On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:17:07 +0100, Hadron wrote: >> How is that different from QT, MySQL, or any of host of other open source >> applications that offer proprietary licenses as well?
> You don't think for one minute that Liarnut actually read or understood > anything there do you? He's just posturing and showing off in his new > role as Roy's lapdog following the departure of Lapdog Colly.
You're not helping the discourse by pulling this shit Hadron.
I understand you have a grudge, but please stop infecting other threads just to piss all over.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote on Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:00:07 -0500 <1qwndt7kd4rr2$....@funkenbusch.com>:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 07:50:42 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>> Silverlight is a client side technology, so we are going to deliver >>> the components to run content that was created on Silverlight on Linux >>> using Moonlight.
>> I'm still confused. Silverlight cannot *create*. >> Perhaps the Silverlight SDK can, but not Silverlight >> proper. It's a bit like using Adobe's Flash viewer to >> create Flash content; can't be done (all AFAIK).
> Silverlight is the technology, not the viewer. Just like Flash is the > technology.
AFAIK Flash is a file format. (It's an interesting format too, optimized for its intended use. It is, of course, proprietary.)
>> Also, AFAIK the SDK requires a valid Windows license.
> Wrong. Where did you hear that? Currently, there is only one GUI XAML > builder, and it's for Windows, but I understand the Mono team is working on > a builder too. You can always create XAML using any editor, since it's > just XML.
gives a general overview of how the pieces fit together in a Silverlight project (although it's not quite written that way). Basically, it starts with four Javascript files, one semi-dedicated <div> tag (which is where the Silverlight display console will apparently go), and of course the Silverlight plugin proper. The createObject() example call is an interesting mess, but that's where XAML finally gets hooked into all this.
So it looks pretty simple for us cheapskate Linux guys to develop websites to help Microsoft monopolize (again) website video display.
How nice of them.
>> Is there going to be a Moonlight SDK for developing >> Moonlight and/or Silverlight content? I for one hope so.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote on Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:52:15 +0000 <14187161.tT08WbV...@schestowitz.com>:
> ____/ Doug Mentohl on Monday 03 March 2008 15:38 : \____
>> On 26 Feb, 16:05, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> >> wrote:
>>> Microsoft itself makes Silverlight available on both the PC and Mac. That >>> makes it cross platform ..
>> It's 'cross platform' except on Linux .. :)
> Well, duh. Why would Microsoft want to assist its own bankruptcy by having > its 'standard' support its worst of nightmares...?
What bankruptcy? Did I miss an announcement somewhere? ;-)
Intellectual and moral bankruptcy, maybe (and these don't reflected in SEC reports), but Microsoft has been doing very well at sucking money from the OEMs and the users, to the tune of about $58B in revenue per year.
> ,----[ Quote ] > | A couple of years ago you reiterated that IBM was Microsoft's biggest > | competitor and you said not just on the business side, but overall. > | If I ask you who is Microsoft's biggest competitor now, who would it be? > | > | Ballmer: Open...Linux. I don't want to say open source. Linux, > | certainly have to go with that.... > `----
> Replace the standard (XHTML/Flash/Ajax), extend and extinguish. Novell will > then be thrown out of the limo crying. No sugar for the exploited 'partner'.
> To Microsoft, Novell is a "one-night stand", a pawn.
> January 08, 2007 (Computerworld) -- A Microsoft Corp. technical evangelist > referred to independent software developers writing for Windows and the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^--------- hey, Miguel, ya' readin' this?
> company's other software platforms as "pawns" and compared wooing them to > convincing someone to have a one-night stand, according to testimony > presented Friday against Microsoft in an ongoing antitrust case in Iowa.
> "If you've ever tried to play chess with only the pieces in the back row, > you've experienced losing, OK, because you've got to have those pawns," > James Plamondon said in a Jan. 16, 1996, speech to members of Microsoft's > developer relations group. His comments were part of a transcript presented > as evidence in the Comes vs. Microsoft Inc. class-action lawsuit in Iowa.
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message > news:p5ot95-adf.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut >> <lino...@bollsouth.nut> >> wrote >> on Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:40:18 -0500 >> <CRVyj.5578$dT.3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>: >>> * Doug Mentohl peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>> On 26 Feb, 16:05, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> Microsoft itself makes Silverlight available on both the >>>>> PC and Mac. That makes it cross platform ..
>>>> It's 'cross platform' except on Linux .. :)
>>> Indeed. "Cross-platform" is MicrosoftSpeak for >>> "runs on many variants of Microsoft Windows."
>> Well, obviously those are the only relevant platforms >> anyway. Never mind that Unix:
>> - was ruling the roost in the engineering and in the server >> side long before Microsoft even contemplated taking it >> over in the NT 3.5 timeframe (and which Linux was far more >> effective at sliding into than Windows ever was);
> Uix/Linux on engineering workstations is pretty much a thing of the past. > AutoCAD rules the roost today.
True.
>> - solved a fair number of its porting problems long before >> Microsoft even had to worry about it (though one might >> claim Microsoft has a rather nicer solution, because >> of various forks in among other places pseudo-ttys, >> vfork/fork, and poll/select);
> Ancient history. Who cares now?
