Talk:Portable.NET

mono
mentioning that Mono is created by the Novell owned company Ximian.

Added
It sure looks like a stub to me, added the template.

Competition with Mono
It's a fact that in practice developers choose to use either Mono or Portable.NET, not both. As much as I've seen many projects reoccur in different incarnations between Mono and Portable.NET. The last I saw Portable.NET is in practice inhibited. It would be nice to have some sources for such a statement, to explain why Portable.NET develops very slowly just now (weird things happen in OpenSource, the tides may turn quickly, so this project is just maybe temporary low-activity). Said: Rursus (☻) 07:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability
Some secondary source are fsf.org, gnu.org, debian.org and thefreedictionary.com:

https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-pnet/

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/DotGNU+Portable.NET

The project seems not dead as the mail list is alive up to August 2010:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dotgnu-pnet/ --Efa (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the fsf or gnu count as "secondary sources" since gnu is the organization that started the DotGNU project (which includes pnet). The debian link is just the packages, so I'm not sure that counts either. The dictionary reference is just a definition of what DotGNU is, so again... not really "notable". It's not being talked about anywhere, is the point. As far as the mailing-list goes, 1 message per month doesn't strike me as "alive and kicking", especially since there haven't been any new releases or any project news announcements in over 3 years. BrianRandal (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. As of the end of July, 2011 - there have been no messages to the mailing lists in 7 months and no public announcements or releases in over 4 years. If that doesn't say "dead", then nothing does. This thing is deader than Duke Nukem Forever. See https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dotgnu-pnet/ for an up-to-date archive. 24.91.170.86 (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Copied text
The section on 'Portable .NET and Microsoft patents' is an almost verbatim copy of the same section in the Mono article. It may not apply to Portable.NET as such, and there are no sources that warrant these statements in this article. I propose that it be removed (or sourced properly). Virtlinkt&#x2022;c 14:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)