FUD is as FUD does
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Sep 10, 2007 3:18 PM EDT |
I guess there is some irony to apply brain-dead FUD to the masters of brain-dead FUD. My only dismay is that any FOSS folks would be dumb enough to think there was any content to this. A little fact checking is all it takes: 1. From what I can see -- although I have had trouble finding reliable "from the horse's mouth" references - the Moonlight bits, ie, analogs to that part of Sliverlight that is not the codecs, will be released under the LGPL. That makes it free software and that means that anybody can distribute it. 2. If you are remotely impressed by Novell's "patent protection", you need to get it from Novell. Well, duh. 3. The proprietary stuff is NOT being distributed by Novell. It is being distributed by Microsoft. Hmmm. Kind of like Nvidia drivers. Or, in some cases, flash. What a shocking development! 4. There is no there there. This all just FUD. Stupid FUD at that. |
| tracyanne Sep 10, 2007 4:28 PM EDT |
Stupid ignorant brain dead FUD of Microsoftian proportions... Actually I think Microsoft get their facts right more often. |
| dinotrac Sep 10, 2007 5:09 PM EDT |
>Actually I think Microsoft get their facts right more often. The very best lies are told with nothing but facts and logical conclusions drawn from those facts. it's all in what you choose to highlight. |
| Libervis Sep 10, 2007 5:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:the Moonlight bits, ie, analogs to that part of Sliverlight that is not the codecs, will be released under the LGPL. That makes it free software and that means that anybody can distribute it. I know this and that's why I (in the other thread) posed a question; how could MS hurt Free Software if Moonlight is Free Software. Well.. herzeleid gave a decent answer to that. Can our freedom to fork away once somebody changes the license matter much to the larger picture Microsoft might be painting? Or is our fork gonna be relevant if something like this happens? Quoting:If you are remotely impressed by Novell's "patent protection", you need to get it from Novell. Well you are saying that in a RedHat style ("oh gosh if you really can't live without it, there, have at it"). Unfortunately, you don't hear that from Miguel. The tone is much different. If you want to be safe, download from Novell. Heck man, isn't the whole patent racket the whole point of the MS-Novell deal? Duh indeed. Quoting:The proprietary stuff is NOT being distributed by Novell. It is being distributed by Microsoft. So what? They're allies and some of them are apparently quite eager to bring MS technology aboard too (read Miguel De Icaza). I'm sure he loves it and I can even understand why to a point, but pity that Microsoft might just be looking for the next way to undermine competition. What surprise! And there is the opportunity, an eager Miguel is developing a potential backdoor for them. Of course, today it's all gonna be roses, but tomorrow with some marketing tweaks and some smart cuddling up... oh do I need to go on... Quoting:There is no there there. This all just FUD. Stupid FUD at that. Can you differentiate FUD from reasonable doubt? Of course, maybe you just doubt the "reasonable" part. :P And then there is disagreement. ;) Quoting:The very best lies are told with nothing but facts and logical conclusions drawn from those facts. it's all in what you choose to highlight. Facts, logical conclusions drawn from those facts - key ingredients of any honest journalism. Did you just call all journalism lying? Please be more specific cause I gotta believe that I'm not in the matrix where everything is a lie. :D Highlighting is normal if you want to send a certain message. Whether the intentions are honest or dishonest is another thing. I think that's where the differentiator between FUD and non-FUD may be. If someone is telling lies simply because he does not know the truth, what do you call that? If someone lies despite knowing that those are lies, what do you call that? ;) |
| dinotrac Sep 10, 2007 5:33 PM EDT |
>Can you differentiate FUD from reasonable doubt? Yes. Reasonable doubt is that doubt a reasonable person would have after reviewing the evidence. This is FUD. The first hint is reference to a Microsoft tax. >Did you just call all journalism lying? Sounds like you just answered your own question. Not just FUD, but stupid FUD. |
