Mono and RAND - Linux

This is a discussion on Mono and RAND - Linux ; As most people in the group probably already know, I am no fan of Mono - not for technical reasons (mostly [3]), but simply for political ones. Specifically, I'm talking about so-called Software Patents, and even more importantly, precisely /who/ ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 86

Thread: Mono and RAND

  1. Mono and RAND

    As most people in the group probably already know, I am no fan of Mono -
    not for technical reasons (mostly [3]), but simply for political ones.
    Specifically, I'm talking about so-called Software Patents, and even
    more importantly, precisely /who/ owns those patents. In this case, that
    would be Microsoft, a convicted monopolist with a viciously anti-FOSS
    agenda, that employs business methods remarkably similar to that of the
    Mafia.

    IMO the mere fact that .NET/Mono is Microsoft technology should be
    enough to dissuade any Free Software advocate from going anywhere near
    it [1], but there is a large contingent of Mono "fans" out there, lead
    by people like Jeff Waugh and Miguel de Icaza, who (either through
    ignorance; naivety; apathy or even malice) don't seem to give a damn
    about whether or not Mono (or even OOXML) endangers the future of Free
    Software.

    Trying to convince people, and especially distro maintainers, that they
    should stay away from Mono, is therefore extraordinarily difficult, and
    usually goes something like this:

    [P]oint | [C]ounterpoint

    P: Don't use Mono
    C: Why?
    P: Because it is patented
    C: So is a lot of other software
    P: Yes, but this is patented by Microsoft
    C: So?
    P: Microsoft is a convicted monopolist
    C: You're just biased against Microsoft
    P: I believe I am justified given Microsoft's history
    C: What history?
    P: See [1]
    C: What has that got to do with Mono?
    P: Microsoft has a history of abusing their "IP" as a weapon to destroy
    others, and maintain a monopoly
    C: But how do you know that Microsoft will try to do that to FOSS?
    P: Because they have already made patent allegations against FOSS; have
    repeatedly expressed their contempt and hatred for FOSS; have
    established a protection racket for commercial Linux vendors; have
    admitted that Linux (they mean FOSS) is their number one competitor;
    and have a sociopathic tendency to violently attack anyone (read:
    competitor) who threatens Microsoft's monopoly, using the most
    unethical and underhand methods they think they can get away with

    [At this point, some heavyweight like Waugh enters the debate]

    C: Rubbish. Mono only implements the ECMA parts of the .NET framework,
    which are covered by a RAND covenant to not sue, so you're whining
    for no good reason
    P: I don't trust RANDs, especially those underwritten by Microsoft
    C: Why?
    P: Because, define "reasonable" ... and then prove that Microsoft will
    never revoke their promises. In fact, prove that Microsoft has good
    intentions in this, or any other endeavour

    [This is usually the end of the discussion, although sometimes it goes
    off on one of the following tangents]

    [Either]

    C: My country doesn't enforce software patents anyway, so I don't care
    P: Maybe some day it will (see [2]). What then?

    [Or]

    C: Probably every piece of software ever written violates /some/ patent
    or another. If FOSS developers were to abandon packages based on
    possible patents, then there wouldn't be any Free Software at all
    P: How many of those patent holders have the immoral and aggressive
    tendencies that Microsoft has? How many of those patent holders would
    risk losing 30 Billion USD just to strike a blow against FOSS (see
    Microsoft's recent failed Yahoo takeover bid)? How many of those
    patent holders are convicted monopolists? How many of those patent
    holders have made actual infringement claims against Free Software?
    How many of those patent holders have described Linux as a "cancer"?
    How many of those patent holders have created a Linux protection
    racket that attempts to stifle Free Software and line Microsoft's
    pockets in the process? How many of those patent holders use bribery
    and corruption as a matter of standard procedure [1]? How many of
    those patent holders regularly and predictably stab their own
    customers and partners in the back whenever any given venture results
    in anything less than market domination (e.g. "PlaysForSure" and
    others)?

    [And here the debate always ends, but without any resolution]

    Occasionally I might get a parting "you're just being paranoid", from
    those too blind/naive/brainwashed to understand the truth.

    Well I don't know if it'll help, but I recently discovered an article
    that (I believe) exposes RAND for the sham that it really is (quoted in
    full):

    So much quarreling about open standards. Jason Matusow advocates for a
    document format with RAND licensing conditions for the patents. What
    does he mean when he talks about RAND? RAND stands for "reasonable and
    non-discriminatory". But Jason Matusow's company Microsoft lacks honesty
    when it talks about "reasonable and non-discriminatory" conditions.

    We need to be precise about what reasonable and non-discriminatory
    actually means. A restaurant in apartheid South Africa said it allowed
    both Boers and English, so was "not discriminatory". It even let some
    Jews in. However it banned non-whites.

