Themes, ideas, criticism, voicing your opinion on how it should be. I think that some few users at brainstorm (that were able to get their ideas implemented) have contributed a lot more to FOSS than your median developer. They give a user’s perspective to the developer’s decision. The whole free software ideology is not a bunch of code, but we would suck. To tell you the truth the correctly written, critical post in your distro’s forum has really helped a lot .

The other day a Lawyer that was just intending to criticize Linux contributed to FOSS by making a KDE bug known. If you think about that, it is hard not to contribute to FOSS.

The disappointing thing here is Dan, that regardless of your constant attacks and your attitude attempting to take the moral ground, you are not much different from Roy either. You spend tons of hours in your day just in your attempts to prove Roy and everyone in this site wrong. I do not think you contribute that much code either, as far as I know you have not contributed any code yet .

You also twist facts, statements and quotes just to push your own agenda which you think is the right agenda, not unlike Roy. And not unlike Roy you assume things are true even though they are probably not. For example when you say that Banshee and gnome-do are beating anybody’s asses. Well, I am talking as a user and I happen to prefer songbird and even Rythmbox to banshee , even when ignoring the little Mono fact. Gnome-do is one of those apps that don’t make a lot of sense, may look pretty but if I wanted pretty I would be using AWN … Hmnn well.

Some of us do contribute to OSS projects, unfortunately those are not desktop apps meant for mainstream use. Well, I also just spend a lot of my time and stamina while studying soft dev. I do wish to get into the backdoor of some project soon. But I have no rush for it, my code is still not too well organized and it is a little hacky, anyway… It is also strange to assume it is just boycottnovell or the usual commenters that are against Mono. Some true devs are.

Also, about Mono I think the whole majority of OSS is not written in Mono. I can only count a couple of small projects that did, and they aren’t really much better than the alternatives or better at all. Gnome-do is just an idea users like, and its popularity has nothing to do with quality of code or the programmers’ whatsoever it is just unfortunate the idea was implemented in Mono.

About legal aspects of Mono, I think you prefer to just ignore two freaking years of evidence about it. I just don’t think it would be worth it to advance this part of the discussion as you will just ignore it. It is a good strategy anyway, to just ignore all evidence against your point. You can convince yourself that you are winning.

As of lately, I don’t care about the legal threat of Mono. I think that regardless of Novell’s and MS’ plans it will not work out. As this push for Mono has not accomplished to make its supporters away from the concepts of free software. They in fact have been forced to use the free software flag as defense. It will be hard for the companies to move to step 2 now. Perhaps boycottnovell really did a good thing here. As there are more eyes looking at Mono and interested in it being a benign thing, it will just be harder for them to do what they planned.

I do worry about the practical effects of Mono, I don’t think it is a great idea to fall into the .NET stuff. It is as the IT world has not learned anything of win32… It is true that Mono simply is being used as a way to give legitimacy to .NET. I wish Mono would begin to be used as a way for FOSS to embrance and extend the .NET idea instead of just being a follower. Unfortunately I don’t think that’s going to be possible with Novell as lead there.

It is unfortunate that Novell has made clear that their priorities are on furthering this adoption of MS-based technologies and paying related developers instead of the contribution of other projects like openSUSE. As the economy keeps this bad, I guess they will even have to throw openSUSE out if they still want to be the ones controlling Mono.

We shouldn’t pretend to be fools here. Just like win32 and .doc and .xls and IE. Adoption of these MS techs like .NET, silverlight and OOXML, those things Novell is contributing so actively to advertise will be a problem for us all in the long term. But you may be right and we are already supposed to fall into all of it.

I don’t think guys in these sites (including you) are really getting paid to work on apps, proprietary or not. Well, prof. soft dev. is a job that really takes a lot of time. And there is not a lot of time to spend commenting giantic texts like yours or mine. So I take that your accusations were a little far-fetched. It is funny to see that you are becoming all you claim Roy to be.

Without specifics, you’re unable to contradict and therefore can’t label it “FUD”.

Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it “FUD”.

I think the issue Roy is talking about is that it takes time to reply.

I make my own decision as to whether or not to reply to someone. Yes, I don’t like the time that it takes. Sometimes I gain. Sometimes I could have gained more by having spent the time doing something else. I’m generally not insulted, however. I see the subthread with Dan as a back and forth volleying and indicative of some frustration on both our parts.

