Every piece of software written today is likely going to infringe on someone else's patent.

When it comes to .NET they've done a really outstanding job.

In the GNOME project we tried to keep the platform language independent.

So if we're going to build new applications that require a large time investment, like say movie editing - today that doesn't matter for the enterprise desktop, but eventually it will when we get closer to consumers - you really need to have a cross-platform story.

I was interested in Java the beginning, but the problem with Java is you do have to switch your platform.

We've been using C and C++ way too much - they're nice, but they're very close to the machine and what we wanted was to empower regular users to build applications for Linux.

We all love Linux, but it's also a fact that some people might not be able to migrate.

It's strategic for us - lots of people will develop applications in .NET.

After releasing Mono 1.0, we started work on a new edition of Mono that will be released later in the year.

I think that by October the whole company has to migrate to OpenOffice, and then I think it's by June next year we all migrate to Linux - you don't want to migrate 6,000 people both operating system and office suite in a single jump.

They have a beautiful security system and we're emulating the whole security infrastructure.

I've never worked with the Java community.

Our strategy in dealing with patents in Mono is the same strategy that any other software developer would take. In the event of a patent claim, we will try to find prior art to the claim of the patent.

We have a lot of existing customers which are also considering Linux desktop migrations and rolling out some of these programs, so we're learning from them.

Not to go too far, but Microsoft is probably used by most people out there.

In some cases we've been building tools that are specific to Linux for the desktop, and they only work on Linux, but I see two major projects that are wildly, wildly successful: Mozilla and OpenOffice, and those two programs are cross platform.

Some scientists use TeX or LatEX but for most people Word is the thing that writers use these days.

Every piece of software written today is likely going to infringe on someone else's patent.

We cannot choose one desktop over the other - Gnome or KDE - because there's users for both code bases.

Running the test suite like this allows us to catch problems when they are just introduced.

In addition to that, Mono has produced a very large set of extra libraries.

With .NET once an API is published it's available to all programming languages at the same time.

The software patent problem is not limited to Mono. Software patents affect everyone writing software today.

Well Microsoft really does develop some really interesting technology.

All of our code is open source, so it can be used for other projects.

All software sucks.

Defect-free software does not exist.

Software development is technical activity conducted by human beings.

Digital art software has empowered both the painterly side of photographers, and the photographer side of painters.

Red Carpet Enterprise has been really well received since one guy can install it in about an hour, and it makes it trivial to deal with software management issues like deploying updates and creating standard package sets for your various machines.

Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.

As every new breed of virus is conceived, created and released into the wild, another small change is made to the anti-virus software to combat the new threat.

While the creative works from the 16th century can still be accessed and used by others, the data in some software programs from the 1990s is already inaccessible.

Twenty-five years ago, the notion was you could create a general problem-solver software that could solve problems in many different domains. That just turned out to be totally wrong.

Diaspora starts about a thousand years from now. Most of human civilisation has moved inside computers; essentially, a major branch of our descendants consists of conscious software.

We also had good software in the key categories and more focus on the gameplaying capability, so more of the marketing effort was targeted at game customers.

None of our competitors have ever made two systems that run the same software.

I want people to use Perl. I want to be a positive ingredient of the world and make my American history. So, whatever it takes to give away my software and get it used, that's great.

When it comes to software, I much prefer free software, because I have very seldom seen a program that has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available can be a life-saver.

However, writing software without defects is not sufficient. In my experience, it is at least as difficult to write software that is safe - that is, software that behaves reasonably under adverse conditions.

Since when has the world of computer software design been about what people want? This is a simple question of evolution. The day is quickly coming when every knee will bow down to a silicon fist, and you will all beg your binary gods for mercy.

I think it is important for software to avoiding imposing a cognitive style on workers and their work.

By the time Apple's Macintosh operating system finally falls into the public domain, there will be no machine that could possibly run it. The term of copyright for software is effectively unlimited.

The scanning of barcodes, or the reading of RFID transponders, generates data that is used in a software package to provide management or control information.

You get the software you pay for. In every sense. To the nth degree. That's the way the world works.

I want to avoid locking people into solutions that work only with Postfix. People should have a choice in what software they want to use with Postfix, be it anti-virus or otherwise.

I developed some unique software to public it on the web that I call the Folklore Project.

Shareware tends to combine the worst of commercial software with the worst of free software.

So what I was essentially doing was, I compromised the confidentiality of their proprietary software to advance my agenda of becoming the best at breaking through the lock.