Mono and Moonlight: GNU/Linux Polluters from Microsoft/Novell

Dr. Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-22 00:31:56 UTC
Modified: 2008-11-22 00:31:56 UTC

Star wars Vader

Illustration prepared by a reader

“They’ll get sort of addicted to Mono applications, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.”

Why is Moonlight dangerous whereas Flash is not? The holder of the patents matters a great deal. GNU/Linux is not a threat to Adobe. It does not compete directly (head-to-head) with an Adobe product and Adobe hasn't a past that's filled with so much abuse, unlike Microsoft. Behavioral patterns matter a great deal too.

Another crucial question is this: will Moonlight include the necessary base classes, or will people have to use non-free ones from Microsoft? The answer to that is Moonlight requires that the user obtains binary codecs from Microsoft, licensed under their own licence. It's important to remind ourselves of this popular post:

Matt Asay makes one crucial observation in Microsoft’s dilemma: The importance of the downstream:

To work within the open-source community… Microsoft must stop polluting the downstream with patent encumbrances.

[...]

If Microsoft wants to interoperate with free software at the business level, it could start by removing legal roadblocks to interoperability. The fact that the company continues not to do so leads me to believe that Microsoft doesn’t really want to interoperate with free software at a business level.

As long as the company offers only jingoistic pats on the head to us misguided little hackers laboring part time in our basements with no commercial aspirations, there’s little point in considering anything that comes out of Redmond as useful.

In eight months since Nat Torkington asked Bill Hilf What Will Change at Microsoft with Regard to Patents and F/OSS, nothing interesting has happened. OSCON’s four months away. Maybe Bill Hilf will have a big announcement then — maybe he’ll have set up mail filters. Don’t hold your breath for a sane patent strategy.

A curious new article from the Wintel press poses the question, "will Microsoft build native Mac and Linux [development] tools?"

If the future is in Microsoft's online services why isn't the company building native tools for Mac and Linux developers?

In reality, as it turns out, Microsoft can rely on other people doing its labour. It then makes it possible for Microsoft to slam them for 'stealing' the ideas (Microsoft calls these "innovations") of Microsoft geniuses. Here is you can see the latest push for inclusion of Mono 2.0 in Ubuntu GNU/Linux, by default.

In the mean time, worth taking note of is this article from Heise.

According to the American magazine ComputerWorld, Microsoft has filed a suit with a San Francisco district court in order to have several patents of the Californian service provider WebXchange declared void. The article reports that WebXchange had previously sued computer manufacturer Dell, courier service FedEx and the Allstate insurance company for alleged patent infringements. Although these actions are not aimed at Microsoft, they can be attributed to the fact that the defending companies used Microsoft's Visual Studio development environment to create their web offerings.

We mentioned this a few days ago and last night we published an explanation as to why this is bad news to Mono, ⬆

Comments

Dan O'Brian

2008-11-22 14:53:18

Roy: I thought you were a programmer? Even I know that codecs are not a "base class" in Silverlight and I'm not even a programmer. The codecs are not exposed to Silverlight developers, they are just an implementation detail hidden away below the public "base classes".

Lie #1 on this article alone.

Secondly, Moonlight can use ffmpeg, you know: the same video/audio decoder that a large number of free software projects use for decoding video? Things like MPlayer and even GStreamer and Xine.

How can you even reach a conclusion about something being this poorly informed about it?

Secondly, you should know that Microsoft is paying a third party with Eclipse knowledge to implement a plugin for Eclipse which would allow developers to develop Silverlight apps without Visual Studio or their designer.

Do some research, man.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-22 15:03:03

Silverlight without the codecs is like a pistol without bullets.

You added nothing I did not already know about. Developers should use open standards, not proprietary Microsoft technology that puts patent traps in GNU/Linux.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-22 16:55:06

Moonlight can have codecs without the Microsoft codec blob, so Moonlight without Microsoft's codec blog is not like a pistol without bullets.

I clearly did ad something you did not know about, because you were clearly unaware of what a "base class" is wrt programming.

The codecs are not in any way shape or form a "base class" for Silverlight.

I'd also prefer people use open standards than flash or silverlight, but unfortunately open standards apparently do not provide the features that web developers and content providers want.

Since 99% of the world seems uncaring about open standards (they don't care if it's flash, silverlight, plain html, or a java applet so long as it works and doesn't inconvenience them), content providers are (unfortunately) going to be the ones steering the direction of the web and they very clearly want DRM (which sucks).

