11.28.08
While the World is Asleep, Mono with Microsoft-patented WinForms Slips into Ubuntu 9.04
Sobering message after a drunken thanksgiving day
THERE IS still a chance to stop it.
1 week after my initial message, phase 1 of the Mono 2.0 transition, the
core stack, is now complete (or near enough, anyway).
We have already explained why Mono 2.0 is even worse. For how long will Ubuntu be inheriting the Microsoft/Novell DNA? This is not a new problem. █
AlexH said,
November 28, 2008 at 1:37 pm
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oqpLWzPRfvU
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 28, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I’ve included this video before. As I wrote at the time, he is not in favour of developing with Mono.
jo Shields said,
November 28, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Whilst Roy Schestowitz was asleep, Mono with independently engineered Winforms-compatible assemblies was added to Ubuntu Main on 2006-06-23
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/edgy/i386/libmono-winforms1.0-cil/1.1.13.6-4ubuntu1
A little late to the party aren’t we?
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 28, 2008 at 2:47 pm
It’s never too late to cut a cord. Now is a good opportunity, before the WinForms PoisonWare makes its way in.
2006-06-23 is before the Novell deal (which involved Mono) and before Microsoft stormed the press with threats to sue GNU/Linux vendors/users.
jo Shields said,
November 28, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“before the WinForms PoisonWare makes its way in. ”
It already made its way in.
It was in 6.10
It was in 7.04
It was in 7.10
It was in 8.04
It was in 8.10
What’s special this time, other than one of your little posse reading ubuntu-devel?
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 28, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“Support for Windows Forms 2.0 is pretty much complete. At this point, we are largely just fixing bugs and polishing our code.” [source]
Translation: our job copying Microsoft’s IP verbatim is done.
jo Shields said,
November 28, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Which commit, between 1.1.13.6 and 2.0.1, suddenly caused a problem – and with which specific patent?
jo Shields said,
November 28, 2008 at 3:04 pm
After all, armed with that info, we could patch our packages to avoid the problem
You’re the expert, Roy. What do we need to patch?
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 28, 2008 at 3:05 pm
We’ve covered this before.
jo Shields said,
November 28, 2008 at 3:21 pm
No, we haven’t, because you don’t divulge specifics – and your last effort to point to an actual patent his hilarious for all involved (except, I imagine, you). I suspect autism may play a part in the behaviour patterns
Go on, I mean it.
Either:
* Admit (yes, admit something!) that you’re talking out of your rear end in suggesting that there’s *anything* different with Winforms in Ubuntu 9.04 versus 8.10, 8.04, 7.10, 7.04, 6.10
or
* Point to the specific patent violated by a specific line or lines of code, which can be patched out of existence in Debian packaging (which we’ve done before for licensing reasons now resolved).
Or continue to ramble in the (safe) belief that plenty of susceptible people will believe any word you say, I suppose that’s an option too.
I’m not telling you you can’t lobby to have Mono removed in 9.04 (perhaps it might help if you tried doing it properly rather than linking to a random mailing list post, though), but do it *objectively*. Your post title is simply a(nother) lie.
Please cite reputable sources – boycottnovell is fiction, not fact.
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 28, 2008 at 3:35 pm
For pathological libel you’ll receive no adult answer.
How long you’ve sunk to discredit messengers.
Jose_X said,
November 28, 2008 at 3:55 pm
jo Shields,
A brief overview of http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/22/protection-for-use-of-mono/#comment-39291 is http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/22/protection-for-use-of-mono/#comment-39937 ; however, apply the discussion only to Winforms (and not to all of mono) in order to simplify things and be more relevant to this current thread on Winforms.
In other words, read the second link to get an idea of what the first more detailed link is about. Other comments in between those two on that thread may also help add clarity (eg, comments on Microsoft vs. other std leaders and also http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/22/protection-for-use-of-mono/#comment-39308 ).
The point of that discussion: if we follow closely behind a path laid out by someone else, we will step into patent traps merely by using the API if that leader has set these traps and did so half-competently. Once the API use has spread to many parts of Linux/FOSS, it will be costly to go back and replace every line of code where such API were used with different code that achieves the same functionality intended for that program but structured differently. Alternatively, we can change the semantics of the API in order to avoid patent violations, but that should break probably all the programs. [Major distributors can always then sign a deal with Microsoft.. but that is not a "solution" I care about.]
If we anticipate these problems from Microsoft, we should probably avoid investing a lot of time building applications that use Winforms and maybe even mono.. [I'm ignoring other issues such as http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/25/jose-on-mono/ .]
jo Shields said,
November 28, 2008 at 4:04 pm
“pathological” eh?
