05.13.08
Posted in News Roundup at 1:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Fedora
Free Open Source Software in Governments
Open Source/Free Software Communication
Java/JavaFX
Kernel
Trouble in Service Pack Land
Security
Clouds and Networking with FOSS
GNU/Linux Misc.
Share this post:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink 
Send this to a friend
If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.
Pages that cross-reference this one
What Else is New
365 Days Later, German Justice Minister Heiko Maas Remains Silent and Thus Complicit in EPO Abuses on German Soil
The utter lack of participation, involvement or even intervention by German authorities serve to confirm that the government of Germany is very much complicit in the EPO's abuses, by refusing to do anything to stop them
Battistelli's Idea of 'Independent' 'External' 'Social' 'Study' is Something to BUY From Notorious Firm PwC
The sham which is the so-called 'social' 'study' as explained by the Central Staff Committee last year, well before the results came out
Europe Should Listen to SMEs Regarding the UPC, as Battistelli, Team UPC and the Select Committee Lie About It
Another example of UPC promotion from within the EPO (a committee dedicated to UPC promotion), in spite of everything we know about opposition to the UPC from small businesses (not the imaginary ones which Team UPC claims to speak 'on behalf' of)
Video: French State Secretary for Digital Economy Speaks Out Against Benoît Battistelli at Battistelli's PR Event
Uploaded by SUEPO earlier today was the above video, which shows how last year's party (actually 2015) was spoiled for Battistelli by the French State Secretary for Digital Economy, Axelle Lemaire, echoing the French government's concern about union busting etc. at the EPO (only to be rudely censored by Battistelli's 'media partner')
When EPO Vice-President, Who Will Resign Soon, Made a Mockery of the EPO
Leaked letter from Willy Minnoye/management to the people who are supposed to oversee EPO management
No Separation of Powers or Justice at the EPO: Reign of Terror by Battistelli Explained in Letter to the Administrative Council
In violation of international labour laws, Team Battistelli marches on and engages in a union-busting race against the clock, relying on immunity to keep this gravy train rolling before an inevitable crash
FFPE-EPO is a Zombie (if Not Dead) Yellow Union Whose Only de Facto Purpose Has Been Attacking the EPO's Staff Union
A new year's reminder that the EPO has only one legitimate union, the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO), whereas FFPE-EPO serves virtually no purpose other than to attack SUEPO, more so after signing a deal with the devil (Battistelli)
EPO Select Committee is Wrong About the Unitary Patent (UPC)
The UPC is neither desirable nor practical, especially now that the EPO lowers patent quality; but does the Select Committee understand that?
Links 1/1/2017: KDE Plasma 5.9 Coming, PelicanHPC 4.1
Links for the day
2016: The Year EPO Staff Went on Strike, Possibly “Biggest Ever Strike in the History of the EPO.”
A look back at a key event inside the EPO, which marked somewhat of a breaking point for Team Battistelli
Open EPO Letter Bemoans Battistelli's Antisocial Autocracy Disguised/Camouflaged Under the Misleading Term “Social Democracy”
Orwellian misuse of terms by the EPO, which keeps using the term "social democracy" whilst actually pushing further and further towards a totalitarian regime led by 'King' Battistelli
EPO's Central Staff Committee Complains About Battistelli's Bodyguards Fetish and Corruption of the Media
Even the EPO's Central Staff Committee (not SUEPO) understands that Battistelli brings waste and disgrace to the Office
Translation of French Texts About Battistelli and His Awful Perception of Omnipotence
The paradigm of totalitarian control, inability to admit mistakes and tendency to lie all the time is backfiring on the EPO rather than making it stronger
2016 in Review and Plans for 2017
A look back and a quick look at the road ahead, as 2016 comes to an end
Links 31/12/2016: Firefox 52 Improves Privacy, Tizen Comes to Middle East
Links for the day
Korea's Challenge of Abusive Patents, China's Race to the Bottom, and the United States' Gradual Improvement
