11.21.07
Europe Takes a Look at Microsoft’s .NET (/Mono) Web Hijack Attempts
In case you did not know, Microsoft plans to hijack the World Wide Web and Novell is helping. To avoid repeating old stories and arguments, consider these:
- Moonlight a Second-class Citizen in a WindowSilverLight Wide Web
- Novell is Still a Pawn in Microsoft’s Web Hijack Plan
- Novell Helps Microsoft Build Its World Wide Web Fortress of Lockin
- Novell Helps Microsoft Hijack the World Wide Web
- Microsoft Set for Lock-in-backed Hijack (and Novell Helps It)
- Silverlight (and Moonlight/Mono, by Association) Becomes Part of the Antitrust Debate
- ECMAJavascript and ECMA’s OOXML Are a Sign of Things to Come
- Early Signs of Danger: Microsoft Already Fighting to Steal the Web
- Buying Support and Buying ISO Standards in Order to Hijack the Industry
The good news is that Europe has just woken up, so to speak, and it is prepared to intervene.
…according to Vinje, most relevant to the Internet and work done at the IGF, was the problem of growing .NET-dependency for web applications. .NET is Microsoft’s platform for web applications software development. “It is a sort of an effort to ‘proprietise’ the Internet,” said Vinje..
We will be covering this in the future. The Linux deals, which include OOXML obligations, have plenty to do with Microsoft’s ambitions to lock in the user and lock out competitors. █
eet said,
November 21, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Wow, the picture shows again that you are a man of real taste. If I was your prospective future employer and had just found this website your name would be off my list now.
It might be prejudice but I have found that only Americans can be that bluntly in bad, primitive taste. Bah. Yuck.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 21, 2007 at 5:11 pm
http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9788233-16.html
“Novell doesn’t need to urinate in the pool from which it hopes to build its future, but that is precisely what it is doing. It can and should do better.”
eet said,
November 22, 2007 at 3:50 am
“There really is factual basis for comment that SUSE Linux Enterprise works better with Microsoft Windows. ”
Justin Steinmann’s comment, from the same site.
Pamela is just a very difficult person, that’s all.
I can only agree with this comment:
“Novells employees will not be paid with feel-good-wishes from the FOSS community Novell is a business and is out to make money and SO is Redhat, why bomb-blast them because they market their product and play to their strengths, seriously wake up and realise that this is commercial company that gives a lot back into the FOSS community than most realise.”
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
eet said,
November 22, 2007 at 3:55 am
““It is a sort of an effort to ‘proprietise’ the Internet,”
Unfortunately, .NET is based on an ECMA-standard, so I don’t give that claim much of a chance in court. As much as I like to see Microsoft clobbered.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Victor Soliz said,
November 22, 2007 at 8:59 am
eet, It is nice that you buy the whole ECMA-standard stuff. But it is quite foolish or misinformed.
For one, System.Windows.Forms is not covered as part of the standard. For two silverlight is also dependant of a number of codecs that are ultra proprietary, want more examples?
Novell uses FUD and false advertisement, you know? It is not true that SUSE enterprise works better with windows than Red Hat, but that’s Novell’s main selling point right now.
Red Hat’s developers get paid totally well AND have the respect of the community, I am unsure why Novell had such need to make a pact with a company that even to date is an abusing monopoly that fights Linux with FUD and other anticompetitive tactics.
Regarding your attempts to become political correctness police, I have no comment.
eet said,
November 22, 2007 at 2:59 pm
“System.Windows.Forms is not covered as part of the standard.”
That’s why these parts are kept strictly separate from the rest of Mono.
“For two silverlight is also dependant of a number of codecs that are ultra proprietary.”
Wrooong; you can use any video or audio codec that you want with; you can for example compile a version with only Ogg Vorbis and Theora. Codecs are not integral; you can use GStreamer, for example, or Xine.
