Comments on: Reader’s Take on Microsoft Open Source http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Thu, 05 Jan 2017 01:24:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.14 By: Yfrwlf http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-12/#comment-48820 Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:47:56 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48820 BTW, everyone should totally write their various government bodies and tell them to get together among themselves as well as with other countries and develop their own software instead of paying billions for proprietary solutions. :)

]]>
By: Yfrwlf http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-12/#comment-48819 Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:44:11 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48819 Of course, that’s looking at it from a purely selfish point of view. The fact that it’d be helping everyone else when you pay for, promote, or help out with open source development is a good feature too. :)

]]>
By: Yfrwlf http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-12/#comment-48818 Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:41:25 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48818 @Matt: Sure, software for everyone is a nice and sharing idea, software is just information but in the past it has been costly to create, but it’s getting much easier. I think it’s always important though to respect the freedom of others to choose. I buy proprietary software sometimes, like games for consoles for instance. I know full well that it’s a flash in the pan, that it’s a one-time entertainment purchase, but most things are. Most things consumers pay for are one-time things.

The fact is though, that purchases for things which last are better investments and have better features. Things which are totally controllable by the consumer are even better. Things which can be modified and improved are even better. Freedom is a feature, it’s that simple. I don’t mind paying for paid development of course, there’s nothing wrong with that, but of course I’d rather give my money to something which gives me more features. So, in an ideal world, software could be created very easily by anyone and it’d be like art or anything else, but sometimes you could commission and pay for some of it, and the process would be simple and the developer/artist would receive the payment and deliver the product.

I think it can be done, too, it just takes more communication to get there, but my point is right now things are tough, so you still have to respect those who choose to pay for a dead end solution when there’s no other way, no other solution. You don’t want to discourage looking for one of course, but as long as consumers know what they’re getting into and know the ramifications for doing so, it’s their choice. I’d just like to make it possible for better choices to be presented to them in the future.

]]>
By: Yfrwlf http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-12/#comment-48817 Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:32:50 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48817 @Roy: I agree and I’ve said it before here, .NET will always run better on Windows and that’s their intention. While I do think that right now, cross-platform software between Windows and Linux will be better for Linux in several ways (number of developers, makes it easier to switch and makes switching less painful, etc), and like Wine, Mono will allow running more Windows software on Linux, I certainly agree that encouraging that development and promoting that is a dangerous path. Even if you only stick to the parts of .NET that are actually open source and “patent protected”, you’re still as risk due to the main pull of developers are working for Microsoft. So, even if it was forked, a) the fork would no longer have “patent protection” no doubt unless that is explicitly covered by their license and b) I don’t think it’d have enough INTEREST to keep existing, so support would wane and those developers who chose to root themselves in it would suffer.

So yeah, long story short, pick Java or some other language that isn’t inherently controlled by companies that have an interest in seeing you on Windows.

Speaking of Sun, I think they should just break down and abandon openSolaris for Linux. It’s just too much of a wasted effort and too far behind at this point I think, might as well just take what is good, port it to Linux, and concentrate on other projects.

]]>
By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-12/#comment-48670 Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:00:01 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48670 @Yfrwlf: .NET/Mono is supposed to impose a “second-class citizen” status on GNU/Linux. If you want the ‘real stuff’, then pay for Windows and Visual Studio. That’s a very serious issue because Java is the superior solution that Novell/Microsoft fight against.

]]>
By: Matt http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-11/#comment-48649 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:45:10 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48649 Moving to Linux was a learning curve for me. Not necessarily in how to use linux, but more of an understanding of the meaning of ‘free software’ .

The more I learn, the more I understand and believe in what Richard Stallman and the FSF does.

Microsoft is the cancer.

]]>
By: Yfrwlf http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-11/#comment-48632 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:30:31 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48632 @jo: I approach things from a simple angle: Microsoft is in business to make money, and to sell Windows and other software. Why would they want to support a *normal*, open, and completely unbiased programming language? The fact is, C# *is* biased. It’s completely Windows oriented.

From Wikipedia: “Although the C# language definition and the CLI are standardized under ISO and ECMA standards, the CLI is only a part of Microsoft’s Base Class Library (BCL), which also contains non-standardized classes that are used by many C# programs (some extended IO, User Interface, Web services, …). Furthermore, parts of the BCL have been patented by Microsoft,[24][25] which may deter independent implementations of the full framework, as only the standardized portions have RAND protection from patent claims.”

Microsoft doesn’t do stuff for everyone, they do stuff for *them* and they expect to collect. The only reason for the *support* of C# and .NET by *Microsoft* is to create dependency on Windows, which is not free as in beer, i.e. they end up collecting.