An outline of recent stories about patents, where patent quality is key, reflecting upon the population's interests rather than the interests of few very powerful corporations
German Justice Minister Heiko Maas, Who Flagrantly Ignores Serious EPO Abuses, Helps Battistelli's Agenda ('Reform') With the UPC
The role played by Heiko Maas in the UPC, which would harm businesses and people all across Europe, is becoming clearer and hence his motivation/desire to keep Team Battistelli in tact, in spite of endless abuses on German soil
Links 30/12/2016: KDE for FreeBSD, Automotive Grade Linux UCB 3.0
Links for the day
Software Patents Continue to Collapse, But IBM, Watchtroll and David Kappos Continue to Deny and Antagonise It
The latest facts and figures about software patents, compared to the spinmeisters' creed which they profit from (because they are in the litigation business)
2016 Was a Terrible Year for Patent Trolls and 2017 Will Probably be a Lot Worse for Them
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is planning to weigh in on a case which will quite likely drive patent trolls out of the Eastern District of Texas, where all the courts that are notoriously friendly towards them reside
Fitbit’s Decision to Drop Patent Case Against Jawbone Shows Decreased Potency of Abstract Patents, Not Jawbone’s Weakness
The scope of patents in the United States is rapidly tightening (meaning, fewer patents are deemed acceptable by the courts) and Fitbit’s patent case is the latest case to bite the dust
The EPO Under Benoît Battistelli Makes the Mafia Look Like Rookies
Pretending there is a violent, physical threat that is imminent, Paranoid in Chief Benoît Battistelli is alleged to have pursued weapons on EPO premises
Links 29/12/2016: OpenELEC 7.0, Android Wear 2.0 Smartwatches Coming
Links for the day
Links 28/12/2016: OpenVPN 2.4, SeaMonkey 2.46
Links for the day
Bad Service at the European Patent Office (EPO) Escalated in the Form of Complaints to European Authorities/Politicians
A look at actions taken at a political level against the EPO in spite of the EPO's truly awkward exemption from lawfulness or even minimal accountability
No “New Life to Software Patents” in the US; That's Just Fiction Perpetuated by the Patent Microcosm
Selective emphasis on very few cases and neglect of various other dimensions help create a parallel reality (or so-called 'fake news') where software patents are on the rebound
Links 27/12/2016: Chakra GNU/Linux Updated, Preview of Fedora 26
Links for the day
Leaked: Letter to Quality Support (DQS) at the European Patent Office (EPO)
Example of abysmal service at the EPO, where high staff turnover and unreasonable pressure from above may be leading to communication issues that harm stakeholders the most
Negative Publicity (Personal or by Association With the EPO) is Devouring the Institution
Willy Minnoye, Ciarán McGinley, Lionel Baranès, Theano Evangelou and others near the top of the EPO pyramid recalled in light of old news about them
2017 Will be the Year Team Battistelli Collapsed and EPO 'Reform' Became All About Detoxifying the Organisation
Battistelli's circle (or "Team Battistelli") is starting to disintegrate, perhaps in anticipation of a tough year full of new leaks ("WillyLeaks" as some put it)
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
AlexH said,
May 13, 2008 at 5:11 am
Leaving a comment here because it doesn’t seem to be possible to correct the previous story about .net “in” Evolution.
It’s a separate module, and the policy for including .net technology in GNOME hasn’t changed a single jot. GNOME has no more .net dependency than it did before. The story is therefore wrong.
AlexH said,
May 13, 2008 at 5:13 am
I also meant to mention that describing mono as “shared source” is also obviously incorrect.
Mono is 100% free software. If it wasn’t, Debian and Fedora (amongst others) wouldn’t distribute it. The fact is that they do.
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 5:57 am
Hi Alex,
“It’s a separate module, and the policy for including .net technology in GNOME hasn’t changed a single jot.”
Okay, so semantically, I guess, it’s fair to say that there’s no ‘.net “in” Evolution’, but all these things are built to work together at the end, so removing them becomes hard/impractical to those who have grown dependent on use.
“I also meant to mention that describing mono as “shared source” is also obviously incorrect.”