Presumably you mean the “being such to a degree that is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal” definition
I’d disagree
Firstly, you present yourself as educated. Hidden somewhere amongst your years of Windows and MATLAB experience are a degree and (pending? hard to tell) PhD. This should label you as intelligent. However, your constant duck-diving, subject changing, clear inability to apply critical reasoning or common sense, make it pretty clear that there are other factors. IME the most common combination of intelligent-yet-illogical comes from people with autistic spectrum issues, e.g. Aspergers. I can’t successfully match up any alternative scenarios in my mind – simply labeling you as stupid or insane doesn’t mesh with the qualifications. It would also go some way towards explaining how you can produce the sheer volume of output you do whilst supposedly having a PhD to work on, and would be a common reason for your pathological (there’s that word again) hatred of proof reading.
As for calling it libel, do you need to be taught the difference between statement of fact and statement of opinion?
“I suspect foo” is a statement of (possibly incorrect) opinion. A hypothesis, if you will. “they pressure Debian” is a statement of (verifiably incorrect) fact. Libel applies to the latter, which is asserting a lie as being true (as opposed to mere conjecture)
You use the same tactic repeatedly in your “Does this video prove Novell rapes babies?” posts, where you leap to the question mark as your proof of innocence, when called out by people considerably better-informed than you.
Now, “discredit messengers” – the thing here is:
* autism isn’t necessarily a discredit (although it’s a good explanation), and
* I don’t need to discredit you – you do it to yourself so very well.
Some people are *bad messengers*. They harm their own message, through poor actions and statements (the proverbial ‘boys who cry wolf’ – how can you spot the truth in amongst the verifiable lies?). Former lawyer Jack Thompson is an example.
Please cite reputable sources – boycottnovell is fiction, not fact.
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 28, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I finished my practical work years ago, ahead of schedule. You could ask rather than guess.
I always try to make a distinction in my writings.
There’s that insult again. No, I’ve no mental issues of any kind, thank you.
I’m sure that Novell employees and Mono developers (some of whom indirectly work for Microsoft) feel this way.
What is fact? Novell’s press releases? Gartner? Steve Ballmer? IDC/IDG? This site contains many thousands of external references. Feel free to follow them.
jo Shields said,
November 28, 2008 at 4:22 pm
“You could ask rather than guess.”
Do what I say, not what I do?
You have NEVER sought the truth on a single Debian/Ubuntu-related matter, whether it personally involves me or not. You make it up.
“I always try to make a distinction in my writings.”
No, your writings rely specifically on the confusion – by writing “Does this prove Novell eats babies?” then saying ‘okay, babies changes to tacos’ in comment ‘#54, you then get the ability to hyperlink the original post – with original title – on the assumption that people won’t read it but will take the topic at face value.
It’s a pretty transparent tactic
“There’s that insult again. No, I’ve no mental issues of any kind, thank you.”
Really? Well, there’s the key hypothesis gone. I suppose that means falling back to the secondary :/
“I’m sure that Novell employees and Mono developers (some of whom indirectly work for Microsoft) feel this way.”
To you, Roy, ANYONE who doesn’t agree with you is one of the above. Where no evidence exists, then manufacture it.
“What is fact? Novell’s press releases? Gartner? Steve Ballmer? IDC/IDG? This site contains many thousands of external references. Feel free to follow them. ”
REALITY is fact. Cold, brutal, REALITY. Verifiable paper trails – not press releases, opinions, or blogs. Especially not blogs.
Oh, and do me a favour – fix your CSS. It really makes the site look unprofessional when borders cut through text.
Please cite reputable sources – boycottnovell is fiction, not fact.
Jose_X said,
November 28, 2008 at 6:04 pm
>> The point of that discussion: if we follow closely behind a path laid out by someone else, we will step into patent traps merely by using the API if that leader has set these traps and did so half-competently. Once the API use has spread to many parts of Linux/FOSS, it will be costly to go back and replace every line of code where such API were used with different code that achieves the same functionality intended for that program but structured differently.
Maybe this set of examples will further help explain the problem: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/22/protection-for-use-of-mono/#comment-39960
>> Alternatively, we can change the semantics of the API in order to avoid patent violations, but that should break probably all the programs.
This would be like replacing the patented puzzle pieces (see link above) with something arbitrary so that the item being built contorts and changes appearance and other physical properties.
>> [Major distributors can always then sign a deal with Microsoft.. but that is not a “solution” I care about.]
This would be like paying so that you can keep the puzzle pieces right where they are.
Also, since these vendors can’t go around the GPL, I am guessing that such a deal would involve not “admitting their are problems with the puzzle pieces” but paying for the possibility that something somewhere might be wrong .. or doing a covenant with customers.. or having a troll do the covenant, etc.
The 11th plague said,
November 28, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Ok, I voted to promote the idea, and added a signature to my profile.
btw WOW, how many comments !
