RMS Asks Miguel to Explain Himself 631
phaze3000 writes "RMS, responding to questions from the audience at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil last week, has asked Miguel de Icaza to explain himself to the Free software community about comments made last week that Gnome should be based on .NET in the future. More details at Brazillian site Hotbits and in The Register." I find this amusing.
News? (Score:2, Insightful)
RMS takes offense.
OK, who was suprised???
Re:News? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but he didn't say that GNOME would be based on MONO technology. He said it would be based on ".NET" technology. While we all know that it would have to be MONO to run on Linux, his statement becomes an extremely powerful marketing tool for Microsoft. As such, RMS would rightly be opposed to such a statement.
Reality check for RMS (Score:4, Interesting)
The man is getting old and it shows.
Actually, the opposite is true (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe you've got it backwards.
Keep in mind the number of GPL evangelists in the world. Not many, hey? Certainly not enough, and definitely none with the power that Microsoft's PR department has.
We should be thankful that there's a guy out there who risks mockery on a regular basis in order to try to ensure some balance. His role isn't to represent the average coder, it's to give us an extreme point of view opposite of what's normally given out there in the world of software -- corporate corporate corporate.
The man is getting old and it shows.
Look, if you don't like him, tune him out. But don't underestimate his importance. He gives us balance where the Microsoft monopoly would like us to believe it's their right to bleed us dry of every penny we've got. You might as well criticize the Yin Yang symbol for not being all gray.
Re:Reality check for RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
First I think his statement was more political than technical. I think he see the money that is possible through the
I don't see how buying into Microsoft's vision of
I think Miguel has become a follower--especially of Microsoft. I think he has lost his forward vision. I think he should step back from all leadership positions he has on Gnome (if any) and let others take over. His statements in the interview smell of someone buying into marketing hype because they lost their independant thought and no longer truely see a goal.
With that said, the is one thing I like about the
Re:Reality check for RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
If RMS 'alienates' developers because he sees the 'killer app' that will put undoubtly make Microsoft's interests a more powerful force behind future technology and information legislation than social and governmental (although the Bush administration is less of a government, and more of a door greaser for the Microsofts of the world) interests, good for him. Developers that abandon his 'radical' prinicipals will undoubtly find themselves on the wrong side of a swing that history prooves has already swung to far. The guy spends his time looking furthur, knowing more, rather than protecting his own interests. Those developers who are 'alienated' by his views are only thinking about their own interests, given the Vegas numbers on MS's chances with
Incidentally, I'm of the opinion that in the past few years, this has become less about 'business' per se, and more of a religion. MS is a church for market pricing (a state enforced system, very evident under the Bush administration, natch). RMS is a church for decentralized social pricing (which is to say that nothing is 'free', but that the cost/worth of software simply gets entwined with social values under his system, as goods and services were before the 16th and 17th century
makes you wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:makes you wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
This is turning into a Monty Python skit... (Score:5, Funny)
HAVOC: I didn't expect the GNU Inquisition.
MIGUEL: Neither did I.
*door blasts open*
RMS: NOOOOOOOOObody expects the GNU Inquisition! Confess! Confess! Confess!
blah, don't have my funny legs on today...
Re:This is turning into a Monty Python skit... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is turning into a Monty Python skit... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is turning into a Monty Python skit... (Score:3, Funny)
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
:-)
future? (Score:2)
So what if Miguels answer isn't satisfactory?
I guess I'll wait and see... and use AfterStep in the meantime ;-)
Improving usablility (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Improving usablility (Score:2)
I usually hate to use terms like "complete domination" but, in this case, i gelive that is true. That is why this will be a bad move for GNOME
Re:Improving usablility (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Improving usablility (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a *little* disconcerting for some, but I applaud Miguel's willingness to embrace the technologies he feels are best, regardless of the political fallout.
Then you're a useless applauding moron. There are more than "political fallout" issues at stake here. It's senseless to "applaud" one dimension of a decision that can have such multi-dimensional consequences.
I agree with RMS - Miguel, you got some 'splainin' to do.
Unix walking into MS steps ?! (Score:2)
Cloning and reimplementing
Poor Miguel (Score:5, Interesting)
There could be a problem if MS shifts the spec or extends the spec. At that point if Miguel decides to chase MS he loses. If he decides to "fork"
I think Miguel knows what he is doing. I say give him a chance if history is any indicator he will kick ass.
In essence
Re:Poor Miguel (Score:2, Funny)
What do you mean "if"?
Is there really any doubt that embrace and extend is next on MS's to-do list with the
Re:Poor Miguel (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand it would be short-sighted of them to make v2 incompatible with v1 for no other reason than it would piss off their loyal developer following immensely. They'll add new features, but I'm pretty sure that old .NET assemblies will still run on the new system. Microsoft has been very careful to continue their binary compatibility up the operating system line (DOS apps ran on win31/win9x, most dos/win31 apps run on NT/2K/XP, etc...) They would lose far more than they could possibly gain by changing this.
