How Novell Harms GNU/Linux Programming

Dr. Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-05 13:54:38 UTC
Modified: 2009-06-05 15:02:01 UTC

Summary: What MonoDevelop -- especially for Windows -- means to GNU/Linux

EARLIER TODAY we wrote about MonoDevelop coming to Windows. This is not a new problem. Our contributor ushimitsudoki now points to Miguel's latest blog post, which says: "On Windows for example, MonoDevelop runs on top of the .NET Framework and uses the .NET managed debugger instead of using Mono's runtime and Mono's debugger, so there is no dependency on Mono to be installed on the system."

"So basically you've got a Windows .NET application that doesn't even use mono," writes ushimitsudoki. "Hooray. This is truly a blessing for Linux users everywhere."

“We would be better off getting the Windows codes hooked in python.”
--OiaohmOiaohm agrees and further argues that "MonoDevelop is still second rate to Visual Studio [VS] on Windows."

"Taking into account what my colleague said about VS, that would be pretty bad then," writes MinceR. Oiaohm added: "VS Express with the right alterations is the same program as Full VS."

"Exactly," exclaims ushimitsudoki, who continues: "If I was a windows developer, why the hell would I be using this second-rate s*** anyway? What serious Windows developer isn't running Visual Studio? and what wanna-be isn't running VS Express? I've never understood that whole "bringing Windows developers over to Linux" line of argument.

"Is there a group out there that cares LESS about Linux than Windows developers?"

"My problem is .NET programmers are more like the VB programmers of old," Oiaohm adds. "They create a few gems from time to time. But to make them usable you need to port them to a better language. I really don't see the interest in them. We would be better off getting the Windows codes hooked in python." ⬆

Comments

Yuhong Bao

2009-06-05 16:29:45

In fact, what gcc is to Linux, Visual C++ is to Windows.

Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-05 16:31:18

gcc is platform independent.

Yuhong Bao

2009-06-05 16:34:14

True, in fact gcc can run on Windows using Cygwin or MinGW. I am talking about which is most common compiler on the platform.

Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-05 16:36:52

Well, Microsoft broke some laws to bury Borland.
Sabayon User (YGUG)

2009-06-05 18:59:40

Well, Microsoft broke some laws to bury Borland.

Which laws would those be?
Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-05 19:01:52

Antitrust.

Here are some places to start:

http://boycottnovell.com/wiki/index.php/On_closing_the_DEC_rat_holes_and_Borland_hacking_the_applause-o-meter http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/08/borland-international-lesson/
Sabayon User (YGUG)

2009-06-05 19:38:50

Your first link shows that Microsoft was recruiting Borland developers. I'm sure the CEO of Borland didn't like it, and it might be brazen and/or distasteful (depending on your preconceived notions) but that's not illegal, and has nothing to do with antitrust. What is illegal are agreements between companies not to poach each other's employees, something the DOJ is currently investigating Apple, Google and Yahoo for, if I remember correctly.

Of course I don't recall you ever accusing Google of "antitrust" when they poach Microsoft employees.

The second link shows absolutely nothing whatsoever related to antitrust. You probably searched your wiki for the first occurrence of "Borland" and pasted the URL.

Feel free to point out anything I might have missed, or offer some solid evidence to back up your claim. Here it is again:

Well, Microsoft broke some laws to bury Borland.
Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-05 19:42:45

No, it's part of antitrust which relates to deliberately bad documentation and secret APIs. Here is a sample of exhibits:

http://boycottnovell.com/wiki/index.php/Development
Yuhong Bao

2009-06-05 19:55:04

On undocumented APIs, also refer to Windows SDKs (both current SDKs and old ones like 3.1 SDKs).
Sabayon User (YGUG)

2009-06-05 20:22:15

Those documents where culled from the Comes lawsuit, which has nothing to do with antitrust. You call them that because you want them to be somehow tied to the actual antitrust action of '99, but that's not the case, is it? The "antitrust" bit is just your spin.

After looking at those though, I have to conclude that you're either confused or deliberately telling half-truths. Since there is no direct mention of Borland anywhere there, or how they might have been affected by whatever perceived wrongdoings you are deriving from those emails, one would have to come to the conclusion that Microsoft somehow hobbled everyone who wrote applications for their platform, partners and competitors alike. Which is interesting, considering Borland - like any number of competitors and partners - has had access to the Windows source code as part of that "look but don't touch" licensing agreement Microsoft provides (which was the source of the NT4/2000 leak a few years ago). I can go on and on about all the fallacies with your argument: "Microsoft forgot to include two constants in windows.h, therefore Borland was crushed".

