Comments

• AlexH

  2008-05-13 10:11:26

  Leaving a comment here because it doesn't seem to be possible to correct the previous story about .net "in" Evolution.
  
  It's a separate module, and the policy for including .net technology in GNOME hasn't changed a single jot. GNOME has no more .net dependency than it did before. The story is therefore wrong.

• AlexH

  2008-05-13 10:13:42

  I also meant to mention that describing mono as "shared source" is also obviously incorrect.
  
  Mono is 100% free software. If it wasn't, Debian and Fedora (amongst others) wouldn't distribute it. The fact is that they do.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-13 10:57:20

  Hi Alex,
  
  "It’s a separate module, and the policy for including .net technology in GNOME hasn’t changed a single jot."
  
  Okay, so semantically, I guess, it's fair to say that there's no '.net “in” Evolution', but all these things are built to work together at the end, so removing them becomes hard/impractical to those who have grown dependent on use.
  
  "I also meant to mention that describing mono as “shared source” is also obviously incorrect."
  
  I was referring to .NET (the phrasing has to be considered in context). Also see:
  
  http://boycottnovell.com/2007/10/03/mono-death-trap/

• AlexH

  2008-05-13 12:30:33

  Roy,
  
  It's not hard or impractical to remove it, because it hasn't been added in the first place. GNOME policy doesn't allow it: no module in the Desktop release set (which is what Evolution is in) can gain a mono dependency without formal approval, which hasn't yet been sought and hasn't been given.
  
  So, it's not a semantic difference: it isn't in Evolution in any meaningful way. This is so easy to verify for yourself:
  
  http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/evolution-data-server/trunk/camel/providers/
  
  As for "shared source" - you're talking about .net not Mono? So, exactly _what_ part of .net is in GNOME? Can you name specifically a single example?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-13 12:43:03

  "GNOME policy doesn’t allow it: no module in the Desktop release set (which is what Evolution is in) can gain a mono dependency without formal approval, which hasn’t yet been sought and hasn’t been given."
  
  After the arguments we've had with Waugh over Tomboy I'm not so sure anymore. In general, the barriers are being bent.
  
  "As for “shared source” - you’re talking about .net not Mono? So, exactly _what_ part of .net is in GNOME? Can you name specifically a single example?"
  
  I've just reread the paragraph, which I typically write in a single quick pass (I don't proofread properly, if at all, so explanations are bound to have typos, grammatical mistakes and some inaccuracies, like in most blogs)..
  
  The shared source bit was a reference to "Microsoft 'Shared Source' Attempts to Hijack FOSS" in the same paragraph (via /. [1]) but I've changed "shared-sourced .NET" to "shared-sourced .NET clone" to clarify things.
  
  Thanks for the valuable feedback. In retrospect, closing comments was not wise and I apologise.
  
  ___ [1] Sent to me some hours ago from a reader:
  
  

  Microsoft "open source" strategy exposed and slashdotted

  
  
  "Dear Roy: Just in case you didn't see it: http://ostatic.com/161583-blog/read-the-fine-print-on-open-source-software http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/08/05/12/1325203.shtml Slashdot titles it: Microsoft 'Shared Source' Attempts to Hijack FOSS
  
  Seems we are not as wrong as some like to portray us..."

• AlexH

  2008-05-13 12:53:56

  Barriers aren't being bent, the stated policy has always been obeyed (unless you have some example you haven't told us yet?)
  
  I don't understand your clarification. The text now says:
  
  "Because GNOME continues to be contaminated with shared-sourced .NET clone and this time it’s Evolution, the E-mail client."
  
  That reads to me like you're saying the ".net clone" is "shared-source" which is still wrong. The GNOME bindings aren't a clone of any part of .net in any event.
  
  Whether or not .net is shared source is basically irrelevant though. Samba is a clone of an obviously proprietary system, but no-one seriously argues that it's not free software. Given that the organisations who help define what free software is (the FSF, Debian, Fedora, OSI, etc.) all accept Mono as being entirely free software I don't see why that should be disputed.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-13 13:00:23

  "That reads to me like you’re saying the “.net clone” is “shared-source” which is still wrong. The GNOME bindings aren’t a clone of any part of .net in any event."
  
