Comments on: Richard Stallman Reiterates Threat of Mono, Wikipedia Censored by Mono Boosters http://techrights.org/2010/07/20/microsoft-apologists-play-for-mono/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:41:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.14 By: Dr. Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2010/07/20/microsoft-apologists-play-for-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-94889 Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:48:20 +0000 http://techrights.org/?p=34995#comment-94889

As to Mono, I’m surprised that Roy is still pushing it, Mono has become over the last year a dead issue, mostly because Microsoft’s DOT.NET is loosing users at a rapid rate, and there’s no need to provide a transitition from Windows to Linux, if there aren’t any users to transition.

I am not “pushing” the subject, I just highlight some news that relate to it.

]]>
By: The Mad Hatter http://techrights.org/2010/07/20/microsoft-apologists-play-for-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-94870 Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:27:25 +0000 http://techrights.org/?p=34995#comment-94870 I thought that the picture of RMS was topical, and very well done.

As to Mono, I’m surprised that Roy is still pushing it, Mono has become over the last year a dead issue, mostly because Microsoft’s DOT.NET is loosing users at a rapid rate, and there’s no need to provide a transitition from Windows to Linux, if there aren’t any users to transition.

It should be interesting seeing what Miguel does next. You know that Microsoft is terrified of him, don’t you? Miguel managed to produce Mono with less than 1% of the people that Microsoft needed to produce DOT.NET. Microsoft is well aware that they aren’t capable of competing against Miguel (which is why I think that they gave him the MVP, so that he’d be thinking nice thoughts about them, and wouldn’t be tempted to really compete with them).

Wayne

]]>
By: verofakto http://techrights.org/2010/07/20/microsoft-apologists-play-for-mono/comment-page-1/#comment-94822 Wed, 21 Jul 2010 03:04:28 +0000 http://techrights.org/?p=34995#comment-94822 I fail to see what the problem is here. Neither BoycottNovell nor your friend’s blog are valid sources on these topics as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your seem to think inciting people is the same thing as informing them. But trust me, it’s not. Had any of you at any point put the slightest effort into covering these issues with any sort of balance then I suppose one could argue that your articles can be used as a reference. But that’s obviously not the case, is it? Of course no one requires you or him to be unbiased or balanced — just try not to complain when that excludes you from being considered a valid source within inherently NPOV content.

You two are quite entitled to your opinion, and you are quite free to publish it any way you see fit, as well as to try and spread it as far and wide as you can. Democracy, freedom of speech and all that. You are not, however, entitled to having it disseminated for free by Wikipedia. Anyone with ten minutes of free time and rudimentary knowledge of WP guidelines would have removed every single link to that blog (or yours) from any and all Mono or Novell-related articles without anyone else even batting an eyelash over it. You _do_ realize it’s amusingly simple to prove your institutional bias against Mono, right?

So you are all welcome to your views and your biases and your obsessions — but please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by arguing that they have a place in Wikipedia (of all places). We get that any attempt to document something like Mono in a non-negative way is deeply confusing to all of you, and that it kindles TEH FIREZ OF RAGE deep inside. We all get it. Making a fuss about it doesn’t really help. People are smart enough to see through the “oh but I’m fighting for freedom” facade you guys like to put up.

Incidentally, this is the same attitude that got you and that other friend of yours in trouble the last time you tried to argue that Wikipedia isn’t being militant enough in their “advocacy” against the things you dislike. Wikipedia isn’t a platform for proselytizing. That goes for corporations (Microsoft and Novell included of course), religions, countries, nonprofit groups, Boy Scout troops, goth rock bands and self-styled GNU/Evangelists.

Finally, I don’t know if this is the work of “Mono apologists”, but I figure anyone you or your friend label as such probably has the right to call all of you “Mono haters”, although I’m sure that would be unacceptable.

Hope this helps!

(p.s.: Your use of Stallman’s photographs is downright creepy, if no one has bothered mentioning it to you)

]]>