| Libervis Sep 10, 2007 5:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:Yes. Reasonable doubt is that doubt a reasonable person would have after reviewing the evidence. This is FUD. The first hint is reference to a Microsoft tax. Well, sounds like you're just expressing your opinion. To Roy, the evidence he considered may be enough for reasonable doubt. To you it apparently is not. You could also accuse him of not being a reasonable man, but he may in turn do the same to you. It's just humans. :) Anyway, it's not that I care about who is right and on which "side" I am. If you ask me I'd rather have nothing against Mono. I like some of Mono based apps, so what motivation other than reasonable doubt would I have for even considering the issue Roy seems to be pointing to? I don't freaking care for anything here except for Free Software and myself as someone who built two sites on that topic and in service to Free Software and freedom in general. Quoting:Sounds like you just answered your own question. How cute. Will you enlighten me? :P |
| dinotrac Sep 10, 2007 5:48 PM EDT |
>Well, sounds like you're just expressing your opinion. To repeat myself: Well, duh. We all express our opinions. Some opinions are better than others, though, and I tend to dismiss those that are based on a fabric of lies and speculation. > Will you enlighten me? That, I'm afraid, is beyond my meager communication skills. |
| tracyanne Sep 10, 2007 6:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:Well.. herzeleid gave a decent answer to that. Can our freedom to fork away once somebody changes the license matter much to the larger picture Microsoft might be painting? Or is our fork gonna be relevant if something like this happens? Then we are back where we started. But think.... While the software works on Linux, it's one less reason for people not to move to Linux. What happens if enough People are using Linux that critical mass has been reached. Microsoft would be cutting their own throat, if they then changed the protocols/license. The fork would then be able to use free protocols and would be free. If Linux critical mass is never reached then if Microsoft changes the license/protocols then it won't make that much difference. You and the boycott novell people are jumping at your own shadows. |
| Libervis Sep 10, 2007 6:07 PM EDT |
I'm jumping at nobody's shadow. I'm just indulging myself in a conversation. You make a good point there though. Pity we can't really see into the minds of decision makers and strategists at both companies. The "conspiracy" here is not in predicting the future, but in determining the real intentions behind actions we see in the present and whether those are made with ill intents whose objectives may be achieved or not. What you're saying could mean either of the following: - MS and Novell have, at least with regards to Mono, honest intentions and therefore obviously their objective is not what we should worry about. - MS and Novell have ill intentions, or just one of them trying to manipulate the other, but the strategy they're using with these intentions will not work (so objective will not be achieved). |
| tracyanne Sep 10, 2007 6:13 PM EDT |
It's chess on a grand scale, and we are but pawns. |
| dinotrac Sep 10, 2007 6:45 PM EDT |
>What you're saying could mean either of the following: Standard conspiracy nutcase logic. Let me see - only the following things are possible, so... There is also the possibility that MS has dishonest intentions and Novell has honest intentions, and the other way around. This whole "MS and Novell" thing - MS and Novell are just like MS and Apple: they are companies who have signed and agreement together. Novell is not married to Microsoft any more than Apple was. |
| Abe Sep 10, 2007 7:08 PM EDT |
Quoting:it's one less reason for people not to move to Linux.When a company wants to move to Linux, lack of .Net clone is not going to stop it. There is more to FOSS than meats the requirements. Whatever .Net is needed for, it can be accomplished even better with existing FOSS frameworks. Again, I don't see anything that .Net offers that FOSS does already offer. This link might give a clue. http://www.stevencox.com/2007/08/net-to-linux-co.html |
| jdixon Sep 10, 2007 7:33 PM EDT |
> ...it's one less reason for people not to move to Linux. This is a glass half full vs. glass half empty argument. You say it's a reason not to move to Linux. I say incompatibility with Windows is a reason not to move to Linux, and these type of programs remove some of that incompatibility, making it possible for more people to move to Linux. It's possible that we're both correct to varying degrees. > MS and Novell have ill intentions... I think it's absolutely safe to say that Microsoft has ill intentions where FOSS is concerned. I find it hard to believe that Novell does, as their future depends on the success of FOSS. The $64,000 question is, do Microsoft's customer concerns trump their hatred of FOSS? If they do, that's reason enough for the interoperability and patent agreements. If they don't, then the agreements are all ploys by Microsoft. Again, it's possible that both are true to varying degrees. |
