Microsoft's Rat Trap - Linux

This is a discussion on Microsoft's Rat Trap - Linux ; http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=780 October 3rd, 2007 Microsoft to release .Net as Shared Source http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp October 3, 2007 Microsoft's Open-Source Trap for Mono In the first link: Microsoft will be rolling out the .Net code piecemeal, after scrubbing comments. I Scrubbing comments? What ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Microsoft's Rat Trap

  1. Microsoft's Rat Trap


    http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=780

    October 3rd, 2007
    Microsoft to release .Net as Shared Source

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp

    October 3, 2007
    Microsoft's Open-Source Trap for Mono


    In the first link:

    Microsoft will be rolling out the .Net code piecemeal, after
    scrubbing comments. I

    Scrubbing comments? What a bunch of jerks.

    --
    Tux rox!

  2. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    Linonut wrote:
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=780
    >
    > October 3rd, 2007
    > Microsoft to release .Net as Shared Source
    >
    > Microsoft will be rolling out the .Net code piecemeal, after
    > scrubbing comments. I
    >
    > Scrubbing comments? What a bunch of jerks.


    Rat Trap? What an idiot.




    > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp
    >
    > October 3, 2007
    > Microsoft's Open-Source Trap for Mono



    trap
    trap
    Microsoft sheer gall
    Microsoft poisoning open-source
    danger from Microsoft
    death trap for Mono
    baiting its trap
    muddy the waters
    chance of killing off
    snap shut on you
    kill up your program
    possibly kill your job and finances

    ha! Moronnnnn!!!!

    Only true losers (Steven Vaughn-Nichols, Roy [H]omer Kent, 7, various other
    "advocates" and Linux people) walk through life being paranoid about
    everything MS does.

    Fact: MS is successful by virtually any measure
    Fact: Linux/OSS is not successful by virtually any measure







  3. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:

    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=780
    >
    > October 3rd, 2007
    > Microsoft to release .Net as Shared Source
    >
    > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp
    >
    > October 3, 2007
    > Microsoft's Open-Source Trap for Mono


    It's toxic waste.
    Anyone with any common sense wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

    > In the first link:
    >
    > Microsoft will be rolling out the .Net code piecemeal, after
    > scrubbing comments. I
    >
    > Scrubbing comments? What a bunch of jerks.


    /// f**k with Linux
    /// Can we patent this?

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "OOXML is a superb standard"
    | - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
    `----

    Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
    16:16:39 up 56 days, 15:11, 3 users, load average: 0.14, 0.43, 0.41

  4. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    Linonut wrote:

    >
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=780
    >
    > October 3rd, 2007
    > Microsoft to release .Net as Shared Source
    >
    > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp
    >
    > October 3, 2007
    > Microsoft's Open-Source Trap for Mono
    >
    >
    > In the first link:
    >
    > Microsoft will be rolling out the .Net code piecemeal, after
    > scrubbing comments. I
    >
    > Scrubbing comments? What a bunch of jerks.
    >

    Found some of their source code where they didn't scrub the comments. Here's
    an example ...

    // Next line ****s up Linux users

    and another ...

    // Next section causes Vista users to have to upgrade to a more expensive
    // version of Vista.
    // Increased revenue gets transferred to Bill Gate$ Foundation so that he
    // can look like he cares about the world.

    Cheers.

    --

    Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.
    Intelligent and helpful Windoze error messages: http://tinyurl.com/2ks5dz






  5. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:18:50 +0100, [H]omer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=780
    >>
    >> October 3rd, 2007
    >> Microsoft to release .Net as Shared Source
    >>
    >> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp
    >>
    >> October 3, 2007
    >> Microsoft's Open-Source Trap for Mono

    >
    > It's toxic waste.
    > Anyone with any common sense wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
    >
    >> In the first link:
    >>
    >> Microsoft will be rolling out the .Net code piecemeal, after
    >> scrubbing comments. I
    >>
    >> Scrubbing comments? What a bunch of jerks.

    >
    > /// f**k with Linux
    > /// Can we patent this?


    /*
    This readline function is perfect and already debugged.
    Thanks GNU
    */

  6. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

    wrote
    on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:04:00 GMT
    :
    >
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=780
    >
    > October 3rd, 2007
    > Microsoft to release .Net as Shared Source
    >
    > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp
    >
    > October 3, 2007
    > Microsoft's Open-Source Trap for Mono
    >
    >
    > In the first link:
    >
    > Microsoft will be rolling out the .Net code piecemeal, after
    > scrubbing comments. I
    >
    > Scrubbing comments? What a bunch of jerks.
    >


    I for one would have thought that the OSS community has
    already been exposed to this sort of thing, mostly because
    of the Sun Java Community Process. It will be interesting
    to see if this comes true (though not in a good way):

    Let's say a year from now, Microsoft does a SCO. They
    claim that Mono contains code that was stolen from
    the .NET Framework reference source code. They point
    at their code, they point at the license, and sure
    enough, there's similar code. After all, both projects
    are implementing .NET; there will almost certainly be
    lines of code that looks alike.