I was referring to .NET (the phrasing has to be considered in context). Also see:
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/10/03/mono-death-trap/
AlexH said,
May 13, 2008 at 7:30 am
Roy,
It’s not hard or impractical to remove it, because it hasn’t been added in the first place. GNOME policy doesn’t allow it: no module in the Desktop release set (which is what Evolution is in) can gain a mono dependency without formal approval, which hasn’t yet been sought and hasn’t been given.
So, it’s not a semantic difference: it isn’t in Evolution in any meaningful way. This is so easy to verify for yourself:
http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/evolution-data-server/trunk/camel/providers/
As for “shared source” – you’re talking about .net not Mono? So, exactly _what_ part of .net is in GNOME? Can you name specifically a single example?
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 7:43 am
“GNOME policy doesn’t allow it: no module in the Desktop release set (which is what Evolution is in) can gain a mono dependency without formal approval, which hasn’t yet been sought and hasn’t been given.”
After the arguments we’ve had with Waugh over Tomboy I’m not so sure anymore. In general, the barriers are being bent.
“As for “shared source” – you’re talking about .net not Mono? So, exactly _what_ part of .net is in GNOME? Can you name specifically a single example?”
I’ve just reread the paragraph, which I typically write in a single quick pass (I don’t proofread properly, if at all, so explanations are bound to have typos, grammatical mistakes and some inaccuracies, like in most blogs)..
The shared source bit was a reference to “Microsoft ‘Shared Source’ Attempts to Hijack FOSS” in the same paragraph (via /. [1]) but I’ve changed “shared-sourced .NET” to “shared-sourced .NET clone” to clarify things.
Thanks for the valuable feedback. In retrospect, closing comments was not wise and I apologise.
___
[1] Sent to me some hours ago from a reader:
Microsoft “open source” strategy exposed and slashdotted
“Dear Roy:
Just in case you didn’t see it:
http://ostatic.com/161583-blog/read-the-fine-print-on-open-source-software
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/08/05/12/1325203.shtml
Slashdot titles it:
Microsoft ‘Shared Source’ Attempts to Hijack FOSS
Seems we are not as wrong as some like to portray us…”
AlexH said,
May 13, 2008 at 7:53 am
Barriers aren’t being bent, the stated policy has always been obeyed (unless you have some example you haven’t told us yet?)
I don’t understand your clarification. The text now says:
“Because GNOME continues to be contaminated with shared-sourced .NET clone and this time it’s Evolution, the E-mail client.”
That reads to me like you’re saying the “.net clone” is “shared-source” which is still wrong. The GNOME bindings aren’t a clone of any part of .net in any event.
Whether or not .net is shared source is basically irrelevant though. Samba is a clone of an obviously proprietary system, but no-one seriously argues that it’s not free software. Given that the organisations who help define what free software is (the FSF, Debian, Fedora, OSI, etc.) all accept Mono as being entirely free software I don’t see why that should be disputed.
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 8:00 am
“That reads to me like you’re saying the “.net clone” is “shared-source” which is still wrong. The GNOME bindings aren’t a clone of any part of .net in any event.”
Oops. You’re right. This was accidental. I didn’t reread after the change to spot the ambiguity.
“Whether or not .net is shared source is basically irrelevant though.”
Absolutely, but the paragraph speaks of Microsoft’s attempt to call things that are shared source-licensed “open source”. It’s the perception that plays a role here. Also see the eWeek article about the SCO-type effect.
LinuxIsFun said,
May 13, 2008 at 8:05 am
Any good book for J2EE ?
Btw what I meant was that the left margin for the website is too much – between the post and border. Around two inches !!
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 8:10 am
It probably depends on your screen’s resolution (mine is about 3900 pixels wide), but I think I know what you mean now. Hacking on the existing template to change this might screw up the layout of the archives, so I’d be careful when it comes to tinkering.
LinuxIsFun said,
May 13, 2008 at 8:31 am
My monitor is on 1024×768
Sun had a very disappointing quarter
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/
We also announced a restructuring plan, through which we’ll be making targeted reductions in operating expenses. The net result will be the elimination of up to 2,500 jobs.
