It's actually the developer of Mono who brought up the too-strict licensing issue.Have you tried Mono? ... Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Sou ... astructure
As to getting Mono working on Windows, its a non-simple procedure and outside of my expertise. If someone reading this can make some headway on that, I welcome it.
Its difficult to concisely explain why someone can be honest and yet their numbers are incorrect, but its the nature of statistics. Additionally, although I'm pleased you've found a trust model that works well for you, I have no such method so in the mean time I have to rely to the best of my ability on neutral third parties.Now you could, as webfork has, claim that they are all biased Microsoft liars
Additionally, it seems that your number is in dispute:
http://johnhaller.com/jh/useful_stuff/d ... able_apps/
As I understand it, the primary audience for this site is people who need their software to go from place to place easily. These are people interested in "public locations (net cafes, coffee shops, libraries, hotel business centers, school computer labs, etc)" (source), not just work and home. As a result, this audience is unlikely to use computers that have .NET installed with the latest updates and it is therefore hard to describe .NET software as portable.You could put a big red warning saying "not completely portable"
Although I tend to be on the side of "let the user decide" I also enjoy the popularity that this site enjoys and love the nature of software that "just works." I know users will be annoyed and frustrated with .NET incompatibilities and agree with m^(2) that, "the only solution that works for all is to avoid problematic content."
If we were to create a separate area of the site or a dotnetportablefreeware.com or something like that, I'd be all for it. Since I don't have the ability to modify the site in that way, keeping a listing of portable .NET applications in the forums seems the best method at the moment.
I fully agree. When I find strong information that suggests .NET penetration has reached greater ubiquity my stance on this will necessarily change. If the use of Windows XP falls significantly within the next 5 years as it has with previous versions, it will not make sense to exclude .NET 2.0.popularity statistics, on whose relevance we agree, are likely to grow with time