Re:Poor Miguel (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft has no qualms about pissing off their (locked-in) developer community. They've repeatedly broke compatibility in every possible way. Why anyone trusts Microsoft, I'll never know. Microsoft's history (the real history, not Bill Gate's rewritten version) should scare anyone away. I'm guessing that you're either extremely young, extrememly naive, extremely forgetful, or paid by Microsoft (the last one was a joke).
-Paul Komarek
Re:Poor Miguel (Score:3, Informative)
Couldn't agree more.
Just a while back I found some STL code to be broken in VC++ 6.0 that worked fine in VC++5.0 - Funny how the MFC stuff still works though. It seems that they target what to break. Breaking STL code is a no-brainer because that fosters apps that are more portable and from the MS standpoint that is bad.
So what does the average developer do? Avoid code rewrite and code to MFC - they (Microsoft) win.
Regarding Miguel's Actions:
.NET as the underlying technology, KDE wins (If it hasn't already).
I also believe Miguel is not thinking this through. But as has been said often here: Once the code GNU'd it can't be undone. Also if the Gnome project adopts
Re:Poor Miguel (Score:4, Informative)
Very few DOS apps ran correctly? Bullshit. Before win95 shipped, the win95 QA team went to Egghead and bought a copy of every title on the shelves and either made sure that they ran or informed the authors of the bad assumptions they had made in their code and how to patch them. Sometimes the application was directly patched at runtime by the OS. For example some applications would make use of undocumented behavior (like the burgermaster table in win13) that wasn't available on the new system.
Re:Poor Miguel (Score:3, Insightful)
Riiiiight. Like they way they properly implemented kerberos so that it works properly one way: with windoze servers and windoze clients. The rest have a "broken" (read, correct and following the REAL standard implementation).
Same with .NET. M$ servers authenticating and serving and collecting user data, collecting transaction fees for every single purchase made over the net. Everyone not M$ have a "broken" implementation and only partially working...but well enough so M$ can still collect your personal data, collect fees for transactions, etc.
No "if" about it (Score:4, Insightful)
No one who's been paying attention has any doubt whether MS will extend the standard. All they have to do is require a (patented) process to access a single part of the system.
Remember,
With Microsoft being the defacto standard, Gnome needs a compelling reason for people to switch. Aiming for where Microsoft was two months ago doesn't provide that. More importantly, if Miguel were to attempt to fork
Oi the irony... (Score:4, Insightful)
he ALREADY explained himself - RTF article, RMS! (Score:5, Informative)
"What's important to keep in mind is that you do not actually use the Windows API in
hello, what exactly needs further explanation? its brilliant.
"Freedom" (Score:4, Funny)
Go RMS go! (Score:2, Redundant)
The most likely short-term effect of this declaration is that some people are going to migrate from GNOME to KDE...perhaps, in his way, de Icaza has succeeded in solving the so-called "Desktop Manager Wars"! (Personally, I use GNOME, but KDE is okay...)
slashdotted... and my opinion (Score:2)
I think Gnome is a really nice desktop and today as good as KDE, but if it wants to keep up with the really impressive KDE progress, the Gnome-developers have to concentrate on Gnome Development, not on reverse engineering a MS technology! Linux doesn't need
Miguel's vision is better than RMS's (Score:5, Insightful)
He realizes that without a VM and the cross-(hardware)-platform capabilities it gives, Linux apps are going to be very hard to distribute in future. Normal consumers simply aren't going to run C compilers, yet the Linux "architecture" takes absolutely no account of this.
By the way, it is customary for the 'strategic VM' debate to be ignored in
Re:Miguel's vision is better than RMS's (Score:3, Insightful)
With all the crap that windows users deal with when they install software (multiple reboots, the disk spending more time loading splash screens than copying software, registry corruption, icons all over the place) why do you think they won't wait through a compile?
Re:Miguel's vision is better than RMS's (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Windows is moving to something called Dotnet precisely because of cross-platform installation issues. The comparison to make is with Dotnet apps, not with current Win32 apps.
2) You're quite right that there's no reason that installers can't build software. This doesn't mean that this is a simple thing to do for typical Linux apps - I can't run a big build process on my palmtop, not have dependency, signing and other aspects been solved in the Linux world as they have in Dotnet. If MS thought that 'imagination' was the only thing lacking in Win32, presumably they wouldn't have bothered developing Dotnet.
Did you start computing in 1999? (Score:5, Informative)
Rewind the clock. The AIM alliance (Apple, IBM, Motorola) are cranking out faster PPC chips, the Alpha research project is bearing fruit, and Intel can't get the Pentium to move. They start playing tricks like they did at the end of the 486 era with faster processors then busses, but they can't really get the speed up.