Dan O'Brian said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:54 am
A couple of comments/thoughts:
1. As AlexH has already mentioned, his replacement plugin is not in the core evolution or evolution-data-server svn repositories nor has it been accepted into those modules yet afaict (there’s been no discussion on it on the mailing lists that I’ve seen).
2. He has the right to implement whatever he wants in whatever language he wants.
3. He posted a follow-up comment on his blog replying to someone complaining that he was doing it in C# that he would gladly step back and drop what he was doing if someone else “stepped up to the plate” to implement it in C. I think that’s fairly reasonable.
4. I noticed he posted an “Update:” to his blog yesterday or this morning mentioning that he’s already got it working. That’s pretty impressive that he got such a complicated protocol working in 2-3 days. Either he’s a programming genius or C# was the right tool for the job.
Just seems to me that throwing a fit over this is a bit childish.
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:18 am
Hi Dan,
I once asked Jeff to assure people in public that GNOME would not get further complicated — in the intellectual monopoly [sic] sense — with/by Mono. He could not quite “step up to the plate.” It was the same with his stance on OOXML. I still suspect (and I truly hope I’m wrong) that GNOME will get further tied to Mono and whatever accompanies the corresponding stack (Moonlight will need DRM for Silverlight compatibility). I mean, just look at GTK’s front page. It’s almost like there’s encouragement — if not begging — for people to give .NET a roll (but not Java, for instance). We need to assist the GPL and the patent-unencumbered where the company possessing the technology can be trusted. Microsoft is very hostile towards the GPL. Just watch what Bill Gates said a fortnight ago and what Ballmer said about Linux back in February. They don’t quite accept co-existence. They never did.
Jeff Waugh said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:23 am
Because your questions are laden with false assumptions, and you keep repeating the same old tired crap even after being corrected.
AlexH said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:49 am
Roy,
Whatever your disagreement with particular characters within the GNOME community, it doesn’t change the basic facts, and the issue is that your story gets those basic facts wrong.
You seem to be conflating two separate debates: the first is to what extent Mono code is in GNOME at the moment, the second is to what extent it might be in the future.
The problem is that your story gets the facts on point one wrong.
It’s quite possible that we could all agree to disagree on point two. I personally have no problem with Mono stuff being in GNOME on an IP basis; it’s completely free software and accepted as such by the entire community. If you don’t believe that, that’s fine, but you’re in a minority.
However, whatever your beliefs on point two, that doesn’t make it right to make unsubstantiated and unsupportable claims on point one to try to advance your agenda. I would give you the example of the story of the boy who cried wolf: while you’re posting stories on this site crying “Wolf!” when there is no wolf, you’re just going to stop people listening to you. If there is actually a wolf, you’re not going to convince anyone because they stopped listening a long time ago.
Challenger said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:08 am
it’s completely free software != free as in freedom
you have completely missed the point about free software
free is not in cost
free is in freedom
IP != free
think of it as free(dom) software
Challenger said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:10 am
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Free software is a matter of the users’ freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Challenger said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:12 am
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Free software is a matter of the users freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Challenger said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:14 am
Roy my post dont get published.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
More details on how abusive the word IP is
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/not-ipr.xhtml
Challenger2 said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:16 am
Roy my post dont get published.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
More details on how abusive the word IP is
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/not-ipr.xhtml
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:22 am
Alex, it’s not a “boy”. There’s a whole crowd here that cries “Wolf”. Look around you in other blogs to and find other people who realise just what Mono means to GNU/Linux. Mono is not free lunch. It’s essentially controlled by Microsoft. Look again at the new article from Glyn Moody.
Miles said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:25 am
Mono is free software as defined by the FSF.
You are free to fork it, free to modify it, free to distribute it – as free as wine or samba or any other project.
Miles said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:30 am
Roy: but you /are/ screaming wolf when there is none.
As AlexH and Dan have already pointed out, this new C# IMAP implementation is not in the core Evolution packages. Nor has there been any discussion to include it as such – nor to even replace the existing C implementation.
You jumped to conclusions with no facts to back it up.
