Comments on: GNOME’s Evolution Proceeds as Planned? http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/ 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: lalala http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68859 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:18:20 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68859 Thank you, I was unaware of some of those names.

]]> By: G. Michaels http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68858 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:07:54 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68858

Troll infestation is proportional to the degree it worries Microsoft.

As long as we’re into the usual conspiracy theories, I would posit that the extraordinary efforts your nymshifters are engaged in right now is an indication that you’ve become desperate. It’s not uncommon for people in difficult situations to project that way.

In this sense, DiamonWakizashi/AstralKnight/CyberPhoenix/Mark Fink on Digg/Reddit/Mixx/Ubuntu and twitter/Erris/Mactrope/gnutoo/willeyhill/westbake/inTheLoo/Odder/ibane/deadzero/freenix/mycopywrong/GNUChop/right handed/etc on Slashdot are a valuable asset to you, no doubt.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68857 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:39:01 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68857 No, you’re usually polite. Being biased (you work with Novell) does not make one a “troll”.

]]> By: JohnD http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68855 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:04:49 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68855 Hmmm, I wonder – am I a troll?

]]> By: twitter http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68854 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:00:42 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68854 Yep.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68852 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:36:27 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68852 Troll infestation is proportional to the degree it worries Microsoft.

]]> By: Dylan McCall http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68851 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:35:01 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68851 You don’t need to work for Microsoft or Novell to be bothered by this web site.

(Having said that, I think the crazy guessing about who is a nymshift of who needs to stop on both ends because it doesn’t achieve anything of benefit and it has the potential of really harming people who are falsely accused of it).

]]> By: DiamondWakizashi http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68850 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:13:22 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68850 This website has a nasty Microsoft//Novell troll infestation.

]]> By: G. Michaels http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68849 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:57:55 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68849 Another comment from the BoycottNovell Perception Management Mafia ……… DOWN VOTED!!

http://www.reddit.com/user/AstralKnight/

:)

]]> By: lalala http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68848 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:29:08 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68848 A person just has to look at your different names and see the connection between them and then there’s the writing style, that’s also easy to recognize.

]]> By: DiamondWakizashi http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68847 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:20:28 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68847 Microsoft/Novell trolls are funny. LOL!

]]> By: lalala http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68846 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:48:05 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68846 Hey astralknight, long time no see.

]]> By: DiamondWakizashi http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68845 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:30:57 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68845 People should boycott software infected with that Mono crap.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68843 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:18:17 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68843 I did. You should do the same. :-)

]]> By: Dylan McCall http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/comment-page-1/#comment-68841 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:57:54 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/?p=14181#comment-68841 That article is strange. Its only mention of Mono being included in GNOME is at the beginning, where it is stated that GNOME has shipped Tomboy with a regular release. (Is that accurate, actually? If I recall correctly, Tomboy is merely hosted on gnome.org, like fspot, and there is no current dependency on Mono. I may be out of it, though…).

The article goes on to describe two major candidates for new modules in GNOME 3.0, neither of which has anything to do with Mono. We are reminded that the people who handle GNOME releases apply common sense and try to focus on the end user experience in shipping software.

Probably the most relevant thing here is Dave Neary saying that he has yet to see a compelling module proposal written in Java. This makes lots of sense to me, given that any Java app is woefully out of place in the GNOME environment. (GTK+ is rather a necessity unless you have a Very Good Reason or just don’t have a GUI).

Otherwise, the article just says that the GNOME project is willing to support Mono apps and somehow paints that like something has changed. Really, though, it doesn’t have anything to do with Mono. This article is a ridiculous, unnecessary, very distant glimpse at GNOME’s release process.

Your article takes the article’s somewhat off topic, nearly sensationalist headline and amplifies it for no good reason. Your summary here has, from what I can see (maybe I don’t have enough space between the lines), absolutely nothing to do with the article. You are just using the link (and only the link; not the content inside of that page) as a catalyst for the latest crazed nonsense you have dreamed up.

Roy, did you RTFA?

]]>