    Reasonable and non-discriminatory in patent licensing means "we apply a
    uniform fee". However with respect to Microsoft's legacy OOXML format,
    one party controls the standard and the associated patents. All market
    players need to license except the patent owner. For dominant standards
    it is a tax on the market. It seems highly unreasonable that such
    standards should become international standards, mandatory for
    government users.

    You may find it unreasonable for an ubiquitous standard. But there is a
    more insidious aspect. RAND patent licensing conditions are a tool to
    ban Free Software, which is entirely incompatible with RAND licensing
    conditions. Now one side of the debate blames it on the patent licensing
    conditions, the other side on the software licensing conditions.

    "The reason I agree with the statement about patents and Free
    Software not mixing is that there have been terms written into GPL
    licenses that explicitly conflict with software patents. Okay, that is
    the choice of the authors and users of those licenses."

    It sounds a bit like: well, you chose to marry an African woman, so we
    cannot let you into the restaurant. Free choice, right?

    Yes, Matusow calls his standards with RAND conditions "open standards"
    and contradicts the commonly accepted definition of "open standards". We
    should speak about shared standards. These shared standards appear to
    discriminate less, but they still discriminate against the only real
    competitor to Microsoft's hegemony.

    It is true that ISO, driven by simple pragmatism, allows shared
    standards. From the ISO/IEC directives:

    "14.1 If, in exceptional situations, technical reasons justify such
    a step, there is no objection in principle to preparing an International
    Standard in terms which include the use of items covered by patent
    rights – defined as patents, utility models and other statutory rights
    based on inventions, including any published applications for any of the
    foregoing – even if the terms of the standard are such that there are no
    alternative means of compliance."

    Generally international standards and patents are like water and oil,
    and RAND conditions are the soap that allow them to mix. But as the move
    towards Open Standards evolves, shared standards get more and more
    unacceptable. Shared standards do discriminate and do appear to be
    unreasonable.

    It is time to adapt the legal definition of reasonable and
    non-discriminatory to common sense.
    http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum...discriminatory

    I would also add that not only are ECMA/.NET patent terms /unreasonable/
    (how can it be an Open Standard if you have to pay a fee?), but the
    non-discriminatory terms have already been broken with Microsoft's
    /exclusive/ agreement with Novell:

    I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the
    excluded products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros
    over their distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products,
    i.e. they reserve the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an
    interesting preview of on what basis they want to fight the free world.

    Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not
    excluded from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to
    sue Novell over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but
    true.
    http://commandline.org.uk/linux/2007...-who-you-kiss/

    All in all, it is clear that the ECMA/.Net/Mono patent conditions are
    /far/ from either "reasonable" /or/ "non-discriminatory".

    Meanwhile, I stumbled upon some old articles that reminded me of how
    much de Icaza is in love with the Redmond gangsters, and how dearly he'd
    love to mutate Gnome into the bastard son of Windows:

    Gnome to be based on .NET – de Icaza

    Learn to love The Beast
    By Andrew Orlowski in New York

    Published Friday 1st February 2002 17:56 GMT

    [Interview]
    How much do you love Microsoft's .NET? Enough to trust your Gnome
    applications to its APIs in the future?

    That's what Gnome leader Miguel de Icaza, believes should happen. Miguel
    calls .NET the "natural upgrade" for the Gnome platform, and enthused
    about the technology in an interview with us at LinuxWorld this week.
    Basing Gnome on the .NET APIs will cut development time significantly,

    He also had praise for the new Microsoft security model, dismissed the
    notion that Redmond was employing embrace and extend to its web services
    protocols, and put the message that the community should get over its
    beef with The Beast.

    "I'd like to see Gnome applications written in .NET in version 4.0 - no,
    version 3.0. But Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET," he told us. "A lot
    of people just see .NET as a fantastic upgrade for the development
    platform from Microsoft.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02...e_to_be_based/

    Read the whole article, it's most revealing.

    Miguel loves ActiveX too:

    At Microsoft I learned the truth about ActiveX and COM and I got very
    interested in it inmediately(sic).
    http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/gnome-history.html

    He shows extremely poor taste (in many things).

    [1] For anyone still not convinced of Microsoft's ethical depravity,
    please see the following:

    http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history
    http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/i...05010107100653
    http://boycottnovell.com/microsoft-critique-resources/
    http://boycottnovell.com/2008/05/25/...-astroturfing/
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html

    [2] Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement

    http://antitrust.slated.org/censorsh...posal-2007.pdf

    And finally:

    [3] Why did Microsoft invent .NET (I'm assuming they invented it, rather
    than their usual MO of simply assimilating it from another source) when
    there is already Java? To answer this question, you may also like to
    consider why they "(re)invented" OOXML, Moonlight, XPS and other
    "fscking kill " technologies.

    Any supposedly Free Software advocate who can still defend or support
    Mono at this point, is clearly either irredeemably corrupt or terminally
    stupid (or possibly both). They are part of the problem, not part of the
    solution. And yes, the "problem" is Microsoft.

