-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Why DotGNU is Wrong
,----[ Quote ]
| I am a fervent believer in the principles of Free Software, and the
| principles of Freedom in general, but I don't necessarily support everything
| Stallman says or does. I am not Richard Stallman, I have my own opinions, and
| in my opinion Stallman's support of Microsoft technology via DotGNU is
| profoundly wrong. I understand his reasons: He merely wants to take something
| which is not entirely Free, and make it as Free as possible (whereas de
| Icaza's motive is to take something he considers "cool technology", and make
| it as interoperable as possible), but the use of this technology assists a
| deeply reprehensible company, and poisons Free Software with that
| disreputable company's Intellectual Monopoly.
|
| [...]
|
| The pragmatists ignore this criminal behaviour, for the sake of convenience,
| because they are more moved by their own selfishness than by Microsoft's
| outrageous business practises.
|
| [...]
|
| Critics are then lambasted by supporters, who marginalise critics by
| stigmatising them as "haters" and "zealots", whilst ignoring the fact that
| this dissent is actually warranted, and is not in fact any form of irrational
| and unjustifiable hatred, any more than it is irrational and unjustifiable to
| condemn any other criminal.
`----
http://slated.org/why_dotgnu_is_wrong
Recent:
Why Mono and Samba Are Patently Different
,----[ Quote ]
| Samba grew out of a classic hacker's itch. Its creator, Andrew Tridgell,
| wanted to connect his PC to a departmental Sun machine, and knocked up a bit
| of server code for the latter to make that possible. It was only later that
| he discovered – to his amazement – that his program also worked with PCs
| running Windows.
|
| This meant that Samba, running on GNU/Linux, could function as a file and
| printer server for Windows users, which was why it became one of the first
| free software programs to find its way into enterprises, since it was
| effectively a drop-in replacement for more expensive Windows-based solutions.
| In other words, Samba is a free implementation of some protocols used by
| Windows, and was created so that free code could be used instead of
| Microsoft's.
|
| Now consider Mono. Like Samba, it aims to reproduce functionality available
| on the Windows platform, so that people can use free software instead: a
| laudable goal in itself. But the end-result, which depends on Microsoft's
| work, is something that encourages developers to write *yet more* code that
| uses Microsoft's approach. In benighted countries where software can be
| patented, this means that any patents that Microsoft has in the .NET
| framework are like to apply to any code developed with Mono. Like an
| infectious disease, the intellectual monopoly is spread wider.
|
| [...]
|
| This is what makes Mono so dangerous: developers that use this framework are,
| in fact, helping to disperse the poison of Microsoft's intellectual
| monopolies across the free software ecosystem. I'm sure that's not the aim of
| the Mono developers, who doubtless have the best of intentions, but sadly it
| is the inevitable result. And that is why developers and users need to be
| warned off Mono in a way that is not necessary for Samba.
`----
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1380&blogid=14
Related:
Miguel, Mono and Microsoft
,----[ Quote ]
| is Mono's role in the deal that of a hook to make customers write
| .NET applications because they can be run on Linux - only to find
| later on that they are armless or legless because of a change in
| the .NETspecifications, a change which Microsoft decides not to
| make public?
|
| [...]
|
| And here we have an individual who decides to replicate one of
| the proprietary company's development environments - for reasons
| best known to him alone - and keeps telling people that the reason
| he's doing it is so that he can pull people over from the
| proprietary company's side to his side!!!
`----
http://www.itwire.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11081&Itemid=1091
Mono? Mono!
,----[ Quote ]
| Note the lack of good faith:
|
| Nobody said that "GNOME depends on Mono"; rather, Mono is pushed into GNOME,
| distros are installing Tomboy and F-Spot and Beagle by default, and users
| are intoxicated to believe that they can't live without Mono!
|
| "GNOME depends on libbeagle, a Mono program": Sir, we knew that libbeagle is
| a C library! But why is it there? (Do you need a hint?)
|
| "NDesk-DBus is replacing DBus in GNOME": I'm afraid this will happen one
| day!
|
| "Someday soon it will be practically impossible to write any app for GNOME
| without being forced to use MONO": Yes, this is going to be true! (Alas...)
`----
http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2008/02/27/10/23/17-mono-mono-
Mono to be renamed as Duo
,----[ Quote ]
| Mr de Icaza told those assembled that he had always had a dual purpose in
| starting the project - to provide an implementation of Microsoft's .NET
| development framework so that Linux developers could enjoy the wonderful
| programming tools built in Redmond and also to ensure that in future Linux
| became so integrated with Microsoft that it would not be possible to pull the
| two apart.
`----
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17401/1148/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkl/mfAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6tegCePwlUMK3KfhE+6mLKbgxbCp5j
vB8AoIwXcZXrxIWWqyDAi8pfrBPOGQZq
=0uGI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