True. Nowadays even Linux uses CreateProcess(). Oh, it doesn't? Install Wine, you guys. That way you'll have standard [1], portable [2] applications [3].
Oh, wait, Wine's not legal for Vista. Well, guess you'll all just have to go out and buy Microsoft Windows Vista (pick an edition) and run it within...no, wait, that's not legal anyway. Guess we'll just have to wipe the bootblock and let Microsoft manage it.
Much easier for Microsoft that way.
>> - runs and ran on far more platforms than Microsoft >> Windows ever did (though in all fairness the current crop >> of PC/PCI hardware is very very very different from the >> PC-XT and even the PC-AT era stuff); ...
> Any of those platforms still around?
Dead as a doornail. The ARM platform systems in particular are no longer in use, zx90 mainframes are being edged out by Blades, and of course Microsoft Orange Phones are in wide use, being the dominant verging on monopolistic market leader with a combination of Powershell, Windows Vista Mobile Edition, and Windows Vista DRM. These phones are widely available everywhere on the planet.
which can't even get off the ground, it's so unpopular. Oh, wait, it's not unpopular?
>> Microsoft is the only relevant platform.
>> To Microsoft, anyway. Any other platform comes along >> (like Google), they'll [profanity] kill it.
> Google is not a platform. Google is a click seller.
Google is dying; Microsoft Live will kill it. Obviously. Just ask anyone on this newsgroup.
>> (Uh...last I looked both Unix Google were still around, too. >> Well, 2 1/2 out of 5, I guess; 4DOS, OS/2 and Netscape wrecked.)
> Unix is for upscale servers that need something better than Linux
Wait wait wait...better than *Linux*?? Oh, yeah, that's right; the most upscale stuff's gotta be Longhorn.
> and where > the old timers are too stuck in their ways to learn about Windows 2008.
ITYM Windows 2000 Server Edition, which was the first usable server edition available (NT was just a little too buggy), and which will of course eventually be replaced with W2008/Longhorn, which will be Microsoft's industry [4] standard [5] offering, for replacing all of those Linux installtions. It guarantees [6] interoperability [7] and flexibility [8].
[1] FSVO. [2] FSVO. [3] FSVO. (Do you sense a theme here?) [4] FSVO. [5] FSVO. [6] Bridge for sale; inquire within. [7] FSVO. [8] FSVO, as long as one uses Microsoft applications.
Microsoft. Where did you want to go today? Are you sure?
-- #191, ewi...@earthlink.net Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just way too frightening to novice users.
> On 2008-03-03, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote: >> ____/ Doug Mentohl on Monday 03 March 2008 15:38 : \____
>>> On 26 Feb, 16:05, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> >>> wrote:
>>>> Microsoft itself makes Silverlight available on both the PC and Mac. That >>>> makes it cross platform ..
>>> It's 'cross platform' except on Linux .. :)
>> Well, duh. Why would Microsoft want to assist its own bankruptcy by having >> its 'standard' support its worst of nightmares...?
> Then explain why Microsoft is providing technical assistance to the > Moonlight team - in the form of access to Silverlight engineers and > their test suites to test compatability?
A trap?
-- There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed. -- Bill Gates, Focus Magazine No. 43 (23 October 1995)
Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes: > On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:17:07 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>> How is that different from QT, MySQL, or any of host of other open source >>> applications that offer proprietary licenses as well?
>> You don't think for one minute that Liarnut actually read or understood >> anything there do you? He's just posturing and showing off in his new >> role as Roy's lapdog following the departure of Lapdog Colly.
> You're not helping the discourse by pulling this shit Hadron.
> I understand you have a grudge, but please stop infecting other threads > just to piss all over.
No, I have no grudge. But Liarnut is continually spouting nonsense, calling people shills and just parroting Roy. This thread is a good example. And while peter and the COLA gang feel free to rubbish facts, then I see no problem with rubbishing nonsense.
Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> writes: > * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:
>> On 2008-03-03, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote: >>> ____/ Doug Mentohl on Monday 03 March 2008 15:38 : \____
>>>> On 26 Feb, 16:05, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> Microsoft itself makes Silverlight available on both the PC and Mac. That >>>>> makes it cross platform ..
>>>> It's 'cross platform' except on Linux .. :)
>>> Well, duh. Why would Microsoft want to assist its own bankruptcy by having >>> its 'standard' support its worst of nightmares...?
>> Then explain why Microsoft is providing technical assistance to the >> Moonlight team - in the form of access to Silverlight engineers and >> their test suites to test compatability?
* Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:51:57 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>> For licensing details, contact mono-licens...@novell.com >> (mailto:mono-licens...@novell.com)
> How is that different from QT, MySQL, or any of host of other open source > applications that offer proprietary licenses as well?
How is it different? The mailto.
Think about it.
>>> (b) whether its good for Linux to be a second class citizen on the web >>> when you are unable to watch content.
>> You need to rephrase it. The question is whether it is good to convert >> citizens into second-class citizens on the web by virtue of restricting >> their access to content to a format promulgated by a large, powerful, >> and dominant corporation, requiring the relatively expensive purchase of >> a proprietary (and unlicensed for production by any other vendor) >> operating system.