    De Icaza, are you listening?

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    22:48:26 up 158 days, 19:24, 6 users, load average: 0.03, 0.33, 0.27

  2. Re: Mono and RAND

    In article , Homer
    wrote:
    > As most people in the group probably already know, I am no fan of Mono -
    > not for technical reasons (mostly [3]), but simply for political ones.


    You are wrong on the technical reasons. .NET was not simply a Java
    clone:

    >

    <http://archive.eiffel.com/doc/manuals/technology/
    bmarticles/sd/dotnet.html>

    ....
    > C: Rubbish. Mono only implements the ECMA parts of the .NET framework,
    > which are covered by a RAND covenant to not sue, so you're whining
    > for no good reason
    > P: I don't trust RANDs, especially those underwritten by Microsoft
    > C: Why?
    > P: Because, define "reasonable" ... and then prove that Microsoft will
    > never revoke their promises. In fact, prove that Microsoft has good
    > intentions in this, or any other endeavour


    GPL can be a RAND. Do you mistrust GPL?

    The error you are making is that you are assuming RAND is a license. It
    is not. It is a set of conditions that ISO and ECMA and W3C and various
    other bodies require licenses to satisfy before those licenses are
    acceptable in their standards. If you are considering using any
    particular technology covered by an ISO, ECMA, or other standards body
    standard, you need to look at the particular license for that technology
    if you want to know exactly what it allows and disallows.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  3. Re: Mono and RAND

    Homer wrote:

    > As most people in the group probably already know, I am no fan of Mono -
    > not for technical reasons (mostly [3]), but simply for political ones.
    > Specifically, I'm talking about so-called Software Patents, and even
    > more importantly, precisely /who/ owns those patents. In this case, that
    > would be Microsoft, a convicted monopolist with a viciously anti-FOSS
    > agenda, that employs business methods remarkably similar to that of the
    > Mafia.
    >
    > IMO the mere fact that .NET/Mono is Microsoft technology should be
    > enough to dissuade any Free Software advocate from going anywhere near
    > it [1], but there is a large contingent of Mono "fans" out there, lead
    > by people like Jeff Waugh and Miguel de Icaza, who (either through
    > ignorance; naivety; apathy or even malice) don't seem to give a damn
    > about whether or not Mono (or even OOXML) endangers the future of Free
    > Software.
    >
    > Trying to convince people, and especially distro maintainers, that they
    > should stay away from Mono, is therefore extraordinarily difficult, and
    > usually goes something like this:
    >
    > [P]oint | [C]ounterpoint
    >
    > P: Don't use Mono
    > C: Why?
    > P: Because it is patented
    > C: So is a lot of other software
    > P: Yes, but this is patented by Microsoft
    > C: So?
    > P: Microsoft is a convicted monopolist
    > C: You're just biased against Microsoft
    > P: I believe I am justified given Microsoft's history
    > C: What history?
    > P: See [1]
    > C: What has that got to do with Mono?
    > P: Microsoft has a history of abusing their "IP" as a weapon to destroy
    > others, and maintain a monopoly
    > C: But how do you know that Microsoft will try to do that to FOSS?
    > P: Because they have already made patent allegations against FOSS; have
    > repeatedly expressed their contempt and hatred for FOSS; have
    > established a protection racket for commercial Linux vendors; have
    > admitted that Linux (they mean FOSS) is their number one competitor;
    > and have a sociopathic tendency to violently attack anyone (read:
    > competitor) who threatens Microsoft's monopoly, using the most
    > unethical and underhand methods they think they can get away with
    >
    > [At this point, some heavyweight like Waugh enters the debate]
    >
    > C: Rubbish. Mono only implements the ECMA parts of the .NET framework,
    > which are covered by a RAND covenant to not sue, so you're whining
    > for no good reason
    > P: I don't trust RANDs, especially those underwritten by Microsoft
    > C: Why?
    > P: Because, define "reasonable" ... and then prove that Microsoft will
    > never revoke their promises. In fact, prove that Microsoft has good
    > intentions in this, or any other endeavour
    >
    > [This is usually the end of the discussion, although sometimes it goes
    > off on one of the following tangents]
    >
    > [Either]
    >
    > C: My country doesn't enforce software patents anyway, so I don't care
    > P: Maybe some day it will (see [2]). What then?
    >
    > [Or]
    >
    > C: Probably every piece of software ever written violates /some/ patent
    > or another. If FOSS developers were to abandon packages based on
    > possible patents, then there wouldn't be any Free Software at all
    > P: How many of those patent holders have the immoral and aggressive
    > tendencies that Microsoft has? How many of those patent holders would
    > risk losing 30 Billion USD just to strike a blow against FOSS (see
    > Microsoft's recent failed Yahoo takeover bid)? How many of those
    > patent holders are convicted monopolists? How many of those patent
    > holders have made actual infringement claims against Free Software?
    > How many of those patent holders have described Linux as a "cancer"?
    > How many of those patent holders have created a Linux protection
    > racket that attempts to stifle Free Software and line Microsoft's
    > pockets in the process? How many of those patent holders use bribery
    > and corruption as a matter of standard procedure [1]? How many of
    > those patent holders regularly and predictably stab their own
    > customers and partners in the back whenever any given venture results
    > in anything less than market domination (e.g. "PlaysForSure" and
    > others)?
    >
    > [And here the debate always ends, but without any resolution]
    >
    > Occasionally I might get a parting "you're just being paranoid", from
    > those too blind/naive/brainwashed to understand the truth.
    >
    > Well I don't know if it'll help, but I recently discovered an article
    > that (I believe) exposes RAND for the sham that it really is (quoted in
    > full):
    >
    >
    > So much quarreling about open standards. Jason Matusow advocates for a
    > document format with RAND licensing conditions for the patents. What
    > does he mean when he talks about RAND? RAND stands for "reasonable and
    > non-discriminatory". But Jason Matusow's company Microsoft lacks honesty
    > when it talks about "reasonable and non-discriminatory" conditions.
    >
    > We need to be precise about what reasonable and non-discriminatory
    > actually means. A restaurant in apartheid South Africa said it allowed
    > both Boers and English, so was "not discriminatory". It even let some
    > Jews in. However it banned non-whites.
    >
    > Reasonable and non-discriminatory in patent licensing means "we apply a
    > uniform fee". However with respect to Microsoft's legacy OOXML format,
    > one party controls the standard and the associated patents. All market
    > players need to license except the patent owner. For dominant standards
    > it is a tax on the market. It seems highly unreasonable that such
    > standards should become international standards, mandatory for
    > government users.
    >
    > You may find it unreasonable for an ubiquitous standard. But there is a
    > more insidious aspect. RAND patent licensing conditions are a tool to
    > ban Free Software, which is entirely incompatible with RAND licensing
    > conditions. Now one side of the debate blames it on the patent licensing
    > conditions, the other side on the software licensing conditions.
    >
    > "The reason I agree with the statement about patents and Free
    > Software not mixing is that there have been terms written into GPL
    > licenses that explicitly conflict with software patents. Okay, that is
    > the choice of the authors and users of those licenses."
    >
    > It sounds a bit like: well, you chose to marry an African woman, so we
    > cannot let you into the restaurant. Free choice, right?
    >
    > Yes, Matusow calls his standards with RAND conditions "open standards"
    > and contradicts the commonly accepted definition of "open standards". We
    > should speak about shared standards. These shared standards appear to
    > discriminate less, but they still discriminate against the only real
    > competitor to Microsoft's hegemony.
    >
    > It is true that ISO, driven by simple pragmatism, allows shared
    > standards. From the ISO/IEC directives:
    >
    > "14.1 If, in exceptional situations, technical reasons justify such
    > a step, there is no objection in principle to preparing an International
    > Standard in terms which include the use of items covered by patent
    > rights ? defined as patents, utility models and other statutory rights
    > based on inventions, including any published applications for any of the
    > foregoing ? even if the terms of the standard are such that there are no
    > alternative means of compliance."
    >
    > Generally international standards and patents are like water and oil,
    > and RAND conditions are the soap that allow them to mix. But as the move
    > towards Open Standards evolves, shared standards get more and more
    > unacceptable. Shared standards do discriminate and do appear to be
    > unreasonable.
    >
    > It is time to adapt the legal definition of reasonable and
    > non-discriminatory to common sense.
    >
    >
    >

