Same old, Same old.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Mar 24, 2008 6:02 AM EDT |
One almost wonders if Roy does this stuff in OpenOffice with a date field, so all he has to do is save it as html with today's date. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 24, 2008 7:29 AM EDT |
Roy makes some good points at times, but some of his stories border on the rediculous. Like his accusations against Debian Lenny. Of course Debian Lenny includes Mono if you install F-Spot on it. F-Spot is a Mono application. Duh! But default Debian Lenny doesn't install F-Spot. Or any Mono applications for that matter. Ubuntu does but Ubuntu != Debian! |
| dinotrac Mar 24, 2008 7:42 AM EDT |
Sander - I've come to think all this focus on mono is harmful to the overall cause of software freedom. The real danger is that so many crap patents have been granted that you never know when you might be infringing on some claim in some patent somewhere. Microsoft, big as it is, may also be the most muzzled of miscreants. The EU has been doing the job that the US Justice Department should have done in the first place, and Microsoft will find major frontal assaults difficult with the huge stake IBM has in free software, not to mention folks like Oracle and Sun. Mono might actually serve as an example of how development teams should address the danger of patents. Mono is one of the few projects that I am aware of that actively tries to assess and minimize its exposure to patent claims. |
| hchaudh1 Mar 24, 2008 7:44 AM EDT |
Why do some people want to give a free pass to Miguel to do as he pleases? I read a couple of articles by Sam Vargese (can't spell his last name) which said something to the same effect that this post by Roy does. Lots of people acknowledge that Mono is a problem. I came back to this site after a while, and things are the same. The same people pshawing anything against Mono/GNOME/Miguel without any reasons. |
| azerthoth Mar 24, 2008 7:48 AM EDT |
Sander, the problem with Roy is that he spends more time linking to his own opinions as proof than he does supplying outside sources for people who are willing to do their own research and draw their own conclusions. 5 or 6 links to articles he wrote as proof, in those articles that are linked 5 or 6 more articles that he also wrote for justification, and so on and so forth. I have come to the opinion that from any given article on boycottnovell one could link all the way back to the first article he wrote there through one path or another. This like 99% of the rest of the articles posted on boycottnovell, still offers no substantive proof . |
| jdixon Mar 24, 2008 7:54 AM EDT |
> I have come to the opinion that from any given article on boycottnovell... I've come to the conclusion that trying to read the articles on boycottnovell gives me a headache. I've read more poorly written articles, but apparently I've mercifully blanked those memories. |
| hchaudh1 Mar 24, 2008 8:19 AM EDT |
@azeroth I think you are wrong. I have seen pretty much every, I mean every single article to have very good references. Just take this post for example. The article links to more articles on boycottnovell.com which in turn have pretty good external references. In fact, every quoted paragraph on that site is linked, more or less, to an external reference/source. Yep, so far, nothing substantial in this discussion. Pooh-pooh, some lie about not providing external references, headaches.... I can see why I stopped coming here. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 24, 2008 8:22 AM EDT |
Quoting:Why do some people want to give a free pass to Miguel to do as he pleases? I certainly don't. I think Miguel has been blinded in his vision (at least until recently when he lashed out against MS for offering the same "protection" to Mono as was earlier given to Novell). I don't like Mono at all. I don't use it and I won't use a distro that installs it out of the box. That said, I do object to Roy et. al. accusing e,g, Gnome and Debian of depending on Mono. Neither does. Debian does not install Mono by default and my Gnome is still Mono-free and perfectly usable. |
| schestowitz Mar 24, 2008 9:02 AM EDT |
As hchaudh1 stated, almost all the claims are backed by external references. Links are not always direct because portions are put in context, along with linkage to other supporting material. Sander, that Debian misstatement is my fault. It's poorly phrased. akf corrected me. |
| jdixon Mar 24, 2008 9:14 AM EDT |
> ...headaches.... I can see why I stopped coming here. You say that as if I were disagreeing with Roy's position. If you check my posting history here I think you'll find that I'm closer to agreeing with him than not. Unfortunately, that doesn't make the articles any easier to read. Roy, you really need a good editor for your site. They would point out things like the Debian misstatement in advance and in general improve the quality and readability of the site. Yeah, I know, good editors are hard to find and usually cost money, so if wishes were horses, but... |
| DarrenR114 Mar 24, 2008 10:04 AM EDT |
For some reason the story of Chicken Little comes to mind when I read the stuff that poses as news on the site with TFA. I don't use Mono, but neither do I believe there's any substance to the fanatical call for panic due to some imaginary bogeyman called "Patent Infringement" regarding Mono or anything else Linux-related coming from Novell. Face it, Roy, your 15 minutes of fame were expired 45 minutes ago. |
