>> You do realize that you are dealing with RoySchestowitz, a paranoid Linux loony toon. > The guy has a mancrush on me, so am familiar with his "work" and what he does to bring more adsense revenue to his web sites.
You do realize you're addressing Gary 'flatfish' Stewart, the most deranged long term troll on Usenet. I'd be very carefull in accepting support from 'Moshe flatfish', that particular nutjob has been personally stalking me since at least 2002 and stalking COLA in general the best part of a decade. You really don't want 'wendy' on your side .. :)
Both you and Roy would be better served by taking the discussion elsewhere. This 'advocacy' group has been reduced to nothing more than a hollow joke, with the more then willing participation of the 'advocates'.
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:47:11 +0100, Hadron wrote: > Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>> In article <ogzyj.113501$K27.77...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, >>> Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote: >>>> > Wait a second. The relationship of Moonlight to Silverlight sounds >>>> > pretty much the same as the relationship of Gnash to Flash, except >>>> > Moonlight is actually receiving encouragement and cooperation from the >>>> > Silverlight people.
>>>> > Google in groups for "schestowitz" and "gnash", and there are numerous >>>> > posts by you supporting Gnash and calling it a Flash player for Linux.
>>>> > How can you claim that Gnash counts as Flash for Linux, but say that >>>> > Moonlight does not count as Silverlight for Linux.
>>>> Tim, looking to score a pedant point.
>>>> And completely missing the point.
>>> What point would that be?
>> I am confounded by your density, and not disposed to repeat myself.
> Liarnut, you need to get some help. You're getting denser by the > day. Are you turning into a black hole or something?
I think he might have had an illness about a month ago and now that he is getting better he no longer needs the meds he was using. I hope to see the old, and much more reasonable Linonut return to the group soon.
Right now he is just a water boy for Schestowitz.
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Miguel de Icaza <miguel.de.ic...@gmail.com> wrote on Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:25:37 -0800 (PST) <85e8b177-b1b8-453e-a412-3c69e28d4...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
>> Someone is going to have to define "application" properly >> in this context. The entire system >> (local + server [+ proxy]) is probably an application here.
> 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).
Also, AFAIK the SDK requires a valid Windows license. It is still not clear what the application is here, since one can make two cases.
[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.
[2] The provider + the viewer comprise a system, which efficiently transmits copyrighted material to the user in a safe manner.
Is there going to be a Moonlight SDK for developing Moonlight and/or Silverlight content? I for one hope so.
> At this point we have a feature complete 1.0 implementation, and we > are working on three areas:
> * Fix all known bugs, pass all test suites > * Improve performance > * Integrate Microsoft's Media Pack into Moonlight.
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. ;-)
Which is not different than any other open source project.
> 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.
> 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.
Sadly there is no bumper-sticker answer, or I would gladly give you that. This is a multi-dimensional question, that requires all the nuances of a full blog post. You might want to read my interviews, my blog and my position as stated on Slashdot.
> 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.
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.
Or replace "Silverlight" with "Flash", you certainly can browse youtube, but you will not get much out of it without it.
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.
> 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.
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).
> 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.
> 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; (b) whether its good for Linux to be a second class citizen on the web when you are unable to watch content.
> 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."
-- If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. -- Bill Gates, Challenges and Strategy Memo (16 May 1991)
Developers contributing source code to Mono upstream must agree to distribute their code to Novell under a license that allows Novell to relicense the code under other licensing terms. This practice is similar to copyright assignment agreements used in other free and open source software projects (used in many GNU projects and by MySQL), however, this method allows the developer to retain copyright of the original work while still preserving Novell's ability to commercially license Mono for specific customers that require different licensing terms than what is provided in general release versions (such as running Mono in embedded firmware environments).
. . .
This has been summed up by Richard Stallman[8]:
Mono is a free implementation of Microsoft's language C#. Microsoft has declared itself our enemy and we know that Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think it's dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono. There's nothing wrong with Mono. Mono is a free implementation of a language that users use. It's good to provide free implementations. We should have free implementations of every language. But, depending on it is dangerous, and we better not do that.
On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell's customers for patent infringement. According to Mono project leader Miguel de Icaza, this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell developers and customers.
-- The worst programs are the ones where the programmers doing the original work don't lay a solid foundation, and then they're not involved in the program in the future. -- Bill Gates
> Which is not different than any other open source project.
It sure as hell is different:
Both the Mono runtime and the Mono C# Compiler are also available under a proprietary license for those who can not use the LGPL and the GPL in their code.
For licensing details, contact mono-licens...@novell.com (mailto:mono-licens...@novell.com)
>> 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.
>> 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.
> 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;
Isn't that statement rather, uh, arrogant?
> (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.
-- We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten. Don't let yourself be lulled into inaction. -- Bill Gates
> Developers contributing source code to Mono upstream must agree to > distribute their code to Novell under a license that allows Novell to > relicense the code under other licensing terms. This practice is > similar to copyright assignment agreements used in other free and > open source software projects (used in many GNU projects and by > MySQL), however, this method allows the developer to retain > copyright of the original work while still preserving Novell's > ability to commercially license Mono for specific customers that > require different licensing terms than what is provided in general > release versions (such as running Mono in embedded firmware > environments).