Please be specific and provide factual evidence of Microsoft braking a law (any law) in order to harm Borland. Here's your claim again:

Well, Microsoft broke some laws to bury Borland.
Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-05 20:35:22

You are wrong again. These exhibits appeared in many places, just not always disclosed/unsealed. Netscape was antitrust investigation where Windows APIs did play a role and there is existing antitrust action in Europe. A lot of it revolves around APIs. Borland is one among several victims.
Roy Bixler

2009-06-05 20:36:31

Those documents where culled from the Comes lawsuit, which has nothing to do with antitrust.
I don't agree with that. Here is a cite from the San Francisco Chronicle on the settlement of that suit:
The lawsuit claimed Microsoft engaged in illegal monopolization and anticompetitive conduct between 1994 and 2006 that caused customers to pay more for software than they would have if there had been competition.
That sounds very similar to the types of behaviours which anti-trust law addresses.
Sabayon User (YGUG)

2009-06-05 20:44:10

These exhibits appeared in many places, just not always disclosed/unsealed.

You have secret information that supports your arguments?

Netscape was antitrust investigation where Windows APIs did play a role

They did not, except in your mind. United States vs Microsoft was centered around the bundling of IE with Windows. I thought you were aware of this. But please direct me to evidence that supports what you're saying.

there is existing antitrust action in Europe

Related to formats and protocols. And bundling. But I fail to see how that has anything to do with Borland. Please don't nitpick like your supporters. Provide factual evidence that Microsoft violated a law, or laws - any laws - in order to harm Borland, Inc. Here's your claim again:

Well, Microsoft broke some laws to bury Borland.
Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-05 21:23:25

You have secret information that supports your arguments?

Open the PDFs. See how they are labeled and classified

They did not, except in your mind. United States vs Microsoft was centered around the bundling of IE with Windows. I thought you were aware of this. But please direct me to evidence that supports what you’re saying.

See the Netscape section of this petition. Also, for example:

http://boycottnovell.com/wiki/index.php/Microsoft_to_Netscape:_try_our_800_number

Related to formats and protocols. And bundling. But I fail to see how that has anything to do with Borland. Please don’t nitpick like your supporters. Provide factual evidence that Microsoft violated a law, or laws - any laws - in order to harm Borland, Inc.

See:

http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/1000/PX01413.pdf

Microsoft even mentions Borland when discussing APIs. Microsoft was found guilty for withholding API information.

Quit wasting time, please. You go by the name "Sabayon User" and all you ever do is troll this Web site.
Yuhong Bao

2009-06-06 06:31:29

Actually, I am not just talking about what is the most common compiler. In fact, Windows themselves was compiled with Visual C++ and Linux themselves was compiled with gcc. Going with the compiler the OS itself is compiled with has some benefits. For example, I use the Debugging Tools for Windows, which was designed to debug the Windows OS, and thus can only read VC symbol formats. Similarly Windows system symbols (I use the MS symbol server to get them) are in VC symbol formats as well. Thus the Borland compiler cannot generate symbols readable by the tools in Debugging Tools for Windows, and the Borland debugger cannot read Windows system symbols.

Sabayon User (YGUG)

2009-06-05 22:10:20

Open the PDFs. See how they are labeled and classified

Sorry, I don't see how this has any bearing on anything.

See the Netscape section of this petition. Also, for example:

Ah, you don't really know what an API is, do you? Have you even read all this, or just snipped selective portions from it? You could have quoted the OWL/MFC part of that document about - wonder of wonders - Borland (in part II). The problem is that it would be irrelevant to your claim anyway, because as with everything else in that petition, it's just the argument from the plaintiffs. None of that is proof, they're just supporting arguments. Are you familiar with legal proceedings? For example, if I accuse you of libel, I have to rehash every negative word you've ever written about anyone, and then a jury has to decide whether or not that is true, assuming it's found to be relevant to the case. If you're rooting for the plaintiffs of course all of the supporting arguments will ring true, but that doesn't mean they are. It's a lawsuit, not a blog post. But hang on to your horsies...