> You don't need to purchase anything to use Silverlight on Linux, either to > create or view using Mono.
Purchase or not doesn't matter so much. Can this new Mono code be distributed by RedHat?
When will it be put in Debian?
It's still pretty rough-looking, though that's just because of the dev curve:
Moonlight will be distributed for most major Linux distributions directly from the Novell site.
Users of Moonlight interested in using this on embedded systems should contact m...@novell.com (mailto:m...@novell.com) to obtain a commercial license. See our Licensing page for details.
Microsoft reserves the right to update (including discontinue) the foregoing covenant pursuant to the terms of the Moonlight for Linux Collaboration Agreement between Novell and Microsoft that was publicly announced on September 5, 2007 (the \u201cAgreement\u201d); however, the foregoing covenant will continue as to specific copies of Moonlight Implementations distributed by Novell before any such update.
I think I'd consult with a lawyer before consenting to be a "downstream recipient", just in case it becomes a pee stream.
Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents.
-- Understand that this is the last physical format there will ever be. -- Bill Gates, On Blu-ray. interview The Daily Princetonian (14 Oct 2005)
* The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:
> So it looks pretty simple for us cheapskate Linux guys to > develop websites to help Microsoft monopolize (again) > website video display.
> How nice of them.
You are a smart man, Ghost!
-- If you show people the problems and you show people the solutions they will be moved to act. -- Bill Gates, At Live8 (2 July 2005) as reported in BBC News (4 July 2005)
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote on Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:56:49 -0500 <m9aa3d29xwq7$....@funkenbusch.com>:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:17:07 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>> How is that different from QT, MySQL, or any of host of other open source >>> applications that offer proprietary licenses as well?
>> You don't think for one minute that Liarnut actually read or understood >> anything there do you? He's just posturing and showing off in his new >> role as Roy's lapdog following the departure of Lapdog Colly.
> You're not helping the discourse by pulling this shit Hadron.
> I understand you have a grudge, but please stop infecting other threads > just to piss all over.
Now now...this is relevant to COLA because he just might be pissing on a laptop that happened to be running Linux at the time.
Of course such an action would probably irreparably damage the laptop.
(Hi Troy!)
-- #191, ewi...@earthlink.net Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious > <A...@sti.net> > wrote > on Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:37:23 -0500 > <47cc4579$0$31114$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in >> message >> news:p5ot95-adf.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut >>> <lino...@bollsouth.nut> >>> wrote >>> on Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:40:18 -0500 >>> <CRVyj.5578$dT.3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>: >>>> * Doug Mentohl peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>>> On 26 Feb, 16:05, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Microsoft itself makes Silverlight available on both the >>>>>> PC and Mac. That makes it cross platform ..
>>>>> It's 'cross platform' except on Linux .. :)
>>>> Indeed. "Cross-platform" is MicrosoftSpeak for >>>> "runs on many variants of Microsoft Windows."
>>> Well, obviously those are the only relevant platforms >>> anyway. Never mind that Unix:
>>> - was ruling the roost in the engineering and in the server >>> side long before Microsoft even contemplated taking it >>> over in the NT 3.5 timeframe (and which Linux was far more >>> effective at sliding into than Windows ever was);
>> Uix/Linux on engineering workstations is pretty much a thing of the past. >> AutoCAD rules the roost today.
> True.
>>> - solved a fair number of its porting problems long before >>> Microsoft even had to worry about it (though one might >>> claim Microsoft has a rather nicer solution, because >>> of various forks in among other places pseudo-ttys, >>> vfork/fork, and poll/select);
>> Ancient history. Who cares now?
> True. Nowadays even Linux uses CreateProcess(). Oh, > it doesn't? Install Wine, you guys. That way you'll have > standard [1], portable [2] applications [3].
> Oh, wait, Wine's not legal for Vista. Well, guess you'll > all just have to go out and buy Microsoft Windows Vista > (pick an edition) and run it within...no, wait, that's not > legal anyway. Guess we'll just have to wipe the bootblock > and let Microsoft manage it.
Hard to figure out what your rant is all about. Wine doesn't run on Windows at all, does it? Plus the Wine that I am vaguely familiar with is trying to emulate the DLLs used in Windows, say the Win32 API set. That doesn't have much to do with Vista except for a few new extensions and whatever the Winers have produced to-date should not be "illegal" in any sense although it is possible that it may violate patents somewhere. But the OSS bunch has never seemed to care about that anyway.
>>> - runs and ran on far more platforms than Microsoft >>> Windows ever did (though in all fairness the current crop >>> of PC/PCI hardware is very very very different from the >>> PC-XT and even the PC-AT era stuff); ...
>> Any of those platforms still around?
> Dead as a doornail. The ARM platform systems in particular > are no longer in use, zx90 mainframes are being edged > out by Blades, and of course Microsoft Orange Phones are > in wide use, being the dominant verging on monopolistic > market leader with a combination of Powershell, Windows > Vista Mobile Edition, and Windows Vista DRM. These phones > are widely available everywhere on the planet.
Well, I did see where IBM has scrapped Linux in favor of a Vista embedded design on their point of sale kiosks.
> which can't even get off the ground, it's so unpopular. > Oh, wait, it's not unpopular?