>> Second, I admitted already that C apps will usually take longer to reach a particular level of “feature completeness”. C has other benefits (in general) over languages that have “higher-level” features.

C also have negatives. [I mention this explicitly now so that no one thinks I was trying to elevate it above all other tools without concern to further details of the problem being worked on.]

>> [Yes, the distro case is an extreme version of this though I was thinking about the packaging and design of the whole; I used the analogy because I wasn't considering actually writing up all the "apps" since that would be extreme indeed.]

This part relates to what Dan wrote about my distro example. I should have quoted:
[Dan O'Brian] >> I’m not talking about distros which, no matter how you slice it, are developed by huge numbers of people (even if the distro itself was put together by 1 person).

>> Here is an analogy. An individual owns a vast property.

A better analogy would actually have him constantly growing his property around his core property. At some point, you might not even be able to step back out of his property the way you came in.

First, this was an analogy so won’t be perfect no matter what.

Second, a point is that it’s ambiguous where you are safe and where you aren’t.. once you have gone into his property. If you believe that mono core (based on dotnet 1.0 or whatever) is safe from patents, you face this ambiguity problem should you wander around (grow) even if you feel safe in some small section of his property. However, if you don’t trust Microsoft’s covenant or think that proxies could hold key dotnet/mono core patents, then you may be in trouble already just by putting one foot into the property at the beginning (ie, simply by using mono for anything). It’s your call based on what you think about Microsoft’s intentions.

As mentioned in this RMS patent talk http://boycottnovell.com/2008/03/10/rms-software-patents/ (can’t remember which part of the first 8 parts), you can’t find all patents that may apply to something even if you search. Some authors of patents don’t even recognize their own patents. The USPTO itself even repeats patented material (a clear mistake). You can’t find what you want by searching for “key” words. Courts are the ultimate judges on the scope boundaries, but this is done piece-wise when a specific case comes to trial. Finally, you would have to do all of this diligent work also with pending patent applications and do this thorough search right before every public version of your software (ie, the feature added tomorrow in a FOSS project might end up in violation).. if you wanted to try and escape any patent.

I mention how hard it is to find patent violations as a way to suggest that risk management is very important. If you have clear alternatives, avoid areas of high risk. For example, there are clear alternatives to Novell’s mono. In particular, even a fork of mono would likely be preferable in terms of risk management (it would have to fork “enough”).

@Dan O’Brian and “anonymous”:

May I suggest that you keep polite enough to deserve replies?

@Jose:

I agree fully. Some people just don’t want to see it. You must also wonder if they see history (a trail of dead Microsoft partners corpses, to use that recent cave analogy from LinuxToday).

I answered this, at least indirectly, where I spoke about watch guards and being pro-active.

It’s no secret that I (or most people supporting BN, I think) take Monopolysoft very seriously. Mono has been looked at seriously from the inception (when portable.net was conceived on the … can’t remember mailing list), and that was many years ago when zero FOSS apps existed.

>> I’m talking about applications, specifically Banshee and GNOME-Do – each of which were mostly written by 1-2 people. Yet the C alternatives are written by much larger groups of developers. Rhythmbox, for example, has two-or-more times as many full-time paid developers as Banshee. GNOME-Do doesn’t have *any* paid developers.

First thing to point out (in general) is that you can always find examples to show something, but averages are a better indicator. Where are all the other mono apps, for example? [This is a general statement not trying to prove or disprove anything about a platform but to show that you didn't prove anything in your earlier marketing show.]

Second, I admitted already that C apps will usually take longer to reach a particular level of “feature completeness”. C has other benefits (in general) over languages that have “higher-level” features.

Third, I don’t track mono apps except bits I come across in the news. My point isn’t to say whether this particular project or some other has some good or bad developers. It’s to say that you can’t judge just by looking at how many coders something presumably has. [All I'm attempting to argue here is that you haven't proven anything about the general coding capabilities or judgment of those that would use mono or use anything else.]

Forth, these coders you mention, they are leveraging all the man years of work put into mono, plus design work that was done even before mono, etc. People in 2009 leverage a ton of work that came ahead of them (both in terms of libraries/tools and in terms of design). This applies to any app or software product. [Yes, the distro case is an extreme version of this though I was thinking about the packaging and design of the whole; I used the analogy because I wasn't considering actually writing up all the "apps" since that would be extreme indeed.]

