I wish these people would get their facts straight.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Sep 11, 2007 2:01 PM EDT |
Mono has nothing to do with the Novell/Microsoft deal. Mono started development at Ximian well before Novell aquired Ximian, and long before the Novell/Microsoft pact. In addition Mono is Free software licensed under a GNU GPL license. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 2:04 PM EDT |
tracyanne - I thought you knew by now - facts are only for those who care about the truth, not for those who care about "freedom". |
| Libervis Sep 11, 2007 4:55 PM EDT |
So what if Mono was developed before? Just because I did not state that in the article does not mean I am not aware of the fact. Apparently, simply because you are in disagreement with the analysis presented in the article its author must be missing some facts. That's quite a predictable way to go try discredit someone. I don't think it's very effective though. It is what it is. A disagreement. You may go so far to consider me a nutcase if you will for drawing the conclusions I drew (and not final conclusions at that), but this does not necessarily merit going so far as to accuse of being facts-deprived. So.. whatever. |
| azerthoth Sep 11, 2007 6:02 PM EDT |
Before I join in this one, are we discussing Mono again or are we discussing silver/moon/red/green/no-light? |
| tracyanne Sep 11, 2007 7:40 PM EDT |
Apparently I've attempted to discredit someone. We could discuss that. |
| azerthoth Sep 11, 2007 9:08 PM EDT |
Assuming (I know dont say it) that we are talking about Mono again. Libervis, the issue I have, and the one that keeps getting tossed out the window in these discussions. Both the US and EU courts have ruled against companies hiding patent torpedoes inside published and accepted public standards. .NET is a public standard, all MS can do is abandon standards compliance and go their own separate way. Granted they have previously shown a willingness to do so, however in doing so with this particular one is that to break it for Mono they would also break everything up to that point that was done by/for what they consider acceptable (MS) tools. Its a catch22, they cant legally hope to enforce patent on it, and they cant arbitrarily change it to suit them without sending a chunk of developers using it to other platforms. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 11, 2007 11:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:.NET is a public standard, all MS can do is abandon standards compliance and go their own separate way. They have already done that. The ECMA .Net public standard (a.k.a. CLS) isn't the same as the .Net you get from Microsoft. Microsoft ships a lot more. That's also the difference between DotGNU and Mono. DotGNU is implementing the CLS as specified by ECMA. Mono is implementing everything Microsoft has implemented. And with that I am going to leave this discussion alone because there are enough Mono/Moonlight discussion around that I'm involved in. Meh. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 3:51 AM EDT |
>Mono is implementing everything Microsoft has implemented. They are also implementing a whole lot that Microsoft has not implemented. In short, they are a .Net implementation for Linux. It is a superset of the ECMA standard. It includes some extensions from the Microsoft implementation. It also includes a number of extensions unique to Mono. Hey! That sounds a lot like web browsers! |
| tracyanne Sep 12, 2007 4:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:.It is a superset of the ECMA standard. It includes some extensions from the Microsoft implementation. It also includes a number of extensions unique to Mono. This is something the detractors ignore, the fact that Mono extends .Net way beyond what Microsoft can do with .Net. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 5:33 AM EDT |
>This is something the detractors ignore The detractors ignore a lot, lie a lot, and contradict themselves a lot, though not all at the same time nor all in the same detractor. They see the boogie man and will use assorted facts and "facts" the way a drunk uses a lamppost -- for support, not illumination. |
| azerthoth Sep 12, 2007 6:19 AM EDT |
>> They see the boogie man and will use assorted facts and "facts" the way a drunk uses a lamppost -- for support, not illumination. Oh, well said. Not just in context of the discussion either. |
| jacog Sep 12, 2007 6:38 AM EDT |
So wait... embracing Silverlight into our lives... isn't that like embracing OOXML? And yes, I know Flash is the same, but at least the spec is open and if Adobe suddenly stop supporting it on our platform, we're still "free" to roll our own (Gnash, anyone?), and quite honestly I trust Adobe a lot more to not pull some weird patent-infringement bullshit two years down the line than I do Microsoft. Adobe have nothing to gain by deliberately axing their Linux support. With Microsoft I always find myself asking "why are they doing this?", "what are they planning". Nothing can be taken at face value, and there's a self-serving ulterior motive lurking under every seeminlgy positive thing they announce. The whole OOXML debacle we had was just Microsoft's attempt to create a dependence on one of their own creations so that they could lock you in to their sofware... I am betting their Silverlight strategy is more of the same. It's not about the technology itself, but by the motives associated with it. It's like having Microsoft Office for years on the Mac, and then one day... yoink... no more. True story. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 6:53 AM EDT |
