Nevin :-] Liber wrote:
Yet Icon itself was "Free as in Free" (aka public domain), which Stallman also disdains.
Hi Nevin,
Stallman isn't a god. He has a specific agenda, which I happen to agree with *in part*. I like public domain, though the threat of abuse (e.g. splintering Icon into incompatible ports) exists.
What really saddens me is the sheer amount of negative energy this community espouses towards Microsoft. This certainly isn't the Icon community of my youth. It used to be a place that encouraged, not discouraged, as many platforms as possible. Not anymore.
Ummm, I disagree. I would like to see Unicon ported to as many machines as possible. What I *absolutely* don't want is to end up with *different* languages on the different machines, all called Unicon. My concern with .NET is just that. Are there going to be language features added that mean that a Unicon program written for .NET won't run on a Unix/Linux box? That *has* to be avoided! If that principle is accepted by people porting Unicon to .NET, then I'd like to see that port.
Keep in mind that this is a tactic that MS has used to grow market share (not that MS is the only such company, but certainly the one who can isolate other OS's from a technology, simply because of their size. That's why we have to be careful...
(Ok, I'll agree that there's some fragmentation of Unicon already, since an installer can select some features when they build Unicon. Just because we're not perfect does not mean we shouldn't try to adhere to principles.) -- -- Steve Wampler [EMAIL PROTECTED] The gods that smiled upon your birth are laughing now. -- fortune cookie
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Unicon-group mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