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:32 am
@Challenger: If the comment does not appear immediately, then it’s because it entered moderation until I release it from that mysterious cage (I don’t control it).
Regarding Mono, it’s free software, but I think that’s the wrong point to address. Mono is a bridge leading to a world that’s dominated by proprietary technology, digital restrictions mess (DRM) and other discomforting things that ensure Linux plays catch-up rather than taking the lead.
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:34 am
Miles,
I think the context was a little more general (or broader) than this. It’s about Mono as a whole.
AlexH said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:39 am
@Challenger: I haven’t missed the point at all. Whenever I say “free software” I mean free as in freedom. Mono is completely free software. There is nothing wrong with implementing a .net clone, even the FSF/GNU project is doing that. There was nothing wrong with cloning Java, either.
@Roy: again, let’s try to discuss the facts, not the opinions of people. Whether it’s a boy crying wolf or a group of people shouting “fire!” in a cinema, the effect is the same. Claims are easy to check; I keep providing references, but I don’t see the corrections.
I don’t see what relevancy the Glyn Moody article has. His first line is “Imagine, though, a day when open source programs run well on Windows”. Indeed, imagine if Evolution *did* run well on Windows – think of all the Outlook users we could move onto free software!
But anyway, I don’t think you get what Glyn is talking about. He’s talking about making use of Windows-platform features in free software. Mono is obviously not a Windows platform feature (it’s not part of Windows..), and is therefore beside the point.
Miles said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:39 am
No, it’s not. You falsely stated that Evolution is gaining a Mono dependency for the new IMAP plugin.
This is not the case as is plainly obvious to anyone who actually does any sort of research whatsoever.
The only people who might still hold your opinion in high regard are quickly learning that you jump to conclusions so quickly you don’t bother to confirm anything before lashing out.
You just “assume”; and we all know what that means: It makes an arse out of you.
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Evolution will be getting extensions that are written in Mono and people are likely to require them (become dependent on them). We have been through this before.
http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&c2coff=1&q=site%3Aboycottnovell.com+evolution+extension+mono&btnG=Search
People also used to say that Moonlight is ‘safe’ and fair until Miguel himself lashed out.
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/03/07/mono-moonlight-eureka/
Challenger2 said,
May 13, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Mono is completely free software. There is nothing wrong with implementing a .net clone, even the FSF/GNU project is doing that. There was nothing wrong with cloning Java, either.
We would have believed that if Novell didnt signed a patent protection deal with MS.
Miles said,
May 13, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I suppose you want to live in a world like in Minority Report, where people are punished for crimes they have not committed, but that an “oracle” said would occur (and which were sometimes, if not usually, wrong).
Good luck to you in your fantasy world.
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 12:42 pm
What are you talking about, Miles? We *already* have the GPLv3.
Miles said,
May 13, 2008 at 2:29 pm
What are you talking about? Did I say anything about GPLv3? I don’t think so.
You are punishing the GNOME community for something which has not happened but that you are predicting will happen.
When you linked to those google search results, all I could find were articles you wrote saying you predict it will happen, a few that claimed it had but were disproven, and other hysterics of yours.
It seems to me that you think if you predict the end of the world enough times, eventually it’ll happen.
AlexH said,
May 13, 2008 at 3:06 pm
@Challenger2:
Novell’s deal with Microsoft is totally irrelevant to mono.
First, Novell’s deal doesn’t protect them: it protects their customers. They’re not allowed to implement Microsoft patented technology.
Second, Novell’s deal explicitly doesn’t cover Mono. Mono is classed as a “clone product”, you simply need to read the agreement:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.mspx
The patent deal just has absolutely nothing to do with this. Even Roy admits that Mono is entirely free software.
Shane Coyle said,
May 13, 2008 at 5:58 pm
First, Novell’s deal doesn’t protect them: it protects their customers. They’re not allowed to implement Microsoft patented technology.