I don't think that it is even available. What do you think the purpose of this is, by the way? Do all of these device makers plan to have their products work just like everyone else's? That seems like a backward step to me. Variety is the spice of life, they say, and if all the cell phones worked the same way, there wouldn't be much to shout about.
>>> To Microsoft, anyway. Any other platform comes along >>> (like Google), they'll [profanity] kill it.
>> Google is not a platform. Google is a click seller.
> Google is dying; Microsoft Live will kill it. Obviously. > Just ask anyone on this newsgroup.
>>> (Uh...last I looked both Unix Google were still around, too. >>> Well, 2 1/2 out of 5, I guess; 4DOS, OS/2 and Netscape wrecked.)
>> Unix is for upscale servers that need something better than Linux
> Wait wait wait...better than *Linux*?? Oh, yeah, that's right; the most > upscale stuff's gotta be Longhorn.
There you go, living in the past again! Longhorn is long-gone. The product name is Windows Server 2008, or more commonly, Windows 2k8 or even Windows 2008.
>> and where >> the old timers are too stuck in their ways to learn about Windows 2008.
> ITYM Windows 2000 Server Edition, which was the first > usable server edition available
Well, certainly there has been a lot of water over the dam since those days. Today some 50% of servers, numerically, accounting for almost 40% of the total server market revenues are shipping with a Windows server version pre-installed. That's some progress from the NT4 days and it started with Win2K.
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:44:28 +0100, Hadron wrote: > "amicus_curious" <A...@sti.net> writes:
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in >> message news:p5ot95-adf.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut >>> <lino...@bollsouth.nut> >>> wrote >>> on Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:40:18 -0500 >>> <CRVyj.5578$dT.3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>: >>>> * Doug Mentohl peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>>> On 26 Feb, 16:05, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Microsoft itself makes Silverlight available on both the >>>>>> PC and Mac. That makes it cross platform ..
>>>>> It's 'cross platform' except on Linux .. :)
>>>> Indeed. "Cross-platform" is MicrosoftSpeak for >>>> "runs on many variants of Microsoft Windows."
>>> Well, obviously those are the only relevant platforms >>> anyway. Never mind that Unix:
>>> - was ruling the roost in the engineering and in the server >>> side long before Microsoft even contemplated taking it >>> over in the NT 3.5 timeframe (and which Linux was far more >>> effective at sliding into than Windows ever was);
>> Uix/Linux on engineering workstations is pretty much a thing of the >> past. AutoCAD rules the roost today.
> What happened to nym Hovnonian who was bullshitting us how his company > used "unix" Auto-CAD like tools since Auto-CAD didn't meet their > "needs". And then , when pressed, reckoned it was their own "in house" > proprietary stuff after all and not OSS tools. He soon ran off.
Yea... Yet another COLA liar caught in his web of lies. Notice how quickly they slink when their bullshit is exposed.
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Miguel de Icaza wrote: > [H]omer wrote: >> 1) ... What proportion of Mono uses Microsoft's patented >> technology, including that which is is part of the ECMA >> specifications?
> Read our policy on patents (Microsoft or otherwise):
I was not asking for a reaffirmation of your policies, but rather a clarification of the extent of Microsoft's property in Mono.
From the link:
"The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission"
And:
"The Mono project has gone beyond both of those components and has developed and integrated third party class libraries"
I think it would be prudent to include patent notices with the upstream distribution of Mono, in a addition to the usual copyright notices, in order to differentiate those components which are Microsoft's Intellectual Property, for the benefit of those of us who might need to assess our liabilities, and make an informed choice.
> Which is not different than any other open source project.
That does not appear to be the case:
"When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the Mono runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell the right to relicense his/her contribution under other licensing terms.
This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to parties that might not want to use the GPL or LGPL versions of the code.
Particularly embedded system vendors obtain grants to the Mono runtime engine and modify it for their own purposes without having to release those changes back."
This would essentially preclude anyone from protecting their contributions, to the core of Mono, from being exploited in such a way that destroys the intended freedom of that contribution. Effectively, this is a GPL circumvention device, in the vein of Tivoisation.
That does not seem at all consistent with the principles of Free Software.
>> 2) ... To what degree do you trust ECMA and the RAND covenant to >> not sue, for the use of any Microsoft Intellectual Property?
> See the above link.
The above link provides no indication of either your opinion, nor Novell's, of the trustworthiness or authority of RAND agreements, much less how viable such agreements are in relation to Microsoft.
>> 3) ... To what degree do you Trust Microsoft, either in terms of >> their promises; their motivations; or their commitment to a >> competing platform like Linux?
> This is a question that is suitable for Teen magazine or Cosmo.
It was a question deemed serious enough by the DOJ and EU commission, that it prompted investigation and remedy against Microsoft under the terms of anti-trust violations.
> Sadly there is no bumper-sticker answer, or I would gladly give you > that.
It seems simple enough to me. Do you, or do you not trust Microsoft to engage with the Free Software community with only good and honourable intentions?
> This is a multi-dimensional question, that requires all the nuances > of a full blog post.
If the answer is that complex, then that would seem to suggest that there are elements of doubt to your opinions of Microsoft's intentions, would it not?