| NoDough Mar 24, 2008 10:16 AM EDT |
hchaudh1:Quoting:I came back to this site after a while, and things are the same. ... I can see why I stopped coming here.So, you stopped coming here because contrary opinions are posted? That's ironic because it's one thing that keeps me coming back. Humility prevents the thought that I am always in the right and that contrary opinions come only from less enlightened individuals. Although I have no need to use it, I have no problem with mono. I don't, however, presume that anyone who disagrees is synaptically challenged and unworthy of a hearing. |
| hchaudh1 Mar 24, 2008 10:33 AM EDT |
@NoDough If you are done with your self-righteous rant, here's the part you conveniently left out: "The same people pshawing anything against Mono/GNOME/Miguel without any reasons." "Yep, so far, nothing substantial in this discussion. Pooh-pooh, some lie about not providing external references, headaches.... I can see why I stopped coming here." |
| DarrenR114 Mar 24, 2008 10:39 AM EDT |
@hchaudh1 You want reasons - here's a simple reason that's been hashed and re-hashed on most every article Roy gets posted here: He posts *his* opinions as fact without *any* independent, verifiable proof. To top it all off, not even ONE of his dire predictions has ever come true. He perpetuates anti-Novell FUD without any proof (such as his implications that Mono is patent-encumbered) and spreading FUD by any party is unacceptable, especially when they want to be taken seriously as a techno-journalist. ================= BTW, Sam Varghese is a journalist in the traditional sense of the word (having left the world of print journalism in 1999), and he readily admits that he is not a "techie". |
| jdixon Mar 24, 2008 10:55 AM EDT |
>> So, you stopped coming here because contrary opinions are posted? > If you are done with your self-righteous rant,... Did that answer your question, NoDough? |
| NoDough Mar 24, 2008 10:56 AM EDT |
Yep, JD. I think that says it all. |
| dinotrac Mar 24, 2008 11:18 AM EDT |
jd, NoDough, Darren, et al, WRT hc: C'mon, guys -- Let's be reasonable. Oh wait! We are. That's the problem. |
| hchaudh1 Mar 24, 2008 11:31 AM EDT |
OK, so to the reasonable folk here: - Again, the part about no references is a lie. Prove me wrong coz I can see the links to the external articales on boycottnovell, really don't know why you guys cannot. - Stop being smug, just because you say you are being reasonanble does not mean that you are. None of you have given any reasons whatsoever except for making a mockery of the article and anyone who might have to say something against Novell. And dino, you have a habit of doing this to anything anti-Mono/Miguel. I remember your posts from last year also. Dino, you are never reasonable. Everyone thinks that their point of view is right, but you go to lengths to derail the conversation and say stuff without providing any proof to support what you are saying. Go to boycottnovell.com and prove me wrong. |
| azerthoth Mar 24, 2008 11:50 AM EDT |
hchaudh1, since you seem to know the articles so well, prove ME wrong. Of the external links, I could find nothing in half an hour of following just 2 of those from his timeline that supported his conclusions. External links are there I grant you, supportive external links, I didnt find any. You'd think that articles that were supposed to support a conclusion would, well, support the conclusion. Heck many of them were contrary or had nothing to do with the topic or it's conclusions. |
| hchaudh1 Mar 24, 2008 1:00 PM EDT |
I started to respond to the post above, and then I realized that I was basically copy-pasting whatever info is there on the website already. So, there's no use in me trying to prove anything. Just as boycottnovell.com is being dismissed, my reasons would also be dismissed. So, thanks, but no thanks. I got other stuff to do. The way I see it. Roy, made some points, right or wrong, he made some points and supported them with references he thinks make his point. The response to that was a bunch of stuff which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. but yes, the thread has been derailed. So, I guess, we can all move along to the next MS bashfest as long as it does not anger the Mono gods here. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 24, 2008 1:16 PM EDT |
@hchaudh1 Our problems with Roy have nothing to do with Mono or "the Mono gods". Speaking for myself, my problem with Roy is his bad habit of perpetuating FUD. So let's bring this down to one salient point: Roy has gone on record just within the last two months as saying that Mono is patent-encumbered. I say it's not. This issue was discussed on various forums ad nauseum back in 2004, and the discussions in 2006 and in Dec, 2007, should have put the issue to bed for once and for all until the Monopoly puts its cards on the table. No proof has ever been proffered that Mono is patent-encumbered. The manner Roy presented such supposition was intellectually dishonest and *that's* what I object to. Stop beating this horse, Roy - it's dead. |
| hchaudh1 Mar 24, 2008 1:25 PM EDT |
@Darren Right. I agree, its not known for sure that Mono infringes on MS patents. It is not known whether MS will litigate or not regarding this. The keyword being "unknown" as in uncertainity as in buy Novell because MS promised not to litigate Novell. How does that stack up to the principles of Open Source software? So, am I right in assuming that the best argument to support Mono is that we don't know whether MS will bless Mono or not, let's just hope that it does, but until MS litigates, lets just assume that everything is just peachy and carry on. Why do we need Mono again? |