| dinotrac Sep 10, 2007 7:37 PM EDT |
>then the agreements are all ploys by Microsoft. The agreements most certainly are ploys by Microsoft. Of course, that begs the question: So what? |
| jdixon Sep 10, 2007 8:21 PM EDT |
> Of course, that begs the question: So what? No idea, Dino. I'm waiting to see what Microsoft has up their sleeve, and keeping as safe a distance as possible in the meantime. |
| tracyanne Sep 10, 2007 8:22 PM EDT |
Quoting:When a company wants to move to Linux, lack of .Net clone is not going to stop it. Tell that to the people/companies that see a .net clone as an easy means of moving their .net applications to Linux, or the lack thereof as a reason to stay with Windows. Of course Microsoft has ill intentions where it comes to Linux and FOSS, they have ill intentions towards everyone, and especially, in this case, Macromedia and Flash/Flex. It's not, however, their ill intentions that matter, so much as how Linux and FOSS, and indeed everyone else, can take advantage of their moves... It's just like chess, only the stakes are higher. One things that certain, pretending it ain't so doesn't work, and nor does building barricades, and nor does trying to destroy Novell.. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 2:23 AM EDT |
>Tell that to the people/companies that see a .net clone as an easy means of moving their .net applications to Linux, Or, for Sandisk, who based their very nifty and award-winning Sansa Connect on mono. No, no place for mono. |
| Libervis Sep 11, 2007 4:08 AM EDT |
dinotrac:Quoting:Standard conspiracy nutcase logic. Let me see - only the following things are possible, so... You can stop that right there my friend. If you read what I said you'll notice I said pretty much the same thing you just suggested: Quoting:MS and Novell have ill intentions, or just one of them trying to manipulate the other, but the strategy they're using with these intentions will not work (so objective will not be achieved). "Or just one of them trying to manipulate the other". Hence I did not suggest that both of them have dishonest intentions at the same time, but that it may also be that one of them does and hence tries to manipulate the other who it has a deal with. So there's that "nutcase" logic for you. Sigh. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 4:12 AM EDT |
>So there's that "nutcase" logic for you. Sigh. Oops. My apologies. I misread that. |
| Libervis Sep 11, 2007 4:29 AM EDT |
Apology accepted. |
| tuxchick Sep 11, 2007 7:22 AM EDT |
o/~ sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't..... |
| Abe Sep 11, 2007 8:15 AM EDT |
Quoting:Tell that to the people/companies that see a .net clone as an easy means of moving their .net applications to Linux, or the lack thereof as a reason to stay with Windows.Easy may be, but I am not sure it is. There are many issues that need to be resolved simply because of features and capabilities that are available on Windows but not on FOSS platform. Mono doesn't bring into FOSS all the things that are out side .Net but part of Windows. If a company thinks .Net is best for them and loves .Net so much should keep using Windows. Plain and simple. Again, FOSS doesn't have to go out of its way and risk its objectives just to gain more adopters. If a company doesn't think FOSS has what it needs or wants, it should stay with windows. Quoting:Of course Microsoft has ill intentions where it comes to Linux and FOSS, they have ill intentions towards everyone, and especially, in this case, Macromedia and Flash/Flex.Ill intentions and what have you, why bother. Again, how many do actually think it is worth the trouble? I certainly don't think it is. Keeping up with .Net is a major effort and cost money. I guess looking at it from Novell's perspective, it makes sense to do that since it keeps support revenues coming for them. Quoting:It's not, however, their ill intentions that matter, so much as how Linux and FOSS, and indeed everyone else, can take advantage of their moves... It's just like chess, only the stakes are higher. One things that certain, pretending it ain't so doesn't work, and nor does building barricades, and nor does trying to destroy Novell..I don't believe that FOSS is out to play games with MS, it just doesn't have to. FOSS tries hard to interoperate with others, but if it is going to be nothing but trouble and headache, it is not worth it or necessary. You are right, the stakes are high, and that is a good reason to stay out of MS contaminations. No one is building barricades, we are just building filters to keep FOSS healthy by keeping filthy dirt out, That is all. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 8:17 AM EDT |