  Oops. You're right. This was accidental. I didn't reread after the change to spot the ambiguity.
  
  "Whether or not .net is shared source is basically irrelevant though."
  
  Absolutely, but the paragraph speaks of Microsoft's attempt to call things that are shared source-licensed "open source". It's the perception that plays a role here. Also see the eWeek article about the SCO-type effect.

• LinuxIsFun

  2008-05-13 13:05:17

  Any good book for J2EE ?
  
  Btw what I meant was that the left margin for the website is too much - between the post and border. Around two inches !!

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-13 13:10:08

  It probably depends on your screen's resolution (mine is about 3900 pixels wide), but I think I know what you mean now. Hacking on the existing template to change this might screw up the layout of the archives, so I'd be careful when it comes to tinkering. :-)

• LinuxIsFun

  2008-05-13 13:31:36

  My monitor is on 1024x768
  
  Sun had a very disappointing quarter
  
  http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/
  
  We also announced a restructuring plan, through which we'll be making targeted reductions in operating expenses. The net result will be the elimination of up to 2,500 jobs.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-13 14:54:04

  A couple of comments/thoughts:
  
  1. As AlexH has already mentioned, his replacement plugin is not in the core evolution or evolution-data-server svn repositories nor has it been accepted into those modules yet afaict (there's been no discussion on it on the mailing lists that I've seen).
  
  2. He has the right to implement whatever he wants in whatever language he wants.
  
  3. He posted a follow-up comment on his blog replying to someone complaining that he was doing it in C# that he would gladly step back and drop what he was doing if someone else "stepped up to the plate" to implement it in C. I think that's fairly reasonable.
  
  4. I noticed he posted an "Update:" to his blog yesterday or this morning mentioning that he's already got it working. That's pretty impressive that he got such a complicated protocol working in 2-3 days. Either he's a programming genius or C# was the right tool for the job.
  
  Just seems to me that throwing a fit over this is a bit childish.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-13 15:18:25

  Hi Dan,
  
  I once asked Jeff to assure people in public that GNOME would not get further complicated -- in the intellectual monopoly [sic] sense -- with/by Mono. He could not quite “step up to the plate.” It was the same with his stance on OOXML. I still suspect (and I truly hope I'm wrong) that GNOME will get further tied to Mono and whatever accompanies the corresponding stack (Moonlight will need DRM for Silverlight compatibility). I mean, just look at GTK's front page. It's almost like there's encouragement -- if not begging -- for people to give .NET a roll (but not Java, for instance). We need to assist the GPL and the patent-unencumbered where the company possessing the technology can be trusted. Microsoft is very hostile towards the GPL. Just watch what Bill Gates said a fortnight ago and what Ballmer said about Linux back in February. They don't quite accept co-existence. They never did.

• Jeff Waugh

  2008-05-13 15:23:41

  Because your questions are laden with false assumptions, and you keep repeating the same old tired crap even after being corrected.

• AlexH

  2008-05-13 15:49:18

  Roy,
  
  Whatever your disagreement with particular characters within the GNOME community, it doesn't change the basic facts, and the issue is that your story gets those basic facts wrong.
  
  You seem to be conflating two separate debates: the first is to what extent Mono code is in GNOME at the moment, the second is to what extent it might be in the future.
  
  The problem is that your story gets the facts on point one wrong.
  
  It's quite possible that we could all agree to disagree on point two. I personally have no problem with Mono stuff being in GNOME on an IP basis; it's completely free software and accepted as such by the entire community. If you don't believe that, that's fine, but you're in a minority.
  
  However, whatever your beliefs on point two, that doesn't make it right to make unsubstantiated and unsupportable claims on point one to try to advance your agenda. I would give you the example of the story of the boy who cried wolf: while you're posting stories on this site crying "Wolf!" when there is no wolf, you're just going to stop people listening to you. If there is actually a wolf, you're not going to convince anyone because they stopped listening a long time ago.

• Challenger

  2008-05-13 16:08:47

  it’s completely free software != free as in freedom
  
  you have completely missed the point about free software
  
  free is not in cost free is in freedom
  
  IP != free
  
  think of it as free(dom) software

• Challenger

  2008-05-13 16:10:49

  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  
  Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
  
  * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

• Challenger

  2008-05-13 16:12:12

  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  
  Free software is a matter of the users freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software
  
  The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  
  The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  
  The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
  
  The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

• Challenger

  2008-05-13 16:14:26

  Roy my post dont get published.
  