| DarrenR114 Mar 24, 2008 1:44 PM EDT |
@hchaudh1 It's also unknown if Samba infringes on MS patents. It is not know whether MS will litigate or not. It's also unknown if Linux infringes on MS patents (MS has said that it does) or whether MS will litigate or not. So what exactly is the justification for Roy spreading FUD to single out Mono in this regard? |
| hkwint Mar 24, 2008 2:38 PM EDT |
In an earlier discussion I pointed out Mono IS patent encumbered (I linked to some actual .NET patents filed by MS and others; just type Network API at the USPTO-db and there you go). That would be because any software you write is patent encumbered according to Mr. Pieter Hintjes, former president of the FFII. When he says so, I believe him, because the FFII is the nr 1. most usable and independent authority when it comes to software patents if you'd asked me, but there may be others I'm not aware of (yet) as well. So though Roy may have failed to prove so, Mono is patent encumbered (the fact that there's this much discussion about it already shows if you'd ask me). Just like Samba, Linux, Debian, Windows or OpenPacman on the Dreamcast (if the latter exists) are patent encumbered, and if you start to write some random software tomorrow, it will also be patent encumbered. The problem is patents, not Mono, Miguel de Icaza or Debian. I agree however that Miguel de Icaza is a problem, but that doesn't have to do much with patents, more with his vocal love for OOXML. I did a quick link count on Roy's story: The first ten stories he quoted contained 52 links of which 19 pointed to his own stories, 2 were simple Wikipedia links, and 31 others to extern sites. That 40% links to someone's earlier work seems like logical to me; I'm afraid I do the same. I can't say anything about the quality, usefulness or content of the stories linked to, this is just a fact to try to advance the discussion. |
| dinotrac Mar 24, 2008 2:41 PM EDT |
Darren -- Not to mention that it is unknown if Linux infringes any Novell patents or any IBM patents or postgresql infringes any Oracle patents, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc. By the way, did you catch hc's shifty little dodge: >Right. I agree, its not known for sure that Mono infringes on MS patents. It is not known whether MS will litigate or not regarding this. Hmm. Not known "For sure". Darned right, it's not known at all. More to the point, there is no reason to believe that Mono infringes on any MS patents. Hmmm again: It is not known whether MS will litigate? Well, gee. If there are not patents infringed, it's pretty darned well known. Before you can get to B, you have to establish A. Oh -- and, gosh -- did we forget to mention one key little aspect of Microsoft's dealings with the EU? They provided a list of patents covering their software. Now here's the deal: In the United States, you cannot claim infringement for patents you have not announced. That's why you see patent numbers listed on so many products or on their packaging. By announcing a list of patents that DO apply, Microsoft is saying that other patents DON'T apply -- and defendants can rely on that until such time as Microsoft says "Whoops!! These apply, too." As I said, Microsoft is the world's most muzzled miscreant. Some folks are determined to ignore reality at all costs. I choose not to be among them. |
| dinotrac Mar 24, 2008 2:43 PM EDT |
Hans -- You did nothing of the sort. You linked to some Microsoft .Net patents. Very much not the same thing. If you think about it logically, it seems highly unlikely that mono would infringe on those patents because the mono project actually has policies and procedures for avoiding patent infringement. Patents that are known to apply to a .Net implementation seem like they would get special scrutiny, especially from the Novell legal beagles. |
| hkwint Mar 24, 2008 2:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:it seems highly unlikely that mono would infringe on those patents You still don't understand what 'encumbered' means. I believe you have a date field to rehash this discussion, because it's "same old same old".. Actual enforceable patent infringement is not the same as patent encumbered, you should know by now. The fact that there are patents on .NET, enforceable or not, shows at least .NET itself is patent encumbered. The fact that there are 10.000+ software patents (wild guess, probably more like 100.000+) shows software itself is patent encumbered. Or, to quote another authority when it comes to software patents (LXer readers may be familiar with him): Quoting:The real danger is that so many crap patents have been granted that you never know when you might be infringing on some claim in some patent somewhere. If you never know you might be infringing on some claims in some patents then you can be _sure_ your software is patent encumbered. Because to be sure your software isn't patent encumbered, you'd have to go through those obscure claims in those crap-patents and be sure you don't infringe them. In practice that's impossible these days. Novell legal beagles don't care about MS-patents, that's what their patents deal is for. |
| dinotrac Mar 24, 2008 3:07 PM EDT |
