Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

Which one would that be? Evolution-hackers doesn’t seem to have anything recent on the subject (starting from January) (Nevermind, Go-Evo straightened that out…http://www.go-evolution.org/Camel.IMAP)

As for background checks? Your first post here went on the same assumption as everyone else, that something had been written in C#. Then you made the incremental research to see that the *current* codebase is in C. To which I merely added that that would be the case, since it’s a copy from EDS.

As for me confusing the two providers, that I’ll readily admit, my bad.

An equally likely reason for them splitting it is size reasons or because most people who use Mono for Linux don’t care about things like Windows.Forms or ASP.NET – how many people actually write new ASP.NET software or new Windows.Forms software on top of Linux for Linux? Probably very few to none. (Notice that it’s not the same question as how many people develop Windows.Forms or ASP.NET on Linux for Windows).

You always assume the worst in something (person/project), and then refuse to do any sort of research. Most of the time (if not all of the time), this would alleviate your fears, but no, instead you choose not to. Instead you choose to lash out and attack people who are regularly innocent of your charges.

See, this is why such poorly informed opinions on this site just make you guys look foolish.

Take the time to figure out what he’s talking about. To anyone who is subscribed to the mailing lists knows, he’s referring to the imap code located in:

evolution-data-server/camel/providers/imap

not:

evolution-data-server/camel/providers/imap4

Do a little googling and this information is revealed.

It’s completely obvious to me that you guys are more interested in making assumptions and accusations than you are in finding out the facts. This is made perfectly clear by Woods’ refusal to do any sort of background digging to figure out what the developer was talking about (have you taken my suggestion and asked the developer on irc or via email yet?).

When disproven and cornered, he pretends he cannot hear you; holding his hands to his ears and going la-la-la-la-la….

As a distraction he throws in some random links and never reacts to his defeat in argument…

Bah. What kind of personality does this reveal? :p

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/6232/1/

Two years after it was published (yes, two years!) the headline changed from something like:

“GNOME to be rewritten in C#”

to:

“New Mono-Based Applications for GNOME in Fedora Core 5–Part 1″

I don’t know if the body of the article changed as well, but it reminds me of what Microsoft quietly does in the press (burying stories).

What’s that all about? Is someone trying to hide something? You know, I’ve been told that Mono got sliced into 3 chunks just to satisfy Mono’s critics. Apparently it was not seen as a concern until analysis triggered some reaction.

Uh, well, wasn’t that the whole point of Jeff’s article?
((By his article) yes, the current one exists and works. But it would be easier to maintain/evolve if it could be written in an alternative (managed) language. (He even (rhetorically) asks why hasn’t anyone rewritten it yet, since, apparently, the C-version is slightly frustrating to develop for))

There exists about as much concern about patents with Mono as there is on any part of our technology stack that implements someone else’s technology (though at least Mono has the advantage that much of the platform is documented rather than 100% reverse engineered). Clue: Both Red Hat and Canonical ship it. They are smarter than you, have highly informed legal advice, and have more at risk.

You may question the strategy, you may point out the risks, but you may not sledge people and projects as a result of your concerns. It just makes you look like an unreasonable, uninformed fool. Your irrational and nasty behaviour certainly doesn’t help any of your arguments about the Novell/Microsoft agreement.

You have been corrected about your idiotic claims about the GTK+ website already. Java is not there because the 4.x bindings are not complete and the maintainer stopped support and removed documentation for the 3.x bindings. Don’t blame the GTK+ folks for making the right call just because you don’t understand the issues (or have an extremist perspective as a result of having no idea about the issues).

How is that a license for you and Roy to go accusing developers, projects and Novell for things which might not even be true?

Shane has hardly ever accused anyone, so it’s an unfair assessment. Those whom I sometimes accuse are not developers but people higher up who instruct. As Woods (IIRC) pointed out, Mono may be fine for migration, but building GNOME applications from scratch using Mono (even promoting C# in the GTK Web site) seems unreasonable. You then look for guidance from Microsoft and play by its own rules while building the Free Desktop.

Instead of speculating, though, why not ask him if it really concerns you?

As far as the patent list… have you actually read any of them? Do any actually apply to Mono?

Remember: .NET is a vast blanket term for Microsoft’s products in the past 8 years. It encompasses things like Passport, for example, which is not even touched by Mono.

A quick glance at the subject matter for the first page of links shows only single sign-on (*cough* passport *cough*) and web technologies which Mono does not seem to implement.

So which of those patents, if any, apply to Mono?

Simply saying “there are patents out there by Microsoft that refer to .NET” is not enough, you have to actually read them and see if they actually apply.

To do this, you probably need a lawyer.

Here is where, in their 10-Q filing, Novell indicates they have a blanket retroactive patent license as part of the deal, so perhaps I am mistaken – but doesn’t that mean any of those patents in the above list granted before the deal was made are now licensed by Novell?

Then, there was confusion (me included) because OOO is clearly exempted from ‘clone product’ status, and is covered by the deal according to Bruce Lowry. I don’t frankly recall what Mono’s status was in that regard, but refer to my above point for Novell’s blanket patent license, and these comments freshly after the deal by Microsoft’s Bob Muglia:

There is a substantive effort in open source to bring such an implementation of .Net to market, known as Mono and being driven by Novell, and one of the attributes of the agreement we made with Novell is that the intellectual property associated with that is available to Novell customers. But we certainly have no intention of releasing the source code to .Net to the community, but the community is free to go with Mono and enhance that and build solutions for customers.

My prior links undercut the assertion that it was Novell’s customers that received protection only, not Novell themselves: this statement is fundamentally untrue and fosters false trust in believing that Novell has the same potential liability exposures that we supposedly have, according to Mr. Ballmer.

Also, a rhetorical question or two -, what was in Exhibit C of the deal? and why is Novell paying per-unit royalties to Microsoft going forward, and on what, exactly?

Until those questions can be answered, we all frankly don’t know what is what, which fosters FUD at best.

(from camel-imap4 / trunk / ChangeLog )
2008-05-10 Jeffrey Stedfast

* Initial check-in of camel-imap4

Well, no, actually I can’t.
(yeah, I know you mean trunk / imap4 / Changelog…the amount of nitpicking on this forum is contagious…)

My point was that if you’re going to create a Mono-capable Camel and possibly a C#-IMAP-plugin to boot by forking the existing camel-imap4, then yes, it will be full of C-code *now* and one shouldn’t be surprised to see it there.

Even F-Spot and if memory serves, Tomboy, are hardly 100% C#-apps, their distributions have their share of C-code in them. Now, what percentage of C-code will be in camel-imap4 in the future is a different matter (well, 100% but I find Jeff’s post a bit misleading as I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 50/50)

I fail to see how that disproves my point at all, that camel-imap4 is in fact a C plugin, not C#.

Roy’s article is totally incorrect and I have yet to see an apology by him on the matter (not that I expect one, this is hardly the first time he’s been proven to be a completely incompetent douchebag).

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

In the consequence, Roy is just making an ass of himself and is NOT doing his own case a favor.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

It’s as simple as this: the Novell/Microsoft deal does not apply to Mono.

@Dan: bravo for actually looking. I should have done this earlier, but now it’s clear for all to see:

http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/camel-imap4/trunk/

@Roy: please retract the story. None of it is factually accurate, as has been demonstrated here multiple times now.