  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  
  More details on how abusive the word IP is
  
  http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/not-ipr.xhtml

• Challenger2

  2008-05-13 16:16:12

  Roy my post dont get published.
  
  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  
  More details on how abusive the word IP is
  
  http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/not-ipr.xhtml

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-13 16:22:56

  Alex, it's not a "boy". There's a whole crowd here that cries "Wolf". Look around you in other blogs to and find other people who realise just what Mono means to GNU/Linux. Mono is not free lunch. It's essentially controlled by Microsoft. Look again at the new article from Glyn Moody.

• Miles

  2008-05-13 16:25:17

  Mono is free software as defined by the FSF.
  
  You are free to fork it, free to modify it, free to distribute it - as free as wine or samba or any other project.

• Miles

  2008-05-13 16:30:58

  Roy: but you /are/ screaming wolf when there is none.
  
  As AlexH and Dan have already pointed out, this new C# IMAP implementation is not in the core Evolution packages. Nor has there been any discussion to include it as such - nor to even replace the existing C implementation.
  
  You jumped to conclusions with no facts to back it up.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-13 16:32:48

  @Challenger: If the comment does not appear immediately, then it's because it entered moderation until I release it from that mysterious cage (I don't control it).
  
  Regarding Mono, it's free software, but I think that's the wrong point to address. Mono is a bridge leading to a world that's dominated by proprietary technology, digital restrictions mess (DRM) and other discomforting things that ensure Linux plays catch-up rather than taking the lead.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-13 16:34:12

  Miles,
  
  I think the context was a little more general (or broader) than this. It's about Mono as a whole.

• AlexH

  2008-05-13 16:39:59

  @Challenger: I haven't missed the point at all. Whenever I say "free software" I mean free as in freedom. Mono is completely free software. There is nothing wrong with implementing a .net clone, even the FSF/GNU project is doing that. There was nothing wrong with cloning Java, either.
  
  @Roy: again, let's try to discuss the facts, not the opinions of people. Whether it's a boy crying wolf or a group of people shouting "fire!" in a cinema, the effect is the same. Claims are easy to check; I keep providing references, but I don't see the corrections.
  
  I don't see what relevancy the Glyn Moody article has. His first line is "Imagine, though, a day when open source programs run well on Windows". Indeed, imagine if Evolution *did* run well on Windows - think of all the Outlook users we could move onto free software!
  
  But anyway, I don't think you get what Glyn is talking about. He's talking about making use of Windows-platform features in free software. Mono is obviously not a Windows platform feature (it's not part of Windows..), and is therefore beside the point.

• Miles

  2008-05-13 16:39:59

  No, it's not. You falsely stated that Evolution is gaining a Mono dependency for the new IMAP plugin.
  
  This is not the case as is plainly obvious to anyone who actually does any sort of research whatsoever.
  
  The only people who might still hold your opinion in high regard are quickly learning that you jump to conclusions so quickly you don't bother to confirm anything before lashing out.
  
  You just "assume"; and we all know what that means: It makes an arse out of you.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-13 17:05:00

  Evolution will be getting extensions that are written in Mono and people are likely to require them (become dependent on them). We have been through this before.
  
  http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&c2coff=1&q=site%3Aboycottnovell.com+evolution+extension+mono&btnG=Search
  
  People also used to say that Moonlight is 'safe' and fair until Miguel himself lashed out.
  
  http://boycottnovell.com/2008/03/07/mono-moonlight-eureka/

• Challenger2

  2008-05-13 17:36:52

  Mono is completely free software. There is nothing wrong with implementing a .net clone, even the FSF/GNU project is doing that. There was nothing wrong with cloning Java, either.
  
  We would have believed that if Novell didnt signed a patent protection deal with MS.

• Miles

  2008-05-13 17:38:59

  I suppose you want to live in a world like in Minority Report, where people are punished for crimes they have not committed, but that an "oracle" said would occur (and which were sometimes, if not usually, wrong).
  
  Good luck to you in your fantasy world.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-13 17:42:32

  What are you talking about, Miles? We *already* have the GPLv3.