>With Microsoft I always find myself asking "why are they doing this?", That's a question you should be asking of any company. Microsoft is doing it to make money. Their old strategy failed. If fact, when you get right down to it, Microsoft has been riding a rather impressive string of failures. It's an 800 lb gorilla whose bad knees and dementia make it look far more impressive than it is. Let's see... 1. Take over the glass house and own the server room. Oops, didn't happen. 2. Control the web. Happened, but didn't last long. 3. Control digital media. Helloooooo, flash. 4. Get that OOXML standard certified. Shoulda hired some Chicago politicians for that ballot box stuffing instead of leaving it to amateurs. 5. Rock the world with Vista. I'm sorry, that's so easy it would be cruel to comment. And that's not even mentioning their failure to smash Quicken and Quickbooks, or the Mac's recent surge in popularity. Face it, Microsoft is a study in failure that survives primarily by coasting on its laurels and the sheer inertial of scads and scads of Windows apps, techs, and developers. To succeed again, they have to find a strategy that works in today's world. I believe that part of Flash's success is its broad support across plaforms. Many web sites are businesses and businesses to not like to needlessly chase away customers. The whole Silverlight/Moonlight thing is a way from Microsoft to say, "See, we can do that, too!!!" I think they would rather control and own everything. They would rather put nice little handcuffs on us and make us cough up money every time we came near anything that could use one of their products. They can't do that, so they have to try something else. |
| tracyanne Sep 12, 2007 1:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:Adobe have nothing to gain by deliberately axing their Linux support. What dino said, and, neither have Microsoft. Quoting:The whole Silverlight/Moonlight thing is a way from Microsoft to say, "See, we can do that, too!!!" Not only that, but you can already get Flex addons for programming Flash in .NET. So Microsoft is, once again, playing catch up. Microsoft's only real innovation has been to make things easier to do, within a certain context - windows, by creating a fully integrated vertical stack for their products. Everything Microsoft develops is actually a single product, and Windows is it's base. The problem they face is that Linux and Mac can and have, for the most part, duplicated that stack, and the Linux stack is Free and customers can choose how they want the bits integrated. Additionally "3rd" party developers have created better components that replace parts of the Microsoft stack, and these are often preferred to the Microsoft components, the worst part of that, is that it introduces choice for the customers. The best thing that could happen to Microsoft is for it to be broken up, that would actually create several smaller companies with, under the right management, enormous growth potential. |
| jdixon Sep 12, 2007 3:45 PM EDT |
> What dino said, and, neither have Microsoft. True, but Microsoft management has not shown any particular tendency to act rationally in the past. There's no reason, barring a change in management, to expect them to start doing so in the future. Adobe is, in comparison, a much more rational company. > The best thing that could happen to Microsoft is for it to be broken up.. Probably true. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 4:15 PM EDT |
>Adobe is, in comparison, a much more rational company. It may seem that way now, but I don't accept your premise. Microsoft is and always has been a very rational (not to mention determined and ruthless) company. The problem is that rational behaviors can be wrong if the premise for those behaviors is false. Microsoft has to find its place in a changed world with a self-image and world view that better fit times gone by. |
| jdixon Sep 12, 2007 4:48 PM EDT |
> Microsoft is and always has been a very rational (not to mention determined and ruthless) company. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about that. Microsoft's actions may have made short term sense, but they haven't been conducive to long term survival. To me, that's not rational. To be fair, you may feel that: > The problem is that rational behaviors can be wrong if the premise for those behaviors is false. covers that, but I don't think so. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 5:36 PM EDT |
> but they haven't been conducive to long term survival On the contrary. Had their plans worked out, there would be no competition. I absolutely believe that Linux is the only thing that kept Microsoft from growing into an 8000 lb gorilla instead of merely 800. Even with so many things falling apart on them, Microsoft is in no danger of disappearing. |
| tracyanne Sep 12, 2007 6:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:True, but Microsoft management has not shown any particular tendency to act rationally in the past. I happen to think they have acted very rationally, indeed, I think they have been for the most part the only fully rational player in this. The problem is, I think, you are judging the company by it's attempts to maintain it's position in the market place based on what helped it succeed previously. Microsoft would not have the near monopoly it has it the management had not acted rationally, if they had not had the vision they had (you might not like their vision, but it took that, and good analysis of the facts, and good rational thinking to get where they are. For the most part it's been Microsoft's competitors who've acted irrationally, and for the most part it still is. And it's irrational thinking that I'm seeing in a lot of posts on the subject of Microsoft and Microsoft initiated technologies. Things have changed, and a lot of that change is due to Linux and FOSS, but it's still up in the air as to who will fully leverage that change. A lot of what Microsoft, and indeed all the other big players, are doing is to find strategies that advantage them in this changed environment. |
| jacog Sep 13, 2007 3:09 AM EDT |