    http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum...discriminatory
    >
    > I would also add that not only are ECMA/.NET patent terms /unreasonable/
    > (how can it be an Open Standard if you have to pay a fee?), but the
    > non-discriminatory terms have already been broken with Microsoft's
    > /exclusive/ agreement with Novell:
    >
    >
    > I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the
    > excluded products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros
    > over their distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products,
    > i.e. they reserve the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an
    > interesting preview of on what basis they want to fight the free world.
    >
    > Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not
    > excluded from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to
    > sue Novell over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but
    > true.
    >
    >
    > http://commandline.org.uk/linux/2007...-who-you-kiss/
    >
    > All in all, it is clear that the ECMA/.Net/Mono patent conditions are
    > /far/ from either "reasonable" /or/ "non-discriminatory".
    >
    > Meanwhile, I stumbled upon some old articles that reminded me of how
    > much de Icaza is in love with the Redmond gangsters, and how dearly he'd
    > love to mutate Gnome into the bastard son of Windows:
    >
    > Gnome to be based on .NET ? de Icaza
    >
    >
    > Learn to love The Beast
    > By Andrew Orlowski in New York
    >
    > Published Friday 1st February 2002 17:56 GMT
    >
    > [Interview]
    > How much do you love Microsoft's .NET? Enough to trust your Gnome
    > applications to its APIs in the future?
    >
    > That's what Gnome leader Miguel de Icaza, believes should happen. Miguel
    > calls .NET the "natural upgrade" for the Gnome platform, and enthused
    > about the technology in an interview with us at LinuxWorld this week.
    > Basing Gnome on the .NET APIs will cut development time significantly,
    >
    > He also had praise for the new Microsoft security model, dismissed the
    > notion that Redmond was employing embrace and extend to its web services
    > protocols, and put the message that the community should get over its
    > beef with The Beast.
    >
    > "I'd like to see Gnome applications written in .NET in version 4.0 - no,
    > version 3.0. But Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET," he told us. "A lot
    > of people just see .NET as a fantastic upgrade for the development
    > platform from Microsoft.
    >
    >
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02...e_to_be_based/
    >
    > Read the whole article, it's most revealing.
    >
    > Miguel loves ActiveX too:
    >
    >
    > At Microsoft I learned the truth about ActiveX and COM and I got very
    > interested in it inmediately(sic).
    >
    >
    > http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/gnome-history.html
    >
    > He shows extremely poor taste (in many things).
    >
    > [1] For anyone still not convinced of Microsoft's ethical depravity,
    > please see the following:
    >
    > http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history
    > http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/i...05010107100653
    > http://boycottnovell.com/microsoft-critique-resources/
    > http://boycottnovell.com/2008/05/25/...-astroturfing/
    > http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
    >
    > [2] Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement
    >
    > http://antitrust.slated.org/censorsh...posal-2007.pdf
    >
    > And finally:
    >
    > [3] Why did Microsoft invent .NET (I'm assuming they invented it, rather
    > than their usual MO of simply assimilating it from another source) when
    > there is already Java? To answer this question, you may also like to
    > consider why they "(re)invented" OOXML, Moonlight, XPS and other
    > "fscking kill " technologies.
    >
    > Any supposedly Free Software advocate who can still defend or support
    > Mono at this point, is clearly either irredeemably corrupt or terminally
    > stupid (or possibly both). They are part of the problem, not part of the
    > solution. And yes, the "problem" is Microsoft.
    >
    > De Icaza, are you listening?
    >



    Today... mono and RAND blows in this direction by the pressure from the
    forces of Redomnd.... Who knows the direction it will blow tomorrow...

    Mono/.net is a wolf in sheeps clothing. For whatever it's worth, do not use
    it. If gnome does, then do not use it either.


    --

    Jerry McBride (jmcbride@mail-on.us)

  4. Re: Mono and RAND

    Verily I say unto thee, that Jerry McBride spake thusly:

    > Today... mono and RAND blows in this direction by the pressure from
    > the forces of Redomnd.... Who knows the direction it will blow
    > tomorrow...
    >
    > Mono/.net is a wolf in sheeps clothing. For whatever it's worth, do
    > not use it. If gnome does, then do not use it either.


    My sentiments exactly, and indeed sufficient reason alone for me to want
    to dump Gnome, even though I've never (regularly) used any other Linux DE.

    Despite Waugh's denials and protestations, Gnome /is/ slowly becoming
    dependant on Mono, and there is clearly an /agenda/ to do so. In
    addition to de Icaza's previous comments, also see:

    http://dtecht.blogspot.com/2008/01/o...use-users.html
    http://www.beranger.org/index.php?pa...-end-of-freedo

    And in case anyone is wondering, my motives are not malicious, I merely
    wish to see this disturbing Windows-isation of Gnome trend reversed. I
    wish to /protect/ Free Software, even if that means protecting it from
    the influences of certain misguided; so-called Free Software developers,
    and their poisonous; non-Free Software.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    01:51:01 up 158 days, 22:26, 6 users, load average: 0.24, 0.24, 0.14

  5. Re: Mono and RAND

    On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:48:59 +0100, Homer wrote:

    > As most people in the group probably already know, I am no fan of Mono -
    > not for technical reasons (mostly [3]), but simply for political ones.


    Most people in this group know you are a nut [Homer].

    And most people don't care what a loony toon Linux cultist like yourself
    thinks, [Homer].



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  6. Re: Mono and RAND

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Homer on Wednesday 28 May 2008 01:51 : \____

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Jerry McBride spake thusly:
    >
    >> Today... mono and RAND blows in this direction by the pressure from
    >> the forces of Redomnd.... Who knows the direction it will blow
    >> tomorrow...
    >>
    >> Mono/.net is a wolf in sheeps clothing. For whatever it's worth, do
    >> not use it. If gnome does, then do not use it either.