Jose_X said,
November 28, 2008 at 9:39 pm
this sorting example may also help http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/22/protection-for-use-of-mono/#comment-40039 . The second example of quicksort refers to a reply a little earlier in the thread (search for “primitive” to find it).
The following reply in that thread http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/22/protection-for-use-of-mono/#comment-40041 also may help explain the point about how creating API with odd semantics can help avoid prior art. The alternative for avoiding prior art is for creative breakthroughs, but creative breakthroughs cost much more than monkeys typing in the night. [No insult meant.. just recognizing that "prior art" is a loophole. If you make the art ugly enough, it will be a first.]
jo Shields said,
November 29, 2008 at 4:50 am
Man, it sure is quiet in here
Meanwhile, this post is still a bare-faced lie, and Roy still won’t tell me what I need to patch to remove any of his perceived danger.
I’ll repeat.
Mono with independently engineered Winforms-compatible assemblies was added to Ubuntu Main on 2006-06-23
It was in 6.10
It was in 7.04
It was in 7.10
It was in 8.04
It was in 8.10
What’s special this time, other than one of your little posse reading ubuntu-devel?
Which commit, between 1.1.13.6 and 2.0.1, suddenly caused a problem – and with which specific patent?
Either:
* Admit (yes, admit something!) that you’re talking out of your rear end in suggesting that there’s *anything* different with Winforms in Ubuntu 9.04 versus 8.10, 8.04, 7.10, 7.04, 6.10
or
* Point to the specific patent violated by a specific line or lines of code, which can be patched out of existence in Debian packaging (which we’ve done before for licensing reasons now resolved).
Or continue to ramble in the (safe) belief that plenty of susceptible people will believe any word you say, I suppose that’s an option too.
Please cite reputable sources – boycottnovell is fiction, not fact.
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 29, 2008 at 5:41 am
Read the post. It’s not about WinForms; it’s about Mono as a whole. WinForms continues to be an example of riskier territories.
Jo Shields said,
November 29, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“While the World is Asleep, Mono with Microsoft-patented WinForms Slips into Ubuntu 9.04″
EVERY WORD is a lie. Mostly because Roy Schestowitz is a verifiable, pathological (the word returns!) liar.
“While the world is asleep” – the linked mailing list post is about a packaging transition, allowing for a smaller Mono footprint in Ubuntu. The transition was announced several times on both ubuntu-devel@ and ubuntu-motu@lists.debian.org. Detailed information about the reasons and methods are on the Debian Wiki.
What do you want, a press release?
“mono with Microsoft-patented WinForms” – you haven’t produced any evidence that Mono’s WinForms implementation infringes on any patents – because you can’t – because you don’t know anything specific. You tried ONCE to point to a patent – and it was a laughable example which Mono could NOT infringe – only Wine could.
“slips into Ubuntu 9.04″ – Mono has been a core component of Ubuntu releases for 2.5 years – it’s been in the archive generally for longer (2005-12-20). Updating system packages is routine – not a conspiracy. Nothing is “slipping” anywhere – packages already used on the system are being updated, the same way any other package would be.
Lie lie lie. Lie lie lie lie lie? Lie lie. Lie!
Oh, and if you want to take advantage that “THERE IS still a chance to stop it”, you might explain your idea to your readers? Perhaps tell them how they’re meant to keep a package on 1.9.1 rather than 2.0.1, to save the universe?
Jo Shields said,
November 29, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Sorry, lists.ubuntu.com.
Needs Sunlight said,
November 29, 2008 at 1:54 pm
What can be done to get these removed from Debian and Ubuntu and to get these so-called developers removed from the projects for their violation of the social contract?
Jo Shields said,
November 29, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Which section of the social contract, specifically?
AlexH said,
November 29, 2008 at 1:59 pm
@Needs: I doubt you can get them “removed” per se, but if you think it violates the social contract then just file a bug against the relevant packages.
If the developers turn down the bugs, you can then appeal to the technical committees for a review. If that fails you’d have to find some developers to introduce a GR and take a project-wide vote.
AlexH said,
November 29, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Er, that first “them” means “the developers”. The packages, of course, can be removed.
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 29, 2008 at 2:33 pm
They can also be removed. Why are they put there by default? Are .NET developers being rewarded?
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 29, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Oops. Your second reply beat me to it. The point is that those who prefer Mono can also have it added.
AlexH said,
November 29, 2008 at 3:18 pm
The decision of what goes in “by default” in different modes is a technical decision for the developers of the distro.
Whether or not Mono is legally sound is an entirely separate argument not to be confused.
Kovacs said,
November 29, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Mono in Ubuntu is a very conscious management-decision, and nothing that any ‘paid’ developer ‘slipped in’ or something.
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/02/22/mark-shuttleworth-on-patents/
Don’t make a lot of noise about the social contract, which you don’t really seem to understand.
At least Roy Schestowitz should know better, as it was his letter which prompted Mark to set things straight.