Intel looks like a dead end.
Microsoft's NT project looks like it will divorce them from Intel. Their NTVDM, based on an old OS/2 VDM (IBM's later version was better) can emulate the entire 286 instruction set, so you can run DOS apps inside of it. They develop NT on a non-Intel architecture (rumored to be MIPS) to avoid any Intel specific shortcuts.
NT 3.51 supports the MIPS (there was a project with several companies to build a desktop PC on the MIPS line, NT was the OS, and Intel pulled tech specs for their stuff from everyone involved ).
NT 3.51 supports the PPC. They are scared of Taligent Pink, the Apple/IBM project to build two OSes on the same core system. PC Users would run OS/2, Apple users their Macs, run the same applications with the different environments.
NT 3.51 supports the Alpha. The Alpha looks like it is going to be awesome and could carry Microsoft into the server rooms. It looks like a screamer. The AlphaPC, the cheap version of the chip, looks like a great processor. NT 3.51 and the AlphaPC could turn Microsoft into a workstation player and compete in the engineering space.
Intel is still moving chips cheaply (in the $400-$1000 range) so they are involved.
Microsoft has another project, Chicago AKA Windows 4.0 AKA Windows 93, released as Windows 95. It brings the Win32 API to the lowend world. Get your apps moved to Win32 from Win16, and you can move to Windows NT (but not OS/2). Stick to Win32s and IBM can still fight on with OS/2.
At that point in history, there was no Microsoft monopoly.
What happened?
Intel gets the Pentium Pro to perform well on 32-bit operations (though the 16-bit code in Win95 made it a dog there) and announces the Pentium II, a PPro without the expensive on-chip cache. Quad-PPros do okay as workgroup servers. The MIPS PC initiative dies out (taking one of the top graphics card makers with it, who couldn't compete without Intel's PCI specs early... and Vesa Local Bus wasn't keeping up).
IBM refuses to ship PPC computers (to run Windows NT) until they have OS/2 running there. Well, the OS/2 port couldn't make it. Sure their were dozens of machines build in Boca Raton, FL, they rocked. The PPC 620 was promissed with the 486 core integrated. Wow, OS/2 on a PPC with your old DOS/Win apps running on the 486 core? Never shipped...
NT drops to just the Alpha and x86. With no support for the other ports, Microsoft lets the development tools for non-x86 lapse. Visual Studio RISC was usually at least 1 rev back.
Alpha support drops out later.
Microsoft is now stuck with x86.
Itanium/IA-64 is on the way. Microsoft needs a 64-bit system to carry them up the food chain, and the Alpha is dead.
AMD's x86-64 is on the way, and while there is no official plans for Microsoft to support it, I'm sure that they will.
Microsoft is back to pushing cross platform.
J++ didn't get them there. The CLR may.
The CLR is part of
Microsoft HATES sharing their monopoly with Intel. Intel may be the junior partner, but they are there. Microsoft needs to increase its leverage. The CLR makes Intel a junior partner... VERY junior.
They can talk to IBM about PPCs, or AMD about x86-64.
Microsoft certainly has cross-hardware issues. Because of them, they are only on 1 platform.
NT is extremely portable.
x86 assembly code is not.
Alex
Re:Did you start computing in 1999? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Did you start computing in 1999? (Score:4, Interesting)
It was not IBM refused to ship PPC with NT, it's Microsoft who refused to developed NT on PPC. In fact DOS/Win32 running on 486 core wasn't so bad at that time, may be due to some architectural difficulties Microsoft did not port their NT to PPC.(you are right NT is portable and asm is not, but PPC's asm is open enough for them, at least as far as I know)
NT can run on Alpha. I'm not sure whether NT5(aka W2K) can run on Alpha, but previous versions can. It's Microsoft who left Alpha, not vice versa.
OS/2 lost to Windows mainly due to the fact that Windows do not allow OS/2 ship with many Win32 components - that almost drove OS/2 out of Win-compatibility business. In fact IBM did strike back by releasing 'OS/2 for Windows' version, but lost is lost.
Microsoft then further extended their monopolization by penalizing PC vendors if their line of products ship with OS other than Windows. That's what you've been hearing in the trial.
We, at that time, always wondered "Can they do that?", but hell, IBM did that during 70's(in other market) so why couldn't they! Now we know it's illegal, heh, oh well.
but it's too late.
In conclusion, Microsoft chose the path of monopolization. Your post sounds like Microsoft was forced to do so, may be I'm wrong.