Perhaps you could elucidate those doubts for our benefit.
> You might want to read my interviews, my blog and my position as > stated on Slashdot.
I have, and continue to do so, including your recent Channel9 interview, which I found to be just as evasive and full of platitudes as all your other public comments.
It is an interesting interview, however, and reveals that you are obviously someone who is primarily technically motivated, with little interest in political issues, similar to Torvalds for example.
However, in your efforts to counteract the demonisation of Microsoft, you appear to have overcompensated somewhat, since you are clearly fawning to the interviewer. I found your comments with respect to Windows reliability quite amusing. You seemed to be inferring that Windows hasn't suffered interminable instability and crashes since the days of Windows 3.1, which is clearly not the case.
Since this interview was little more than a PR exercise ("Microsoft: we're not evil, honest"), I would not have seriously expected you to voice your true opinions of them, since that would have entirely defeated the purpose of the exercise.
I'm afraid it might be an entirely unrealistic expectation for you to speak candidly about a company that is, in essence, your employer, but I was hoping you could at least provide some form of reassurance. After all, you are an ambassador for Mono (regardless of whatever other capacity you may fill), so it's only natural that you should be prepared to endorse it with authoritative assurances, since the authority; veracity; and trustworthiness of Microsoft; ECMA and Novell are questionable.
>> 4) ... Do you foresee a point in the future where access to much of >> the Web might be impossible, or at least extraordinarily >> difficult, without the use of Silverlight, much like Microsoft >> tried to do with ActiveX and other proprietary; encumbered; and >> non-standard technology during the Netscape years?
> Another question suitable for Teen magazine.
Again, I refer you to the aforementioned anti-trust investigations.
Let me ask you a perfectly blunt question. Do you, or do you not think that Microsoft should have been prosecuted for violations of the Sherman Act?
If we can establish that much, then I'll know whether or not there is any point to this discussion.
> Replace "Silverlight" with Javascript in the above question. Can > you browse the web without Javascript? You certainly can, but some > sites do not work without it.
This is not a question of technical dependencies, this is a question of politics and legal liabilities, Neither Sun's; Netscape's nor Mozilla's motivations or intentions are in question here; Microsoft's are.
> Or replace "Silverlight" with "Flash", you certainly can browse > youtube, but you will not get much out of it without it.
Both Silverlight and Flash are proprietary and encumbered technologies, and I have no interest in either one of them, beyond my fear that one day I may be completely unable to use the Web without submitting to Adobe's or Microsoft's arbitrary restrictions on my freedom.
> People will adopt Silverlight when it solves a problem for them, and > each person will have to evaluate whether Silverlight over another > technology is the right match for the problem.
And who will solve the problem of society's diminishing freedoms at the hands of Intellectual Monopolists?
>> 5) ... Do you further forsee the likelihood that the binary blobs, >> that you speak of, become a hard dependency in order to fully >> utilise the future Web, as it will be reborn in Microsoft's image, >> given the possibility that Microsoft may develop new proprietary >> and encumbered codecs, or enforce their Intellectual Property >> rights on Free implementations of existing codecs, such as those >> used in FFMPEG?
> You are not required to use the binary blobs. You can build > Moonlight yourself and use the FFMPEG codecs.
Currently, yes, but if Microsoft was to forcibly assert it's Intellectual Property claims on the Windows Media implementation in ffmpeg, then I would have no choice but to accept these binary blobs, or face restricted access to the Web, for what I'm sure Microsoft hopes will represent an ever increasing proportion of sites that replace traditional content with Microsoft's encumbered technology.
> Novell will not be redistributing the FFMPEG based code due to the > conflict that the LGPL has with the patents owned by MPEGLA (to which > we will become licensors).
Yes, I am also well aware of the conflicts of interest between ffmpeg and MPEGLA, and indeed between Intellectual Monopolists and the Free Software community in general.
>> 6) ... Therefore do you concede that it is possible, and indeed >> likely, that the future of the Web (and in other contexts - office >> documents and software development) might end up becoming utterly >> dependent of Microsoft's Intellectual Property, and thus >> effectively controlled (in essence "owned") by Microsoft, just as >> they have been striving to do for so long, and have currently >> succeeded in other areas, such as the OEM channel; games >> development; hardware support; and elsewhere?
> You seem confused, and you seem to be asking questions and answering > those yourself.
Not at all. I asked if you concede that it is possible. Do you or not?
Microsoft's modus operandum is well known and well documented, indeed they have been prosecuted for it, which is the main reason it is so well documented. What I am asking is if you believe that technologies like .NET, Silverlight and OOXML are further extensions of that strategy, and whether or not they assist Microsoft's agenda of market domination; the inhibition of freedom and choice by the enforcement of Intellectual Monopolies; and the suppression of Free Software and Open Standards.
>> 7) ... And finally, do you think it is prudent, or even morally >> right, for Free Software developers to essentially help Microsoft >> in their endeavours to dominate the Web; office formats; and >> software development, particularly as Microsoft has continuously >> expressed so much contempt and hatred for the principles of Free >> Software and Open Standards over the years?