    Better still, from Microsoft's point of view, all they
    need to do is find one Mono programmer who has signed
    the license to look at the .NET Framework reference
    source code. With that "proof," they'll claim they've
    found their smoking gun. SCO failed in its attempts
    because it never did have any evidence that there was
    Unix code in Linux.

    and the article writer does have a good recommendation:

    If you ever, and I mean ever, want to write open-source
    code, I recommend you not come within a mile of
    Microsoft's .NET Framework code or any other similar
    projects that the boys from Redmond "open" up.

    I expect this to eventually end up in the courts, ideally
    as a very general notion (can someone prohibit someone
    else from looking but not touching electronic data?),
    though more likely in the more limited scope of contract
    law (is a contract that prohibits someone from modifying
    electronic data, as a requirement for his desire to look
    at it, valid?). This could have some far reaching effects
    if one casts one's net wide enough.

    Where did we want to go today?

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Murphy was an optimist.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  7. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    On Oct 4, 7:04 am, Linonut wrote:
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=780
    >
    > October 3rd, 2007
    > Microsoft to release .Net as Shared Source
    >
    > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp


    "the Microsoft Reference License allows viewing of source code, but
    not modification or redistribution. The source code will be
    downloadable and viewable by anyone who accepts the license
    agreement."

    It seems like the only people who are harmed by this are Microsoft
    because they then lose the benefit of having their code advanced by
    others making enhancements!

    Once again, Redmond shoots itself in the feet.



  8. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo, Texeme.Construct

    wrote
    on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:44:28 -0700
    <1191516268.391872.101490@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>:
    > On Oct 4, 7:04 am, Linonut wrote:
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=780
    >>
    >> October 3rd, 2007
    >> Microsoft to release .Net as Shared Source
    >>
    >> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp

    >
    > "the Microsoft Reference License allows viewing of source code, but
    > not modification or redistribution. The source code will be
    > downloadable and viewable by anyone who accepts the license
    > agreement."
    >
    > It seems like the only people who are harmed by this are Microsoft
    > because they then lose the benefit of having their code advanced by
    > others making enhancements!
    >
    > Once again, Redmond shoots itself in the feet.
    >


    Not at all. Microsoft might score a bit of a coup here.
    How do we know that Microsoft won't claim later that
    certain bits of Mono code -- which Microsoft can freely
    incorporate into *their* .NET product, if need be (check
    the Mono license!) -- didn't appear in .NET *first*?

    More specifically:

    [1] Microsoft announces and releases the .NET framework.

    [2] Mono is released, running some Microsoft stuff (e.g.,
    the C# compiler). Mono source code is freely viewable.

    [2] Microsoft upgrades the .NET framework, and takes some
    of the Mono source code to facilitate that upgrade. Nobody
    pays much attention, although the fetch attempts might
    be recorded along with all of the other crap going on
    across the Internet.

    [3] Microsoft releases the .NET source under their
    "view-only" license.

    [4] Microsoft sues the group developing Mono for copyright
    infringement, trade secrets, and patent infringement.
    Anyone knowing the suit is wholly without merit can't
    prove it either way to an impartial court.

    [5] Mono vanishes.

    Oops!

    I hope this scenario is defended against somehow, in
    an obvious fashion. I wish I knew how, especially if
    Microsoft conveniently loses their internal revision
    tracking.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #104392:
    for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) sleep(0);

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  9. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    ____/ p5000011 on Thursday 04 October 2007 16:44 : \____

    > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:18:50 +0100, [H]omer wrote:
    >
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >>
    >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=780
    >>>
    >>> October 3rd, 2007
    >>> Microsoft to release .Net as Shared Source
    >>>
    >>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp
    >>>
    >>> October 3, 2007
    >>> Microsoft's Open-Source Trap for Mono

    >>
    >> It's toxic waste.
    >> Anyone with any common sense wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
    >>
    >>> In the first link:
    >>>
    >>> Microsoft will be rolling out the .Net code piecemeal, after
    >>> scrubbing comments. I
    >>>
    >>> Scrubbing comments? What a bunch of jerks.

    >>
    >> /// f**k with Linux
    >> /// Can we patent this?