>If a company thinks .Net is best for them and loves .Net so much should keep using Windows. Plain and simple. Hmm. So, using mono to do a job because, as a Linux technology, it has superior serial I/O handling to .Net on Windows would be bad? Good thing an acquaintance of mine didn't know that, or he'd have lost the chance to make some money. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 8:21 AM EDT |
>I don't believe that FOSS is out to play games with MS Gosh, you think? FOSS is free and open source software. That ain't some company. FOSS people are not monolithic, either. They pursue many things for many reasons. Some pan out, some don't. C'est la vie. |
| Abe Sep 11, 2007 9:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:Hmm. So, using mono to do a job because, as a Linux technology, it has superior serial I/O handling to .Net on Windows would be bad? Good thing an acquaintance of mine didn't know that, or he'd have lost the chance to make some money. I am not willing to go in circles here. The acquaintance of yours should have gone with this approach instead. http://www.stevencox.com/2007/08/net-to-linux-co.html He would have served his client better, given them peace of mind, advocated FOSS, and still made money. Assume Mono didn't exist, and your acquaintance was asked by his client to improve performance and extend scalability for future load, what do you think he would do? Or better yet, what would you do? Assume he suggested to his client to move to FOSS and assured them of better performance, reliability, etc... without .Net clone, don't you think the client would go for it? Has he tried? You are missing the point Dino. Mono is being promoted as a GPLed FOSS software, yet De Icaza says you have to download it from Novell to be sure you are protected against any MS patents. That is not appropriate. |
| Abe Sep 11, 2007 9:11 AM EDT |
Quoting:FOSS is free and open source software. That ain't some company. FOSS people are not monolithic, either. They pursue many things for many reasons. Some pan out, some don't. C'est la vie. So, what is your point other than you speak a little of French. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 9:44 AM EDT |
>The acquaintance of yours should have gone with this approach instead. Ah, the almighty Abe knows more than a very experienced developer who actually had the specs, knew the problem, and knew the client. Yeah, that should tell everybody what they need to know. >Mono is being promoted as a GPLed FOSS software, Umm, that's because it is. > yet De Icaza says you have to download it from Novell to be sure you are protected against any MS patents. I think you're confusing Moonlight and Mono. Maybe not. Even so, isn't this old news? Microsoft and Novell entered into an agreement whereby Microsoft promised not to sue Novell customers, opensuse users, etc. -- those that got their stuff from Novell. Don't care about that? Get it from somebody else. Really, Abe, for somebody who pretends to understand free software, you don't seem to know what it means. |
| Abe Sep 11, 2007 10:41 AM EDT |
Quoting:Umm, that's because it is.Who gave it bill of health, you or De Icaza? I think there are many more people who think otherwise, or at least not sure about it because Novell/De Icaza can't confirm it. Or is it just because MS explicitly excluded Mono from their covenant to Novell? Quoting:I think you're confusing Moonlight and Mono. Maybe not.May be I am. May be it is old news, but it still doesn't change the facts, does it? Quoting:Microsoft and Novell entered into an agreement whereby Microsoft promised not to sue Novell customers, opensuse users, etc. -- those that got their stuff from Novell. Well, Is Mono included or not? If it is included, why does it have to be if it is GPLed? Is Novell knowingly releasing GPLed code that has patents? Novell has the responsibility to make sure whether the technology they are "copying" and releasing as GPLed code doesn't have any patents. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 11, 2007 10:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:Is Novell knowingly releasing GPLed code that has patents? Which makes me wonder, will Mono/Moonlight be GPL2 or GPL3? |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 11:01 AM EDT |