> I have blogged extensively about this question, you might want to > read my blog on those subjects. There are two dimensions to this > problem, and I have addressed both: a) Microsoft providing a tool > that people actually want to use, with a feature range of things that > are genuinely useful while nobody else is;
As others have noticed, that is an extremely arrogant presumption. Freedom is at least as important as functionality. As a Free Software developer, I would have hoped you'd
...
>> On 2008-03-03, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote: >>> ____/ Doug Mentohl on Monday 03 March 2008 15:38 : \____
>>>> On 26 Feb, 16:05, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> Microsoft itself makes Silverlight available on both the PC and Mac. That >>>>> makes it cross platform ..
>>>> It's 'cross platform' except on Linux .. :)
>>> Well, duh. Why would Microsoft want to assist its own bankruptcy by having >>> its 'standard' support its worst of nightmares...?
>> Then explain why Microsoft is providing technical assistance to the >> Moonlight team - in the form of access to Silverlight engineers and >> their test suites to test compatability?
> A trap?
In what way? How can MS sue them for implementing something they have explicitly helped them implement? Not sure I see the logic with that.
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:03:04 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >> Uix/Linux on engineering workstations is pretty much a thing of the >> past. AutoCAD rules the roost today.
> True.
No, not true. AutoCAD rules for certain things, but they don't rule any roosts in solid modelling (PTC) or electronics (Mentor, Synopsis). Yes, those other products have Windows versions, but they are still widely deployed on Unix.
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message > news:o42u95-j5h.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious >> <A...@sti.net> >> wrote >> on Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:37:23 -0500 >> <47cc4579$0$31114$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in >>> message >>> news:p5ot95-adf.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut >>>> <lino...@bollsouth.nut> >>>> wrote >>>> on Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:40:18 -0500 >>>> <CRVyj.5578$dT.3...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>: >>>>> * Doug Mentohl peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>>>> On 26 Feb, 16:05, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> >>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Microsoft itself makes Silverlight available on both the >>>>>>> PC and Mac. That makes it cross platform ..
>>>>>> It's 'cross platform' except on Linux .. :)
>>>>> Indeed. "Cross-platform" is MicrosoftSpeak for >>>>> "runs on many variants of Microsoft Windows."
>>>> Well, obviously those are the only relevant platforms >>>> anyway. Never mind that Unix:
>>>> - was ruling the roost in the engineering and in the server >>>> side long before Microsoft even contemplated taking it >>>> over in the NT 3.5 timeframe (and which Linux was far more >>>> effective at sliding into than Windows ever was);
>>> Uix/Linux on engineering workstations is pretty much a thing of the past. >>> AutoCAD rules the roost today.
>> True.
>>>> - solved a fair number of its porting problems long before >>>> Microsoft even had to worry about it (though one might >>>> claim Microsoft has a rather nicer solution, because >>>> of various forks in among other places pseudo-ttys, >>>> vfork/fork, and poll/select);
>>> Ancient history. Who cares now?
>> True. Nowadays even Linux uses CreateProcess(). Oh, >> it doesn't? Install Wine, you guys. That way you'll have >> standard [1], portable [2] applications [3].
>> Oh, wait, Wine's not legal for Vista. Well, guess you'll >> all just have to go out and buy Microsoft Windows Vista >> (pick an edition) and run it within...no, wait, that's not >> legal anyway. Guess we'll just have to wipe the bootblock >> and let Microsoft manage it.
> Hard to figure out what your rant is all about. Wine doesn't run on Windows > at all, does it?
An interesting idea, actually -- and yes, Wine *does* run on Windows.
> Plus the Wine that I am vaguely familiar with is trying to > emulate the DLLs used in Windows, say the Win32 API set.
And failing miserably, since Microsoft has made said API a moving target.
> That doesn't have > much to do with Vista except for a few new extensions and whatever the > Winers have produced to-date should not be "illegal" in any sense although > it is possible that it may violate patents somewhere.
I'd have to find the EULA, but Vista cannot be run in a VMware-like emulator because of said EULA, that much I know.
> But the OSS bunch has > never seemed to care about that anyway.
>>>> - runs and ran on far more platforms than Microsoft >>>> Windows ever did (though in all fairness the current crop >>>> of PC/PCI hardware is very very very different from the >>>> PC-XT and even the PC-AT era stuff); ...
>>> Any of those platforms still around?
>> Dead as a doornail. The ARM platform systems in particular >> are no longer in use, zx90 mainframes are being edged >> out by Blades, and of course Microsoft Orange Phones are >> in wide use, being the dominant verging on monopolistic >> market leader with a combination of Powershell, Windows >> Vista Mobile Edition, and Windows Vista DRM. These phones >> are widely available everywhere on the planet.
> Well, I did see where IBM has scrapped Linux in favor of a Vista embedded > design on their point of sale kiosks.
>> which can't even get off the ground, it's so unpopular. >> Oh, wait, it's not unpopular?
> I don't think that it is even available.
It is not available. There is an SDK/emulator but no phone devices yet.
> What do you think the purpose of > this is, by the way?
To force Microsoft to open their code base, as opposed to serving their phone customers, of course.:
> Do all of these device makers plan to have their > products work just like everyone else's? That seems like a backward step to > me.