Sticking it to the man and not providing your users with a browser plugin that can render this proprietary content will not win users/customers over, it will alienate them and force them back to Windows.

I fully support you and others complaining to the content providers and urging other people to do so, but to badmouth Mono/Moonlight (and the developers) is just shooting the messenger.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-22 17:23:01

Content will be encoded using Microsoft codecs, so Moonlight without these codecs is pretty useless in practice. I'd rather just use something like Flash, where the codecs are not owned and controlled with a company that threatens to sue.
AlexH

2008-11-22 19:29:12

@Roy: FYI, the Flash codecs are patented and enforced in exactly the same manner; recent Flash (9/10) is basically MPEG 4 inside.

What is needed is not more Flash; what is needed is free software content creation tools that support Ogg formats. That's not Flash.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-22 19:45:58

AFAIK, Adobe licences these codecs. Silverlight, on the other hand, is not available for GNU/Linux and it also bring with it the poison called Mono. Stay tuned for an important post (I'm catching up today).
AlexH

2008-11-22 20:03:05

You think it's ok for Adobe to license patented codecs, but when Novell do it (virtually the exact same codecs, no less) that's wrong?

Oh dearie me...
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-22 20:56:19

Adobe does it for its users. Novell, a GPL violator by spirit, did not bother to 'protect' others. Moreover, it's using this to market itself ("intellectual property peace of mind").

What's with the apologism for Novell?
AlexH

2008-11-23 08:46:36

@Roy: First, Novell did bother to protect "others" - it's not limited to Novell customers.

Second, I wonder how I'm the apologist when it's you defending proprietary codecs! That takes some nerve.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 09:17:14

@Roy: First, Novell did bother to protect “others” - it’s not limited to Novell customers.

False. You seem to have not caught up.

Second, I wonder how I’m the apologist when it’s you defending proprietary codecs! That takes some nerve.

Show me where I defend them. I said that Adobe's chosen ones are lesser evil and explained why.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 14:01:33

Roy: No one questions that it's safe to use Moonlight w/ Microsoft's binary codecs if gotten from Novell directly, the only question is whether it is safe for other distros to ship themselves.

Using Moonlight w/ Microsoft's binary codecs is no different legally than using Flash.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 14:13:08

It's about Mono. You remain focused on codecs.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 14:26:14

Microsoft has claimed that it will not take legal action against ANY user using Moonlight.

This means that Moonlight is safe, whether it uses Mono or not, from legal action from them.

How do you not get this???
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 14:28:28

FWIW, you're the one who was focused on codecs, everything you complained about until your most recent post dealt with codecs in Moonlight.

I see you backpeddling.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 14:30:15

Microsoft has claimed that it will not take legal action against ANY user using Moonlight.

This means that Moonlight is safe, whether it uses Mono or not, from legal action from them.

The SFLC and Red Hat disagree with you.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 14:35:26

FWIW, you’re the one who was focused on codecs, everything you complained about until your most recent post dealt with codecs in Moonlight.

The codecs too are a problem.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 14:39:20

No, that is untrue.

The only statements from Red Hat regarding Moonlight has been that they would not include it in Fedora, because of confusion of whether or not it was safe to SHIP Moonlight in their distribution.

The SFLC statement was similar.

Again, neither one of them have concluded that end users were at risk using Moonlight (when downloaded from Novell).

Again, you mislead and try to confuse the issue.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 14:41:16

Roy: wrong again. He's referring to redistribution.

Grats on failing at reading comprehension yet again.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 14:42:31

Red Hat pushed away Moonlight because of the SFLC, which said:

"They're [Microsoft] being politicians, saying words that are supposed to make people feel better, but that actually contain no meaning or commitment. This covenant is worthless and, even worse, could be harmful to those who fall into the trap. If MS wanted something good for the community, they'd negotiate with those lawyers who represent the community's interests."

Don't try to rewrite the analysis.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 14:45:30

They are referring to redistribution.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 14:48:36

Roy: wrong again. He’s referring to redistribution.

He links to this:

"The most critical element that emerged from Brad Smith's OSBC keynote is the importance of protecting the downstream. By "downstream" I mean those users who may come into contact with open-source software beyond the immediate licensee. One of the benefits of open source is that once released under a certain license, the code endures under that license.