• Miles

  2008-05-13 19:29:22

  What are you talking about? Did I say anything about GPLv3? I don't think so.
  
  You are punishing the GNOME community for something which has not happened but that you are predicting will happen.
  
  When you linked to those google search results, all I could find were articles you wrote saying you predict it will happen, a few that claimed it had but were disproven, and other hysterics of yours.
  
  It seems to me that you think if you predict the end of the world enough times, eventually it'll happen.

• AlexH

  2008-05-13 20:06:10

  @Challenger2:
  
  Novell's deal with Microsoft is totally irrelevant to mono.
  
  First, Novell's deal doesn't protect them: it protects their customers. They're not allowed to implement Microsoft patented technology.
  
  Second, Novell's deal explicitly doesn't cover Mono. Mono is classed as a "clone product", you simply need to read the agreement:
  
  http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.mspx
  
  The patent deal just has absolutely nothing to do with this. Even Roy admits that Mono is entirely free software.

• Shane Coyle

  2008-05-13 22:58:11

  First, Novell’s deal doesn’t protect them: it protects their customers. They’re not allowed to implement Microsoft patented technology.
  
  Well, actually Novell does receive a retroactive blanket patent license from MS as part of their agreement, according to a 10-Q filed by them after the deal, as well as a patent license for the hypercall API, and the deal was all redacted to hell, so it is difficult to say what they may implement from MS' portfolio, and/or why they've agreed to pay ongoing royalties on 'open source software shipped under the agreement', if not for a right-to-use license for their customers, but no one knows exactly what of Microsoft's they've a right to use.
  
  Hope that clears things up a bit ;^ )

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-13 23:26:10

  I just took a look at this new IMAP plugin. It's written in C you dumb fucks. All this anti-GNOME/anti-Evolution/anti-Novell mud flinging by you guys and it turns out that Roy totally misinterpreted what this developer said!
  
  After checking out the source code and reading the actual blog entry, it sounds to me more like he started off saying he wishes he could have written it in C#, but he never once states that he did write it in C#.
  
  Once again, Roy's lack of reading comprehension skills and overzealous conclusion-jumping bites him in the arse.
  
  Consider yourself once again proven a complete and utter fool, Roy.
  
  Research, Roy. Research. That's what responsible people do before they start flinging mud.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-14 02:21:45

  Shane, media.edu-nix has been down for about a day (just thought you might have missed it).
  
  Dan, I've read it more carefully this time. The source which sent me this saw it as another step towards Evolution's extensions that are written in C#. Further down in the comments you can see that not only us are concerned.

• Jeff Waugh

  2008-05-14 02:35:23

  ... and yet you have this great big hand-waving whine-fest about GNOME (and link to completely irrelevant articles about me, which is ridiculous regardless of your disingenuous commentary). What does Jeff's project have to do with GNOME, or the GNOME community deciding to do anything? People hack on all kinds of shit all the time.
  
  You seriously do not understand how FLOSS works, or how to research the issues you raise. You are doing more damage than good by publishing ill-informed tripe, assumptions and insinuations (mostly damage to your credibility, but it's also divisive crap).
  
  Lots of weaseling about whether or not Mono is "Free Software". You keep having to justify your position because you can't actually point to anything useful to support it.
  
  Mono is Free Software. There is absolutely no question about it. You can write Free Software with Mono. There is absolutely no question about it. Whether Mono, or writing software using it, is a good idea, is an entirely different issue, and one that benefits from a nuanced and informed view. Not amateurish propaganda imagery and idiotic assumptions from someone who clearly does not understand how FLOSS actually works in the real world.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-14 03:00:40

  > Lots of weaseling about whether or not Mono is "Free Software".
  
  Technically, Mono *is* Free software. However, Free software you can also redistribute and a newly-addressed issue is those divisive patent deals, such as that which Microsoft signed with Novell.
  
  It's the wrong question to ask.

• Jeff Waugh

  2008-05-14 03:13:55

  It is not the wrong question to ask at all. This further demonstrates your problem with the nuance and subtlety of very complicated issues.
  
  You suggest that the Novell/Microsoft deal makes the viability of using Mono in a FLOSS context a black and white issue. It simply does not. It merely adds further complexity to an already complex issue (of patents, law, competition, strategy, many things).
  