Hans - If you wish to pretend black is white and daises are cupcakes, that is your privilege. YOUR statement in YOUR post was that mono is patent encumbered, not .Net. Now you say .Net is patent encumbered. That may be true, but I doubt it. So far as I know, any patents that apply to Microsoft's .Net are held by Microsoft so they aren't encumbering anybody. Microsoft can't infringe on its own patents. Anybody else who wishes to use that patented technology should be prepared to license it or fight it in court. Now, I can agree completely with your desperate backward dog-paddle. You are completely correct. There is no way to know that any piece of software doesn't infringe somebody's patent. Saying that, however, is to render it trivial. There's a real chance that each of us will be hit by a car any time we cross the street, but cross the street we do. Life must go on. And, btw, Novell legal beagles do care very much about MS-patents. Their deal doesn't last forever. |
| dumper4311 Mar 24, 2008 3:26 PM EDT |
I love watching these discussions - kind of like going to the amusement park - although I have to admit that it tends to make me a bit dizzy. There's got to be a joke in here somewhere, lets see . . . maybe something like "What happens when you cross Chicken Little, Pinocchio, and Freud?" I find myself thinking "sometimes a software patent is just a software patent." |
| jdixon Mar 24, 2008 3:43 PM EDT |
> None of you have given any reasons whatsoever except for making a mockery of the article and anyone who might have to say something against Novell. I did nothing of the kind. I said that trying to read the articles at BoycottNovell gives me a headache. The obvious implication, which I did not say directly, but which I've made no attempt to deny, is that the articles are poorly written. Allow me to be more specific: I find the articles at BoycottNovell so poorly written that they are not worth my time or effort to read, and yes I've tried, several times. My position on Novell is also simple. Novell's "patent" agreement (in quotes because both side claim it wasn't, even though it obviously was) was stupid and unnecessary. As a result of the agreement, I've removed SuSE from my list of acceptable distributions (a list which they had only just made it onto). My position on Mono is even simpler. I have no use for Mono. Patent encumbered or not, it's tainted by association with Microsoft, and there are alternatives which meet my needs. I don't care whether any one else uses or likes Mono or not; that's their choice and not mine. hchaudh1 seems to think that finding BoycottNovell articles poorly written makes me an enemy or not worth his time. Again, his choice. |
| schestowitz Mar 24, 2008 4:42 PM EDT |
About writing style, I tend to write blog posts quickly, in a single pass. If I write papers or articles, I write them slowly and then edit. Please judge the content, don't dismiss it for style. About Mono, Microsoft explicitly said it reserves the right to sue. It's not going to do this, but all it needs is ammunition with which to pressure Linux vendors and get them to pay royalties. Mimicking .NET isn't the same as doing a one-click shopping (Amazon). Nobody appears to have mentioned the fact that even de Icaza denounced the deal (referring to Moonlight/Mono). That was in MIX08. |
| jdixon Mar 24, 2008 5:39 PM EDT |
> Please judge the content... I've tried Roy, really I have. For me, it's not worth the effort. But don't let that stop you. One person's opinion on the subject doesn't really count for much. |
| tracyanne Mar 24, 2008 6:46 PM EDT |
Roy you're paranoid, and while it's true paranoids can have have enemies, and can be right occassionally - usually for the wrong reasons, mostly they don't, and mostly they aren't. Mostly they live in a fantasy world, and like chicken little draw the wrong conclusions from minimal data combined with preconceived notions of reality. It's been pointed out many times why you are wrong, especially the bit about patent encumberments, so I won't bother recooking the cabbage. |
| azerthoth Mar 24, 2008 8:57 PM EDT |
Having read your articles that werent on boycottnovell you can do serious writing very well, and for those I applaud you. On the boycottnovell site, you seem to drink your own cool aid. |
| schestowitz Mar 24, 2008 10:07 PM EDT |
Coming from you, tracyanne, the use of the word "paranoid" surprises me because I respect you. Being alert (positive connotation) can be warped to be called "paranoid" (negative connotation) is you dislike the message. It doesn't make it any less real. There are many predictions that Shane and I made which became a reality later. Maybe I should just link directly to external URLs so that you won't make accusations about circularities. |
| tracyanne Mar 24, 2008 11:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:is you dislike the message. No it's not that I don't like the message, it's the simple fact that it's wrong and has been pointed out to be wrong by several people, including myself, that I don't like. It's the way you totally ignore anything that points out the flaws in your argument, that demonstrates a complete break with reality - your "respect" for me not withstanding - that I am refering to. You come across as Monomaniacal (pun intended), paranoid, totally out of touch with reality... no, bent on ignoring reality by ignoring any arguments that are contrary to yours. |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2008 4:07 AM EDT |