>Well, Is Mono included or not? If it is included, why does it have to be if it is GPLed? I guess for the same reason that all of Linux is covered. >Is Novell knowingly releasing GPLed code that has patents? I don't know about any other part of Novell, but, the mono folks say this in their FAQ: Mono is a community project, and as such, we will continue to implement the policy of not integrating knowingly infringing code into Mono. Quoting: |
| Abe Sep 11, 2007 12:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:And we will continue to follow the steps outlined in the previous topic if code that potentially infringes is found: finding prior art, finding different implementation techniques, or if none of those are possible, removing the code from Mono. If I can do whatever I want using clean FOSS code, why would I want to use code that smells so stinky and not worth touching or getting close to afraid of fainting? |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 12:09 PM EDT |
>If I can do whatever I want using clean FOSS code, why would I want to use code that smells so stinky and not worth touching or getting close to afraid of fainting? I wasn't aware that you had audited their code or that of other FOSS projects. |
| Abe Sep 11, 2007 12:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:I wasn't aware that you had audited their code or that of other FOSS projects.I didn't, but I know how to put 2+2 = 4 |
| jdixon Sep 11, 2007 12:38 PM EDT |
> I didn't, but I know how to put 2+2 = 4 Well, I'd say it's actually more like Microsoft + whatever = don't touch with a ten foot pole. Not that I disagree, mind you. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 12:41 PM EDT |
>I didn't, but I know how to put 2+2 = 4 Very good. Next we'll work up to 3 + 3. Then, if you do well, maybe ... maybe... logic. I'm not optimistic about that, however. |
| Abe Sep 11, 2007 12:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:Microsoft + whatever = don't touch with a ten foot pole.You nailed it. Quoting:Very good. Next we'll work up to 3 + 3.Don't make it any harder Dino. Otherwise I might have to ask you for help |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 1:41 PM EDT |
>Don't make it any harder Dino. Otherwise I might have to ask you for help I'm just trying to be kind. Your own statements make it clear that you can't quite handle 1 + 1. After all, you said: Quoting: Again, I don't see anything that .Net offers that FOSS does {SIC) already offer. This link might give a clue. So, anything .Net can do, FOSS can do. (That's 1, if you're counting) Quoting: Mono is being promoted as a GPLed FOSS software, yet De Icaza says you have to download it from Novell to be sure you are protected against any MS patents. So, it would appear that you are very concerned that Mono incorporates Microsoft patents. (That's 1 + 1) But wait -- Patents are about novel ideas reduced to practice. Unlike copyrights, it doesn't matter whether you copied the code or came up with it on your own. No Chinese wall can save you from patent infringement. So... Gosh... You're concerned that .Net does something that FOSS cannot do because .Net takes advantage of patents not available to FOSS projects unless... You believe that FOSS projects infringe on those patents, too... and you believe that everybody should infringe on those patents because everybody who uses infringing software also infringes on the patent... or, maybe you just don't care about patent infringement, but then you wouldn't care about any potential patent infringement in mono, but... Circuits failing. This does not compute. 1 + 1 = 0 |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 11, 2007 2:45 PM EDT |
Actually, IIRC under the letter of GPL2 (not in spirit though), Novell is able to implement patented MS technology into Mono and release it under GPL2, thanks to the Novell-MS deal. There's no explicit patent grant under GPL2 like there is under GPL3. Which is why I'm interested what (L)GPL Mono will be released under. The patent protection racket that excludes mono only applies to Novell's end-users, not Novell itself. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 3:05 PM EDT |
>Novell is able to implement patented MS technology into Mono No, they are not. If you release it under GPL2, you must offer everybody a patent license. The flap over the Novell deal involved the agreement from Microsoft not to sue users of Novell software for infringing Microsoft patents. it's not really a patent license in the traditional sense, and that is why GPLV3 was amended. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!