Fifth, I’ve already said that “dotnet’s” design has positives as do virtually all other designs. A major problem I have with mono is that it attempts to track MSdotnet (a Novell decision related to their partnership with Microsoft). You can use things you like and still have the platform look very different. After all, we are talking about technologies that evolve and clone parts of each other already (going back decades). This quote captures a little bit of why I don’t like mono: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/22/mono-simply-ratifies-dotnet/#comment-59890 .

>> You guys obviously can’t prove guilt, so you resort to twisting this site into insinuating guilt and anyone who argues with you, you tell them they have to prove innocence.

You need to be more specific here. I don’t even know if you are talking about me or generalizing to more people. In any case, spreading Microsoft created technologies and many other things that I don’t think Novell denies help Microsoft over many other FOSS groups.

Again, please be more specific if you want a better reply from me.

>> You can’t prove that Linux is innocent of infringing mythical patents either, so therefor it is not safe, and, by your logic and reasoning, we should all avoid (and badmouth!) Linux.

That’s not my logic. You misunderstood me, perhaps.

Try reading this http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/04/the-api-trap-part-1/ (eg, case 1/4 vs 2 vs 3) and then go read up on Microsoft’s antitrust and many other legal woes. Also, consider their monopoly status. You can find much of this information referenced from boycottnovell.com. There are many discussions that have been had, but you are being so general, I’m not sure what you are referring to.

The short of this is that cloning the API of a declared patent aggressor that has much to lose from Linux uptake is asking to be sued by patents and/or to be found in a very vulnerable position, the more so the cooler the app becomes.

Here is an analogy. An individual owns a vast property. It’s shown that this individual likes to and can legally shoot to kill those on their property. We show his demonstrated propensity to kill (legally or illegally) those that he views as being threats. He also declares very publicly many times officially and unofficially his intent to protect his land through any means necessary. And we show that it’s not too difficult for him to buy and/or create many powerful weapons legally. That individual then says ambiguously that there are some places you may be able to step on. He doesn’t clearly define these regions though. How smart is it to go set up camp on any part of his property and then start to walk around from there without asking for permission? [Read the link above (including the linked example).. it's an issue of cases 1 and 4 vs 2 or 3]

I don’t have to wait to see the person aiming at me or verify a death for me to believe that a bloodbath is likely. I mean, you go play there if you want. There are so many other places, private and public, where I can go play that I don’t see the reason to take these high risks. With so many other options, I don’t see it as smart (generally) to deal with this person at all, to attract others into his property, or to encourage those there to set up camp and expand or wander off. In fact, I think it’s smart to actively warn about the dangers.

The Linux case would be akin to you walking along the streets occasionally stepping on someone’s lawn or occasionally going through what might be private property.

Patents are really bad (at least as applied to software), and I want to have fully protected all the Linux cases; however, that hardly compares to the analogy of the known shoot-to-kill owner. We have to use some software. It’s about risk management. Most people can be killed almost any day of the year doing almost anything, yet there are clearly some things that are more or less likely to result in harm to the person. We can’t stop living just because some risks exist, but clearly some actions are more foolhardy than others.

BTW, you give the person leverage (power) even if he decides not to shoot here or there. It’s like walking around with a huge gun. That person gains tremendous leverage but only because you are on his property after his clear declaration followed by ambiguous statements of exceptions.

That is the patent analogy. Additionally, spreading dotnet mind share and applications is something that works to Microsoft’s favor in various ways. Some are covered here: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/25/jose-on-mono/ .

Conclusion: Microsoft is an large obstacle to the spreading of Linux+FOSS. They are notorious partner with an insatiable appetite for growth and dominance. They have some of the strongest levers any company could have in the 21st century. They are versatile and have many skills in the art of control. Yes, I take them very seriously because of how much of a threat Linux poses to their levers. We also have a great opportunity not to play their games and hence accelerate their fall.

Care to be specific? You call out “FUD”, but I fail to see factual inaccuracies in the post, despite the nitpicking from Novell neighbours whom we rebutted successfully.

This escape to personal attacks is in fact an indicator that the facts are difficult to counter otherwise.

Please show what was incorrect in your opinion.

You also seem confused over how much leveraging software developers do when they write applications. So should we believe that Knopper or texstar single-handedly wrote up influential and quality distros “all by themselves”?