Roy - "Paranoid" always surprises the paranoid. Your fixation with Mono borders on the bizarre. For example, earlier this month, you seemed to consider it news that Microsoft reserves the right to sue over mono: "Is Mono Now Officially a Patent Trap?" http://boycottnovell.com/2008/03/07/mono-software-patent-tra... You know that's the default position for any company holding patents. Unless rights to something are specifically granted, the patent-owner retains the right to sue. I suppose you could refer to GNU software as a "copyright trap". The FSF definitely retains the right to sue over infringement of it's software. The problem is that you just don't like facts. Salient facts are that nobody has come up with a patent that mono infringes. If you know of one, I invite you to share. That would be doing the world a genuine service. |
| hchaudh1 Mar 25, 2008 7:47 AM EDT |
@jdixon I understand that you don't like the sites writing style. I didn't think this was what you meant at first. In any case, I don't think anyone is the enemy or anything like that. Its statements like dino's that get my goat. Like the latest directed towards me about a shifty dodge. That's all he does. Sit at his computer, bask in his megalomania and make fun of everyone who does not think Mono is the next coming of christ. None of his posts have any intelligent discussion. Call others paranoid, stupid, etc., that's the sum of dino's existance on Lxer. And somehow along the road, he has convinced himself that he is the pragmatic know-it-all. There are no guarantees about anything. There is no guarantee that MS won't sue, there is no guarantee that MS will. So, why put yourself in that position in the first place. Uncertainity and doubt, why should we deal with them. Miguel has something in it for himself by pushing Mono, none of us do, unless we are working on something Mono related. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 25, 2008 7:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:Its statements like dino's that get my goat. Goad! http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/26987/ And it's not megalomania if he really does have the answer to life, the universe and everything ;-) |
| flufferbeer Mar 25, 2008 8:10 AM EDT |
trying to goad Roy on, eh? And on the subject of paranoid and paranoia Does this mean ;D - paranoids == mispronounced 2's of technical enthusiasts ? - paranoids == persons by the the side of, or subsidiary to, the 'noid ? - paranoia == annoyed with always getting par in your golf game ? |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2008 8:30 AM EDT |
>Call others paranoid, stupid, etc., In short, a relentless and obsessive passion for the truth. |
| jdixon Mar 25, 2008 8:40 AM EDT |
> I understand that you don't like the sites writing style. Good. That's one hurdle crossed. > I didn't think this was what you meant at first. OK. I thought I was fairly clear, but misunderstandings are always possible. > I don't think anyone is the enemy or anything like that. Maybe not, but that's what's coming across, at least to me. > That's all he does. Sit at his computer, bask in his megalomania and make fun of everyone who does not think Mono is the next coming of christ. Picking a nit, if you're going to bother capitalizing Mono, you really should capitalize Christ. It is a proper name after all. However, I doubt that's all that Dino does. It may be all you see of what he does, but I have it on good authority that he has a wife and kids, so that can't be everything. :) > None of his posts have any intelligent discussion. Dino responds in what he considers like kind. If he thinks you're engaging in "intelligent discussion" he responds with the same. If he doesn't, he doesn't. > Call others paranoid, stupid, etc., that's the sum of dino's existance on Lxer. I can verify otherwise from personal experience. While he has on occasion dismissed my positions as being unreasonable, that's fairly unusual if he thinks you have a well thought out and coherent position. > And somehow along the road, he has convinced himself that he is the pragmatic know-it-all. I think he would agree with pragmatic. I doubt he thinks he is a know-it-all. However, Roy is making claims about the legal situation with Mono. Dino has experience in the legal field. I suspect he does think he knows more about it than Roy does. He definitely knows more than I do. You seem to think Dino has not consider Roy's arguments. I would argue that he has, and has found them lacking. I.e, he actually does consider the arguments to be stupid and paranoid. While you may not agree, that is his personal opinion, and he is free to state it as such. From what I have managed to read, I consider Roy's arguments overstated and over-dramatic. There is a element of truth involved, but it's not as compelling as he thinks, and the risks are probably not as severe as he thinks. Simply put, while I am in sympathy with Roy's position. I don't find his arguments convincing. My position on Mono is a personal one, and I will freely admit that it was not an decision reached by an entirely rational process. There was (and is) a fair degree of emotion and intuition involved. |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2008 8:50 AM EDT |
jdixon - Thanks. I guess you're not a 100% unreasoning and paranoid goofball. Yet. There's still time. It's not that I think Roy's insincere. I don't. It's not that Microsoft isn't dangerous. It is. But, gee whiz. At some point you need solid facts. BoycottNovell is so much like other sites dedicated to the conspiracy to kill JFK, the conspiracy to make it look like we landed on the moon, the conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center and blame it on terrorists. One speculation woven in with a fact linked to another speculation woven in with another fact, etc,etc, etc and, before long, the sky is falling. One hopes that Roy and friends choose one day to peek outside and see the sun. |