>>Adobe have nothing to gain by deliberately axing their Linux support. > What dino said, and, neither have Microsoft. Wrong... the do have something to gain. Right now they will support it as much as they can, however uneasy it makes them. Having it on Linux / Mac will help them permeate their client side technology throughout the internet. They are hoping that a significant share of web sites and services will use their tech. This will go on for about three or four years... but then the gotcha comes... They will release a magical new version complete with wizzbang "features" that they'll tell you you cannot live without, and release the new version on the web. The trick it that this new version will contain all manner of patented secret crap that they won't allow the Moonlight people to legally include in their implementation. It may even contain some tightly integrated messaging stuff that will only work on a Microsoft IIS web server, or only through Internet Explorer. There are a number of ways they can do it... but either way, they will cut off any chance of the Linux implementation of progressing past that point. At that point they will hope to have people saying "but this technology is all over the web, and it doesn't work with Linux... oh Microsoft, come save us from this incompatibility nightmare." They think that if they can lock people into a dependence on one of their technologies, then they can use that dependence to lock people into using their operating system. All Adobe wants to do is to increase their market share of Flash. They gain nothing by pulling Linux support. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2007 3:21 AM EDT |
Ummm..jacog: Time to wake up from that 20 year sleep. Microsoft already tried that and it almost worked. They had the web locked up tight with Internet Explorer and Windows Media was kicking real, quicktime, and anything else in the teeth. After a while, the world didn't like it, and for reasons you really need to understand. The world has become a bigger and more diverse place -- AND -- companies are making money from the internet. That combination killed Microsoft's plans. The equation is simple: businesses want to sell things and the fewer people they can sell things to, the unhappier they are. Life was easy in the old days. "Everybody" used Internet Explorer and "Everybody" used Windows, and the internet was new and wonderful and so much money was there for the taking and it was so hard to develop for the couple of percent or so who didn't do that -- Microsoft ruled the world. Then came Europe and the rest of the world and Firefox and Mac resurgence and Safari and Linux desktop uptick and -- worst of all -- flash. There was a much more divided world AND a reasonable way to develop for nearly all of it. Microsoft's grand plans will never work again. Since the turn of the century, they have been a study in failure. They start with a huge base, so they continue to make money, but their future depends on figuring out how to live in a world they can't own. |
| jacog Sep 13, 2007 3:34 AM EDT |
I never said the plan would work. :) But you seem to think they have somehow learned from their mistakes. You're underestimating their stubbornness. I mean, wot the heck is all this OOXML nonsense about anyway? |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2007 4:05 AM EDT |
> I mean, wot the heck is all this OOXML nonsense about anyway? You are misreading that. OOXML is three things: 1. A desperate desire to hold on to their monopoly 2. A desire not to recode work they've already done 3. A recognition that the world is out there and that standards matter Let me ask you this simple question, weedhopper: When were .doc, .xls, .ppt, or any other Microsoft document format submitted to a standards body? They weren't. Microsoft never had to bother with that in the past. Now they do. If at all possible, they will ram their standards through to serve their standards. No surprise there. This is Microsoft we are talking about. Let's face it...All this stuff that has free folk up in arms: Novell agreement, mono, Moonlight, OOXML, etc, is proof that Microsoft has recognized a sea change and is trying to figure out how it can retain its position in the new world. If you think Microsoft will never come around, I suggest you look at IBM. They wrote Microsoft's playbook. There was never a bigger, badder monopolist than IBM. The only way that I can imagine the old IBM to have been a "better" company than Microsoft is in the quality of its products, but that has to consider the very different world that the IBM monopoly operated in. They sold the hardware and charged millions of dollars for stuff made to mil-spec. They also provided the field technicians. They had a level of control Microsoft can only dream about. Microsoft, by comparison, is a piker. They have lots of money -- thanks to inflation and the incredible margins on software -- but IBM remains the gold standard for IT monopolies. Now...here's the kicker: If you ask yourself which major multinational corporation is free software's biggest friend today, what's the first name that comes to your mind? If it's not IBM, you haven't been paying attention. In the late 80s and early 90s, IBM when through the same thing Microsoft is going through now. The rise of the PC was denting its hardware business. It's efforts to establish its own standards with the micro channel and OS/2 failed. Some people even predicted the end of IBM as an independent company. T'ain't that way today, now is it? |
| tracyanne Sep 13, 2007 5:25 AM EDT |
dino, excellent analysis. |
| jacog Sep 13, 2007 5:33 AM EDT |
Can't argue with the IBM example... But, I still think you two are giving MIcrosoft way too much benefit of the doubt. |
| tracyanne Sep 13, 2007 5:37 AM EDT |
Jacog, how do you suggest Microsoft got where they are today? |
| jacog Sep 13, 2007 5:42 AM EDT |