Get your facts straight before accusing others of being uninformed, son.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
SubSonica said,
November 22, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“.NET is based on an ECMA-standard”
well “BEING BASED IN” DOES NOT EQUAL “BEING” a standard
We all know all Microsoft formats are “BASED” in standards, only after being EEEd by MSFT.
And for gods sake it is not a standard is a “ECMA-standard” (RTFLMAO!)
ECMA-standards, despite its misleading name, are not necessarily standards. In some cases (as in the case of Microsoft’s throat-fed formats) are not standards AT ALL.
ECMA is no less than a private company that helps other companies to push their proposals through TRUE standarization bodies (ANSI, ISO, IEC), for a fee, while trying to guarantee a faster approval process and that the format won´t be modified by the true standarisation process.
ECMA defines itself as:
“A proactive, problem solving experts’ group that ensures timely
publication of international standards;
Offers industry a “fast track”, to global standards bodies, through
which standards are made available on time;
Balances Technical Quality and Business Value:
• Quality of a standard is pivotal, but the balance between timeliness and
quality as well: Better a good standard today than a perfect one tomorrow!
• Offers a path which will minimise risk of changes to input specs
• Solid IPR policy and practice
Ecma can be viewed as a reconfigurable hub of TCs”
Anyway, independently of ECMA’s nature, no format supported by a single vendor (and its cronies) deserves be called “standard”.
SubSonica said,
November 22, 2007 at 4:53 pm
“I am unsure why Novell had such need to make a pact with a company that even to date is an abusing monopoly that fights Linux with FUD and other anticompetitive tactics.”
IMHO, Novell accepted the pact with the devil due to serious financial problems. The 348 million dollar deal allowed them some relief. Microsoft is very smart when they target struggling companies… the timing was perfect.
Follow the money, ask yourself the right questions:
http://www.itworld.com/Man/2698/060921novellnasdaq/
JUST ONE MONTH before the pact Novell was about to be delisted from Nasdaq and was having problems with the Wells Fargo Bank. I think the re-animator injection of 348 million by Microsoft converted Novell in the perfect zombie to perform its masters at Redmond commands.
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 22, 2007 at 5:04 pm
SubSonica, I can’t recall ever seeing this article. It’s worth a separate post. Mind if I do (post about it)?
Bear in mind that Novell spoke to Microsoft since around May.
SubSonica said,
November 22, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Sure you can. You should! I wonder if you ever thought about this. The first time I saw the 348 million figure linked to the pact, the former news of financial problems came to my mind like a flash. It is just a guess… but certainly a strikingly coherent one…
When I first knew that Novell was in financial hardship, I regreted it since I was closely following all the fiaSCO case and also watching the maneovers of the big software corporations about pushinf the US software patents regime in the EU. and I thought Novell was a powerful ally to FOSS due to its big patent portfolio that could defensively prevent Microsoft and other giants’ (SAP, Oracle, Siemens) aggresive attitude towards FOSS.
When they caved it to Microsoft IP infringement claims, lamely “agreeing to disagree” I knew that it was the price of Novell’s so-badly-needed 348 million dollars.
Béranger said,
November 22, 2007 at 5:39 pm
It’s not even about ECMA and what means to be a standard.
It’s not even about patents.
But I don’t need EXE and DLL files on my Linux box — and Mono clones .NET that much that you’ll have at least a few dozens of EXE and DLL files!
Also, I don’t need a reimplementation of a Microsoft technology (note: it’s not like Samba, which is needed for real interoperability) that WAS NOT NEEDED, NOR REQUIRED.
We already have Java.
For small gizmos to use with GNOME, there is PyGtk, should it be that complicated to use C or C++ (Gtkmm) — although for crap like Tomboy or Beagle you could have used just about anything.
There isn’t ANY SINGLE MAJOR MONO APPLICATION that would justify the existence of Mono.
Mono is bloat, and a capitulation to a Microsoft “technology”.