Re:Miguel's vision is better than RMS's (Score:2)
Not just RMS but Sun as well (Score:3, Interesting)
Its no secret the position Sun takes as it relates to Microsoft
This may be hard to take... (Score:5, Insightful)
What should open source do? Should it push forward a political agenda, or strive to provide people with the best possible products? Personally I could care less about RMS' agenda. To me open source is about options, and I applaud Miguel for working to provide people another option.
Re:This may be hard to take... (Score:2)
Re:This may be hard to take... (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhh, he said to look at it with your blinders off.
Since we're into car analogies, let me explain in simpler terms...
Miguel is saying the new Ford Mustang is pretty cool.
You are complaining because Hertz rents Ford Mustangs.
You tell 'im, RMS! (Score:3, Troll)
Microsoft, after all, was the one who designed their own implementation of this framework and they're a big monopoly that makes products that people want and use so no one in the open source world should work with them.
Also, Bill Gates has a nose so Miguel should cut his off right now to spite him. That'll show 'em all!
Microsoft won the house with .NET (Score:2)
- If .NET catches on with developers, they'll own one more standard to make money out of, so they win.
- If .NET doesn't work, they can always take advantage of it to say "look, we're the innovators, the free software community is just a bunch of copiers."
And just as I thought, Richard "out of it" Stallman decides to do dotGNU, Miguel decides to do Mono, they bicker with each other and the whole Gnome community looks like agitated fanatics.
So guess what Richard ? you're beating Microsoft's butter. Microsoft waved a really big red cloth with their .NET BS, and Richard, just like the narrow-minded bull they hoped you'd be, you rushed straight to it, and now the community looks like a bunch of jokers nobody in the industry should take too seriously. Microsoft's strategy has played brilliantly and you fell for it. Thanks for nothing.
Oh and by the way Richard, whatever Mono or dotGNU might become, CORBA is shit, so Miguel might not have been so wrong after all.
(damn I'm madder than a rooster in an alarm clock factory. You're time as a free software visionary has passed Richard, we acknowledge your contribution, now why don't you step down because you're only making us all look like raving lunatics.)
Re:Microsoft won the house with .NET (Score:2)
X11 License?!?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
Beyond that, I'm surprised RMS didn't make more of an issue of Miguel changing the licensing on Mono to X11 from GPL. Lord knows that it's causing a ton of controversy among Gnome developers, and I can't imaging a bigger finger in the direction of RMS myself.
It's too bad, really - I've been using Ximian/Gnome for over a year now, and parts of it are pretty darn cool. But I'm starting to think that Miguel's getting off course - perhaps it's time to re-evaluate KDE.
.NET: The power of Java, and Free Speech too (Score:3, Insightful)
.NET and C# are basically a reimplementation of Java. Sure, they add new features like cross-language support, and finer grained security context. These mean respectively that I could call a perl function from a python script inline. The latter means I could create software that has extensible input and output filters for program data, where the filters are trusted to convert data but never write it to disk.
So, why then do I think
Ximian Mono is writing a complete cross platform development and code exceution platform which includes a complete set [go-mono.com] of class libraries, and a JIT [ximian.com] (Just in Time) interpeter for
Finally,
I don't know about you, but I want to see the day when I'm doing research and I hit a page with an interactive demonstration written in
Re:.NET: The power of Java, and Free Speech too (Score:5, Insightful)
Java is a standard, and it is pretty much as open as postscript or pdf. The standards publishing body for Java is Sun, and for ps/pdf, Adobe. Note the presence of an open-source implementation of postscript, cunningly called "ghostscript"...
You can download extensive java specifications from Sun - and not just a nearly-useless core yet-another-c-family-language and some system libraries specification like MS's for-show C#/CLR ECMA submission, with java, in addition to the VM and language, there's full and voluminous specifications for all those add-on java packages like Java3D, JAXP and whatnot - MS makes a point of NOT standardising the
They are all downloadable documents. Sun can't reach onto your harddrive and mutate them once you've downloaded them. Sure, they could release a new version of the spec, but the hypothetical version you coded could still be fully compliant with the old spec.
This is in marked contrast to MS, which doesn't even bother fully specifying most of it's APIs, in fact, is reknowned for such behaviour.
There are multiple independent implementations of Java and its very extensive addon libraries (like the J2EE environment).
So, which would you prefer - a mature de-facto standard with multiple competing, yet interoperable, implementations, or an "official" standard with no finished implementations from a company that's well known for breaking compatibility whenever it suits? Given that MS will still contorl the only full implementation of
Sure the standard has ECMA's rubber stamp on it - but what matters for implementation is freely available specifications, not the rubber stamp... Witness the popularity of R5RS scheme, or internet RFCs or I'm-not-officialy-opengl-but-who-cares Mesa.
Anyway, when I last checked, C# didn't even have mandatory-checked exceptions. That alone is enough to reomve it from consideration for a large swathe of corporate development mixed-ability team projects....