| hchaudh1 Mar 25, 2008 9:15 AM EDT |
If dino has legal experience, that does not come across in any of his postings. What does come across is that he's a troll trying to shut down anyone who detracts. The fact that he has a family does not make him right, or without an agenda. I understand that a bunch of people here are best friends forever and all, but what does that have to do with anything. The fact that mono *might* be in the clear legally is besides the point. The main issue is the divide that MS and Novell have created in a perfectly legible software license with their special deal. Why propagate that and instill more uncertainity with the open source ecosystem. What no one is willing to explain is why is mono needed in the first place, what with Ballmer's threats and all. |
| theboomboomcars Mar 25, 2008 9:29 AM EDT |
Quoting:or without an agendaEveryone has an agenda. We are all trying to others to see the world our own way. Quoting:why is mono needed in the first placeIt is not, but there are some who like or are paid to write c#, and with Mono they can do that on a Free system. |
| dumper4311 Mar 25, 2008 9:38 AM EDT |
> "he's a troll" @dino: Welcome to the secret society, brother troll. We have meetings if you're interested, usually under bridges and the like. @hchaudh1: Ballmer's threats are irrelevant. Mono (and moonlight, and samba, and wine, and . . .) serve the purpose of interoperability. Whether you consider that a valid use of "free" software or not is also irrelevant. Fortunately "free" software doesn't prescribe limits on software usage (except for the controversial clauses in the GPLv3). So people are still FREE to develop and USE truly free code to scratch whatever itch interests them. You don't approve? That's fine, good luck with that, but why waste so much emotion over such a simple issue? The real question is how does development of projects like this actually do any real damage to the open source community as a whole? |
| jdixon Mar 25, 2008 9:45 AM EDT |
> I understand that a bunch of people here are best friends forever and all, but what does that have to do with anything. I like a number of people I've encountered on LXer. TC, Dino, Sander, and others (some of whom are no longer with us on LXer, and at least one who is no longer with us at all). I've never met any of them in person and would be hard pressed to count them as "friends". That takes a bit more than an occasional online interaction. > The fact that mono *might* be in the clear legally is besides the point. Then why does BoycottNovell keep coming back to it as the central point of their argument? > The main issue is the divide that MS and Novell have created in a perfectly legible software license with their special deal. They haven't created a divide in the GPL. They've created a division in the commercial Linux user base, specially targeted at those people who are, for want of a better term, lawsuit phobic. That's quite a difference. Like I said, overstated and over-dramatic. > Why propagate that and instill more uncertainity with the open source ecosystem. I don't. I have no intention of doing so. > What no one is willing to explain is why is mono needed in the first place,... It isn't. However, neither is Linux. Lots of things we encounter in life aren't needed. Some people chose to work on a project they called Mono. Whether any of use it is up to us. It's this pesky thing called freedom. Some people seem to think we'd be better of without it. |
| NoDough Mar 25, 2008 9:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:It's this pesky thing called freedom. Some people seem to think we'd be better of without it.You are all free to do anything I approve of. |
| dumper4311 Mar 25, 2008 10:03 AM EDT |
>"You are all free to do anything I approve of." Lets just save that one for the next revision of our favorite license, as that seems to be the slope we're traveling down. Still, that is kind of the point of the whole rift here, isn't it? What actual damage has the MS - Novell (or any of the other players who signed on to similar agreements) deal actually done to the community? (BTW jdixon, I really liked your description of the whole agreement situation - very lucid . . . for a goofball I mean :) ) What damage do projects like Mono actually do? Is there a risk of developing such projects? Certainly. But as has been pointed out, no more than the risk of developing ANY other product that duplicates form or function. The core issue really seems to be one of right vs. wrong. If you deem such projects/agreements as wrong then don't participate. We must always remain vigilant, but unless something actually demonstrates harmful effect or intent, it's counterproductive to rail on in such a manner. |
| gus3 Mar 25, 2008 10:13 AM EDT |
"unless something actually demonstrates harmful effect or intent, it's counterproductive to rail on in such a manner." I think Microsoft's past record speaks volumes. |
| dumper4311 Mar 25, 2008 10:18 AM EDT |
@gus3: You're absolutely correct about microsoft, nobody here'd even argue otherwise. That's where the vigilance comes in. We've been able to cope with their harmful intent very effectively, and there's no reason to think that will change. So maybe intent is irrelevant also. |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2008 10:22 AM EDT |
