I'm off to look for that info now, but perhaps this is a FAQ and should be explained in the article, or maybe I'm just ignorant as usual :-) 82.103.214.43 23:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DotGNU exists for one reason: Richard Stallman wants to rule the world. In his vision, everything must be done the GNU way, everything must be GPL'd, everything must be Free Software (which is different from Open Source Software), etc. He doesn't like it when Open Source developers start doing things that aren't appropriate in his world view. Korval 00:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeness and Usability

I've commented about the lack of real newbie help on the DotGNU homepage, due to the amount of material there on free software. This is not some cheap shot at free software (which I actually applaud and support), it is a genuine concern that, on the DotGNU homepage, the developers are not making their software accessible to people. It seems likely that most visitors: (a) will know that .NET is restrictive, and (b) will be looking for helpful information on how to use DotNET. What they get is interesting, but not relevant to their needs. I think this deserves comment on the Wikipedia page because it appears to reflect the way the DotGNU project works.

Someone deleted my original comments (they were a bit ironic I suppose) but I hope that my revised comments are more factual and helpful. I really would like to see DotGNU move forward, and think a genuine roadblock is the lack of user support due to the extensive focus on free-ness —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.173.234 (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm concerned that DotGNU will not be useable in practice by not supporting the non CLS-standard bits, since real .NET applications will obviously use anything available in .NET. 193.74.100.50 (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned

Has this project been abandoned? Should that be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.24.45 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask that same question. There seems to be at most 1 message per month on the mailing-lists, there's been no new releases in 3 years, no updates on their news page, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.168.13 (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this back up. This page should have a section about why it was abandoned. --Hexware (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

I hereby object to the proposed deletion of this article, in accordance with the proposed deletion policy. Squideshi (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DotGNU. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328171539/http://www.wedesoft.demon.co.uk/hornetseye-api/files/HornetsEye-txt.html to http://www.wedesoft.demon.co.uk/hornetseye-api/files/HornetsEye-txt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About "DotGNU and Microsoft's patents"

Hello! Just typing in to ask about something, there is a claim here that says " The framework would be based on .NET Core, including the official runtime and standard libraries released under the MIT License and a patent grant explicitly protecting recipients from Microsoft-owned patents regarding .NET Core."

I'd like to know. Where is this patent grant? I haven't seen any confirmation, be it by Microsoft or an employee of theirs about anything remotely like so. We do have the community promise (which, to my knowledge, is not a legally binding document) and we don't even know which patents does MS holds about this. I'd like to have the author who wrote this bit to explain their sources or verify this at all. TheRaveMaster (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]