The permssions security model of any modern JVM is pretty damn fine-grained, more than enough for my needs. Don't confuse it with the primitive sandbox of early java.
What I really hate (and this is a general remark, not accusing the parent post or anything), is people who judge Java by Microsoft's antiquated and incomplete implementation of it. For god's sake, install the Sun Java2 1.3.1 or 1.4 JRE, don't judge Java's by MS's (presumably deliberately) shitty implementation.
Personally, I'll just keep on using Lisp for my development work, but there's millions of corporate drones who'll be told to use either Java/JVM or C#/CLR.
Quite right too (Score:5, Interesting)
Just look at the lineage :
dde, ole, ole2, com, dcom, dcom + mts, soap,
J++ & Active Directory probably fit in there somewhere too.
Pinning your business model to any of these technological donkeys is an expensive move.
to paraphrase :
The MSDN treadmill moves pretty fast, if you don't look around once in a while, you might just miss out!
Everybody has a duty to question, I'm glad RMS has done it so publicly because if it was me that asked then I doubt we'd see any discussion on
Re:Quite right too (Score:2)
Why is this a bad idea? (Score:4, Interesting)
.NET is new, its untested, its unproven, but the simple fact is, it's a very promising platform. Yes, MS built it, because they have the resources to. Why not use it?
Slashdot keeps talking about how we need to make linux so easy that my grandma can use it, here's our chance. We copy
Yes, I'm biased, I contribute ALOT to the Mono project, but I honestly believe that without something that gives native compatibility with windows apps, linux will stay on the server, and my grandma will keep shelling out for new versions of windows.
And one more thought, MS isn't trying to kill mono. Has it crossed anyones mind that this is our chance to get MS to help kill themselves? They want
Yes, this is a rant, and I'm sorry for any grammar/spelling errors. But, before you mod me down into oblivion, seriously think about this. This really is a good thing(tm), and is the best bet of linux getting into mainstream desktop land.
Hot Buttons and Productive Discourse (Score:5, Insightful)
Mono (Score:4, Troll)
Mono has a lot of technical merit, don't shoot it down only because it's based on
Remeber that Mono isn't
Re:Mono (Score:2)
Totally agree, except I hope you aren't serious about the Kylix GUI. Kylix is slow as hell, mainly because most of its GUI components are driven through Wine.
oh come on (Score:4, Insightful)
Explain to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given this plethora of PRE-EXISTING software that is open, mature (or at least written by people who know the problem-space damn well), and standard, WHY would anyone want to port GNOME to
Whether you like RMS or not, the point is that he is very right to question the validity of using
But whether it's possible or not doesn't matter. Miguel's complaint was there was no realistic alternative. I've listed several. Now, I expect (as a GNOME user) a damn good reason why I shouldn't just pick up the GNOME sources and fork the hell out of the tree, to make them OPENLY networkable.
I don't like code-forks, when they're not necessary. It's a lot of hastle to maintain them, keep things in sync, etc, but I don't cater to fools, either.
And Microsoft must be laughing really hard... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some
You may not like RMS, but as far as I know, he is one of the few who stick to his lines over the years.
MS must be laughing really hard now for causing a little political turmoil among OSSers. At the end of the day, MS is still the winner.
double standards (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this situation any different from free software projects using Sun's Java technologies? Isn't this just two sides of the same coin?
On one side you have Gnome [ximian.com] intending to use Mono [go-mono.com], a cross-platform language [www.ecma.ch] and runtime environment [www.ecma.ch] based on open standards,
and on the other you have projects such as Apache's [apache.org] Jakarta [apache.org] using Java [sun.com], a cross-platform language and runtime envionment based on almost open standards.
I don't recall seeing RMS bitching too heavily about Sun's absolute control of the Java language and runtime.what it was that RMS didn't like about it. I wouldn't be surprised if he's just being reactionary for the sake of it.
Re:double standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes and no. Yes, and RMS has never encouraged the use of proprietary Java technology. No, because Apache and Jakarta aren't GNU, where as Gnome is; also nobody has suggested rewriting a major part of the GNU system so that it depends on Java, which is what this suggestion is. Also, Microsoft has proven itself openly hostile to the open source world, where as Sun hasn't.
Something being based on open standards doesn't always mean much. Take a look at the BASIC and Pascal code on the net, and see how much of it runs on ANSI Basic and ISO Pascal. No one forces people or Microsoft to use open standards when they don't want to.
Simple explanation (Score:2, Interesting)
RMS is a political ideologue who thinks in terms of leftist political objectives. Leftist ideologues aren't famous for their customer service. They would prefer to fight valiantly against the Enemies of the People, and heaven help any people who don't demonstrate political correctness.
I've been playing with
And RMS, you don't represent me, buddy. I don't see my needs high on your list of priorities.