Products should be consistent across the board, in the simpler stuff. The usage of Microsoft Windows Vista Mobile Edition will ensure that consistency, clearly.
> Variety is the spice of life, they say, and if all the cell phones > worked the same way, there wouldn't be much to shout about.
>>>> Microsoft is the only relevant platform.
>>>> To Microsoft, anyway. Any other platform comes along >>>> (like Google), they'll [profanity] kill it.
>>> Google is not a platform. Google is a click seller.
>> Google is dying; Microsoft Live will kill it. Obviously. >> Just ask anyone on this newsgroup.
>>>> (Uh...last I looked both Unix Google were still around, too. >>>> Well, 2 1/2 out of 5, I guess; 4DOS, OS/2 and Netscape wrecked.)
>>> Unix is for upscale servers that need something better than Linux
>> Wait wait wait...better than *Linux*?? Oh, yeah, that's right; the most >> upscale stuff's gotta be Longhorn.
> There you go, living in the past again! Longhorn is long-gone. The product > name is Windows Server 2008, or more commonly, Windows 2k8 or even Windows > 2008.
No problem, then. It just needs to replace those Unix/Linux installations, and we'll be fine.
>>> and where >>> the old timers are too stuck in their ways to learn about Windows 2008.
>> ITYM Windows 2000 Server Edition, which was the first >> usable server edition available
> Well, certainly there has been a lot of water over the dam since those days. > Today some 50% of servers, numerically, accounting for almost 40% of the > total server market revenues are shipping with a Windows server version > pre-installed. That's some progress from the NT4 days and it started with > Win2K.
WinNT, you mean. It is slowly but surely killing Unix. With C#, it will kill Java as well, providing everyone with a uniform, attractive, and above all *enforceable* contract interface for design rights management and content rights management purposes.
(Remember who has the money.)
-- #191, ewi...@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129: void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote on Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:52:17 -0500 <5yZyj.85319$vt2.2...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
> * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:
>> So it looks pretty simple for us cheapskate Linux guys to >> develop websites to help Microsoft monopolize (again) >> website video display.
>> How nice of them.
> You are a smart man, Ghost!
Wish I were smarter. How do we avoid this sort of thing? ;-)
Best I can do is gently suggest that Mozilla display MP3 and other such natively, and it already can do that (once the plugins are installed). [*]
Of course the problem is that there's an awful lot of people that are using IE6 or IE7, and will be using IE8. It's not browsing, it's exploring; just click on the blue "e", and you're there. Can't beat that for convenience, especially if one's just plugged the unit in after taking it off one of the shelves of a commercial retailer such as Best Buy, Fry's Electronics, Sears, or Macy's.
And then there's the ability to download and install software. So simple, a virus can do it. ;-)
Contrast that to Gentoo's moderately annoying (but powerful!)
# emerge dev-java/sun-jdk
(yes, there's Porthole; I'm not sure how well it works for my purposes yet)
or Fedora's rpm command; Nautilus and/or Konqueror have probably mapped .rpm files thereto.
[*] Let's just say the kiddies would be interested in one part of a commercial some years back where two boys on a fence watch a supermodel (I forget who) drinking a Pepsi; the adults would be interested in another...
-- #191, ewi...@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129: void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
> On 2008-03-03, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>>>>> It's 'cross platform' except on Linux .. :)
>>>> Well, duh. Why would Microsoft want to assist its own bankruptcy by having >>>> its 'standard' support its worst of nightmares...?
>>> Then explain why Microsoft is providing technical assistance to the >>> Moonlight team - in the form of access to Silverlight engineers and >>> their test suites to test compatability?
>> A trap?
> In what way? How can MS sue them for implementing something they have > explicitly helped them implement? Not sure I see the logic with that.
Easily. If your usage intrudes on commercial usage, and you haven't paid the royalties, your ass is Microsoft's.
Besides, to mix metaphors, isn't MS the land of 1000 tornadoes? How does the left hand know what the right hand permitteth?
-- We've done some good work, but all of these products become obsolete so fast... It will be some finite number of years, and I don't know the number -- before our doom comes. -- Bill Gates, Forbes Greatest Business Stories of All Time (1997) by Daniel Gross ISBN 0471196533
>> On 2008-03-03, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>>>>>> It's 'cross platform' except on Linux .. :)
>>>>> Well, duh. Why would Microsoft want to assist its own bankruptcy by having >>>>> its 'standard' support its worst of nightmares...?
>>>> Then explain why Microsoft is providing technical assistance to the >>>> Moonlight team - in the form of access to Silverlight engineers and >>>> their test suites to test compatability?
>>> A trap?
>> In what way? How can MS sue them for implementing something they have >> explicitly helped them implement? Not sure I see the logic with that.
> Easily. If your usage intrudes on commercial usage, and you haven't > paid the royalties, your ass is Microsoft's.
What royalties? You don't need an MS license to develop for Silverlight... All you need is the FREE sdk and a text editor.
Tom Shelton wrote: > On 2008-03-03, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote: >> * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo: >>> On 2008-03-03, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> >>> wrote: >>>> ____/ Doug Mentohl on Monday 03 March 2008 15:38 : \____ >>>>> On 26 Feb, 16:05, Erik Funkenbusch >>>>> <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote: >>>>>> Microsoft itself makes Silverlight available on both the PC >>>>>> and Mac. That makes it cross platform ..