Microsoft even mentions Borland when discussing APIs

Oh my god, you don't really even read any of this, do you? Here, I transcribed the relevant part of that PDF for you (I hereby irrevocably release this under the GFDL, so you can add it to your wiki if you want) and added two [notes]:

the apps group [meaning the Office team] does not need access to the [Windows] source. it's a matter that they have grown accustomed to it. the fact that other companies have been able to product world-class windows products (eg, Borland Quattro pro, Paradox, Lotus Ami Pro 3.0, Freelance, etc) is proof

I mean, really? Do you seriously even read this stuff at all?? Do you realize what things like these do to what's left of your credibility? And if you did actually read and understand this, and someone else considered it "evidence" that Microsoft was being evil... what does that do to the credibility of the people who selected it as a supporting exhibit in the case?

Quit wasting time, please.

I will ignore your cop-out ad hominem and implication that you have something other to do than tend to your blog, but I will assume that you have no proof of your claims beyond the easily disputable "hit 'em with the links" confusion you tried to use here. That means tat what you said is, for lack of a better term, nothing more than a lie.

Oh, and I switched to Sabayon a few weeks ago. Highly recommended. The comfort zone and familiarity of Gentoo without the sharp edges. I love it.

Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-05 22:20:04

I recognise your style now. You're "Gentoo user", a Microsoft troll. Nymshifters are not worth attention.

Sabayon User

2009-06-06 00:49:26

I recognise your style now

Was this before or after you made the connection between Sabayon and Gentoo, and the number of people who post comments to your blog as [Distro] Name? From the same IP address and using the same email address? Did the UG tag confuse you? No worries, I removed it.

...you do know what Sabayon Linux is, right?

We'll ignore your usual mommy-i-want-my-security-blanket cop-out where anyone who doesn't strike the right note is a full-time Microsoft employee, but

Nymshifters are not worth attention

The irony of you linking to that smear you wrote defending your friend "twitter", the most famous nymshifter troll on Slashdot, is just slightly beyond incredible. Is "twitter" worth attention? I should think so, considering you quote him on your blog posts. I'll try to keep up with his two dozen accounts, although I'm afraid I'll run out of distros before I even come close.

Not everyone knows the twitter story, so here is the usual post. I guess there are nymshifters and then there are nymshifters and trolls, eh Roy?

Well, getting back to topic before you so skillfully shot the messenger (as you're keen on pointing out again and again is so often done to you), are you going to whip up some evidence that Microsoft broke the law to harm Borland? Here is your claim again:

Well, Microsoft broke some laws to bury Borland.

Otherwise, we'll consider this conversation finished.

Yuhong Bao

2009-06-05 16:22:12

In fact, I am personally a Windows developer running VS Express.

Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-05 16:27:14

Microsoft threatens its MVPs to keep it artificially incapable.

The Mad Hatter

2009-06-06 17:34:18

Roy may not have any "secret" information regarding Microsoft's monopolistic actions against Independent Software Vendors, but I do. Specifically Microsoft withheld Application Programming Interfaces, and refused to supply pre-release copies of Windows for the developers to work on. I got this from the Chief Technology Officers of a couple of the Independent Software Vendors.

Beyond confirming it happened, I won't tell you who was involved. These guys depend on Microsoft for their market (Windows OS Computers), and if Microsoft knew who was talking, it would attack them.

Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-06 18:58:05

Well, Microsoft does give reasons to fear retaliation.

"Microsoft retaliated against industry participants that supported DR-DOS. For example, when Z-Nix Inc. bundled DR-DOS 6.0 and Microsoft Windows 3.1, proclaiming no incompatibilities, Microsoft’s Brad Silverberg wrote: "look what znix is doing! cut those fuckers off." Within three weeks, Microsoft demanded an audit of Z-Nix’s entire business and then commenced a copyright and trademark infringement action. Z-Nix was forced to file for bankruptcy in or around 1995"

--Comes Petition [PDF]
G. Michaels

2009-06-07 10:05:56

Really? What an amazing coincidence! I have secret information that proves BoycottNovell is financially sponsored by RedHat and IBM. I'd love to show it to you, but alas, it's secret. But it's True (TM).

