NOVELL needs to keep their dirty hands off Linux and GNOME. Take your MONO shit and leave. They have ***ked SuSE and now they are after GNOME.

GNOME is a work of lot of developers and other people and Jeff and Icaza have no right to destroy it. What they are doing is just unthinkable.

I personally call for boycott of NOVELL employees/Jeff Waugh/Miguel de Icaza from GNOME community. The Judas Iscariot of the free software . They dont want to remmembered as the traitor of the free software.

Roy, from now on you’re called the RITA SKEETER of open-source. :p

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

Roy, from now on you’re called the RITA SKEETER of open-source. :p :p

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

Roy, from now on you’re called the RITA SKEETER of open-source. :p

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

Roy, from now on you’re called the RITA SKEETER of open-source. :p

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

The issue here is not the opinion expressed; it is about a person helping a monopoly which fights his own creation — GNOME. It’s a long story.

Alan Bell
http://www.theopenlearningcentre.com

…you’re just creating wedge issues in the community, spreading propaganda…

Heh. You’ve just described what Microsoft and Novell do.

Asking the readers questions is not a case of stating fact or suggesting something is a fact. Also, the main point of the paragraph is now what you’re trying to suggest (for your own purposes/favour/convenience). It’s intended to say that GNOME receives donations and we’re wondering what effect the Novell/Microsoft deal had on these donations (project aspirations/direction aside). Like many others, I am also curious about Miguel de Icaza’s goals and the interests of those who fund it all.

I think you’re nitpicking here. We all have our inclinations (influences by background, perspective, ambitions, etc.) and we are permitted to express our opinions in public. It’s even a constitutional right in the United States.

We needn’t end up like this (from the news).

This is completely ridiculous, and you should be absolutely ashamed of your behaviour and disrespect towards GNOME and the FLOSS community.

GOOD LORD! Now I need to do research before leaving COMMENTS on the Web, which ARE, by my own admission, speculative?

It still appears as though you consider blog posts to be bits that require journal-quality reviews and now the same goes for blog comments.

Many journalists, an increasing majority of which maintain professional blobs, consider it their workbench. This is where things are discussed and studied. That’s why there is room for comments, unlike articles.

I am also coming to discover that you are not necessarily supportive of Mono (or maybe you just speak collectively, on behalf of the larger group).

GOOD LORD! Do your research! ASK QUESTIONS! The reason you don’t know these things is because you haven’t done the ABSOLUTE BASICS of research for all of these accusations — you have not even ASKED me. This is completely ridiculous, and you should be absolutely ashamed of your behaviour and disrespect towards GNOME and the FLOSS community.

It is absolutely hilarious that you think our ECMA statement “represents everyone and upsets no-one”. You’re clearly not doing even basic research about GNOME, let alone asking questions of stakeholders. Hilarious.

I’m referring to the scenario where you couldn’t just directly say that the “GNOME Foundation does not support OOXML” (or something along those lines), arguing that a developer’s perspective might be different from that of all users. I can’t recall where I read this (and the exact working/situation), but I can find out if you wish and then get back to you.

This is by all means understandable, Jeff. We actually have more in common than it seems. Both of us recognise the fact that the patent system — as broken and irreparable as it may be (even in Australia) — is becoming an issue that Linux developers and users cannot completely ignore. I am also coming to discover that you are not necessarily supportive of Mono (or maybe you just speak collectively, on behalf of the larger group).

Let it be clarified that the reason we ever touch these issue is because:

1. OOXML is a patent timebomb, it is impossible to implement, and it is a moving target (Microsoft is not committed to its own ECMA standard).
2. Mono is a patent timebomb, which has already left Linspire and Xandros bare (I haven’t yet checked to see how Turbolinux fits into this).

There are several more such issues. Failing to ignore these dangers is a route to following Microsoft’s desires. Microsoft does not play nice with Linux (it only pretend to). It wants Linux subverted to the point of being unattractive and encapsulated within ‘legal’ distributor/s, which can be squashed like a typical business. Remember those antitrust memos about Microsoft “tilting [opponents] into the death spiral”? How about the “we need to slaughter Novell” exhibit?