>>>>> It's 'cross platform' except on Linux .. :)
>>>> Well, duh. Why would Microsoft want to assist its own >>>> bankruptcy by having its 'standard' support its worst of >>>> nightmares...?
>>> Then explain why Microsoft is providing technical assistance to >>> the Moonlight team - in the form of access to Silverlight >>> engineers and their test suites to test compatability?
>> A trap?
> In what way? How can MS sue them for implementing something they > have explicitly helped them implement? Not sure I see the logic with > that.
Naturally they help, in exactly the same way someone "helps" a rat to die by feeding it poison.
> It seems simple enough to me. Do you, or do you not trust Microsoft to > engage with the Free Software community with only good and honourable > intentions?
Or, lacking this trust, do you have an ironclad agreement?
The founder of tablet computing pioneer Go Corporation has revived long dormant allegations of corporate wrongdoing with an anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft. Jerry Kaplan alleges that Go technology demonstrated to Microsoft technicians under non-disclosure was used to help develop competing products.
-- We don't have the user centricity. Until we understand context, which is way beyond presence -- presence is the most trivial notion, just am I on this device or not; it doesn't say am I meeting with something, am I focused on writing something. -- Bill Gates, .NET Briefing Day Speech (24 July 2002)
> On 2008-03-03, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote: >> * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo: >>> On 2008-03-03, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>>>>> Then explain why Microsoft is providing technical assistance to the >>>>> Moonlight team - in the form of access to Silverlight engineers and >>>>> their test suites to test compatability?
>>>> A trap?
>>> In what way? How can MS sue them for implementing something they have >>> explicitly helped them implement? Not sure I see the logic with that.
>> Easily. If your usage intrudes on commercial usage, and you haven't >> paid the royalties, your ass is Microsoft's.
> What royalties? You don't need an MS license to develop for > Silverlight... All you need is the FREE sdk and a text editor.
Not if you are a commercial entity, according to Microsoft's CEO. You have a balance-sheet liability with Microsoft that you must cover.
And so what if you're a non-commercial coder? No commercial entity can use your Mono code unencumbered, if Microsoft gets wind of it.
-- We are not even close to finishing the basic dream of what the PC can be. -- Bill Gates
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:25:04 +0100, Hadron wrote: > Tom Shelton <tom_shel...@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.net> writes:
>> On 2008-03-03, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote: >>> ____/ Doug Mentohl on Monday 03 March 2008 15:38 : \____
>>>> On 26 Feb, 16:05, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> Microsoft itself makes Silverlight available on both the PC and Mac. That >>>>> makes it cross platform ..
>>>> It's 'cross platform' except on Linux .. :)
>>> Well, duh. Why would Microsoft want to assist its own bankruptcy by having >>> its 'standard' support its worst of nightmares...?
>> Then explain why Microsoft is providing technical assistance to the >> Moonlight team - in the form of access to Silverlight engineers and >> their test suites to test compatability?
> You must remember that Roy Schestowitz is technically inept. He recently > fell foul of various OSS contributors and looked very, very silly indeed > and ended up slinking away. The things he has not understood recently > include this stuff and ODF v OOXML. He is clueless. There is no point in > arguing or providing facts as the only voice he is interested in, is his > own. He is driven by an irrational hatred of Microsoft despite having > zero real world experience or industry exposure. Nothing he says is to > be trusted as all of it is tainted with the poison that runs through his > blood. A strange individual to say the least.
That is certainly a very good description of Roy Schestowitz. It also explains why he sticks mostly to one way SPAMMING of articles rather than getting involved in debate and discussion.
IOW he gets his clock cleaned every time he tries to debate an issue.
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
> > Silverlight is a client side technology, so we are going to deliver > > the components to run content that was created on Silverlight on Linux > > using Moonlight.
> I'm still confused. Silverlight cannot *create*. > Perhaps the Silverlight SDK can, but not Silverlight > proper. It's a bit like using Adobe's Flash viewer to > create Flash content; can't be done (all AFAIK).
Well, considering that Silverlight 1.0 is text + javascript, all you really need is vi or emacs to create the content; Or if you like generating code on the flight to master the "print" statement in PHP.
For 1.1, you need a C# compiler, which you can download from our web site.
> [1] The provider provides content; Silverlight merely > views it (in a manner more efficient than Flash or native > browser plugins). Presumably, the provider in this case > is hewing to standards.
Put that as the mime type handler for application/x-silverlight, you have your first Silverlight app generated on Linux.
> Is there going to be a Moonlight SDK for developing > Moonlight and/or Silverlight content? I for one hope so.
For 1.0 you dont need a thing; For 1.1/2.0 you need a .NET compiler, we provide two: C# and VB, and lots of other people provide commercial and open source compilers.
> I would have a request in this area: make it easy for > Gentoo to generate a build. Yeah, yeah, I know; I just > happen to like Gentoo. ;-)
We would be happy to answer questions from any Gentoo folks on how to do the builds. All of our build scripts are public (module release in Mono's SVN).
|