Through an extremely aggressive corporate strategy. The times are changing though, and their past strategies might not be the best ones to move forward with, as Dino pointed out... but you guys seem to think they are changing their ways... I disagree... I think they are going to be employing the same old anti-competitive nonsense for a while to come still. Let's have this discussion again in 5 years. For now, go to YouTube... there's a hilarious advert there for Windows 1.0, featuring Steve Ballmer selling the product like a used car salesman... the guy is mental. I expect very little rational thinking from him. |
| tracyanne Sep 13, 2007 6:13 AM EDT |
Quoting:Through an extremely aggressive corporate strategy. exactly, and it takes focus, and rational thinking to implement an aggressive corporate strategy. |
| jdixon Sep 13, 2007 6:40 AM EDT |
> ...exactly, and it takes focus, and rational thinking to implement an aggressive corporate strategy. I disagree, any thug can implement an "aggressive corporate strategy". You are merely arguing that Microsoft is an adept thug. That I will agree, but a thug is still a thug. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2007 6:50 AM EDT |
> That I will agree, but a thug is still a thug. Nobody argues that Microsoft is not a thug. But what on earth make you think thug = irrational? |
| Libervis Sep 13, 2007 6:58 AM EDT |
I would agree with Dinotrac's analogy. Microsoft is trying something else. The thing is, however, that this does not necessarily mean Microsoft is completely tossing away its old strategies of lock-in and that there is no conceivable way for them to use Silverlight and Moonlight to this end. Dinotrac, you pointed something that is quite likely true, but I think is only a part of the picture. They may as well be trying both things at once, the changed strategy combined with the old strategy. And with the current management still active (Ballmer and Co.) it just seems too hard to trust whatever signs of change they exhibit. Hence the continued, and according to your opinion apparently foolish and irrational, vigilance among some in the Free Software community. On Libervis.com you agreed with the assertion that some in the Free Software community started believing Microsoft's FUD. You might have missed it, but my response to that was that we may "have been *affected* (not seduced) by Microsoft's FUD, but whether we started actually believing it or not is another thing. Perhaps we have simply taken the hint at being more cautious and wakeful with regards to this issue. In that sense Microsoft's FUD did not weaken us, but made us stronger and more vigilant. Perhaps it is because of this increased vigilance that we are anticipating certain threats like the one described here. At the end of the day, the warning shouts have been cast. Some will heed it as something prudent to follow up on and others will ignore it. Who was right of the two only time will show." So feel free to go your way and do as you wish and leave others who disagree with your strategy to do their own thing. If we want to be more cautious that shouldn't bother you nor should it be something for you to laugh at every chance you get (hint: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/26009/ , seriously, what's up with that?) |
| jdixon Sep 13, 2007 7:09 AM EDT |
> But what on earth make you think thug = irrational? Being a thug is not conducive to long term success, Dino. Sooner or later, there's always someone bigger or willing to escalate matters. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2007 7:38 AM EDT |
>Being a thug is not conducive to long term success Depends on your definition of long-term. So far, N. Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Red China seem determined to put the lie to you. For that matter, the old Soviet Union had quite a run before it finally fell. And -- there is always room for a thug with lots of resources to adapt and put on a prettier face for the new world. That seems to be what China is trying with some success. |
| jdixon Sep 13, 2007 8:20 AM EDT |
> N. Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Red China All governments are thugs, Dino, even ours. That's part of the definition. Just ask Bob. :) Businesses and individuals operate by different rules. Being a thug means you don't have many friends or voluntary customers. You can get away with that when you're a monopoly. It doesn't work so well when there's competition. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2007 8:24 AM EDT |
>It doesn't work so well when there's competition. That, I think, is why Microsoft will change its stripes. It's only alternative is to die. |
| jdixon Sep 13, 2007 8:33 AM EDT |
> That, I think, is why Microsoft will change its stripes. It's only alternative is to die. Agreed, but I don't think they will do so under current management. I think it will take a complete changeover in management before they can make the change. As I noted in another thread, Ballmer is 51 (per Wikipedia). Unless forced out by the board, he'll probably retired at 64 or 65. That's the earliest we can expect Microsoft to start changing. It'll probably take a year or two to work it's way through the company, so don't expect anything for another 15 years or so. |
| dinotrac Sep 13, 2007 9:17 AM EDT |
>Agreed, but I don't think they will do so under current management That may be. It's hard to tell because the current management has never been so embattled as they are now. Maybe they'll respond well or maybe they'll have to get out of the way. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 13, 2007 11:52 AM EDT |
> All governments are thugs, Dino, even ours. That's part of the definition. Just ask Bob. :) Prairie-dogging: Poking one's head up above the cubical wall level to see what's going on. You don't have to ask me..., http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/og.asp Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War by Ludwig von Mises (1944) |
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!