]]>
By: jo Shields http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-11/#comment-48567 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:47:26 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48567 You DO know you can interface with .zip and XML from things like Python or C, right?

]]>
By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-11/#comment-48565 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:38:33 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48565 OOXML is a vector for other Microsoft technologies like .NET and VML. It’s better to avoid them all because they are intertwined.

]]>
By: jo Shields http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-11/#comment-48561 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:03:59 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48561 So you’d say we were all happy and safe if Microsoft’s OOXML SDK were written in C instead of C#?

What world do you inhabit, Roy?

]]>
By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-10/#comment-48560 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:58:44 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48560 You look at this in reverse. I claim that Novell/Microsoft implementations are being used to poison GNU/Linux with Mono.

]]>
By: jo Shields http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-10/#comment-48558 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:55:27 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48558 And you talked utter, utter, complete and total shit then too.

Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that writing a high-level library to an XML format in one language means that language is tainted? How about the g++/Windows connection, given Windows is partly C++?

]]>
By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-10/#comment-48556 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:51:42 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48556 We talked about this days ago.

]]>
By: jo Shields http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-10/#comment-48553 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:43:46 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48553 Which OOXML SDK is that?

]]>
By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-10/#comment-48547 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:35:32 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48547 Jo,

We discussed this the other day. Look at the OOXML SDK.

]]>
By: Yfrwlf http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-9/#comment-48544 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:28:21 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48544 @jo: That may be true but regardless most developers still aren’t going to choose Mono as why would Microsoft care about Linux? They just want you developing for their Windows platform, that’s all they care about. If I knew they cared about both Linux and Windows equally, and that it was going to be a stable, non-biased truly cross-platform solution, they it may be a legitimate alternative, but I don’t think most Linux users will ever believe that, why should they when Linux is M$’s enemy.

]]>
By: Yfrwlf http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-9/#comment-48543 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:23:57 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48543 BTW, dunno if you know but M$ is also pushing community development of the creation of games using XNA for distribution on Xbox. That’s not too different from Google pushing Android development for software which can only run on Android, or anyone else trying to get communities to help them make their product popular. Of course the efforts of Mono and Moonlight have similar goals even if you aren’t confined to Windows for them at least in the short term, it’s still their API, their “platform” that they are pushing.

Of course, everyone wants stuff like this, but obviously unrestricted platforms is of more long-term benefit. That’s why the Linux ecosystem having good development tools is extremely important. Linux needs to help it’s developers create, package, and release Linux software as easy and as quickly as it can, so more unification/framework/API efforts are needed in this area.

]]>
By: jo Shields http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-9/#comment-48541 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:22:15 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48541

Mono brings a raft of other things with it, such as Silverlight and OOXML.

The closest thing Mono has to “bringing OOXML” is the ability to open Zip files, and the ability to read XML.

There are absolutely no libraries or abilities related specifically to OOXML anywhere in Mono’s source tree.

As for Silverlight, what Mono contains is some XML manifests used by the Mono Linker to create the cut-down 2.1 base library, from the 2.0 library, without the need for any distinct source or additional compilation. This includes a wrapped compiler, smcs, which uses 2.1 instead of 2.0 by default.

That’s the actual extent of the supposed “raft of other things with it, such as Silverlight and OOXML”

]]>
By: Yfrwlf http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-9/#comment-48536 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:00:01 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48536 Novell controls Mono’s copyrights? But it’s open source though, so even if under the license they are using somehow switch it to a totally new license, you could simply fork the actual open source version. The only real *bad* threat toward open source are patents IMO, because if some developers start misbehaving, fork it.

Regardless, I’m much more interested in seeing languages/APIs/etc be developed that aren’t skewed by agendas toward specific operating systems. Many companies can be, including Linux distro companies by, say, wanting to lock users into their repositories and not help cross-distro application efforts, like I always bitch about. ^^

]]>
By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/comment-page-9/#comment-48508 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:13:03 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/12/microsoft-open-source-analysis/#comment-48508 Remember that Novell controls Mono (copyrights, developers, strategic direction) and it’s preparing to triple its collaborations with Microsoft. Some people (not in this site) reckon that Microsoft might buy Novell if it becomes more useful as a proper subsidiary. Remember Zimbra under the Microsoft knife?

Quotes from 2008:

“Our partnership with Microsoft continues to expand.”

Ron Hovsepian, Novell CEO

“[The partnership with Microsoft is] going very well insofar as we originally agreed to co-operate on three distinct projects and now we’re working on nine projects and there’s a good list of 19 other projects that we plan to co-operate on.”

Ron Hovsepian, Novell CEO

]]>