Well, actually Novell does receive a retroactive blanket patent license from MS as part of their agreement, according to a 10-Q filed by them after the deal, as well as a patent license for the hypercall API, and the deal was all redacted to hell, so it is difficult to say what they may implement from MS’ portfolio, and/or why they’ve agreed to pay ongoing royalties on ‘open source software shipped under the agreement‘, if not for a right-to-use license for their customers, but no one knows exactly what of Microsoft’s they’ve a right to use.
Hope that clears things up a bit ;^ )
Dan O'Brian said,
May 13, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I just took a look at this new IMAP plugin. It’s written in C you dumb fucks. All this anti-GNOME/anti-Evolution/anti-Novell mud flinging by you guys and it turns out that Roy totally misinterpreted what this developer said!
After checking out the source code and reading the actual blog entry, it sounds to me more like he started off saying he wishes he could have written it in C#, but he never once states that he did write it in C#.
Once again, Roy’s lack of reading comprehension skills and overzealous conclusion-jumping bites him in the arse.
Consider yourself once again proven a complete and utter fool, Roy.
Research, Roy. Research. That’s what responsible people do before they start flinging mud.
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Shane, media.edu-nix has been down for about a day (just thought you might have missed it).
Dan, I’ve read it more carefully this time. The source which sent me this saw it as another step towards Evolution’s extensions that are written in C#. Further down in the comments you can see that not only us are concerned.
Jeff Waugh said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:35 pm
… and yet you have this great big hand-waving whine-fest about GNOME (and link to completely irrelevant articles about me, which is ridiculous regardless of your disingenuous commentary). What does Jeff’s project have to do with GNOME, or the GNOME community deciding to do anything? People hack on all kinds of shit all the time.
You seriously do not understand how FLOSS works, or how to research the issues you raise. You are doing more damage than good by publishing ill-informed tripe, assumptions and insinuations (mostly damage to your credibility, but it’s also divisive crap).
Lots of weaseling about whether or not Mono is “Free Software”. You keep having to justify your position because you can’t actually point to anything useful to support it.
Mono is Free Software. There is absolutely no question about it. You can write Free Software with Mono. There is absolutely no question about it. Whether Mono, or writing software using it, is a good idea, is an entirely different issue, and one that benefits from a nuanced and informed view. Not amateurish propaganda imagery and idiotic assumptions from someone who clearly does not understand how FLOSS actually works in the real world.
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:00 pm
> Lots of weaseling about whether or not Mono is “Free Software”.
Technically, Mono *is* Free software. However, Free software you can also redistribute and a newly-addressed issue is those divisive patent deals, such as that which Microsoft signed with Novell.
It’s the wrong question to ask.
Jeff Waugh said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:13 pm
It is not the wrong question to ask at all. This further demonstrates your problem with the nuance and subtlety of very complicated issues.
You suggest that the Novell/Microsoft deal makes the viability of using Mono in a FLOSS context a black and white issue. It simply does not. It merely adds further complexity to an already complex issue (of patents, law, competition, strategy, many things).
Mono is undoubtedly and unashamedly Free Software. Canonical and Red Hat have concluded that it is safe for them to ship Mono, but they have not embraced it strategically.
All you have is bad research, no practical understanding of FLOSS development or commercial reality, a polarised opinion, and amateurish propaganda images.
To make a useful and measured statement about the problems with the Novell/Microsoft agreement, you need to focus on the key issues that pertain to it, rather than attacking and demonising everything to do with Novell, Microsoft, and anyone you suggest is “working with them” by making up rubbish.
Your unreasonable perspective on the world is reflected in your unreasonable, unproductive and unhinged approach.
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:18 pm
This *still* does not address the problem at hand. You deliver a little speech here about some unrelated things while acknowledging that “It [Mono] merely adds further complexity to an already complex issue (of patents, law, competition, strategy, many things).”
Jeff Waugh said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:25 pm
So define the problem at hand, ask real questions, do some research, and stop pissing off the people you purport to help.
You incorrectly summarised my point. It was not Mono adding further complexity to Mono, it was the Microsoft/Novell deal adding further complexity to Mono.
