-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Are Microsoft's Promises For Ever?
,----[ Quote ]
| Now, is it just me, or does Microsoft conspicuously fail to answer its own
| question? The question was: does it apply to all versions *including* future
| revision? And Microsoft's answer is about *existing* versions: so doesn't
| that mean it could simply not apply the promise to a future version? Isn't
| this the same problem as with the Open Specification Promise? Just asking.
`----
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-microsofts-promises-for-ever.html
And the knives come out
,----[ Quote ]
| I told you the knives would come out for Stallman.
|
| [...]
|
| The sad thing is, much of the damage is already done. Stallman is facing a
| concerted attack on his character and competence and stands little chance of
| coming through it unscathed. Such is the penalty for daring to critize Mono.
| This garbage is already all over Planet Gnome, Planet Debian, Monologue and
| spreading.
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/12/and-the-knives-come-out/
Boycott Novell is Back!
,----[ Quote ]
| If I had to list my concerns around the Promise I would come up with a
| slightly different list:
|
| 1. Standard bits alone are not enough to deliver killer apps. We have
| several Microsoft emails about limiting the usefulness of what was
| standardized, so we know they at least discussed this internally.
| 2. The Community Promise has that restriction that the Open Specification
| Promise does not. By not extending the Promise to partial implementations,
| it could “lock out” alternative implementations of the standard. Limited
| sub-sets of languages are a common practice in the industry for
| specialized purposes.
| 3. The Community Promise will constantly be misrepresented as covering the
| whole of mono – giving a false veneer of security over the non-covered
| bits (which end up to be the “juicy parts”)
| 4. The Community Promise only applies to the current version. This could
| be used by Microsoft to “freeze out” competing implementations. Just
| update the standard, but not the promise.
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/09/boycott-novell-is-back/
Criticism where it is due
,----[ Quote ]
| Consider that we know for a fact that F-Spot and Banshee, at least, use
| non-ECMA covered parts of mono. Maybe they will be re-written soon. That’s
| great. But at the time of the announcement and currently, they were and are
| not covered by the standard, and so not covered by the agreement.
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/10/criticism-where-it-is-due/
Windows developers on mono
,----[ Quote ]
| There are many such internal documents that clearly show Microsoft
| understands exactly what standardizing parts of .NET means, and how to keep
| that offering in control and inferior to .NET. If Mono is not “chasing” .NET,
| then it fails to meet Windows developers expectations. If Mono
| is “chasing” .NET, then it both runs the risk of anti-competitive tactics on
| the non-standard parts, and is undertaking a task not likely to succeed.
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/11/windows-developers-on-mono/
Recent:
Debian plans draw sharp warning from GNU guru
,----[ Quote ]
| As the Debian project releases a second update of its Debian GNU/Linux 5.0
| ("Lenny") distribution, a controversy has broken out over the next
| version, "Squeeze." GNU guru Richard Stallman has warned that by including a
| Mono-based note-taking application called Tomboy, Debian runs the risk of
| Microsoft litigation over C# patents.
`----
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4526886823.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkpadswACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6PZgCfQnzKIInSzgmhZPmP0bJf4wkZ
pCoAn1jgF0pOLk0xcTo8/rjZQUIsmdaD
=ln9i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