I’m not talking about distros which, no matter how you slice it, are developed by huge numbers of people (even if the distro itself was put together by 1 person).

I’m talking about applications, specifically Banshee and GNOME-Do – each of which were mostly written by 1-2 people. Yet the C alternatives are written by much larger groups of developers. Rhythmbox, for example, has two-or-more times as many full-time paid developers as Banshee. GNOME-Do doesn’t have *any* paid developers.

You’re disingenuous tactics are not going to fool anyone.

If there are good arguments so that the small independent developer or end user need not worry if every mono app violates Microsoft patents, then let’s help bring those issues forward in a clear fashion. If mono infestation truly would not hurt FOSS (share/compete balance I so like), then let’s argue that. Every developer and user contributing to some application should be aware of risks and potential to help/hinder by contributing. This way we can all make better decisions.

Again with the disingenuousness. You guys live in an upside-down world where people and projects are guilty until proven innocent. You don’t need to prove innocence in the real world, you need to prove guilt. You guys obviously can’t prove guilt, so you resort to twisting this site into insinuating guilt and anyone who argues with you, you tell them they have to prove innocence.

That is not very Freedom-Loving behavior.

If everyone played “guilty until proven innocent”, then Linux would be doomed. You can’t prove that Linux is innocent of infringing mythical patents either, so therefor it is not safe, and, by your logic and reasoning, we should all avoid (and badmouth!) Linux.

Proving innocence of something wildly speculative is impossible. You cannot prove that Linux is innocent. It’s impossible to prove that any piece of software is innocent of infringing patents, even if you just limit it to Microsoft’s patents.

Dan, you can try, but you can’t downplay there is value in, eg, watch guards. Microsoft and many companies have plenty of them. There is clear economic value in watch guards of many sorts. BN gathers and organizes information. It’s not a professional site in many ways, but it is useful to many others. In particular, I have found it useful and is one reason I keep coming back.

Either you also find the information here useful or you are a watch guard. In either of those cases, you appear to be (if I judge by your standards) just as worthless as I am.

Besides watch guard, there are various other services BN provides. There is news content and original analysis. All the analysis doesn’t have to be worthy of Sherlock Holmes for it to be useful. It serves as a meeting point for discussing various ideas important to Linux.

Most forum sites do little but repeat things that you can find elsewhere but do so in a way where the participants can more easily acquire the information.

>> Get out there and make some positive contributions to Linux and other FLOSS projects – help make them so good that people switch to them because they are so obviously better than the proprietary software that it’s not even a choice for them.

I would love to see Microsoft fire each and every employee that doesn’t directly contribute to writing code (and only keep them to the extent they write code).

It’s not just about “so good”. It’s about safe. It’s about marketing. It’s about anticipating problems. It’s about helping to show a way of distributing contributions that might be better for the whole system. It’s about bringing attention to problems. It’s about doing things a little different (mono has numerous alternatives) Etc.

>> You know how you guys attack Mono apps because people are becoming addicted to them? Well, that’s because those developers write the best software that they can and users are switching to their software in droves because it’s so good.

I’m not addicted, but it’s understood that if you put a lot of money towards any endeavor, you will get some sort of results (look all around you). The developers don’t have to be outstanding or even average.

Dan, you seem to fail to realize the value in being pro-active. If so, am I to believe your presence on these boards is merely reactive because of problems Novell and or Microsoft are having?

>> Go help your favorite projects that compete with those Mono projects and make them better than the Mono projects and people will switch to those projects instead.

That is good advice, but everyone can’t and won’t fill those roles. You still need other issues dealt with. Just look at any successful organization.

BTW, I intend personally to move more towards development. BN, for example, might even play host to more such positive endeavors over time. I have shared in various places (eg, thetuxproject.com) some ideas I have since sharing of this nature may get a larger number of people working on such projects.

In my case, personally, I have limited resources to spend on what I consider important contributions within my means. I don’t expect you to agree or for that matter understand how some of us aren’t exactly flush with money or want to sell out as a way to move in that direction. There is value in coordinating at the high level rather than diving into coding details.

And we all start in different places and have to move towards our goals.

I would ask for advice on how BN could continue to do its positives while improving, but you and I seem to have unresolvable disagreements over Monopolysoft.