SAMBA, Wine, Reality Check (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree with this conclusion. Why wait. If you wait until
Here are the two possibilities:
1 -
2. -
These two alternatives seem better than the third possibility, which is that
Re:SAMBA, Wine, Reality Check (Score:2)
Gnome adopts the "open API" of
Microsoft changes the legal status of these Open API's, thus miring the gnome project into legal limbo and DMCA type hell.
Hence no Gnome.
Technically MS has some cool ideas. I would venture to say, that if MS played ball like a nice company, MS could be beneificial to the entire computer world.
But MS does not played this way in the past. Why would they start now?
Re:SAMBA, Wine, Reality Check (Score:3, Insightful)
Between 1 and 2, anyway, it's more or less a win-win proposition.
Miguel: Marketing Genius! (Score:2)
Perhaps Miguel should inform his investors that he is spending a large part of their money on an effort (Mono) that very few of the consumers in Ximian's current marketplace are actually interested in. In fact, most of his current customers are dead set against the product that Ximian intends to push out the door.
Miguel's amazing lack of business sense is simply stupifying. Is there no accountability at Ximian? All of its employees and investors are willing to just march right off the end of a bridge if told to by Miguel?
Perhaps Miguel is attempting to top the blind-sighted, who-cares-about-a-business-plan failure of Eazel?
Miguel is well known for his efforts in emulating Microsoft technology. What he failed to do while training at the knee of the beast was to visit the Microsoft marketing department.
very bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Go RMS. He goes too far sometimes, but this time he's spot-on.
Miguel... Geeze, did he sign some sort of secret deal with microsoft? It's -insane- to become dependent on them. Look at the huge trail of partners microsoft has destroyed ("innovated").
I like gnome. I've invested time in learning gnome programming. But this has got me having second thoughts about maybe switching to KDE. I believe in gnome because it's more open. A gnome that requires
If microsoft is onto something with
Does anyone know the most effective places to send letters to make sure gnome doesn't become dependent on
Sounds great! (Score:2, Insightful)
"Stallman only learned of de Icaza's intentions to slip the Mono project - based on Microsoft's
when I read the comment someone made about RMS living under a rock. And to be honest, I think this is one of the best moves GNOME could make:
Mono was created as an open-source answer to Microsoft's
Only one Solution (Score:2)
de Icaza is wrong. (Score:2)
Good luck to them when the try to clone WinForms (or whatever the correct marketspeak is for the C# GUI stuff). Microsoft will sue in a heartbeat.
I hope the Gnome steering committee sees the light and slaps some sense into de Icaza. He's a threat to the success of Gnome in particular and Open Source in general. If he's so enamored of language independence, he should just stick with gcc. It supports plenty of languages, including a rapidly improving native Java compiler.
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
MS is planning on losing the desktop. (Score:2, Informative)
They haven't made a profit from their OS division in over 7 years.
Faced with this and other facts you will find out that
#1 is cash flow, this will be accomplished through various licensing schemes and levels of use with the Passport Portal system and with monthly services such as
#2 To rid themselves of the need to make a OS. Why do you think they are lobbing for laws that require digital content management, If all OSs had DCM then it would work with #1 This is just trying to make the point the only reason they make windows and it's aborted registry is for DCM.
#3 Microsoft will not care what OS you use as long as you use
This may also explain why they are sensitive to the names of various Linux Distributions.
This says it all... (Score:3, Interesting)
So if you didn't see this one coming, you simply haven't been paying attention.
It looks like Stallman just didn't realize this was the plan. Perhaps he also doesn't realize .NET refers more to the Java-like language and runtime being implemented by the mono project than the privacy-trashing hailstorm system Microsoft is trying to wed it to.
As for myself, I'm a "free as in speech," copyleft, "do what's best for the free software community" kind of guy, and I don't see a problem with moving Mono to .NET, if it works. (AWT and Swing gave me a bad taste with Java, so I'm a little suspicious of .NET, but still optimistic.) Of course, I've known since the beginning of the mono project that this was the plan. Because that's been said openly at every opportunity.
I do wish Ximian could find it in their hearts to copyleft everything, though. (No library licenses, proprietary Outlook extenders, etc.) And I know, that makes me evil and heartless.
RMS hating or MS hating? Tough choice. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think a lot of /. folks are letting their RMS disillusionments take control. I personally would definitely NOT like to see the Free software world start using Microsoft-invented, Microsoft-owned, Microsoft-patented technology if it can be helped.
This is like turning Gnome into a Windows app. Sure, .NET sounds cool from a technology point of view but you should know by now that technology doesn't live in a vacuum. As soon as anything based on .NET becomes a threat to Microsoft, they will cripple it, through technological or legal means.
The Free software community should stand firm and develop and use open technologies, and not even pay lip service to .NET.