    >
    > My sentiments exactly, and indeed sufficient reason alone for me to want
    > to dump Gnome, even though I've never (regularly) used any other Linux DE.
    >
    > Despite Waugh's denials and protestations, Gnome /is/ slowly becoming
    > dependant on Mono, and there is clearly an /agenda/ to do so. In
    > addition to de Icaza's previous comments, also see:
    >
    > http://dtecht.blogspot.com/2008/01/o...use-users.html
    >

    http://www.beranger.org/index.php?pa...-end-of-freedo
    >
    > And in case anyone is wondering, my motives are not malicious, I merely
    > wish to see this disturbing Windows-isation of Gnome trend reversed. I
    > wish to /protect/ Free Software, even if that means protecting it from
    > the influences of certain misguided; so-called Free Software developers,
    > and their poisonous; non-Free Software.


    It ought to be added that deIcaza&Boys (or Novell&Miguel) changed an article 2
    years after it had been published in Linux Planet. It said that GNOME was
    going to be rewritten in C# or something along those lines, but the recent
    backlash (mainly because of me) gave them some flak, so they went around
    censoring content, or rewriting history for all I can tell.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Run a Linux server, then learn how to knit
    http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Cpu(s): 24.2%us, 3.6%sy, 1.0%ni, 66.8%id, 4.1%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
    http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIPMGtU4xAY3RXLo4RAg6dAJsH449p5a/Tgl4OoWfglJ4trteWXACggCRO
    guZAHWEZJprm749EI2vBmN8=
    =QC8x
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  7. Re: Mono and RAND

    On Wed, 28 May 2008 03:21:33 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:


    > It ought to be added that deIcaza&Boys (or Novell&Miguel) changed an article 2
    > years after it had been published in Linux Planet. It said that GNOME was
    > going to be rewritten in C# or something along those lines, but the recent
    > backlash (mainly because of me) gave them some flak, so they went around
    > censoring content, or rewriting history for all I can tell.
    >


    Hahaha!
    You greatly overestimate your importance to the Linux movement Roy
    Schestowitz.

    You are nothing but a ****roach..

    How about some proof to back up your claims?
    Another one of those little voices in your head?

    Maybe PJ told you?

    What tripe.........


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  8. Re: Mono and RAND

    On 2008-05-28, Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Jerry McBride spake thusly:
    >
    >> Today... mono and RAND blows in this direction by the pressure from
    >> the forces of Redomnd.... Who knows the direction it will blow
    >> tomorrow...
    >>
    >> Mono/.net is a wolf in sheeps clothing. For whatever it's worth, do
    >> not use it. If gnome does, then do not use it either.

    >
    > My sentiments exactly, and indeed sufficient reason alone for me to want
    > to dump Gnome, even though I've never (regularly) used any other Linux DE.
    >
    > Despite Waugh's denials and protestations, Gnome /is/ slowly becoming
    > dependant on Mono, and there is clearly an /agenda/ to do so. In
    > addition to de Icaza's previous comments, also see:
    >
    > http://dtecht.blogspot.com/2008/01/o...use-users.html
    > http://www.beranger.org/index.php?pa...-end-of-freedo
    >
    > And in case anyone is wondering, my motives are not malicious, I merely
    > wish to see this disturbing Windows-isation of Gnome trend reversed. I
    > wish to /protect/ Free Software, even if that means protecting it from
    > the influences of certain misguided; so-called Free Software developers,
    > and their poisonous; non-Free Software.
    >


    Then how do you feel about DotGNU?

    http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/

    --
    Tom Shelton

  9. Re: Mono and RAND

    Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:

    > Then how do you feel about DotGNU?
    >
    > http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/


    As I've said elsewhere:

    AFAIAC DotGNU is just yet another implementation of Microsoft's .Net
    technology, so yes ... I do still advise people to refrain from using
    it, or any other encumbered Microsoft technology, wherever possible.

    I support Linux (the kernel), but that does not mean I agree with
    everything Torvalds says (Torvalds: "I think Tivoization is *good*").
    Equally I support Free Software, but that doesn't mean I agree with
    everything Stallman says either. IMHO Stallman's support of encumbered
    Microsoft technology via DotGNU, is a serious mistake.
    http://slated.org/free_software_dise...no#comment-123

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    17:17:33 up 159 days, 13:53, 5 users, load average: 0.07, 0.19, 0.41

  10. Re: Mono and RAND


    "Homer" wrote in message
    news:m6d0h5-ki.ln1@sky.matrix...
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
    >
    >> Then how do you feel about DotGNU?
    >>
    >> http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/

    >
    > As I've said elsewhere:
    >
    >
    > AFAIAC DotGNU is just yet another implementation of Microsoft's .Net
    > technology, so yes ... I do still advise people to refrain from using
    > it, or any other encumbered Microsoft technology, wherever possible.
    >
    > I support Linux (the kernel), but that does not mean I agree with
    > everything Torvalds says (Torvalds: "I think Tivoization is *good*").
    > Equally I support Free Software, but that doesn't mean I agree with
    > everything Stallman says either. IMHO Stallman's support of encumbered
    > Microsoft technology via DotGNU, is a serious mistake.
    >


    Fortunately for us nobody but Schestowitz cares one bit what your uneducated
    opinion is. Your worthless opinions about what should or shouldn't be done
    are just as meaningless as what you think the crowned prince of Saudi Arabia
    should do. The fact is that you are a nothing... a big fat zero and what you
    think doesn't matter and will never matter.

