____/ [H]omer on Wednesday 31 October 2007 11:29 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that unionpenny@xxxxxxxxx spake thusly:
>> On Oct 30, 11:43 am, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:09:11 +0100, Jim Relsh wrote:
>>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
>>>> news:4409392.pQp5N9ZnWq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>>>> Miguel's delusions of grandeur
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | What is Miguel de Icaza's latest game? His obsession with
>>>>> | tailgating everything that Microsoft develops - and trying to
>>>>> | impress the company by producing Linux equivalents - now
>>>>> | seems to be spreading to others as well.
>>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> I agree with the author. Miguel is too smart to do such stupd
>>>> things without some ulterior motive.
>>>
>>> .net is a *good* technical solution. Miguel sees that. Everyone
>>> is jumping down his throat for non-technical reasons. Not a single
>>> person has come up with any valid criticisms of .net from a
>>> technical perspective.
>
> That's because there /is/ nothing wrong with .NET from a purely
> technical perspective (other than its utter redundancy in a world that
> already has Java). I don't recall ever seeing anyone even attempt to
> criticise .NET on the basis of technical arguments, so that is entirely
> non sequitur.
>
> The "problem" is, and always has been, the untrustworthy assurance given
> by Microsoft over .NET patents in derivative works like Mono. A RAND
> assurance is /not/ a patent grant, and AFAIAA is /not/ even legally
> binding, since the terms are so imprecise (define "Reasonable").
Oh. Here we go. The de Icaza pitch. Did Microsoft also write the script when
they instructed him on Mono some years ago? (I'm kidding, of course, or do I?)
Watch the talkbacks:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2007-10-30-030-26-OP-GN-MS
Holy Moses! Smell the Roses. Moses Supposes Ballmer's Toes are Roses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH_OKzzZhw8
> Coming from a company that seems to have made a career out of
> exclusionary deals, I find any promises they make regarding
> "Non-Discriminatory" assurances somewhat questionable.
>
>
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060607091049902&;
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0%2c1895%2c2191754%2c00.asp
>
> AFAICT Mono is nothing but a leverage mechanism that Microsoft can use
> against Linux to make claims of IP "infringement". No doubt Microsoft
> are elated that saps like de Icaza have jumped all over their encumbered
> technology. Of course, I'm being /kind/ in my assumptions that de Icaza
> is merely a sap, rather than something more odious.
Mono imprisons businesses and projects. Their processes become dependent on
Mono and later Microsoft will flip the table over. It's a bear trap. It's
open. Yes, it's Open... like open source... but it's a bear trap. It's most
effective when it's open.
>> But is it good and compatible for a GPL project?
>
> No.
Esp. now. Recall that .NET code was made visible (look, but dare not even
tickle). SCO comes to mind.
>>> Just goes to show, make the wrong political move in the Linux camp
>>> and you get lynch mobs.
>
> History teaches us that those who deal with the devil get burned.
> The people at Novell should know that better than most.
They know this, but Microsoft paid them a lot of money, produced SUSE coupons,
and offered 'protection'. They screwed everyone, except Novell -- for now.
Later they'll get around to Novell and 'pull a Linspire' on them. Linspire's
days, by the way, are numbered. I'm serious. Microsoft pulled an anti-GPLv3
stunt on them, if you can still recall that...
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | $> unzip; ping; mount /usr; grep; umount& sleep
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
13:20:02 up 17:31, 2 users, load average: 1.41, 1.61, 1.54
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