"Patents foul the water. As emerged from the question-and-answer period, while Microsoft may prefer to deal with other "cathedrals" (e.g., its agreements with Novell, LG, etc.), in open source you simply can't avoid the bazaar (e.g., downstream developers who may come into contact with the code). This is why at Microsoft's Mix conference, Mozilla's Mike Schroepfer took issue with Miguel de Icaza's suggestion that his Moonlight code is protected from patent claims:"

During the discussion, de Icaza explained that anyone who downloaded Moonlight from Novell was protected by the company's licensing of Silverlight codecs from Microsoft through the company's own cross-licensing agreement. Mike Schroepfer, vice president of engineering from Mozilla, then raised the question that if he downloads and then distributes the code for Moonlight, would he get the patent protection?

"There is a patent covenant for anyone that downloads (Moonlight) from Novell," answered de Icaza, who then acknowledged that "as to extending the patents to third parties--you have to talk to Microsoft."

This answer led Schroepfer to point out the inconsistency between having products that are called open source but are "patent-encumbered." "There are a lot of complicated IP patent-licensing restrictions," he said. "Even if you have open-source (products), you can't get the end result you're interested in."

Key phrase: open source but are "patent-encumbered."
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 14:51:55

From the link you are referring to:

Q: The big question is: can people use Moonlight? Can programmers work on it?

A: Well, I'm not sure that's a precise enough question, because of course people can use and work on it. The issue is what they CAN'T do.

and again:

Q: But the definitions section seems to be saying that Moonlight is safe from threat only if you get it from Novell AND DO NOT PASS IT ON, as there are no protections for downstream recipients.

A: Correct, unless those downstream recipients get it from an 'Intermediate Recipient' defined to only include authorized resellers.

They agree that if you get Moonlight from Novell, it is safe. The confusion is what counts as redistribution (because the wording states that the user must get it from Novell or a Novell distributor - what counts as a Novell distributor?)

The issues raised were about redistribution.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 14:54:20

This makes Moonlight non-Free software, by definition.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 14:55:41

Key phrase: open source but are “patent-encumbered.”

No sh*t, Sherlock. That was never under debate.

You were claiming that Moonlight wasn't safe for end users to use (even if downloaded from Novell directly).

You have once again failed to prove your point, instead redirecting focus to something completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 14:57:32

This makes Moonlight non-Free software, by definition.

What has that got to do with whether or not Moonlight is safe to use? Stop trying to change the subject.

Besides, Moonlight sans the Microsoft codecs is free software, by everyone's definition (other than yours, apparently). Even Richard Stallman agrees that Moonlight is free software.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 15:02:46

What has that got to do with whether or not Moonlight is safe to use? Stop trying to change the subject.

No, you and Alex et al are losing the argument.

Besides, Moonlight sans the Microsoft codecs is free software, by everyone’s definition (other than yours, apparently). Even Richard Stallman agrees that Moonlight is free software.

What is Moonlight without these codecs? Silverlight is used mainly to stream videos.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 15:28:39

How are Alex and I losing this argument? You can't refute our arguments; instead you keep changing your argument to something else.

Moonlight can also use ffmpeg, it doesn't require the Microsoft codecs.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 15:31:12

Does ffmpeg do Windows DRM? Can I use it to watch the Olympics?
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 15:32:57

DRM is not what codecs do. Codecs decode encoded content. They do not demux, they do not do DRM.

Come on Roy, do some research.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 15:35:22

How will Moonlight with ffmpeg handle DRM-'protected' streams (Flash is not better for that matter and gnash will likely suffer... it's already protesting)?
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 15:36:52

Roy: presumably the same way Moonlight will handle DRM'd content using the Microsoft codecs.

Like I said, codecs decode, they do not do DRM.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 15:40:36

Where is the shim? And for that matter, using Moonlight with ffmpeg does not resolve the overall issue of allowing safe and non-discriminatory access to sites which use XAML.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 15:44:59

What does XAML have to do with DRM? You're changing subjects again, does this mean you admit you are wrong about the codecs?
AlexH

2008-11-23 16:05:28

@Roy: stop spinning. You said, and I quote:

I’d rather just use something like Flash, where the codecs are not owned and controlled with a company that threatens to sue.

I pointed out to you that the codecs are under exactly the same licensing regime: non-free code with active patents, and practically the same patent holders (clue: look up H264 and the MPEG LA).