You guys all make me so proud. If only you would just come around to seeing things my way!! Dumper hit on the key issue for me: What damage has been done? In reality, none, except that done by FOSS folk spraining faces as they get their noses out of joint. In fact, the Novell agreement may have done some good -- it exposed what FSF types considered a hole in the license and spurred them to improve things in GPLV3. As to why we need mono, you guys are prezactly right. We need mono as much as we need a bazillion Linux distributions, umpteen Unix shells, perl, python, tcl, awk. Whey the heck do we need java? I'd much rather write everything in C, anyway. Only reason I write ruby is because, well, nobody writes in C any more except ubergeeks and my uber is, unfortunately, unter. FOSS is scratch an itch land and mono was Miguel's itch. Enough people scratched the same way to make it happen. All the explanation required. |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2008 10:30 AM EDT |
>So maybe intent is irrelevant also. Almost, but not completely. Face it: Microsoft wants a Microsoft world. But...that's actually a means to an end, not an end in itself. Above all, Microsoft is a creature of its stockholders, and they want money. Bushels and barrels and crates and great big truckloads of it. They have been muzzled by the EU and by the competition. They have tried and tried and tried and tried and tried to stamp out free software. They have failed and failed and failed and failed and failed. Free software turns out to be pretty darned tough stuff. The licenses protect it, the developers and users protect it, governments protect it, etc. Making gobs and gobs of money will require -- not might require -- learning to live with it. Put it all together and running around like Chicken Little seems pretty darned silly. |
| tracyanne Mar 25, 2008 1:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:There is no guarantee that MS won't sue, there is no guarantee that MS will. So, why put yourself in that position in the first place. So why not simply use Microsoft's OS and all the licensed programs that go with it, instead of GNU/Linux, or if you a re a company simply pay up to Microsoft, after all you never know when Microsoft will sue. That is not an argument for bashing Mono, and it does not support the notion that Mono is any more patent encumbered than any other technology used in GNU/Linux. In fact as has been pointed out numerous times, the Mono developers have put in place mechanisms to ensure that they are not breaking any patents, something no other FOSS project, I'm aware of, does, and in spite of this the Mono project gets given a special place in the FUD pantheon. The only reason I can see for this is a certain person's Mono mania. |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2008 1:30 PM EDT |
tracyanne - But you are using sensible person logic, not conspiracy theory logic. In conspiracy theory logic, something like this is OD: Hitler drank water. FDR drank water. Ergo, FDR was Hitler's agent. |
| thenixedreport Mar 25, 2008 1:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:Sam Varghese is a journalist in the traditional sense of the word Who changed their style to that of a snarky blogger who rants and raves. You can throw out who is a traditional journalist and who is not. You could have written for the Associated Press for 45 years for all I care. It's not the job of the AP to inform people in my view. It's their job to tell them what to think. Note that it says "summary!" As in, "We've talked about this before, but for those wanting a comprehensive resource or who are not familiar with this..." Quoting:Put it all together and running around like Chicken Little seems pretty darned silly. To me, it's more like keeping a wary eye open. I understand why MONO was created. However, I don't understand why one couldn't have come up with an original development platform instead. We have ODF, and it can be used on multiple platforms. We have Qt, which also can be run on numerous platforms. Heck, there's even Gambas for pete's sakes, and I hardly see a peep from anybody about it! It's something that could very well blow Visual Basic out of the water (old school, not the craptacular, confusing as all let out version), yet how many of us would know it? After all, I hardly see any coverage of it! Quoting:In reality, none, except that done by FOSS folk spraining faces as they get their noses out of joint. Except for one thing: "We have to keep catering to Windows, catering to Windows, catering to Windows........" I can understand helping those who may eventually want to migrate, but the line's gotta be drawn somewhere. At what point do we stop copying other concepts per se and become original? Even better, why not simply improve on the existing concepts in addition to creating new concepts? Quoting:FOSS is scratch an itch land and mono was Miguel's itch. Good for him then. He is attempting to address something he wanted addressed. The problem is this: the concept of a software patent. This is why said concept is a very bad idea as it can prevent third party competition in the end. I can see Roy's point altogether: How does one prevent legal blackmail on the part of a multi billion dollar software corporation? With software patents in place, very difficult, if not downright impossible. They don't even have to win the case. They can go long enough to bankrupt their opposition. That is the whole point! It is an attempt to create fear against innovation, period. Quoting:Then why does BoycottNovell keep coming back to it as the central point of their argument? Because of the Microsoft/Novell covenant! Were it not for that, it would not be as much of an issue as it is now! |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 25, 2008 2:22 PM EDT |
