You consistently make these “mistakes”, but you haven’t yet changed your ways and continue to make them (which makes me and a lot of other people believe you do it on purpose).

I’ve just looked back at what gave me the impression that Linux Planet used to say that GNOME would be based on .NET. It was this:

http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/23/gnome-mono-dep/ (see the two URLs in the quote)

I now realise that I must have mixed the two adjacent URLs (Register and Linux Planet), so you’re right. I got caught up in the impression that the latter had changed. It wasn’t, and I apologise. I tried to check this to verify before, but wasn’t successful. There was an argument about the article from The Register later (especially the headline) and I was convinced it’s based on Linux Planet (where I publish sometimes). You were right and I was wrong.

Yes, indeed. I’ve just checked the links in here and it’s pretty safe to say that a few weeks/months ago, Miguel or somebody else from GNOME told the editors to change the headline (maybe the body as well) of this article.

If you follow the google search link below, it is plainly obvious that Roy has lied. The article’s title was not changed at all.

Google search link

Note especially the mailing-list archive with a message just days after the original publishing referring to the article with the current headline.

Looks like Roy’s been caught with his hand in the liar jar.

1. Shipping with at least a Mono application BY DEFAULT (i.e. Tomboy) is more than “association”, it’s SUPPORTING.

2. RECOMMENDING Tomboy (a Mono app) in the OFFICIAL presentation of a GNOME release is more than “association”, see:
http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.16/index.html.en#rnfeatures-tomboy
http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.18/index.html.en#detail
http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.20/index.html.en#rnusers-tomboy

Still, you don’t *technically* depend on Mono. YET.

>>> apt-get remove –purge `dpkg -l | grep mono | awk ‘{print $2}’`

The list of items that was removed was impressive:

f-spot* gnome-rdp* libart2.0-cil* libgconf2.0-cil* libglade2.0-cil* libglib2.0-cil* libgmime2.2-cil* libgnome-vfs2.0-cil* libgnome2.0-cil* libgtk2.0-cil* libgtkhtml2.0-cil* libmono-cairo1.0-cil* libmono-corlib1.0-cil* libmono-corlib2.0-cil* libmono-data-tds1.0-cil*
libmono-data-tds2.0-cil* libmono-security1.0-cil* libmono-security2.0-cil* libmono-sharpzip0.84-cil* libmono-sharpzip2.84-cil* libmono-sqlite1.0-cil* libmono-sqlite2.0-cil* libmono-system-data1.0-cil* libmono-system-data2.0-cil* libmono-system-web1.0-cil*
libmono-system-web2.0-cil* libmono-system1.0-cil* libmono-system2.0-cil* libmono0* libmono1.0-cil* libmono2.0-cil* libndesk-dbus-glib1.0-cil* libndesk-dbus1.0-cil* librsvg2.0-cil* libvte2.0-cil* mono-common* mono-gac* mono-jit* mono-runtime* tomboy

Out of all these, I’ve noticed that Ubuntu has made a big deal about f-spot and tomboy. I personally am not happy about that, as I think this is a dangerous path to follow. However, I am not detecting much dependency of GNOME on mono as of this time as far as this popular distribution is concerned. I have been running without mono for some time now and everything else in GNOME still seems to work.

In my mind, Ubuntu — and any others that follow this trend toward using Mono or C# for that matter — should be the ones that we as the Linux community should monitor closely. Linux has been able to make great decisions in the past, and I think that she’ll continue to do so in the future.

Whistleblowers are never popular, however I thank you, and applaud you, Roy, for bringing this to our attention. I’ll personally be in the lookout for this in the future. However, at this time, I do fail to see the connection between GNOME and Mono other than by association (which is itself somewhat too close for comfort), not by technical dependency.

My 2 cents as well.

I have seen a lot of smooth talking assholes who end up back stabbing you one day for their own personal gains.

Talking nice things and acting in a way that totally undermines ones reputation. I rather be with a person who will tell the right thing and act in the right way even if it sounds bad.

My 2 cents.

Icaza and Jeff are going down the wrong road. They way they are acting is damaging gnome and foss in the long run.

Pursuit for truth and liability for crimes/corruption shouldn’t harm anyone’s reputation, apart from those who carry guilt. A person who ‘dares’ to report abuse, misuse or misconduct is bound to become a victim of personal attacks and smear campaigns, but whose word you trust is a separate matter altogether.

