Photo with permission from Jason
THE previous post spoke about the “Microsoft hater” label, which conveniently annuls or crosses out any regular critic of Microsoft's practices, including Richard Stallman.
In short, Perlow attacked the man for something he didn't say. He never said not to use Mono. Nor is Mono even necessary for interoperability with Microsoft. I note Microsoft is letting Intel port Silverlight instead of Mono to Moblin. Surprise, Miguel. Ah, the joys and surprises of partnering with Microsoft. He will drink that cup to the full, no doubt, before this saga is done. Why would *you* want Silverlight on Moblin? I can't imagine one good reason, personally, but the fact that Intel and Microsoft want it to happen may even be part of what's behind the new push to tell us we must use both Windows and Linux and stop being so prissy about it. I note that in Perlow's article on how he can't live without Windows on the desktop, Why I Can Never Be Exclusive to Linux and Open Source on the Desktop,
[...]
I hate to burst people's bubbles, but it was just last week that Microsoft sold, or tried to sell, to patent trolls some 22 patents that could be used against Linux. Caught with its pants down when OIN ended up with them instead and told the world all about it, Microsoft quickly announced the Codeplex Foundation, which Perlow calls an open source nonprofit but which actually could more accurately be called Microsoft's Push-Mono-Down-Your-Throat foundation, now that Sam Ramji has announced that giving Mono more "credibility" is the goal. This is the star to guide you if you wish to be "pragmatic" and "compromise" also. I suggest you read Andy Updegrove's understated but -- to me, hilarious -- analysis of the legal structure of the Codeplex Foundation.
[...]
And I have a question for those who tell us we have to compromise and use both proprietary Microsoft software and FOSS. If the purpose of Open Source was nothing more than making money as a Microsoft partner, you tell me -- what was it all for? Why not just use Microsoft software, then, and call it good? No. Really. What was FOSS developed for, if that is the end result, a Microsoft-FOSS fusion? Why even bother? The idea was to provide something better, an alternative, one that was totally free of proprietary restrictions, so that it would be you who control your own computer. And that is exactly what Microsoft can't ever offer you.
Generating lots of interest from press, enthusiasts and attendees, LinuxCon touched on everything from what music best represents Linux to “Is Linux bloated?” – which sparked lots of opinions, including one from Novell’s own Matt Richards.
Comments
David Gerard
2009-09-30 20:45:04
twitter
2009-10-01 02:58:47
NotZed
2009-10-01 00:43:18
Yes, yes it is. But at least with the kernel it's bloated only once Then again, look at sound drivers - two interfaces and they both suck. Or video drivers.
And the `desktop' is a total mess. Each iteration of almost every application gets fatter and slower for minimal or no real improvement in functionality or stability.
finalzone
2009-10-01 07:18:10
Concerning sound and video drivers, it is really vendors issues. At least open source iterations are working despite the lack of important source. On sound part, pulseaudio does a good job to simplify configuration while providing advanced setting. For videos, both AMD and Intel made effort to provide 3D support and release documentations.
About desktops, lightweight iteration from enlightenment to ICEWin via Fluxbox are filling the void left by both Gnome and KDE. Be glad GNU/Linux or BSD based distributions provide the ability to switch to different desktop environment.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-10-01 08:09:55