Quoting:However, I don't understand why one couldn't have come up with an original development platform instead. Now there *is* an interesting question. Take a look at the bare C# specs, which are free by any measure. What I'd like to see is a language very much like Python or C# but which is compiled and linked like regular C or C++. All the wonderful syntax and management of a high level language but the raw power and speed of C. *That's* what I'd love to see. I'd switch in an instant. Especially if it's supports WSIG to port C libraries. |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2008 2:35 PM EDT |
nixed - I don't understand your post. Who said an original development platform couldn't have been developed? We are awash in them. How about Ruby, Rails, Python, PHP, etc. Your question is like asking why Alan Jackson couldn't play punk music. The answer is: it's not his thing. Miguel hasn't kept anybody from developing original platforms. If you want some new and whizbang platform, then, by all means, develop one or pay somebody to develop one. Miguel is free to do what he wants to do and you are free to ignore it altogether. Nobody is going to make you use Mono. >The problem is this: the concept of a software patent. Have people utterly given up trying to create arguments? Nothing about the phrase "concept of a softare patent" acts as a magic talisman that you can wave and suddenly make yourself right. I don't think anybody around here will argue if you say that software patents are a bad thing. I might waffle a bit, but will agree completely that, in actual practice, they suck hind teat and then some. Software patens are a curse on software development. Yechhh!!! Awful. Smelly. Bad thngs. But that doesn't get you to Miguel shouldn't be doing Mono. Next thing you know, somebody's going to report having seen software patents on the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963. |
| lcafiero Mar 25, 2008 5:50 PM EDT |
Sander_Marechal said: "And it's not megalomania if he really does have the answer to life, the universe and everything ;-) " Wait . . . I know that one. 42. [Taking a bow and returning to my appointed rounds getting the people of Felton familiar with GNU/Linux . . . ] |
| tracyanne Mar 25, 2008 6:18 PM EDT |
Quoting:Ergo, FDR was Hitler's agent. Oh, do you mean he wasn't? |
| dinotrac Mar 25, 2008 6:36 PM EDT |
tracyanne - Well, only in the early days when Hitler was trying to break into Vaudeville with a juggling act. |
| ColonelPanik Mar 25, 2008 7:00 PM EDT |
jdixon>> I like a number of people I've encountered on LXer. TC, Dino, Sander, and others (some of whom are no longer with us on LXer, and at least one who is no longer with us at all). I've never met any of them in person and would be hard pressed to count them as "friends". That takes a bit more than an occasional online interaction. Be careful there, I do go visit people I meet on forums, last week I saw helios. You are safe, I'll see tracyanne before you! Friends, 21st century friends. |
| thenixedreport Mar 25, 2008 10:01 PM EDT |
Colonel. Is it true you had coffee with helios? |
| gus3 Mar 25, 2008 10:03 PM EDT |
Let's see... I'll have dark coffee, mild cream, artificial sweetener, and extra helios. /me ducks and runs fast |
| thenixedreport Mar 25, 2008 10:05 PM EDT |
I heard it was early in the morning too... lol.... |
| gus3 Mar 25, 2008 10:47 PM EDT |
Last time I checked, putting helios in coffee was a crime in 47 states and Puerto Rico. Thanks, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your server... very carefully... |
| ColonelPanik Mar 26, 2008 5:39 AM EDT |
Yes my friends, helios and the Colonel meet at 11:30pm
in a secret 24 hour dinner somewhere near Austin, TX. Helios - apple pie with ice cream Colonel - pumpkin pie Do to our NDA I can not talk about the conversation we had but I can and will share that helios is more like me than I am. |
| thenixedreport Mar 26, 2008 8:54 PM EDT |
Hey Colonel, What is the view of helios concerning Mono? |
| ColonelPanik Mar 27, 2008 6:56 AM EDT |
thenixedreport: Mono? You better get that from the Dude himself. helios just wants to get Linux on your computer, whatever distro works. No matter what, just install, install, install until everything works. |
| thenixedreport Mar 27, 2008 10:54 AM EDT |
Ah, so you didn't get that indepth. Oh well. Now that this attempt to un-derail the topic has failed miserably, time to go back to the drawing board. |
| dinotrac Mar 27, 2008 11:48 AM EDT |
nixed -- No, you've managed to get things fixed up while maintaining our interest at the very highest and sharpest level. Sorry to hear that helios has mono, though. Hope he feels better soon. |
| helios Mar 27, 2008 4:47 PM EDT |
That's right friends...the second dire announcement of a horrible disease by me in 5 years and I will break it here on LXer. I have MonoNuclearOsmosDiapedesis aka "the-drink-it-and-glow-from-the-inside-out-then-ooz-matter" killer of tens h |
| dinotrac Mar 27, 2008 7:08 PM EDT |
helios -- You brave man. Hey!! I hear there are good jobs available as traffic warning lights. |
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!