That you express any preference over the issue highlights either your hypocrisy or your misunderstanding of who is licensing the patents.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 16:08:19

No, the codecs live on what their patent encumbrances.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 16:08:50

AlexH: it's probably a bit of both. We already know that Roy is a hypocrite and we already know he doesn't research anything.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 16:10:38

Encumbered is not the same as infringing.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 16:10:55

AlexH,

The useless promises come from Microsoft, which continues to restrict.

Dan,

Bringing backup, eh?
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 16:12:18

Encumbered is not the same as infringing.

Encumbered with a company involved which claims that GNU/Linux is infringing and resorts to extortion to make new revenue stream from Free software.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 16:16:58

Roy: I didn't ask AlexH to come here. We do not know or talk to each other outside the comments on this website. I don't even know AlexH's email address.

Again, encumbered is not the same as infringing. Microsoft is also /providing/ their codecs, so I don't see how you expect them to sue over their use w/ Moonlight by claiming infringement.
AlexH

2008-11-23 16:19:38

@Roy: we can have a debate, but please, don't impugn things about me which you're entirely uninformed about.

So, anyway, your entire argument why Microsoft's codecs are bad and Adobe's codecs are ok is "it's Microsoft".

You're entitled to not believe them for whatever reason, but don't be under any illusion that you're operating logically. Both sets of codecs are bad for exactly the same reasons.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 16:20:13

There are two issue at play: 1) Mono; 2) codecs

Remember that Microsoft has codec patents too (that whole pool there is a nuclear zone).
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 16:22:55

So, anyway, your entire argument why Microsoft’s codecs are bad and Adobe’s codecs are ok is “it’s Microsoft”.

How quickly one forgets the past.

An excellent collection of quotes:

Microsoft’s recent history on patents (particularly since the Novell deal in November 06) has a particularly public persona:

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties. - Fortune

[...]

Mr. Ballmer once called Linux a form of intellectual-property cancer. While he has since dialed back the rhetoric, the subtext remains in nearly all Microsoft discussions of Linux: Use it, and you run the risk that Microsoft will sue you [for patent infringement]. Post-Gazette

[...]
AlexH

2008-11-23 16:25:34

Argument by links to irrelevant arguments, excellent.

Quick quiz: name a company who licenses patents used the in Flash codec, name starts with "M"?
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 16:27:26

Not news to me, sorry.
AlexH

2008-11-23 16:35:20

I don't believe you, from the simple point of view that you'd never have promoted the codec if you knew who it was licensed from :)
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 16:36:52

The only codec I promote is Ogg (or Dirac).
AlexH

2008-11-23 16:41:27

Oh, more fibs.

I’d rather just use something like Flash, where the codecs are not owned and controlled with a company that threatens to sue.

Own up. You'd no clue who owns and controls the patents to the codecs.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 16:46:11

That's not promotion. That's commenting on the lesser of two evils.
AlexH

2008-11-23 16:49:06

But you claimed to know that Microsoft have patent rights over that codec. On what planet is one codec with Microsoft (et. al) patents actively enforced the lesser evil compared to another codec with Microsoft (et. al) patent rights actively enforced?
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 16:52:26

You're comparing car and carpet. Microsoft uses WMV,
jo Shields

2008-11-23 16:59:22

1) SL 1.0 has no DRM capability 2) SL 1.0 has no Mono ability - it's Javacript hooking into the XAML renderer (the plugin), which is all C++ 3) XAML is covered by the OSP - if you reject OSP, then you reject all of OSP (e.g. TCP/IP). If you accept OSP then XAML is safe
AlexH

2008-11-23 17:00:50

Ok, quiz time again (*sigh*). What codec is Flash video (9+) and WMV based on?

drum roll... MPEG!

Who licenses the patents for that? MPEG LA!

Looks like you need to do some catching up Roy.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 17:09:58

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash

"The video in Flash is encoded in H.263, and starting with Flash player 8, it may alternatively be encoded in VP6."
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 17:14:54

Roy: You quoted Flash 8, the most recent Flash version is 10. Please, get with the times.
jo Shields

2008-11-23 17:15:40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash

"On August 20, 2007, Adobe announced on its blog that with Update 3 of the Flash Player, Flash Video will also support the MPEG-4 international standard. Specifically, Flash Player will have support for video compressed in H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10), audio compressed using AAC (MPEG-4 Part 3), the MP4, M4V, M4A, 3GP and MOV multimedia container formats (MPEG-4 Part 14), 3GPP Timed Text specification (MPEG-4 Part 17) which is a standardized subtitle format and partial parsing support for the 'ilst' atom which is the ID3 equivalent iTunes uses to store metadata. Adobe also announced that they will be gradually moving away from the proprietary FLV format to the standard MP4 format owing to functional limits with the FLV structure when streaming H.264. The final release of the Flash Player supporting MPEG-4 had become available in Fall 2007."

