“They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.”
Summary: Microsoft drone Syncfusion uses ‘donation’ to spread .NET
SOME MONTHS ago we showed a Comes vs Microsoft exhibit where Microsoft's true feelings about OLPC are expressed. The company from Redmond only perceives it as an opportunity to profit some more. Moreover, if the project gets ‘infected’ by Microsoft (staffing and software), then it may turn off goodwill and GNU/Linux grassroots efforts. Surely a win-win for Microsoft, even if it abandons the project, just as it's abandoning sub-notebooks at the moment. Microsoft has a monopoly, so a techno-medieval status quo is wonderful to it. Microsoft is not interested in disruptive trends; it is interested in squashing/destroying them, sometimes by momentarily dumping to get into them and then decommissioning them from the inside. As Robert X. Cringely put it, “They [Microsoft] have the deepest of pockets, unlimited ambition, and they are willing to lose money for years and years just to make sure that you don’t make any money, either. And they are mean, REALLY mean.”
Now we find a company called Syncfusion. The company is about .NET, Silverlight and other Microsoft lock-in, based on its Web site. It has just issued this press release to show that it donates “addiction” (see Gates quote at the top), but it’s not even a donation per se. It’s just licences for binaries and the same illusion of “donation” Microsoft makes extensive use of when it puts a price on mere copies of binary files (or licences to run them rather).
ASP.NET MVC developers will be able to order the new Syncfusion Essential Studio ASP.NET MVC binary edition for only $5 and receive thirty days of subscription service. All proceeds from the one-day sale will be donated to the non-profit organization One Laptop per Child (OLPC). In addition, Syncfusion will match every dollar donated, up to $1,000.
OLPC should reject this ‘gift’. Other attempts were seemingly made against LiMo and Novell did this to Android. Based on internal Microsoft correspondence (antitrust exhibits) we already know why Microsoft wants to put .NET/Mono in devices.
“They are pretending to be a friend when in fact they were GPL violators who are suing Linux companies for using Linux.”Is it not funny how Microsoft — often through its partners — always invades FOSS mailing lists, habitually injects Microsoft content into FOSS conferences, and forcibly pushes its wares into university departments, etc.? Even our IRC channel gets populated by them; they pretend to be friends while trying to shoot down the true FOSS people or at least shoot down their goals [1, 2, 3, 4].
Right now, for instance, IDG is ‘marketing’ Microsoft as a friend of Open Source for resolving a GPL violation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Yes, those 14,100 lines of Microsoft code are used by Microsoft for PR purposes. They are pretending to be a friend when in fact they were GPL violators who are suing Linux companies for using Linux.
We have reached feature completion status for our MonoTouch project and we are looking for some adventurous iPhone developers that might be interested in trying out Mono for the iPhone and the MonoTouch APIs (A C# API for building Cocoa applications).
The Mono developers have announced a limited beta and September release of MonoTouch, an edition of Mono for the Apple’s iPhone and iPod Touch devices. The open source .NET implementation has had some hurdles to overcome to be able to work within Apple’s technical and legal requirements.
For those who think that complaining about Mono is “unproductive”, read the following new post from Mono-Nono.com.
Anytime someone squeezes out a discredited pro-Mono argument, anyone who has bothered to read this blog knows that person is ignorant. Anytime someone tries to pretend that every single Mono critic is a frothing-at-mouth irrational zealot, anyone who has bothered to read this blog knows that person is ignorant. And so on. So I’m thinking that I’m meeting my goals and being productive just fine, thankyouverymuch.
It’s easy to make the other side look like a failure if you redefine thier goal, methods and motivations.