>> Badmouthing them just sends the signal that you guys compete with them on a technical level, so you have to resort to throwing mud and hoping it sticks.

I take technical issues very seriously, but that has nothing to do with mono. Mono insists on attempting to clone all the arbitrary and completely ordinary features of MSdotnet. There are problems in doing that, and it’s completely unnecessary from a technical pov.

They aren’t going to be successful enough to solve the interop problem so long as Monopolysoft is in control and relies on closed source, but you will be successful enough to hurt FOSS through patent problems and by maximizing Monopolysoft’s other levers.

The main goal of BN is to fend off against Monopolysoft embrace, extend, and extinguish. Are you aware of that Dan?

>> The vast majority of users see this and it only makes them go and try out the Mono software (like Banshee, GNOME-Do, etc) and discover how good it is.

Or isn’t.

We are falling short in marketing the products that mono developers are trying to partly reproduce. I hope BN puts more focus on real projects. Of course, Dan and others can always come on here and claim mono is manna ™.

>> If that’s true, then Mono must really be an awesome development platform because they are kicking your asses so bad it’s making your heads spin.

Dreaming as always.

>> According to your IRC logs, Mono developers are inferior to C programmers because Mono developers rely on point&click/drag&drop.

Dan, wake up. You’re telling me that Microsoft and Novell are writing their OS and low level apps with “dotnet”? MS Office was written predominantly (or at all) in dotnet?

Of course any high level language allows you to accomplish “more” in shorter time.. It won’t likely be better in many ways, but you can accomplish “more” generally speaking. FOSS leverages a lot though and that ability (“more”) is not nearly so important. Do it right and well. There are many ways to accomplish more through ad hoc ways specific to and tuned to each project in fact. There is a place for Java and there is a place for C, for example. C is augmented by many other tools.

A person walking out of the blue would prefer the highest level possible to get most bang for buck in short time, but someone dedicated to a project will choose many times to pick many different tools for various reasons.

Java is great, but not for everything. Same applies to all environments, in particular, to all similar enough to Java.

>> I mean, there must be SOME reason they are kicking your asses so hard that you have to badmouth them in your best attempts to scare users off those apps, right?
>> Or maybe neither of the things you bash Mono about are true and so Mono is both a great platform to develop on AND the developers are top-notch.
>> blah blah blah.

Dan, tell me when you are ready to wake up. Apparently, you have little clue about what this site is about, about technological aspects/decisions of a technology vs. political ones (or driven by other goals), or about what might motivate any number of individuals to use X or Y technology (hint, the paycheck oftentimes has something to do with this; another important factor is habit).

You also seem confused over how much leveraging software developers do when they write applications. So should we believe that Knopper or texstar single-handedly wrote up influential and quality distros “all by themselves”? They can be very competent at their chosen project and still not be that spectacular or not nearly so as might be implied when you take such a coarse view of what they have accomplished. Same applies to every human on the planet.

Also, don’t underestimate the ability and willingness of commentators on forums to trash talk.

On the whole, mono could be another option, but this site is about helping people realize that investing in alternatives will be greater for the FOSS community’s future ability to share and compete in a healthy fashion.

If there are good arguments so that the small independent developer or end user need not worry if every mono app violates Microsoft patents, then let’s help bring those issues forward in a clear fashion. If mono infestation truly would not hurt FOSS (share/compete balance I so like), then let’s argue that. Every developer and user contributing to some application should be aware of risks and potential to help/hinder by contributing. This way we can all make better decisions.

Obviously, we don’t all have the same goals. No amount of arguing will convince everyone.

BN has it’s pov and tries to make its case. I don’t agree with everything, but I agree more with BN’s pov than with say Dan O’Brian’s pov, at least in terms of what matters most.

Well, Dan, what role are you filling by spending so much time here reading and writing? What FOSS project are you helping? What kind of software are you writing (open/closed). We’d all like to make sure you are also holding yourself to your own standard.

Dan , don t attack people using offensive terms.

The thing which does matter is a production of information .Even a opinion reflect good ideas about.There ‘s no need to use only facts to inform people.

Opinions are relevant too.

We can not live only thinking about programming.We cannot live the opensource way (more and more programs ).We must live the ethical way (more information ,more ethics, programs for more ethics)

Information about ethics is very important. And , because this I like boycottnovell.