All your website does is undermining Linux users’ reputation. Not all of us are wearing tinfoil hats.

Prior to joining this site (a couple of weeks after the Novell deal) I realised that I was looking at the wrong problems by advocating GNU/Linux for years. When someone walks around offering bounties on Linux’s head and bribing diplomats, then clearly it’s important to put a stop to it. Things are more complex they you wish for them to be. Microsoft will never let Linux just win based on technical merits. It plays hardball. It cheats. Just look back at the OS/2 days. Microsoft continues to use the same tactics (if not much worse) and it’s worth attention so that it can be combated effectively.

Lastly, to use an analogy. If you always just praise a young person for everything, he or she might never improve. It’s by pointing out problems that things will improve. Just because I’m pointing out the problems doesn’t mean I make them. At least I don’t find endless problems in actual GNU/Linux distributions and publicizing them like Beranger does. I think /that’s/ damaging because it can be used against us.

You know, just saying how Microsoft’s FUD gets generated (and why) does not make it FUD.

It is FUD when you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. You don’t work at either Microsoft or Novell (or do you?). You aren’t a lawyer. You don’t choose the direction of either company. As far as I can tell, all you do is sit on your ass and post crap to forums and web sites all day long. You don’t know what is and isn’t FUD with regards to Mono, Microsoft, Novell, or anything else. That’s the entire point of FUD. All you’re doing is buying into it, because you are full of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t have this web site up to post your trash on. You would be confident and knowing of what was happening, and that things would end in a good way. Instead, here you are, revelling in the FUD.

This argument is hopeless.

Your methods are just as ugly as Steve Ballmer’s.

It’s a shame that it is the website of a so-called ‘free-software-evangelist’. If asked whether I would rather be forced to spend an hour with Steve Ballmer of with Roy Schestowitz I’d have think about it for a very long time.

I’m not concerned about what Rodney says about me. I am entirely comfortable with my position in GNOME, and the respect that I have earned among a very broad majority of members of the project. Those who work in public roles get a lot of crap from time to time, and I’m used to it.

Yes. I’m quite used to get plenty crap as well, especially from you.

I wouldn’t exactly say that you’ve earned respect, though, so much as created a facade of it.
You came in with the premise of being the face of GNOME, rather than working up to it. You came in and took advantage of the fact that we didn’t have marketing or publicity, setting yourself up to be in the position you wanted to be in. Ever since you “joined” this community, you have done nothing for me, but provide mockery and insult. Your attitude and behavior leave much to be desired in the way of professionalism. Being in your position is nothing more to you than a tick on your resume.

Please stop speaking about me in blog comments. It is rather unbecoming of your position.

As far as I’m concerned, you and Roy are both on the same level.

Yes, indeed. I’ve just checked the links in here and it’s pretty safe to say that a few weeks/months ago, Miguel or somebody else from GNOME told the editors to change the headline (maybe the body as well) of this article. It used to say something about GNOME being rewritten in Mono. At the time, RMS was very concerned about this article. He proceeded to asking Miguel to explain his motives, IIRC. There was also a clarification (damage control) in LinuxToday. I’d have to check the details and research this better when time permits it. It’s intent and deed combined that will give us some answers.

To quote an E-mail I received on Saturday:

[about friendly acquaintances with de Icaza:]

Don’t confuse words with deeds, especially claimed intent. How familiar are you with “Coyote” legends, from your part of the country more or less? Or known ‘kind’ people who manage to turn everything around them to shit?

[...]

Again to dismiss or minimize the problem by framing it as one of emotions furthers the harm. If you mean that the anger is caused by Miguel’s and Bruce’s [Lowry] apparent efforts to subvert, block or undermine FOSS, then that’s correct. But it might be more accurate to address the problem behavior itself – the undermining and subversion.

To single out Miguel, perhaps he really is so tarded, dumb or naive, that he thinks FOSS will somehow come out ahead by copying M$ broken, proprietary gimmicks into their systems without written assurances of approval. But at the end of the day it matters not what he thinks, besides we cannot know what he thinks. We can only see the results of his actions and these have been consistently bad. c.f. recent debate over backing MOOX.