DIRECTLY BELOW the section you quote
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 17:19:41

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmv

"Windows Media Video (WMV) is a compressed video file format for several proprietary codecs developed by Microsoft."

[...]

"Digital rights management

"While none of the WMV codecs themselves contain any digital rights management facilities, the ASF container format, in which a WMV stream may be encapsulated, can. Windows Media DRM, which can be used in conjunction with WMV, supports time-limited subscription video services such as those offered by CinemaNow[24]. Windows Media DRM, a component of PlaysForSure and Windows Media Connect, is supported on many modern portable video devices and streaming media clients such as the Xbox 360.

"Criticism

"WMV has been the subject of numerous complaints from users and the press. Users dislike the digital rights management system which is sometimes attached to WMV files[25] The loss of the ability to restore licenses for WMV files in the Windows Media Player 11 was not positively received.[25] In addition, the Microsoft Zune does not support the standard Windows Media DRM system, rendering protected WMV files unplayable.[26]"
AlexH

2008-11-23 17:22:01

Nice indirection by throwing ASF in there, Roy.

Let's break this down: Flash 9/10 video: H264. WMV 9: H264 + fluff.

Licensing agency: MPEG LA.

They're as bad as each other. Come on, even you can admit that, surely?
jo Shields

2008-11-23 17:22:21

Hey, a subject switch. Gasp. And an ignore of "1) SL 1.0 has no DRM capability". Double-gasp.

Alex is right. And there's obviously zero point in my commenting on your cute little blog, since it's pretty apparent that you're incapable of absorbing information which doesn't match your world view. Which means more time to spend on packaging. Ciao. I'll be available via e-mail.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 17:24:58

What is the "fluff", Alex? What will WMV 11 contain? It's the same with Microsoft's GPL 'surrogates', which it can change for competitive reasons.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 17:26:50

You're so yesterday, Jo. Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverlight

Version 2.0, released October 2008...

[...]

New media features in Silverlight 2 include:[28]

[...]

* Content protection powered by Microsoft PlayReady DRM client
AlexH

2008-11-23 17:32:39

@Roy: do some research, good grief.

The "fluff" is minor changes to the bitstream to achieve slightly better compression.

The vast majority of the codec is essentially the same. The patent holders are the same.

I'm amazed and astonished that you still try to defend this view.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 17:33:02

ASF is a container format, e.g. "muxed" data. A stream of MPEG or H264 encoded data + packet headers and possibly a DRM header.

MPEG and H264 are the codecs, ASF is a file format which is demuxed to extract the MPEG or H264 content.

To give a visual representation of ASF:

[packet header][MPEG or H264 encoded content][packet header][MPEG or H264 encoded content][packet header]...

The packet header would contain such things as a timestamp (offset from the beginning of the stream), content length, etc.

That's all Ogg is too, in fact. Ogg is just a container format. Vorbis and Theora are the codecs.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 17:35:57

Silverlight already comes with Windows DRM, so regardless of the codecs, you are being delivered something which not only gives Microsoft great control over Web content but also leaves you vulnerable.
AlexH

2008-11-23 17:40:55

Yawn. Flash comes with DRM too (more catching up needed, Roy).

Again, you're trying to compare evils and say that the Adobe evil is somehow lesser. Both have patents which prevent free software implementing them. Both actively enforce their patents (same body, MPEG LA). Both come with DRM which is illegal to work around.

Can't you just, for once, admit you are wrong and admit they are as bad as each other?
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 17:42:26

Microsoft isn't putting DRM content on the web, content providers are.

If you don't support DRM'd content, don't go to websites which only provide DRM'd content.

There are, however, content providers using Silverlight that are not using DRM.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 17:43:10

Yawn. Flash comes with DRM too (more catching up needed, Roy).

Nope. Old news that I noted earlier today.

Adobe is not Microsoft. GNU/Linux is hardly a threat to Adobe.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 17:44:16

Microsoft isn’t putting DRM content on the web, content providers are.

That's like saying people don't kill people; guns do.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 17:49:59

No, you got that backwards. What /you/ are saying is that "people don't kill people, guns do."

I'm saying "guns don't kill people, people do."

Microsoft may be providing the gun, but they aren't the ones shooting. Content providers are the ones shooting.

