10.17.08
Gemini version available ♊︎The Nomo GNU/Linux Distribution and Another Silver Lie
No Mo’ Poisonware, Please
MARTI van Lin has some valuable tips to share about creating Mono-free distributions of GNU/Linux. This comes at a fairly important time when Microsoft is hoping to force-feed everyone, including KDE users, a "clone" package called Mono. It’s using the SIlver Lie in order to deceive Web developers and quietly advance Poisonware [1, 2] into people’s Web browsers. The whole argument about Mono being complementary or peripheral to GNU/Linux is therefore becoming pointless and moot.
It was exceptionally hard to ignore the following news article about Microsoft considering Silverlight for Android.
On the other hand, Microsoft will consider developing something for Google’s Android operating system, which is open-source and therefore easier to work with.
Say what?!?!
Android is GNU/Linux. Microsoft says that, being open source, it’s easier to work with. Well, so why didn’t Microsoft port Silverlight to GNU/Linux desktops? As far as we are aware, no person uses Android at the moment. It has only just been fornally announced. The article quotes Microsoft’s Guthrie, who loves to lie about "cross platform" (Silverlight is not cross-platform, despite deception from Microsoft and 'the media').
According to past articles, Microsoft used Novell (and Moonlight) as an excuse to leave GNU/Linux out in the cold, i.e. totally neglected, without Silverlight. Another ‘warm’ thank-you goes out to Novell. It’s more manipulation by Microsoft, thanks to Novell’s assistance. This pair plays the same games and uses the same routine in hypervisors.
“It’s more manipulation by Microsoft, thanks to Novell’s assistance.”Why would anyone expect or actually want Silverlight for GNU/Linux? For starters, Moonlight is not Silverlight. There is no parity and there never will be. Moreover, had Microsoft given GNU/Linux users a binary to run for Silverlight, patent liability would not exist. But by having Novell copy (‘steal’ or reverse-engineer) Silverlight, Microsoft can later whine and complain about violation of software patents or other ludicrous rights. Moonlight is only for Novell. Fedora won't touch it, for legal as opposed to philosophical reasons.
Going back to the Washington Post article, why would Microsoft support an insignificant mobile device platform while ignoring its sworn #1 competitor? In the same vein and also very similarly, why did the Microsoft-captured BBC support almost every platform including phones and gaming consoles when it comes to iPlayer while at the same time ignoring and even shunning a popular Free platform that Microsoft admits is its most fierce rival? We have been through this before. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Zuntrak said,
October 17, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“Android is GNU/Linux. Microsoft says that, being open source, it’s easier to work with. Well, so why didn’t Microsoft port Silverlight to GNU/Linux desktops?”
Because Android is just one kernel, one sound engine, one “desktop manager”. Android has only one version, with the same libraries, the same patches and the same configuration.
Android is great, but Linux in the desktop sucks.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra said,
October 19, 2008 at 6:07 am
Every single time I have to touch on a Windows “desktop” or even an Apple, I wonder why people say that.
They do so suck…
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 19, 2008 at 6:21 am
That seemed like a poor attempt at trolling.
Chris Lees said,
October 21, 2008 at 7:19 am
Dude, what makes you say that Silverlight isn’t cross-platform? It works on the Windows platform and the Mac OS platform. It can be ported to any platform with a .Net implementation.
It’s like saying that ATI graphics cards are not cross-platform because you can’t install them into a Mac Mini.
Also, you’ve once again taken article quotes out of context! The part about “it’s open-source and therefore easier to work with” is part of the article, NOT part of the Microsoft rep’s quote. And if you read the article, the URL of which you purposely didn’t make a hyperlink, it was all in the context of “We’re not making Silverlight for the iPhone because Apple doesn’t allow Safari plugins, but if Apple changes its mind we’ll do it; and we’re looking at maybe doing it in the future on Android because there is no such restriction”.
For the benefit of your readers, click on my name and it will take you to the original article.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 21, 2008 at 7:25 am
This is not correct. Silverlight if non-Free software (proprietary), so you depend on Microsoft for ports. Microsoft refuses to release a GNU/Linux version, just as the BBC refused to port iPlayer to GNU/Linux.
stevetheFLY said,
October 21, 2008 at 9:20 am
Moonlight is a free implementation of Silverlight. We don’t depend on Microsoft porting their Silverlight to Linux.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 21, 2008 at 9:27 am
Moonlight is not Silverlight.
stevetheFLY said,
October 21, 2008 at 10:02 am
At least M$ is more open about their Silverlight than Adobe is about their Flash(TM)…
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 21, 2008 at 10:16 am
I don’t defend Adobe. Adobe has nothing to do with this blog post, which is about a Silver Lie.