  Mono is undoubtedly and unashamedly Free Software. Canonical and Red Hat have concluded that it is safe for them to ship Mono, but they have not embraced it strategically.
  
  All you have is bad research, no practical understanding of FLOSS development or commercial reality, a polarised opinion, and amateurish propaganda images.
  
  To make a useful and measured statement about the problems with the Novell/Microsoft agreement, you need to focus on the key issues that pertain to it, rather than attacking and demonising everything to do with Novell, Microsoft, and anyone you suggest is "working with them" by making up rubbish.
  
  Your unreasonable perspective on the world is reflected in your unreasonable, unproductive and unhinged approach.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-14 03:18:56

  This *still* does not address the problem at hand. You deliver a little speech here about some unrelated things while acknowledging that "It [Mono] merely adds further complexity to an already complex issue (of patents, law, competition, strategy, many things)."

• Jeff Waugh

  2008-05-14 03:25:50

  So define the problem at hand, ask real questions, do some research, and stop pissing off the people you purport to help.
  
  You incorrectly summarised my point. It was not Mono adding further complexity to Mono, it was the Microsoft/Novell deal adding further complexity to Mono.

• Woods

  2008-05-14 05:44:37

  @Dan: Of course current camel-imap4 is written in C, since it's an initial import and a straight copy of camel/providers/imap4 in Evolution Data Servers SVN. Lack of research? Pot, kettle, black...
  
  @Roy: English language sure is fun with these mercurial definitions. Perhaps one should label Mono more as "encumbered" software (due to possible patent threats and poisoning of FOSS) instead using the word "free" anywhere around it.
  
  Then again, this seems to be a problem mostly for those few who are dead set on seeing you be wrong.
  
  Some of us silence aberrant voices around us simply by covering our ears, others seems to take a more, ahem, vocal way.

• Alex H.

  2008-05-14 07:07:11

  @Shane: Mono is explicitly excluded. You're not clearing anything up; you're talking about patents which are nothing to do with Mono and then say that demonstrates lack of clarity on the issue. I've linked you to the actual agreement, though, which explicitly excludes Mono.
  
  It's as simple as this: the Novell/Microsoft deal does not apply to Mono.
  
  @Dan: bravo for actually looking. I should have done this earlier, but now it's clear for all to see:
  
  http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/camel-imap4/trunk/
  
  @Roy: please retract the story. None of it is factually accurate, as has been demonstrated here multiple times now.

• Niklas (sic!) Koswinkle

  2008-05-14 07:24:21

  No. The only problem is that Roy is a sad failure as a researcher and as a writer, but he is very loud about it. Instead of focusing on the few points where critical questions could with some expertise be raised, he is yelling blue murder and accusing everyone of conspiring against the free world, including the GNOME board!
  
  In the consequence, Roy is just making an ass of himself and is NOT doing his own case a favor.
  
  Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

• Niklas (sic!) Koswinkle

  2008-05-14 07:25:19

  (My 'No.' was directed at Woods; I should have quoted him, sorry.)
  
  Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-14 13:38:46

  Woods: As I'm sure you have seen by looking at the ChangeLog, it was more than just an initial import - it is plain to see that he actively worked on it (and in fact was even the original author of the code to begin with).
  
  I fail to see how that disproves my point at all, that camel-imap4 is in fact a C plugin, not C#.
  
  Roy's article is totally incorrect and I have yet to see an apology by him on the matter (not that I expect one, this is hardly the first time he's been proven to be a completely incompetent douchebag).

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-14 13:41:50

  I've just added a correction at the top.

• Woods

  2008-05-14 16:32:20

  >As I’m sure you have seen by looking at the ChangeLog, it was more than just an initial import...
  
  (from camel-imap4 / trunk / ChangeLog ) 2008-05-10 Jeffrey Stedfast
  
  * Initial check-in of camel-imap4
  
  Well, no, actually I can't. (yeah, I know you mean trunk / imap4 / Changelog...the amount of nitpicking on this forum is contagious...)
  
  My point was that if you're going to create a Mono-capable Camel and possibly a C#-IMAP-plugin to boot by forking the existing camel-imap4, then yes, it will be full of C-code *now* and one shouldn't be surprised to see it there.
  