Woods said,
May 14, 2008 at 12:44 am
@Dan: Of course current camel-imap4 is written in C, since it’s an initial import and a straight copy of camel/providers/imap4 in Evolution Data Servers SVN. Lack of research? Pot, kettle, black…
@Roy: English language sure is fun with these mercurial definitions. Perhaps one should label Mono more as “encumbered” software (due to possible patent threats and poisoning of FOSS) instead using the word “free” anywhere around it.
Then again, this seems to be a problem mostly for those few who are dead set on seeing you be wrong.
Some of us silence aberrant voices around us simply by covering our ears, others seems to take a more, ahem, vocal way.
Alex H. said,
May 14, 2008 at 2:07 am
@Shane: Mono is explicitly excluded. You’re not clearing anything up; you’re talking about patents which are nothing to do with Mono and then say that demonstrates lack of clarity on the issue. I’ve linked you to the actual agreement, though, which explicitly excludes Mono.
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.
Niklas (sic!) Koswinkle said,
May 14, 2008 at 2:24 am
No. The only problem is that Roy is a sad failure as a researcher and as a writer, but he is very loud about it. Instead of focusing on the few points where critical questions could with some expertise be raised, he is yelling blue murder and accusing everyone of conspiring against the free world, including the GNOME board!
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.
Niklas (sic!) Koswinkle said,
May 14, 2008 at 2:25 am
(My ‘No.’ was directed at Woods; I should have quoted him, sorry.)
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.
Dan O'Brian said,
May 14, 2008 at 8:38 am
Woods: As I’m sure you have seen by looking at the ChangeLog, it was more than just an initial import – it is plain to see that he actively worked on it (and in fact was even the original author of the code to begin with).
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).
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 14, 2008 at 8:41 am
I’ve just added a correction at the top.
Woods said,
May 14, 2008 at 11:32 am
>As I’m sure you have seen by looking at the ChangeLog, it was more than just an initial import…
(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)
shane coyle said,
May 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm
OK, maybe I’m a bit slow, but here are the google patent search results for Microsoft + .net (beware! spurious software patents on other end of link)
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:
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.
Dan O'Brian said,
May 14, 2008 at 9:52 pm
How is that a license for you and Roy to go accusing developers, projects and Novell for things which might not even be true?
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.
Dan O'Brian said,
May 14, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Woods: Seeing as how his C implementation of camel-imap4 is fully functional (afaict; having actually used it for a day), there doesn’t seem to be much reason to rewrite it in C# – what would be the point? It already works now.
Instead of speculating, though, why not ask him if it really concerns you?
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 14, 2008 at 10:10 pm
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.
Jeff Waugh said,
May 14, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Unreasonable? It’s a 100% FLOSS implementation of a language/platform definition (ie. better position than Java until just recently), interfacing with a 100% FLOSS user interface platform. A Mono/GTK+ application is 100% FLOSS with no dependencies on proprietary technology whatsoever.
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).
Woods said,
May 15, 2008 at 12:36 am
Dan:
>there doesn’t seem to be much reason to rewrite it in C# – what would be the point? It already works now.
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))
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 15, 2008 at 12:46 am
I am personally still curious about this article:
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.
Niklas (sic!) Koswinkle said,
May 15, 2008 at 4:41 am
That’s Roy for you.
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.
Dan O'Brian said,
May 15, 2008 at 6:23 am
Woods:
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?).
Dan O'Brian said,
May 15, 2008 at 6:31 am
Roy: Instead of simply speculating about why Mono was split into different components and assuming the worst, why not ask the Mono team?
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.
Roy Schestowitz said,
May 15, 2008 at 6:58 am
Dan, I didn’t claim it was true (I don’t know if it is); I only said that a Mono advocate said it to me directly in this blog.
Woods said,
May 15, 2008 at 6:59 am
Dan:
>To anyone who is subscribed to the mailing lists…
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.
Jeff Waugh said,
May 15, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Is it amazing that Roy “No Questions” Schestowitz is also lazy enough to be Roy “No Answers” Schestowitz? Not at all…
Niklas (sic!) Koswinkle said,
May 16, 2008 at 2:57 am
;D
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.