> . . .
> This has been summed up by Richard Stallman[8]:
> Mono is a free implementation of Microsoft's language C#. > Microsoft has declared itself our enemy and we know that > Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think > it's dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono. > There's nothing wrong with Mono. Mono is a free > implementation of a language that users use. It's good to provide > free implementations. We should have free implementations of > every language. But, depending on it is dangerous, and we better > not do that.
> On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement > whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell's customers for > patent infringement. According to Mono project leader Miguel de > Icaza, this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell > developers and customers.
Why would you do that?
You merely copy that info thus making yet another redundant copy. You have made no comment and as usual your only currency is posting other peoples work with no apparent understanding or use for it. Almost as bad as HPT.
>> Which is not different than any other open source project.
> It sure as hell is different:
Okay, it's actually better than most OSS projects.
> Both the Mono runtime and the Mono C# Compiler are also available > under a proprietary license for those who can not use the LGPL and > the GPL in their code.
So it's licensed as open source (GPL/LGPL) and can also be licensed under a proprietary license for *those who can not use the LGPL/GPL in their code.*
What exactly is so confusing? Perhaps you don't have enough real world experience to know that many organizations to not allow the use of LGPL/GPL code. This allows those companies access to the technology.
> For licensing details, contact mono-licens...@novell.com > (mailto:mono-licens...@novell.com)
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>> 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;
> Isn't that statement rather, uh, arrogant?
How so?
>> (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.
It was phrased just fine the first time... before you decided to twist it around to something that was never said or implied.
> Both the Mono runtime and the Mono C# Compiler are also available > under a proprietary license for those who can not use the LGPL and > the GPL in their code.
> For licensing details, contact mono-licens...@novell.com > (mailto:mono-licens...@novell.com)
>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>> 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;
> Isn't that statement rather, uh, arrogant?
What telling you he has already provided the information and has no intention of typing it all in again you can ignore it and carry on squealing like a little girl? No, it isn't. It is eminently sensible.
>> (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.
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);
- 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);
- 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); ...
Microsoft is the only relevant platform.
To Microsoft, anyway. Any other platform comes along (like Google), they'll [profanity] kill it.
(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.)
-- #191, ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random blunt knife here Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous munition. Please notify the US government immediately upon reception. 0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...
> Which is not different than any other open source project.
>> 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.
>> 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.
Umm, it was going quiet well until this point. We're not talking about Girls Aloud or Boyzone, we're talking about a company which has just been fined E650millions for anti-trust violations, and has a lengthy history of such activities which are well documented.
Even Mr Ballmer said today that Microsoft's biggest *threat* is Linux.
So, would you like to reconsider your response? Ballmer thinks that Linux is a huge issue for Microsoft - how do you think that Microsoft will behave with respect to Mono, considering their fear of Linux?
> Developers contributing source code to Mono upstream must agree to > distribute their code to Novell under a license that allows Novell to > relicense the code under other licensing terms. This practice is > similar to copyright assignment agreements used in other free and > open source software projects (used in many GNU projects and by > MySQL), however, this method allows the developer to retain > copyright of the original work while still preserving Novell's > ability to commercially license Mono for specific customers that > require different licensing terms than what is provided in general > release versions (such as running Mono in embedded firmware > environments).
> . . .
> This has been summed up by Richard Stallman[8]:
> Mono is a free implementation of Microsoft's language C#. > Microsoft has declared itself our enemy and we know that > Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think > it's dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono. > There's nothing wrong with Mono. Mono is a free > implementation of a language that users use. It's good to provide > free implementations. We should have free implementations of > every language. But, depending on it is dangerous, and we better > not do that.
> On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement > whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell's customers for > patent infringement. According to Mono project leader Miguel de > Icaza, this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell > developers and customers.
Tes, got to have some competitive advantage, hey? ;-) You know, keep those nasty Ubuntu feet on fire.
-- ~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: does exactly what it says on the tin http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E Tasks: 138 total, 1 running, 137 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
____/ 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...?
Just the other day:
Feeling the heat at Microsoft
,----[ 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.
-- ~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Women blink twice as much as men http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E run-level 2 2008-01-24 14:06 last= http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
> 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.
> - 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?
> - 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?
> 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.
> (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 and where the old timers are too stuck in their ways to learn about Windows 2008.
"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.
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.
> 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.
> Is there going to be a Moonlight SDK for developing > Moonlight and/or Silverlight content? I for one hope so.
>> Which is not different than any other open source project.
> It sure as hell is different:
> Both the Mono runtime and the Mono C# Compiler are also available > under a proprietary license for those who can not use the LGPL and > the GPL in their code.
> 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?
>> (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.
>>> Which is not different than any other open source project.
>> It sure as hell is different:
>> Both the Mono runtime and the Mono C# Compiler are also available >> under a proprietary license for those who can not use the LGPL and >> the GPL in their code.
>> 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?
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.
>>> (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.
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?
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.
|