I agree with the view taken by Nick Peterly (or whatever his name, I can't remember right now) that Miguel has been baited by Microsoft .NET and this will just give Microsoft a way to try and subvert Free software. Maybe that's not what MS was thinking at the outset, and not what Miguel is thinking, but it will be possible and we shouldn't allow MS that kind of power.
I for one will lump anything that uses .NET in with Microsoft products, even if it's "open source". Why take the chance? I'm surprised that so many /. folks are calling .NET "progress" or "a standard". It's just a Microsoft technology.
Go, RMS! GO!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
More likely, a trojan horse.
My take on the entire brouhaha is that MS has simply cloned java...more or less.
Why doesn't some genious FSF type of guru take the BNF or design specs of both java and C# and create a totally free, yet easily cross compiled, language? Then let mono or dotGNU take over from there?
At some point, MS will drop the ball and try to put the squeeze on the
It won't work anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider several things...
I'm not sure there's much here to worry about -- other than making damned sure that free code doesn't somehow become proprietary through various license follies. On that issue, people like RMS have my heartfelt thanks for their vigilance.
One API to rule them all (Score:3, Funny)
"Lo, I am Miguel the many-coloured!"
To which RMS the grey replied,
"You have been staring into the Lidless API for too long. You tried to wrestle control of the Dot away from Him, but the Dot still points to Redmond."
"To oppose Bill is impossible! If you are not with us, then... Die!"
</rough_paraphrasing>
.NET (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, 99.9% of the people arguing about
Secondly...we have 2 choices when it comes to making linux popular.
1) Not Invented Here - Do our own thing, ignore what everyone else is doing, and make an incompatable system yet try to make it superior. Developers will have to learn this system saparately than others.
2) As
In other words, regardless of MS history, if the
What does GNOME stand for? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is GNU? The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. The GNU system is licensed with the GPL and the LGPL for libraries.
Who heads GNU and founded GNU? Richard M. Stallman.
Now, I'd say that gives Richard M. Stallman all the right in the world to inquire of Miguel Icaza where he intends to go with GNOME. So enough with the inane RMS remarks - if you don't want freedom then go be a slave.
I have said before that I wasn't confident in the meandering course that GNOME was taking. Where is GNOME's basic THEME... what is it's guiding light? One minute GNOME is the White Knight of Freedom and then the next GNOME is going commercial with the Ximian moniker and talking about being based on
I dunno, I was initially and still am in support of GNOME pending further developments. I hope they do The Right Thing(tm).
.NET and Mono: What is standard and what is not (Score:5, Interesting)
After this, it is kind of easy to reach to the conclusion that the ECMA standard has major deficiencies, that there is no way (apart from custom tool support) to tell if the code you are writing conforms to that standard and that Microsoft is most likely just paying lip service to the standards process, at least as far as the core .NET API's go. Java and Sun do a much more complete job of defining and sticking to specifications if the ECMA work is any sign.
Personally, I don't plan to touch .NET API's to develop open source software after this. My opinion is that Mono would be much better off if they develop their own cross-platform class libraries instead of using .NET API's. There is nothing preventing them from using CLI VM and multiple language support with their own class libraries. They are already writing everything from scratch, they might as well use their own design rather than playing catch-up to proprietary Microsoft API's.
I don't see why it should be upsetting, except... (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, he did make some statements about
I've been thinking a lot about Microsoft, though, and how they could ever hope to fight against free software in the long run... I mean in addition to marketing and sales efforts. They could try to influence key players and/or figureheads, but that's risky and unreliable... they could use lawsuits. Non-fantastically-wealthy individuals, after all, are nothing but roadkill in American civil court...
Hey... Hmm...
Wouldn't it be interesting, if Microsoft were to play a game with Miguel - to lure him, his co-developers, and his users, by following Microsoft's (often implicit) standards, into treading over a set of Microsoft patents, or a EULA/UCITA-backed reverse-engineering lawsuit? To wait say, 2 years, or 3, and then when Gnome is installed in millions of places and Sun and Dell are prepackaging it, etc., and there are a lot of juicy targets in the crosshairs, all of a sudden, bust down the door and start serving papers?
Please, reassure me. Tell me why I'm wrong about this. Any part of
Re:I'd love... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Has this guy been living under a rock? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Has this guy been living under a rock? (Score:2)
"I can't believe it's Gnome you're talking about but if it is, I wouldn't like that," Stallman told an audience at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil last week."
Re:Has this guy been living under a rock? (Score:2)
Re:RMS needs to be hit with a cluebat (Score:3, Troll)
Re:RMS needs to be hit with a cluebat (Score:2)
Take a look at www.gnome.org [gnome.org]. It says, "GNOME is part of the GNU project...". I would say this substantially complicates who owns the project.
