-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mono for Microsoft
,----[ Quote ]
| What we have here is a MonoTouch
| application for the iPhone covering a
| Microsoft conference and advertising Team
| Monoâs booth at the same conference for
| those that âdonât have a Macâ.
|
| Why exactly is this garbage on Planet
| GNOME and Planet SUSE? (I can understand
| Planet GNOME, since GNOME seems to have
| largely adopted the Venerable Ostrich
| Position on Mono) Do people not get tired
| of the pro-Mono / pro-Microsoft messaging
| that has nothing to do with Linux?
|
| At least Team Mono used to pretend there
| was some benefit for Linux from Mono,
| lately much/most of the messaging has
| absolutely nothing to do with Linux.
|
| [...]
|
| Of course, Microsoft rewards its
| collaborators when it suits them, so Peter
| Galli has written âMicrosoft and Novell:
| Three Years and Going Strongâ where he
| gives the lapdog a small treat, and
| doesnât miss a chance to talk up
| intellectual âpeace of mindâ . This is a
| disgustingly popular code phrase for âUse
| Microsoft-approved software or we just
| might sue youâ. Microsoft and Novell love
| to brandish a bit of IP FUD about,
| especially if they can wield it against
| Red Hat.
|
| I like to point out another way of looking
| at âThree Years and Going Strongâ: the
| Novell-Microsoft deal is just as offensive
| and anti-community today as it was the day
| it was signed. The reasons for opposing
| the deal are just as valid today as they
| were three years ago. The people that
| walked away from Novell three years ago
| were right to do so, and anyone that
| chooses to do so today is equally
| justified.
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/11/10/mono-for-microsoft/
Recent:
Microsoft needs a crutch.
,----[ Quote ]
| I remember that a while ago, as I was attending a heated
| debate on the (in)famous standardization of OOXML. As we
| were arguing with Microsoft on some specification
| details, I happened to state all aloud that when it came
| to this level of security (the topic at hand was
| security), I had my concerns about the encryption
| algorithms used by the specification but that in a
| general sense, security relied much more on the
| application using the format and the underlying
| operating systemâs level of security. I went on to say
| that for the specific portion of the draft we were
| studying, it was perhaps not necessary to waste time in
| fruitless discussion topics including the behavior of
| OOXML documents in a computer undergoing a nuclear
| attack and being stored on a computer facing a zero-day
| exploit at the same time.
|
| The response from one of the Microsoft spokesperson (Iâm
| coining the term spokesperson, because thatâs what most
| of them were) was a mix of surprise and sarcasm:
| âEverything happens, today you agreed with us!â. And
| indeed, I agreed that we should continue to parse the
| 6000 pages-long draft.
|
| [...]
|
| First, one has to realize that what happened with Novell
| was a serious attack against free and open source
| software, but although it was serious, it never really
| had any major impact on the community itself. What I
| mean by this is not that it did not have any real and
| damageable impact on IT companies or OEMs that ended up
| signing phony IPR deals with Microsoft. I mean by this
| that when you step back, you end up realizing that even
| the divide it caused inside the community is not that
| big. There is no one âNovell Communityâ and one âFSF
| Communityâ. That simply never existed except perhaps in
| the mind of some Mono architects. Even the Ximian bunch
| is very much on its own; influential because of monthly
| salaries, and time to devout to their pet projects and
| an historical ties to Gnome. But aside this, the impact
| of the Novell agreement with Microsoft did not create
| the âgrand schismâ many feared or wished at that time.
|
| [...]
|
| That is, I believe, the essence of the Codeplex
| foundation that is described here. Forget the code for a
| moment, and you might come to the conclusion that either
| Microsoft wants to impose its views on patents and
| copyrights, or it genuinely wants to have a fruitful
| conversation with the free and open source software
| community. The former is only surprising as it shows a
| different approach, but if thatâs what theyâre looking
| to achieve I am afraid that unless this foundation comes
| out with the most radically innovative ideas in the
| field of IPR, it will fail, for the first reason I
| outlined much above: Nobody will follow them, except
| people and constituencies who have an economic incentive
| to do that. What is left, then, if not the latter
| hypothesis? Interesting times are ahead of us in this
| case.
`----
http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/09/18/microsoft-needs-a-crutch/
NOME in .NET? â Not on my desktop!
,----[ Quote ]
| I believe the weapon of Mono is to âget Linux users hookedâ to the .net
| environment, always offering the superior and more mature version on the
| Windows platform. Just like when you first tried alcohol you would probably
| start off on lighter products until you acquired a taste for it, progressing
| later in life to liking stronger spirits. With Windows having
| the âdefinitive versionâ and users hooked or caught in the .net, Microsoft
| could effectively remove or hold to ransom the addiction of using .net from
| non-Windows users. Just an idea, but from a PR standpoint IMO it would seem
| far more viable than MONO being used to trick people into installing
| Microsoft patent infested code.
`----
http://openbytes.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/gnome-in-net-not-on-my-desktop/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkr5p6YACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7k+ACZAYFrh18/vikTM2pXNAxD62yP
F7kAoLLWkptvI579Sd+WIo2XbVYl6Gf9
=1IYx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