    The computer industry listens and pays attention to Torvalds, Stallman,
    Gates, Ballmer, Ellison, Stroustrup, etc. What these people think and say
    matters. What an anonymous loser named [H]omer the [H]ypocrite whines about
    will never matter.




    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  11. Re: Mono and RAND

    On 2008-05-28, Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
    >
    >> Then how do you feel about DotGNU?
    >>
    >> http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/

    >
    > As I've said elsewhere:
    >
    >
    > AFAIAC DotGNU is just yet another implementation of Microsoft's .Net
    > technology, so yes ... I do still advise people to refrain from using
    > it, or any other encumbered Microsoft technology, wherever possible.
    >
    > I support Linux (the kernel), but that does not mean I agree with
    > everything Torvalds says (Torvalds: "I think Tivoization is *good*").
    > Equally I support Free Software, but that doesn't mean I agree with
    > everything Stallman says either. IMHO Stallman's support of encumbered
    > Microsoft technology via DotGNU, is a serious mistake.
    >
    >
    > http://slated.org/free_software_dise...no#comment-123
    >


    I only ask, because don't you thing the FSF would have researched this
    issue before proceding with a project like DotGNU? And don't you think
    they would have come to the same conclusions that Ximian did when it
    began the Mono project (before the Novel buy-out)? Personally, I think
    you are letting your anti-MS bias cloud your judgement.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  12. Re: Mono and RAND

    Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:

    > I only ask, because don't you thing the FSF would have researched
    > this issue before proceding with a project like DotGNU?


    AFAICT Stallman's and Moglen's attitude towards the /risk/ of patents
    is, that unless an actual challenge is made, then there is no problem.
    In this regard, they do not single out any one company that may have
    aggressive and predatory tendencies (Microsoft).

    I am not asserting that patents in this case are the "risk" per se.
    /Microsoft/ is the risk ... patents are merely their weapon of choice.

    > And don't you think they would have come to the same conclusions that
    > Ximian did when it began the Mono project (before the Novel
    > buy-out)?


    De Icaza's conclusions are wholly predictable, given his obvious and
    well documented affection for the Vole.

    > Personally, I think you are letting your anti-MS bias cloud your
    > judgement.


    I don't deny that I am as biased against Microsoft as they are against
    Free Software. This is a direct and reciprocal relationship, and not at
    all coincidental. And I think my judgement is as crystal clear as
    Microsoft's agenda of domination through destruction and assimilation.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    19:22:29 up 159 days, 15:58, 5 users, load average: 0.18, 0.15, 0.16

  13. Re: Mono and RAND

    On Wed, 28 May 2008 09:10:27 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:


    > Then how do you feel about DotGNU?


    What is that?
    Hindu Linux?



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  14. Re: Mono and RAND

    On Wed, 28 May 2008 12:46:08 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:


    > I only ask, because don't you thing the FSF would have researched this
    > issue before proceding with a project like DotGNU? And don't you think
    > they would have come to the same conclusions that Ximian did when it
    > began the Mono project (before the Novel buy-out)? Personally, I think
    > you are letting your anti-MS bias cloud your judgement.


    [Homer] biased against Microsoft?
    Impossible.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  15. Re: Mono and RAND

    On 2008-05-28, Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
    >
    >> I only ask, because don't you thing the FSF would have researched
    >> this issue before proceding with a project like DotGNU?

    >
    > AFAICT Stallman's and Moglen's attitude towards the /risk/ of patents
    > is, that unless an actual challenge is made, then there is no problem.
    > In this regard, they do not single out any one company that may have
    > aggressive and predatory tendencies (Microsoft).
    >
    > I am not asserting that patents in this case are the "risk" per se.
    > /Microsoft/ is the risk ... patents are merely their weapon of choice.
    >
    >> And don't you think they would have come to the same conclusions that
    >> Ximian did when it began the Mono project (before the Novel
    >> buy-out)?

    >
    > De Icaza's conclusions are wholly predictable, given his obvious and
    > well documented affection for the Vole.
    >
    >> Personally, I think you are letting your anti-MS bias cloud your
    >> judgement.

    >
    > I don't deny that I am as biased against Microsoft as they are against
    > Free Software. This is a direct and reciprocal relationship, and not at
    > all coincidental. And I think my judgement is as crystal clear as
    > Microsoft's agenda of domination through destruction and assimilation.
    >


    You say that patents are their weapon of choice... But, other then a
    lot of loud talk and posturing, can you point to even one instance where
    MS has actually carried through on a patent threat?

    --
    Tom Shelton

  16. Re: Mono and RAND

    On 2008-05-28, Moshe, Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Wed, 28 May 2008 09:10:27 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Then how do you feel about DotGNU?