As far as your previous comment:

Adobe is not Microsoft. GNU/Linux is hardly a threat to Adobe.

How dense are you? We're talking about codecs here. It's not about whether or not Microsoft or Adobe will sue over patents in the codecs, it's about whether groups like MPEG-LA will.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 17:53:21

You've reposed this question as though I said Adobe is good. I just said that it's the lesser evil of the two.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 17:56:24

And I'm saying it doesn't matter if you believe Adobe is the lesser of two evils or not, because it's not them you should be worried about - it's MPEG-LA. MPEG-LA are the ones that own the patents in the codecs used by both Flash and Silverlight.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 17:58:02

There is more to it than just a codec, but you attempt to trivialise the problem.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 17:59:53

At worst I'm breaking the list of problems apart and addressing them individually.

Do you or do you not understand that MPEG-LA is the holder of the patents on the codecs used by both Flash and Silverlight?
neighborlee

2008-11-23 18:47:25

And of course, none of this matters anyway does it :)

We all know fedora AND debian ( to varying degrees obviously depending which medium you use) are both blocking it, so I think this is mostly pointless ;) ( lenny has NO mono or moonlight part of default install, I know I just installed default gnome)

Dan , can you get any uglier with these colorful adjectives,,they do you no good nor the debate, so I think you should avoid them as they make all your points very much non credible. They would not be welcome in debate class I can tell you that, but then I guess we are FAR removed from that environment .

But I know some of you here enjoy this based on the frequency, so procede ;)

Oh , and about my using gmail.you would prob. say the same thing if I used blah@blah.net or whatever as I doubt any of the major email systems are free, so I will avoid descending into that arguement as well and use what I wish for the task at hand, and if someday I have time to find a truly 'free' email system , I'd be more than happy to switch over. At the moment I shall use what I have for sometime , and choose to be as free as I can regarding the operating system on which houses these applications that I use .

cheers nl
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 18:59:25

Neighborlee: apparently you need to get with the program. Jo Sheilds is a Debian packager and is packaging Moonlight for Debian and Ubuntu.

What colorful adjectives did I use? I used an expression which I self-censored.

If you dismiss my arguments because of any adjectives I use, then you obviously are unable to disprove my arguments based on any factual basis (which is no big surprise, because you, Roy, and twitter do not believe in facts).
neighborlee

2008-11-23 19:11:26

Dan, you asked:)

#

Dan O'Brian said,

February 23, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Personally, I dont trust Miguel “OOXML is a superb standard” Icaza because of many of his stances. He’s tried so hard to be Microsoft that he seems to be suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Of course, he is also a di**..

Resorting to personal attacks now, are we?…

Oh wait, I forgot that it’s different when Roy and his ilk do it…

then here on this thread you used 'dense' when mentioning Roy, so yeah I think what I said is valid..when you descend into that kind of discussion you lose a lot of credibility with your audience.

I dont mind if Jo is a package thats not what Im referring to, Jo is welcome to do that all Jo wishes, am I saying that it wont be allowed in as default install, and at atm anyway both debian and fedora reject it based on the info I have atm, but that I can not access because I am in newly installed , non-mono supported debian lenny ;)

cheers , and to the attack-free zone ( Yes, you can !) nl
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 19:47:18

Uh... the first quote was from Roy using a censored insult to describe Miguel de Icaza.

I did use the word 'dense', but I doubt anyone finds that offensive. Besides, I asked Roy if he was dense, I didn't call him that ;-)

Asking if Roy is dense is a valid question, because he clearly refuses to acknowledge who owns the patents on the codecs, even after explaining it to him dozens of times.

That means he's either stubbornly refusing to admit he's wrong (aka dense) or he simply fails at reading comprehension. Take your pick. Personally, I'd imagine 'dense' to be the lesser offense.
Dan O'Brian

2008-11-23 19:49:54

By the way, neighborlee, I thought I'd mention that had you decided to use Mono to implement your Religious video game, you'd probably be done by now and it would likely be a lot faster than your C or C++ implementation because it'd be able to take advantage of Mono's JIT which is able to spot code patterns that can be converted into SIMD instructions.
Roy Schestowitz

2008-11-23 20:02:27

I've just gotten back from the gym and catching up here... Dan, your argument fails the freedom vs. power test.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html

Mono and Moonlight: GNU/Linux Polluters from Microsoft/Novell

Comments

Recent Techrights' Posts