That’s the only way to defeat Mono. Badmouthing them just sends the signal that you guys compete with them on a technical level, so you have to resort to throwing mud and hoping it sticks.

should read:

That’s the only way to defeat Mono. Badmouthing them just sends the signal that you guys can’t compete with them on a technical level, so you have to resort to throwing mud and hoping it sticks.

many types of contributions people make to FOSS.

I’m not, I’m criticizing you for not contributing via any way to Free Software.

Badmouthing Microsoft, Novell, and Mono does nothing to improve Linux. It is not a contribution.

All it does is make you guys look like assholes (which, afaict, is really all that you guys are).

Get out there and make some positive contributions to Linux and other FLOSS projects – help make them so good that people switch to them because they are so obviously better than the proprietary software that it’s not even a choice for them.

You know how you guys attack Mono apps because people are becoming addicted to them? Well, that’s because those developers write the best software that they can and users are switching to their software in droves because it’s so good.

Go help your favorite projects that compete with those Mono projects and make them better than the Mono projects and people will switch to those projects instead.

That’s the only way to defeat Mono. Badmouthing them just sends the signal that you guys compete with them on a technical level, so you have to resort to throwing mud and hoping it sticks.

The vast majority of users see this and it only makes them go and try out the Mono software (like Banshee, GNOME-Do, etc) and discover how good it is.

It’s not better because Novell have an army of developers working on those projects, they’re better because they spend less time badmouthing the competition and more time making their software better. Banshee and GNOME-Do are written by like 2 guys each.

According to your IRC logs, Mono developers are inferior to C programmers because Mono developers rely on point&click/drag&drop. If that’s true, then Mono must really be an awesome development platform because they are kicking your asses so bad it’s making your heads spin.

On the other hand, you guys claim that Mono is crap – if that’s the case, then those Banshee and GNOME-Do programmers must be top-notch because they are kicking your asses so hard it’s making your heads spin.

Or maybe neither of the things you bash Mono about are true and so Mono is both a great platform to develop on AND the developers are top-notch.

I mean, there must be SOME reason they are kicking your asses so hard that you have to badmouth them in your best attempts to scare users off those apps, right?

Dan, you should not downplay the many types of contributions people make to FOSS.

Anonymous, not all package managers, or for that matter FOSS developers, code on their spare time.

If you guys had not noticed, FOSS is H-O-T nowadays. Every company, even Monopolysoft, wants a piece of the action. FOSS that helps strengthen Monopolysoft or preserve their control is not that good of FOSS. It’s so easy to fork mono, but apparently those that like the technology don’t seem to want to swim by themselves and don’t mind swimming in the wake of a huge patent aggressor.

Myself, I don’t code proprietary. For the last few years, I’ve almost had no time at all to code. The time I have had for myself, I have mostly used on posting boards like this one as well as some other things. I don’t work in the software industry.

Got to run.

I agree that this post is an EPIC FAIL. The more posts you make like this one, the more people realize just how far removed from reality you are (either that or you’re just an idiot).

I think you are just trying to ride the community’s “hate” to “fame”. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the easiest meal ticket to fame in the Freetard community (I say Freetard rather than Linux, because there are a lot (most?) of Linux community members who are not Freetards) is to badmouth Microsoft and anything else even remotely related to them. You don’t even have to be factually accurate to appease them, you just have to go on and on about how much you hate Microsoft and they will worship you.

Freetards have a few traits in common:

1. They don’t contribute to the Linux community (just like Roy!)
2. They badmouth anyone who has any criticism of any FLOSS software that they like (just like Roy!)
3. They love to badmouth Microsoft w/o caring about being factually accurate (just like Roy!)
4. They love to make claims that Microsoft is out to get them (just like Roy!)

Has anyone else noticed that Roy, Jose_X, twitter, etc don’t contribute to Free Software, even though they are supposedly programmers? Why is that?

Yep, you guessed it, they are Freetards. They write proprietary software for the companies they work for and “never have time” to contribute to Free Software. Yet they have plenty of time to badmouth Free Software developers for working on projects that Roy/etc want to fail.

I found it extremely amusing that AlexH contributes more to Free Software than all of the BoycottNovell losers combined. Same with all of the Novell people he criticizes, they all contribute far more to the improvement of FLOSS than Roy and his friends do. And I don’t even necessarily mean just code-wise, I mean in all aspects.