  Even F-Spot and if memory serves, Tomboy, are hardly 100% C#-apps, their distributions have their share of C-code in them. Now, what percentage of C-code will be in camel-imap4 in the future is a different matter (well, 100% but I find Jeff's post a bit misleading as I wouldn't be surprised if it was 50/50)

• shane coyle

  2008-05-14 19:33:44

  OK, maybe I'm a bit slow, but here are the google patent search results for Microsoft + .net (beware! spurious software patents on other end of link)
  
  Here is where, in their 10-Q filing, Novell indicates they have a blanket retroactive patent license as part of the deal, so perhaps I am mistaken - but doesn't that mean any of those patents in the above list granted before the deal was made are now licensed by Novell?
  
  Then, there was confusion (me included) because OOO is clearly exempted from 'clone product' status, and is covered by the deal according to Bruce Lowry. I don't frankly recall what Mono's status was in that regard, but refer to my above point for Novell's blanket patent license, and these comments freshly after the deal by Microsoft's Bob Muglia:
  
  

  There is a substantive effort in open source to bring such an implementation of .Net to market, known as Mono and being driven by Novell, and one of the attributes of the agreement we made with Novell is that the intellectual property associated with that is available to Novell customers. But we certainly have no intention of releasing the source code to .Net to the community, but the community is free to go with Mono and enhance that and build solutions for customers.

  
  
  My prior links undercut the assertion that it was Novell's customers that received protection only, not Novell themselves: this statement is fundamentally untrue and fosters false trust in believing that Novell has the same potential liability exposures that we supposedly have, according to Mr. Ballmer.
  
  Also, a rhetorical question or two -, what was in Exhibit C of the deal? and why is Novell paying per-unit royalties to Microsoft going forward, and on what, exactly?
  
  Until those questions can be answered, we all frankly don't know what is what, which fosters FUD at best.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-15 02:52:06

  How is that a license for you and Roy to go accusing developers, projects and Novell for things which might not even be true?
  
  As far as the patent list... have you actually read any of them? Do any actually apply to Mono?
  
  Remember: .NET is a vast blanket term for Microsoft's products in the past 8 years. It encompasses things like Passport, for example, which is not even touched by Mono.
  
  A quick glance at the subject matter for the first page of links shows only single sign-on (*cough* passport *cough*) and web technologies which Mono does not seem to implement.
  
  So which of those patents, if any, apply to Mono?
  
  Simply saying "there are patents out there by Microsoft that refer to .NET" is not enough, you have to actually read them and see if they actually apply.
  
  To do this, you probably need a lawyer.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-15 03:01:27

  Woods: Seeing as how his C implementation of camel-imap4 is fully functional (afaict; having actually used it for a day), there doesn't seem to be much reason to rewrite it in C# - what would be the point? It already works now.
  
  Instead of speculating, though, why not ask him if it really concerns you?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-15 03:10:05

  How is that a license for you and Roy to go accusing developers, projects and Novell for things which might not even be true?

  
  
  Shane has hardly ever accused anyone, so it's an unfair assessment. Those whom I sometimes accuse are not developers but people higher up who instruct. As Woods (IIRC) pointed out, Mono may be fine for migration, but building GNOME applications from scratch using Mono (even promoting C# in the GTK Web site) seems unreasonable. You then look for guidance from Microsoft and play by its own rules while building the Free Desktop.

• Jeff Waugh

  2008-05-15 03:24:28

  Unreasonable? It's a 100% FLOSS implementation of a language/platform definition (ie. better position than Java until just recently), interfacing with a 100% FLOSS user interface platform. A Mono/GTK+ application is 100% FLOSS with no dependencies on proprietary technology whatsoever.
  
  There exists about as much concern about patents with Mono as there is on any part of our technology stack that implements someone else's technology (though at least Mono has the advantage that much of the platform is documented rather than 100% reverse engineered). Clue: Both Red Hat and Canonical ship it. They are smarter than you, have highly informed legal advice, and have more at risk.
  
  You may question the strategy, you may point out the risks, but you may not sledge people and projects as a result of your concerns. It just makes you look like an unreasonable, uninformed fool. Your irrational and nasty behaviour certainly doesn't help any of your arguments about the Novell/Microsoft agreement.
  