Re:RMS needs to be hit with a cluebat (Score:4, Insightful)
While its true that many key Gnome developers do happen to work for Ximian, not all do. Also, there has been financial support for the Gnome Foundation from other companies and individuals.
Also, by using the GPL on their code they relinquished the right to withdraw it. By accepting the contributions of others (not employed by Ximian) they have agreed to the terms of the GPL and can't just steal other people's code, however insignificant they feel those contributions to be. They can request permission from those other contributors or extract the "tainted" GPL code, or all Gnome developers may choose to develop on the Microsoft.NET framework, but it's not a pronouncement Miguel should make without even discussing it with the community.
The "Gnome" trademark may be owned by the FSF, as well, which complicates things.
Re:RMS needs to be hit with a cluebat (Score:4, Troll)
Keep in mind that Microsoft has unheard-of amounts of money and lawyers to throw at the problem, and that they have demonstrated time and again that they have no scruples about doing whatever it takes to eliminate their competition.
If I was Miguel, I would tread very, very carefully when considering the adoption of Microsoft's "Open" APIs...
Re:RMS needs to be hit with a cluebat (Score:2, Insightful)
MS has already submitted parts of the .Net API to the EMCA. They have also said that the entire spec will be submitted before it reaches 1.0. As long as Mono stays compatible with the EMCA standard of .Net, then everything would be fine.
This doesn?t mean that MS won?t extend. This is sort of a new method they are trying out. Instead of embracing a good standard they are creating one. MS/Windows-only extensions may occur but I doubt it. These extensions will be the part that MS might not let the dotGnu and Mono projects touch. At least there will be a 1.0 standard that will still be completely cross platform and independent of any org or biz.
I doubt that any of it will come to that. This thread goes well with the one about Bob Young. He states that the future focus of RedHat, and the rest of the Linux community, should be to work on Linux?s current strengths and get it into the embedded market. Tablets, PDA, and other networked portable devices is where the future of computing is going. Web services and apps that are compatible with multiple platforms will be the main reason these devices will work. I think it will be cool when a Palm device can use the same .Net program as the one on a PC, Mac or PocketPC and be able to send messages via the web seamlessly.
Anyways, that was way to long, and poorly written...
OUT
Can't sell part of your soul to the devil (Score:5, Insightful)
What is in my best interests is to have multiple, robust, "genetically isolated" choices for the critical technology my business needs to use. "Cross-pollinating" two of those choices so that they are no longer separate is not a good idea.
And have we already forgotten Microsoft's attempt to ban non-IE browsers from "their" web? Although I often do not agree with RMS' more extreme positions, I think he understands quite well that you can't be a little bit pregnant, nor can you sell a fraction of your soul to the devil.
sPh
Re:A Conversation between RMS and Human Resources (Score:2)
2) Microsoft security updates are usually late, and they can break even programs running from IIS itself, like Mercury Interactive's TestDirector;
3) You need many more Microsoft boxen than free software ones;
4) It's easier to learn with free software, and no you don't need to know how to compile kernels. Editing conf files is trivial, and is also necessary in the Microsoft world. In fact easier and safer than editing the Windows Registry.
Re:Just because it's Microsoft? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think an open
That's not to say that basing Gnome on
Re:Why must Miguel explain himself to RMS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mono, however, is something entirely in Miguel's hands. Whether or not the Foundation accepts his vision for making Gnome 4.0 a
I hope they consider it carefully and don't dismiss it out of hand.
Ximian is Miguel's; GNOME is GNU's (Score:2)
Re:Why must Miguel explain himself to RMS? (Score:4, Informative)
And gnome is not Miguels.
disclaimer-- I have recieved a very nasty email from Ximian basically telling me where to put, afer I emailed them looking for how I could contribute to the project, so I pretty much hate those guys. Ilike Gnome, I just think they're assholes.
Miguel's response (Score:5, Informative)
Miguel has now responded. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-devel-list/20 02-February/msg00042.html
Re:Why must Miguel explain himself to RMS? (Score:4, Troll)
I think it's funny too! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think it's funny too! (Score:3, Informative)
GNU is about certain types of freedom, as carefully laid out in the various manifestos and licenses. I believe your are grossly, erringly oversimplifying the meaning of freedom. The GNU project is not about anarchy, which is what I think you're suggesting.
-Paul Komarek
Re:WTF is .NET anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)
"and it is going to have on one great big server: all the data about me that the CIA(or any advertising agency) could ever want"
That's passport, it's a
That's MS marketing at work,
Re:it's not so bad (Score:4, Insightful)
RMS simply asked the question, "please explain a little better, Miguel". He didn't flame him, and he didn't take an ideological stance, however the
Let's all sit back and listen carefully and only start the flame wars AFTER we get the whole story from both sides.
Re:who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)