Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Launchpad and Microsoft
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Novell?s Chief Marketing Officer John Dragoon has taken the opportunity
> | to compare Canonical with Novell partner Microsoft on his blog. As
> | he ?commend[s] Microsoft for taking this very significant step?, he
> | points out that the 20,000 lines of source code contributed by Microsoft
> | to the Linux kernel ?will far surpass those contributed by
> | Canoncial[sic]?.
With that kind of abrasive irresponsible attitude, and talking up microshit
as their friend when in fact microshaft got busted for stealing GPL code,
no one should help Novel.
> | John credits Novell colleague Greg Kroah-Hartman for helping Microsoft
> | to achieve this historic milestone.
Which was to cover up the theft of GPL code.
> Greg is fond of counting lines of
> | code in the Linux kernel, and based on his commentary elsewhere, I?m
> | sure it was his pleasure to provide this statistic. I haven?t checked
> | the figures myself, but it?s certainly believable that our contributions
> | to the Linux kernel haven?t amounted to 20,000 lines of code.
> | Before we congratulate Microsoft and Novell too heartily, though, let?s
> | get beyond the numbers, and look at what those 20,000 lines of code
> | actually do. What can Linux do now that it couldn?t do before
> | Microsoft?s contribution? According to Microsoft?s press release, it?s a
> | device driver which enables Linux to run much faster?<b>on Windows
> | servers</b>. That?s right, it helps us to get more value out of our
> | expensive Windows Server 2008 licenses by consolidating our Linux
> | servers into Windows Hyper-V virtual machines. It lets us put Windows in
> | control of our hardware, and rely on Microsoft to allow it to perform
> | well, for as long as that makes sense for them strategically.
> | [...]
> | Microsoft?s contribution to Linux creates new business opportunities for
> | Microsoft by locking customers into their technology. Canonical?s
> | contribution of Launchpad helps free software developers do what they do
> | best, and benefits Canonical by making it easier for us to package,
> | distribute, maintain, and provide services for free software.
> Mono actually is dangerous
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In a recent iTWire article titled "The elusive, royalty-free patent
> | licence for Mono", Sam Varghese contacts Ecmea for the patent terms
> | surrounding Mono. Remember that the mono camp always throws the argument
> | at people that mono follows an Ecmea standard and as such is free to
> | implement?
> | [....]
> | He reaches a very simple conclusion:
> | "To me, it looks this licence is as real as the unicorn. Or maybe Santa
> | Claus. I think Mono fans need to think of a fresh defence when people
> | talk about the dangers of patent suits arising over this technology. The
> | licence talk has worn more than a little thin."
> | Thanks for a great piece of investigation to Sam.
> | Now, can we please take a real look into this before we rip out
> | Rhythmbox in favour of Banshee in Ubuntu and can we please reinvestigate
> | making Gnome depend on mono (currently by virtue of Tomboy)?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----