I also have secret emails that confirm the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and Scott Baio. And the location of Jimmy Hofa. Alas again, they're all very secret so I cannot share them.

I have magic PDFs with REALLY IMPORTANT information written in magic digital ink that disappears when you try to read them. Because they're secret, you see. Just ask me - I have one for every occasion and topic. They're very mysterious.

And get this - whenever I talk about my secret information, I make sure I make clever allusions and use ominous language and professional-sounding acronyms and whatnot. That goes a long way towards convincing people that my secret information is in fact real and validates whatever argument I happen to be making at the time. Since it's secret, right? And I couldn't possibly show it to anyone. Because it's secret.

Let me ask you something, "The Mad Hatter". When you are outside of your comfort zone, you know, like websites where everyone thinks like you, talks like you, has the same belief system and set of values and so on, does this kind of weak babble actually work? I mean, here you get golf claps from the BoycottBoy gallery but elsewhere, can you use it without people simply going into a spasm of uncontrollable laughter? I'm just genuinely curious.

The Mad Hatter

2009-06-07 22:47:12

Comfort Zone? My comfort zone is Washington DC, Sacramento CA, New York, NY, Shanghai PRC, and places like that. I'm a professional salesman, and spend a lot of time in 5 star hotels.

What I said is true. You don't have to believe it. It makes no difference to me.

Though I have to admit I'd love to check the one you have on Jimmy Hoffa, to see if it matches the cartoon in Mad Magazine which showed his body, in a garbage can, in orbit.

Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-07 23:02:41

They try personal attacks. It means you're on the right topic.

twitter

2009-06-09 05:20:10

M$ is a lost cause, Michaels. There's nothing secret about Comes vrs M$, it's public record. Roy has produced dozens of letters from M$ executives behaving badly. The only way to be safe from them is to have nothing to do with them. Industry has learned this the hard way and is moving in the right direction. The public has caught on too.

What's really funny though, is how you persistently stalk this site and it's users, then say there is something wrong with people for noticing. There are few better examples of what M$ is all about than G.Michaels. Rot on, dude. Show everyone the real eXPerience.

Yuhong Bao

2009-06-09 05:22:27

I wouldn't say MS is completely a lost cause, but twitter is right about the rest. The think about having nothing to do with them is IMO particularly interesting because I live near them.
Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-09 05:28:23

Unless they can find a franchise to replace what's dying (licensing as a business model), they are a lost cause. They tried advertising (SaaS) and hardware and have thus far failed to evolve.
Yuhong Bao

2009-06-09 06:14:20

So it is more than just the tactics (I think Gates and Ballmer's tactics are ultimately at fault, but may need to force out more than just Ballmer to reform). In fact, this is, yep, the horrors of artificial scarcity yet again! It is fundamentally flawed and not just for software (see DRM for an example). In fact, do you know why the Free Software Movement was created in the first place? Read the Bill Gates' open letter to hobbyists for a clue. It was only 8 years after Gates told hobbyists not to copy their software that Stallman started the free software movement that led us to where we are today, which was coincidentally around the time IBM decided to follow the same trend that led to the start of that movement by making it's own software OCO! Notice the backlash that followed. Later IBM did began embracing open source software as well as open standards like ODF. Yep, where most of us only have to deal with part of the history, IBM have to deal with the entire thing (see Hercules, for example, for why), so it is a good source of info.
Roy Schestowitz

2009-06-09 06:19:05

Yes, they'll need to sell something of substance (and not force people to buy it, either).

Needs Sunlight

2009-06-06 16:05:30

"Rival companies, like Borland International and the Lotus Development Corporation, have contended that Microsoft tried to block companies offering other operating systems by using unfair licensing practices and other tactics. Some companies have also said that Microsoft used various dirty tricks, including what the industry calls "vaporware," to leverage its expansion from MS-DOS into almost every kind of software for desktop computers."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/15/us/judge-rejects-us-antitrust-pact-with-microsoft.html
The Mad Hatter

2009-06-08 00:16:58

Yeah Roy, and I love it when they get personal. It's quite hilarious watching them try to argue, because they are so damned bad at it. Gives me a good laugh it does, because they don't know who and what they are trying to take on. I might be a marshmallow, or I might be a serial killer trolling for victims.

How Novell Harms GNU/Linux Programming

Comments

Recent Techrights' Posts