He did not say anything about Mono's role in the collaboration effort between Novell and Microsoft. Hence one must ask: is Mono's role in the deal that of a hook to make customers write .NET applications because they can be run on Linux - only to find later on that they are armless or legless because of a change in the .NETspecifications, a change which Microsoft decides not to make public?
The whole scenario seems illogical. Visualise if you will a software company that practically owns the desktop space and much of the server space too. This company, which produces proprietary software, is able to look after developers very well simply because it has the resources and it realises that they are the key to making inroads into any tech space.
And here we have an individual who decides to replicate one of the proprietary company's development environments - for reasons best known to him alone - and keeps telling people that the reason he's doing it is so that he can pull people over from the proprietary company's side to his side!!!
Does the reasoning of this line of thought seem a wee bit flawed? Or am I the only person who thinks that this man resembles some kind of modern day Don Quixote?
Look at the wishlist which de Icaza mentioned in the interview - he wants a technical deal between Mono and .NET and wants Microsoft to recommend Mono to developers looking at migration. Sure. A company which is trying to push its own operating systems into every possible nook and corner, and facing some resistance from Linux, is definitely going to be inclined to recommend something that will take people away from its own O-S and help them move to one with which it is doing battle. Excellent logic there, Miguel!
These crackpot arguments are exactly why I think there is something much more sinister in the Novell-Microsoft deal, something that is intimately connected with Mono. It is high time that the whole story was told.