  You have been corrected about your idiotic claims about the GTK+ website already. Java is not there because the 4.x bindings are not complete and the maintainer stopped support and removed documentation for the 3.x bindings. Don't blame the GTK+ folks for making the right call just because you don't understand the issues (or have an extremist perspective as a result of having no idea about the issues).

• Woods

  2008-05-15 05:36:47

  Dan: >there doesn’t seem to be much reason to rewrite it in C# - what would be the point? It already works now.
  
  Uh, well, wasn't that the whole point of Jeff's article? ((By his article) yes, the current one exists and works. But it would be easier to maintain/evolve if it could be written in an alternative (managed) language. (He even (rhetorically) asks why hasn't anyone rewritten it yet, since, apparently, the C-version is slightly frustrating to develop for))

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-15 05:46:51

  I am personally still curious about this article:
  
  http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/6232/1/
  
  Two years after it was published (yes, two years!) the headline changed from something like:
  
  "GNOME to be rewritten in C#"
  
  to:
  
  "New Mono-Based Applications for GNOME in Fedora Core 5--Part 1"
  
  I don't know if the body of the article changed as well, but it reminds me of what Microsoft quietly does in the press (burying stories).
  
  What's that all about? Is someone trying to hide something? You know, I've been told that Mono got sliced into 3 chunks just to satisfy Mono's critics. Apparently it was not seen as a concern until analysis triggered some reaction.

• Niklas (sic!) Koswinkle

  2008-05-15 09:41:23

  That's Roy for you.
  
  When disproven and cornered, he pretends he cannot hear you; holding his hands to his ears and going la-la-la-la-la....
  
  As a distraction he throws in some random links and never reacts to his defeat in argument...
  
  Bah. What kind of personality does this reveal? :p
  
  Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-15 11:23:28

  Woods:
  
  See, this is why such poorly informed opinions on this site just make you guys look foolish.
  
  Take the time to figure out what he's talking about. To anyone who is subscribed to the mailing lists knows, he's referring to the imap code located in:
  
  evolution-data-server/camel/providers/imap
  
  not:
  
  evolution-data-server/camel/providers/imap4
  
  Do a little googling and this information is revealed.
  
  It's completely obvious to me that you guys are more interested in making assumptions and accusations than you are in finding out the facts. This is made perfectly clear by Woods' refusal to do any sort of background digging to figure out what the developer was talking about (have you taken my suggestion and asked the developer on irc or via email yet?).

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-15 11:31:59

  Roy: Instead of simply speculating about why Mono was split into different components and assuming the worst, why not ask the Mono team?
  
  An equally likely reason for them splitting it is size reasons or because most people who use Mono for Linux don't care about things like Windows.Forms or ASP.NET - how many people actually write new ASP.NET software or new Windows.Forms software on top of Linux for Linux? Probably very few to none. (Notice that it's not the same question as how many people develop Windows.Forms or ASP.NET on Linux for Windows).
  
  You always assume the worst in something (person/project), and then refuse to do any sort of research. Most of the time (if not all of the time), this would alleviate your fears, but no, instead you choose not to. Instead you choose to lash out and attack people who are regularly innocent of your charges.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-15 11:58:17

  Dan, I didn't claim it was true (I don't know if it is); I only said that a Mono advocate said it to me directly in this blog.

• Woods

  2008-05-15 11:59:46

  Dan: >To anyone who is subscribed to the mailing lists...
  
  Which one would that be? Evolution-hackers doesn't seem to have anything recent on the subject (starting from January) (Nevermind, Go-Evo straightened that out...http://www.go-evolution.org/Camel.IMAP)
  
  As for background checks? Your first post here went on the same assumption as everyone else, that something had been written in C#. Then you made the incremental research to see that the *current* codebase is in C. To which I merely added that that would be the case, since it's a copy from EDS.
  
  As for me confusing the two providers, that I'll readily admit, my bad.

• Jeff Waugh

  2008-05-15 22:56:51

  Is it amazing that Roy "No Questions" Schestowitz is also lazy enough to be Roy "No Answers" Schestowitz? Not at all...

• Niklas (sic!) Koswinkle

  2008-05-16 07:57:42

  ;D
  
  Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.