    >
    > /*
    > This readline function is perfect and already debugged.
    > Thanks GNU
    > */


    Wait until they move the chess piece on Wine and CrossOver. Microsoft crooks
    have plans for that as well.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Error, no keyboard - press F1 to continue"
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    20:05:01 up 24 days, 18:11, 5 users, load average: 0.65, 1.66, 1.83
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

  10. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=780
    >>
    >> October 3rd, 2007
    >> Microsoft to release .Net as Shared Source
    >>
    >> Microsoft will be rolling out the .Net code piecemeal, after
    >> scrubbing comments. I
    >>
    >> Scrubbing comments? What a bunch of jerks.

    >
    > Rat Trap? What an idiot.


    Ho hum. Try harder.

    The rest of your post was no better.

    By the way, I read from another source that the comments will be intact.

    So I tentatively take it back.

    --
    Tux rox!

  11. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Wait until they move the chess piece on Wine and CrossOver. Microsoft crooks
    > have plans for that as well.


    Could push people either way.

    Microsoft can't stamp any of this out.

    The "low market share" that the trolls like to tout, as evidence that
    Linux (and other OSS) is unpopular, is actually a symptom of its
    greatest strength -- it is free from market constraints.

    If you think about it, it might well be that the less commercialized
    Linux stays, the better off are we Linux users.

    We don't need no stinking market. We just need decent broadband.

    --
    Tux rox!

  12. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:

    > If you think about it, it might well be that the less commercialized
    > Linux stays, the better off are we Linux users.
    >
    > We don't need no stinking market. We just need decent broadband.


    Great! Now all we need to worry about is Net Neutrality.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "OOXML is a superb standard"
    | - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
    `----

    Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
    00:11:01 up 56 days, 23:05, 2 users, load average: 0.47, 0.23, 0.08

  13. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    ____/ [H]omer on Friday 05 October 2007 00:13 : \____

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >
    >> If you think about it, it might well be that the less commercialized
    >> Linux stays, the better off are we Linux users.
    >>
    >> We don't need no stinking market. We just need decent broadband.

    >
    > Great! Now all we need to worry about is Net Neutrality.


    And the MSBBC has just blown a fuse in this country as ISPs are up in arms.
    Microsoft doesn't give a s* about neutrality. Tiering is part of its idealogy,
    mentality, and revenue model (assumption).

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "Sadly, many of these brilliant people have been blinded by the stock
    | price and unable to see that Microsoft is also the key architect of
    | the greatest financial pyramid scheme this century.
    |
    | It is not uncommon for participants in pyramid schemes to lose their
    | emotional bearings. My close friends who work at Microsoft are
    | particularly upset over my work and it is possible that even Bill
    | Gates and Steve Ballmer do not realize the implications of their
    | financial practices."
    `----

    http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html


    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "As with all pyramid schemes, it is important to get as close to tier
    | 1 as possible. From a practical standpoint, usually only tiers 1 and 2
    | will derive significant long-term economic rewards from such schemes."
    `----

    http://reactor-core.org/microsoft-pyramid.html

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: just set it and forget about it
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

  14. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    On Oct 4, 11:44 am, The Ghost In The Machine
    wrote:

    > Not at all. Microsoft might score a bit of a coup here.
    > How do we know that Microsoft won't claim later that
    > certain bits of Mono code -- which Microsoft can freely
    > incorporate into *their* .NET product, if need be (check
    > the Mono license!) -- didn't appear in .NET *first*?


    But...isn't that exactly what the cross licensing deal between Novell
    (mono) and Microsoft (.NET) specifically allows?



  15. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    After takin' a swig o' grog, [H]omer belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >
    >> If you think about it, it might well be that the less commercialized
    >> Linux stays, the better off are we Linux users.
    >>
    >> We don't need no stinking market. We just need decent broadband.

    >
    > Great! Now all we need to worry about is Net Neutrality.


    There's always satellite and ham radio.

    --
    Radio Free Amerika!

  16. Re: Microsoft's Rat Trap

    Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, [H]omer belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >>
    >>> If you think about it, it might well be that the less commercialized
    >>> Linux stays, the better off are we Linux users.
    >>>
    >>> We don't need no stinking market. We just need decent broadband.

    >> Great! Now all we need to worry about is Net Neutrality.

    >
    > There's always satellite and ham radio.


    Fark that, lets get back to basics, with morse code, carrier pidgins,
    and jungle drums. That'll sort the men from the boys. Let's see them
    government agents try to censor /that/ shiat.

    PS: My next reply may take several weeks to arrive, and require feeding.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "OOXML is a superb standard"
    | - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
    `----

    Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
    16:42:50 up 57 days, 15:37, 2 users, load average: 0.05, 0.11, 0.12

+ Reply to Thread