    >
    > What is that?
    > Hindu Linux?
    >
    >
    >


    The FSF implementation of .NET - it's not nearly as popular as Mono, so
    it doesn't get as much press.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  17. Re: Mono and RAND

    Tom Shelton wrote:

    >On 2008-05-28, Homer wrote:
    >>
    >> I don't deny that I am as biased against Microsoft as they are against
    >> Free Software. This is a direct and reciprocal relationship, and not at
    >> all coincidental. And I think my judgement is as crystal clear as
    >> Microsoft's agenda of domination through destruction and assimilation.

    >
    >You say that patents are their weapon of choice... But, other then a
    >lot of loud talk and posturing, can you point to even one instance where
    >MS has actually carried through on a patent threat?


    Threats and FUD *do* work, you know...


  18. Re: Mono and RAND

    On 2008-05-28, chrisv wrote:
    > Tom Shelton wrote:
    >
    >>On 2008-05-28, Homer wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I don't deny that I am as biased against Microsoft as they are against
    >>> Free Software. This is a direct and reciprocal relationship, and not at
    >>> all coincidental. And I think my judgement is as crystal clear as
    >>> Microsoft's agenda of domination through destruction and assimilation.

    >>
    >>You say that patents are their weapon of choice... But, other then a
    >>lot of loud talk and posturing, can you point to even one instance where
    >>MS has actually carried through on a patent threat?

    >
    > Threats and FUD *do* work, you know...
    >


    Sure, I am not denying it. But, when have they actually made a specific
    threat against against a specific company? Don't bring up lindows and
    mikerowesoft... Those are trademark disputes, and they are obligated to
    defend their trademark. I'm talking specifically about patent suites.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  19. Re: Mono and RAND

    Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
    > On 2008-05-28, chrisv wrote:


    >> Threats and FUD *do* work, you know...

    >
    > Sure, I am not denying it. But, when have they actually made a
    > specific threat against against a specific company? Don't bring up
    > lindows and mikerowesoft... Those are trademark disputes, and they
    > are obligated to defend their trademark. I'm talking specifically
    > about patent suites.


    You're digressing, and no I don't have the data to answer that question,
    but then the CIOs and other managers who make risk assessments probably
    don't have that data either - but I'm sure that fact doesn't prevent
    them from being jaded against using Linux, every time Ballmer opens his
    fat mouth and makes claims of "undisclosed balance-sheet liabilities".

    If someone who makes threats never follows up on those threats, does
    that make their threatening behaviour /acceptable/ somehow?

    When a woman screams "rape", in the minds of the community the accused
    remains stigmatised as a rapist, even if the woman later confesses to
    lying. The damage is done. That's just one of Microsoft's many filthy
    tactics.

    Whether or not Microsoft ever actually /deploy/ any of the weapons in
    their arsenal, they nonetheless still possess those weapons, and they
    certainly don't lack the moral depravity necessary to use them. IOW they
    are a threat, just like any other collection of thugs.

    What I find quite extraordinary is how, in the face of pages and pages
    of evidence proving Microsoft's thuggish behaviour, certain people just
    /skim/ over it all, like it doesn't have any significance whatsoever,
    then promptly forget everything they've just read. Like I've mentioned
    before, it's like such people have developed a blind spot; like they're
    become so indoctrinated into this sick culture, that preaches the idea
    that such behaviour is somehow "normal", that they just shrug it off and
    defend the thugs who both preach this indoctrination and practise it's
    vile methods.

    Does Microsoft's utter moral depravity mean /nothing/ to you?

    Has Microsoft ever pursued a patent infringement claim in court, for
    technology they previously "promised" not to sue? I have no idea, but if
    they ever did it would be the least of their crimes. Merely by claiming
    ownership of this technology, they have control and the means to affect
    destruction of those who use it, if the mood takes them. And certain
    so-called Free Software developers are actually /assisting/ Microsoft's
    infiltration of Free Software, by helping them spread the disease of
    their "Intellectual Monopoly". You say they haven't /acted/ on those
    threats ... yet. Prove they won't ... ever. Prove they don't have the
    motive and attitude to do so.

    Again I say, they are a threat, and for as long as they operate their
    business like a mad dictator threatening genocide of a neighbouring
    nation, they will remain a threat.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    23:12:32 up 159 days, 19:48, 5 users, load average: 0.53, 0.30, 0.18

  20. Re: Mono and RAND

    On Wed, 28 May 2008 14:43:18 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:

    > On 2008-05-28, Moshe, Goldfarb. wrote:
    >> On Wed, 28 May 2008 09:10:27 -0500, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Then how do you feel about DotGNU?

    >>
    >> What is that?
    >> Hindu Linux?
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > The FSF implementation of .NET - it's not nearly as popular as Mono, so
    > it doesn't get as much press.


    Ok.
    Thanks.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast