Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

De Icaza Responds To Stallman

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the strong-personalities dept.

GNU is Not Unix 747

ndogg writes "It's no secret that Stallman doesn't like Mono. Miguel, however, has been pretty quiet about those criticisms, until now. It seems he'll no longer be quiet. He's responded strongly to an article by Stallman that criticizes Codeplex about its aims due to its origin at Microsoft. Miguel says Stallman is fearmongering, and is missing an opportunity by his criticism."

cancel ×

747 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Analysis of Miguel's article (5, Insightful)

Concern (819622) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656171)

Microsoft should ask for its money back. de Icaza is a terrible troll.

Stallman is of course right to point out that he is a Microsoft apologist - he is a notorious one. It is beyond argument that Microsoft spends significant dollars in direct and "personal" attempts to crush free software development projects such as Linux through the most indefensible barratry. It's also widely known that this is only one of a multi-prong strategy that includes coopting competing projects, through many means, including hiring key team members, and PR efforts, including hiring astroturfing firms - some of which patronize this very site, and you will meet some of their employees (or contractors) today. :)

Miguel must chuckle at himself when he writes things like "Fear mongering is a vibrant industry." It is too rich in irony for him not to know it. Yes, he suggests Microsoft is our "ally." A hilarious notion that, when he writes it, makes it clear what contempt he has for you, the reader.

If you judge someone by their actions, then there is no need to discuss how we judge Microsoft and their relationship to free software. It is easy to understand the lense through which we see codeplex even if they were to say nothing controversial. But apparently one of their goals is already clear - to throw another line of men at the front of the rhetorical "war" between free as in beer and free as in speech.

Just keep in mind that this is pure wasted time. RMS correctly points out that the war was won long ago - by a recognition of the value of the GPL and of free software. It's quite easy to understand - most people, when they give away their work, have a common moral compass, and they share certain values about how they would like to see that work go out into the world. i.e. They would rather some 3rd party not get paid for what they did for free. And they would rather others have the freedom to tinker, just as they did. Most ("important, widely used, active") open source software is free software for this reason. Of course, the "debate" will never end, either. But let's just keep it in perspective.

Ah Miguel. His rant may have virtually zero actual content, but at least he gets points for plugging "The Power of Nightmares." Just a few years too late, alas. From that and his Bush-based name calling, he may lose the conservative portion of the audience he is supposed to be reaching, but as I said, MS should get a refund.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656317)

Yes, he suggests Microsoft is our "ally." A hilarious notion that, when he writes it, makes it clear what contempt he has for you, the reader.

He never said nor suggested that Microsoft as a whole is your ally. A more fair analysis of his blog would be that Microsoft needs to be steered in the right direction and there are some good people on the inside trying to do this. He points out CodePlex as something he feels as a sign of progress. I'm not defending de Icaza's whole message but I think you're putting words into his mouth ... no one in their right mind would say Steve Ballmer is an ally of open source. He may employ people who are proponents of free and open software but he himself is definitely against it. Also keep in mind that people -- and companies -- do change. This isn't the case with Microsoft ... yet.

Just keep in mind that this is pure wasted time. RMS correctly points out that the war was won long ago - by a recognition of the value of the GPL and of free software.

If I may state the obvious, RMS is a hardliner with zero tolerance or forgiveness. Fine. This appeals quite well to many people (myself included). Now, de Icaza seems to be more of a bridge builder than a bridge burner and is looking for in roads into Microsoft. Perhaps you can see this as a catalyst to speed up the process to our desired end state or you can view this as aiding the enemy. Either way I think a lot of de Icaza's efforts are great experiments in seeing just how tolerant and truly open Microsoft's standards are. Right now, why don't we all just sit and watch before we become dependent on Moonlight? I appreciate both these people in different ways and it's a shame we got this drama or war of words internal to the open source movement.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (3, Insightful)

domatic (1128127) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656417)

Moonlight would actually have to be usable on J. Random Moonlight Site before I could even get dependency started.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (1, Insightful)

Concern (819622) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656441)

He never said nor suggested that Microsoft as a whole is your ally.

"I merely happen to have a different perspective on Microsoft than he has. I know that there are great people working for the company, and I know many people inside Microsoft that are steering the company towards being a community citizen. I have blogged about this for the last few years.

At the end of the day, we both want to see free software succeed. But Richard, instead of opening new fronts to promote his causes, attacks his own allies for not being replicas of himself."

He suggested that either himself, or Microsoft, or both, was his "ally." If you consider this feeble attempt to construct it in a deniable way to be successful, let's agree to disagree. :)

RMS is a hardliner with zero tolerance or forgiveness.

Or "forgiveness?" LOL. You suggest he can do anything other that use harsh language? RMS needs no license to be as free with his words as Microsoft certainly is.

Also, is Java not "forgiven?" I would think that would rather make the contrary point that RMS is obviously issue driven, rather than "revenge" driven as you seem to imply.

de Icaza seems to be more of a bridge builder

de Icaza is a shill. It is impossible to believe he is so big a fool to believe otherwise.

Microsoft's brand is "incompatible" with open source. They can no more credibly change it now than Volkswagen can pretend to be an American automaker. They made their bed on that through carefully and assiduously lying and suing the shit out of people for many, many years.

Bridge building? How big of a sucker can you possibly ask us to be?

(It's a rhetorical question.)

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (5, Informative)

Fwipp (1473271) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656567)

He never said nor suggested that Microsoft as a whole is your ally.

"I merely happen to have a different perspective on Microsoft than he has. I know that there are great people working for the company, and I know many people inside Microsoft that are steering the company towards being a community citizen. I have blogged about this for the last few years.

At the end of the day, we both want to see free software succeed. But Richard, instead of opening new fronts to promote his causes, attacks his own allies for not being replicas of himself."

He suggested that either himself, or Microsoft, or both, was his "ally."

No. He said that Richard Stallman attacks his allies. The very next sentence of TFA reads: To him, ridiculous statements like Linus "does not believe in Freedom" are somewhat normal. He is clearly referring to Linus Torvalds as Richard Stallman's ally.

Please don't deliberately misinterpret people that you don't agree with.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656583)

Errr... I read 'ally' to be referring to Mono in this case... and less hardline open source people in general...

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (3, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656855)

Since the article was prefaced as being about attacks on him (and not MS), it seems most logical that he is referring to himself as being the ally, not MS.

Personally, I can see how de Icaza may be a shill, and he may not be, but even a shill can build a bridge. Microsoft is a big enough organization that the left hand can have some confusion as to what the right is doing, and there could be a lot of honest intent in the MS Open Source group. It's not foolish to think people or groups can change, to think that they can learn from their mistakes, or to think that a large corporation can have a bit of inconsistency due to management issues.

Blinding disregarding those possibilities is just as foolish as blindly thinking they aren't possibilities but actual simple truths.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (5, Insightful)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656451)

I agree that de Icaza is "bridge builder", but unfortunately "the roads into Microsoft" are all one-way.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29657013)

His ass isn't oneway, if you get my drift. For those that don't get my drift, he's a bottom.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656495)

Now, de Icaza seems to be more of a bridge builder than a bridge burner and is looking for in roads into Microsoft

Bridges work both ways. Microsoft cannot be trusted, their track record speaks for itself. Even today they'll FUD away or deliberately mislead people with their so-called "open" efforts. They only care about their bottom line and how to destroy competition. One day, they'll pull the rug from under Mono.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (5, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656541)

He never said nor suggested that Microsoft as a whole is your ally.

I'm looking this article over top to bottom, and I don't really see him suggesting anything. There's a lot of namecalling, a parable where I'm right thank you very much (shoeless people in Africa? We have Java, as well as Python and various other languages on Linux for the niche Mono wants to fill.)

Seems to me like RMS gave a principled (and really fairly balanced) assessment of Mono, and Icaza responded by calling RMS a luddite, with absolutely no argument to back it up. Why did this even make Slashdot when Icaza says absolutely nothing to refute Stallman's argument?

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (3, Informative)

miguel (7116) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656951)

The reason is very simple: I am not responding to RMS's opinions on Mono.

I am responding to RMS's last post which is pretty much content free, but does contain another personal attack against me.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (1)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 4 years ago | (#29657069)

"We have Java, as well as Python and various other languages on Linux for the niche Mono wants to fill."

I like to see open software offer a compatible option for every closed system. This may in many ways be somewhat futile as it's forever chasing something that can never be realized, but that's the flip-side of the point: to keep closed systems on their toes. If there's an open solution for *everything*, even for closed problems, nobody can argue that open software is incapable of helping with closed system X Y or Z.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 4 years ago | (#29657105)

shoeless people in Africa? We have Java, as well as Python and various other languages on Linux for the niche Mono wants to fill.

I believe Miguel was referring to Open Source within Microsoft. RMS is the first salesman seeing no potential for Open Source, and Miguel is the second who chooses to fight the odds and attempt to bring shoes (Open Source) to a shoeless society.

I believe Miguel was somewhat wrong, though -- RMS deals in Free Software, not Open Source. To him, Free Software is the absolute and anything else is a waste of time. It is more like Shoe Company A (Free Software) visiting Africa and deciding Africa is nefarious when they choose to go with Shoe Companies B and C (other Open Source licenses) instead.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656573)

It is difficult to be as trusting of Microsoft and their intentions as Miguel obviously is. This is the company that worked to discredit the entire free software movement, and still refuses to acknowledge that there is even such a movement. This is the company that wrote the playbook for break compatibility for everyone else. Microsoft has a habit of poaching developers until their competitors fall apart.

Why would we ever want to write code for their platform on their terms? I will not have much trust for Microsoft until MS Office is GPLed (v3) and I can get it working on GNU.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (3, Insightful)

readthemall (1531267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656431)

From Miguel's article:

Two shoe salesmen were sent to Africa in the early 1900's to scout the territory.
One telegraphed back: "Situation hopeless. Stop. No one wears shoes."
The other telegraphed: "Business opportunity. Stop. They have no shoes."
Since we only have a limited time on earth, I have decided to spend my time on earth as much as I can trying to be like the second salesman. Looking at opportunities where others see hopelessness.

OMG, WTF. The first one thinks with his head, he sees there is no need to wear shoes. The second one avoids thinking and decides to find a way to sell something that nobody needs. How smart, Miguel. The parent said it, you act as a terrible troll.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656853)

The issue of "need" has absolutely nothing to do with this. Unsurprisingly you have totally missed the point.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (3, Insightful)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656921)

Obviously the idea would be that people think they don't need shoes in Africa, and the business opportunity would be showing them otherwise. You can get some nasty snake bites over there, you know...

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (0, Troll)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656489)

Microsoft should ask for its money back. de Icaza is a terrible troll.

de Icaza doesn't have to be good, he just has to make noise. M$ only trots him out and yanks his leash when a distraction is needed.

Maybe a distraction from Lisbon and Software Patents up Europe's backdoor?

Long like our Uber-Ally (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656611)

I always thought it was hilarious that Senor Miguel's motive for starting GNOME was that the then non-free QT wasnt 'free enough' to his tastes
and that now that he is on the other side of the equation, he has utter contempt for the people have the same opiinions of him.

We all become our fathers eventually. Soon Miguel will tell us to get off his lawn.

Im still waiting to see if .NET will become the framework for GNOME 3 or version 4 like he has promised us.

Microsoft controlled free software: like a warm bowl of leftover barf.
Hmm....

Oh change the record FFS (0, Troll)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656637)

I'm sick and tired of the attacks on everyone who might go against the juvenile group-think on this website and actually feel some of the things microsoft produce have something to offer the world and would like to extend it.

"Ah Miguel. His rant may have virtually zero actual content,"

Blah blah.

Give it a rest you tedious FSF troll.

Re:Oh change the record FFS (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656839)

"I'm sick and tired of the attacks on everyone who might go against the juvenile group-think on this website and actually feel some of the things microsoft produce have something to offer the world and would like to extend it."

Sorry, but after years of trying to undermine and bring an end to the free software and open source software movements, Microsoft needs to make the first move. Thus far, all they have done is contributed some drivers to Linux that make it easier to run Windows in a VM, and made it slightly easier for open source developers to develop software for Windows. Note their emphasis on running Windows. Note that Windows is more proprietary, more shackled than ever before.

Call me when Windows and/or MS Office have been GPLv3'ed.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (3, Interesting)

naasking (94116) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656735)

If you judge someone by their actions, then there is no need to discuss how we judge Microsoft and their relationship to free software.

But Microsoft is not a "someone", it is an aggregate of "someones", and treating MS like an individual that has already shown its true colours is a mistake, because that is not the nature of the beast. This is why Miguel called this an opportunity, because merely by inserting open source advocates into MS you can alter its aggregate behaviour to a more open source friendly stance. The evidence is already there: MS has already become more open than they used to be, with shared source licenses and CodePlex being the highest profile examples.

Which isn't to say we shouldn't be cautious, but we should not be openly hostile and accusatory either, as that simply undermines those people working to improve the situation.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (2, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656745)

I hate Microsoft politics. I think .Net is a platform with technical merit (it took me a while to admit it). What does that make me ?

My boss forces me to work with .Net but thanks to Mono, I was able to share my work with a Linux-only lab and to suggest that maybe we should have a focus on developing Mono-compatible applications.

Saying that Stallman has a tendency for inflammatory declarations is an understatement. I think this is how it works in (american ?) politics : one needs a figurehead that is an extreme zealot in order to make some room for more moderate points of view to develop.

Like Miguel I think that Microsoft is a really big company that bought many good small companies and that these small guys are still there and wanting to do great projects. Their management dooms most of them unfortunately. Though Mono is one of these things that has not been switched off yet. I think this is a great opportunity as well and we should enjoy it while it lasts. MS lacks subtlety : when they will stop support it, it will be quite clear.

disclose payment for trolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656867)

I My boss forces me to work with .Net but thanks to Mono

Astroturfer, you are now obligated by the FTC to disclose payment for trolling [eweek.com] .
Your kind doesn't belong here. Get out.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (3, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656925)

> I think .Net is a platform with technical merit

I have yet to see it. Really. All it seems to do accomplish is to make
your work fit in more with Microsoft and less with the rest of Unix.
Since Linux is "just another Unix". That is a serious problem that needs
to be counterbalanced by considerable new benefits.

Personally I don't see the point of bothering with .NET or getting
particularly excited about it. Perhaps if you told me I would be
able to run the next version of Office on any platform of my choosing
I would be more prone to get excited.

The key here is that if it runs on Linux it should be able to run on
ANYTHING given sufficient interest. That means that it will also run
on MacOS, BeOS, AIX, Solaris and HP/UX given enough interest. If .NET
can't promise that than it is less interesting than Java or POSIX.

"Kind of compatable" doesn't really cut it. Having the Linux version of
Microsoft's standard be clearly inferior will just make Linux seem clearly
inferior (and justifiably so).

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (4, Informative)

miguel (7116) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656887)

The allies I refer to are folks like Linus, Eric Raymond, Tim O'Reilly and everyone else that advocates the same ideas, but does not take marching orders from him.

Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (2, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656891)

Free software isn't a religion.

Hmm (4, Funny)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656175)

I know that there are great people working for the company, and I know many people inside Microsoft that are steering the company towards being a community citizen. I have blogged about this for the last few years.

I agree wholeheartedly that it is highly unlikely that Microsoft will seize any opportunity it gets to do annoying things specially to break open projects. Again.

WTF ? (1, Redundant)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656375)

Eh ? I agree wholeheartedly that your comment doesn't even begin to make sense.

Re:WTF ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656413)

</sarcasm>

That help at all?

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656393)

That's not what he's saying though, is it? I mean, you've even quoted him, so we can see as much.

Sorry, but going with Richard on this one. (5, Insightful)

Howard Beale (92386) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656191)

Richard - "The first thing we see is that the organization ducks the issue of users' freedom; it uses the term "open source" and does not speak of "free software"."

Miguel - "The creation of the CodePlex foundation was an internal effort of people that believe in open source at Microsoft. "

Open source on whose terms?

Re:Sorry, but going with Richard on this one. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656403)

Open source and free software are completely different things as well.
You can have open source Non free software and MS could live with that for a while if it killed off all their competitiors

Re:Sorry, but going with Richard on this one. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656419)

Open source on whose terms?

As defined by OSI presumably.

Re:Sorry, but going with Richard on this one. (1, Interesting)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656579)

Isn't it possible that Microsoft will slowly see benefit from releasing source code? I see CodePlex as the natural evolution of the openness started with WiX. Try a few things, it doesn't go too badly, and move out a bit more.

The one thing to remember is that Microsoft cannot release too much code - since they buy everything they make, it will take too much legal work to clear everything for release unless it starts out as open from the beginning. So we should encourage this as much as possible.

Even if you can't do anything with the source, having it is a lot better than not.

Re:Sorry, but going with Richard on this one. (3, Insightful)

JohnFen (1641097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656809)

Isn't it possible that Microsoft will slowly see benefit from releasing source code?

I think a big part of Stallman's point was that CodePlex is going to muddy the open source waters, and this question appears to be an example of it.

Open source is more than just letting people look at the source code. Microsoft can harm OS by geting people to think it's not.

Also, open source != free software, and -- more importantly -- MS will confuse things by trying to make out like they're equivalent. Free software is the important bit. Open source is one part of that.

In the bigger picture, Microsoft has repeatedly shown that it cannot be trusted. In the past, it has looked like it might be getting a bit of enlightenment, only to have it turn out that the goal was to coopt and subvert. WIth that track record, I'm not going to trust them an inch until they've established a reasonably different track record.

Re:Sorry, but going with Richard on this one. (1)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656835)

"Open Source" misses the point. Being able to *see* it is of little use if people that receive it are not also able to modify it, release the modified versions, use it for any purpose, and freely copy it.

Free Software does not benefit from having more software developed for proprietary software platforms. Write Free Software in languages with API's that are themselves fully Free Software.

Here is the 'bad' scenario - Lots of developers spend lots of time making "Mono"/"Dot Net" software, and then Microsoft changes the terms, and either renders all that software unusable on Windows, unusable on Free platforms, or steals it all from the developers and shuts them and everything Free completely out of the loop.

Well of course he's annoyed (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656195)

He and others written a useful, complex and (hopefully) well implemented set of software components through much in the way of blood, seat and tears.

So of course he's not going to agree that what he did was either a waste of time or evil. I'm not exactly sure which side of this debate I fall on. Doesn't affect me too much as a C programmer...

BSD trolls do this all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656369)

Yet silence abounds about it.

RMS's work on GPL is being touted by others (including Miguel) as a waste of time.

Silence.

Re:Well of course he's annoyed (3, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656613)

blood, seat and tears.

What, Ballmer was throwing chairs at him?

Re:Well of course he's annoyed (4, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656641)

I didn't think it affected me either until I put a new copy of debian on a machine and did an "apt-get install gnome" and found a copy of mono being installed on my machine. What I want to know is WTF was debian even thinking when they did that? It's obvious they weren't thinking very well since they back-pedaled [h-online.com] and claimed that mono wasn't in the default install, by which they mean that it's only in the gnome metapackage and not the gnome-core or gnome-desktop. It's also equally obvious that anyone who wants to install gnome will first try apt-get install gnome rather than the non-intuitive gnome-core.

The point is that Mono is creeping into distributions through packages like Tomboy. I think that things like Mono shouldn't be in default packages or a dialog should be asked for things which are clearly offensive to at least some significant portion of the linux community. You don't see them doing that for NVIDIA drivers, I know the licenses are different and Mono at least claims to be open-source [wikipedia.org] but I guess there's a lot more people who want to avoid MS than people who want to avoid NVIDIA.

MS patents and DRM are blocking compatibility (2, Interesting)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656239)

Microsoft is pushing software patents and DRM around the world. These are the two main things blocking free software from being compatible, so this is holding back the technical progress and the spread of free software.

MS's policies are getting worse and worse, so I can't see why helping them is in our interest.

I've been documenting Microsoft's patent activity [swpat.org] , and I fail to see any change for the better.

Re:MS patents and DRM are blocking compatibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656985)

Free software holds itself back.

it's not fearmongering.... (4, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656241)

It's GNU/Fearmongering. Let's at least give credit where credit is due ;)

A matter of credibility (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656261)

A lot of people dislike Stallman and his positions, but even his biggest detractors have to admit that he's a principled man. You know where RMS stands on issues before he even comments on them because he's had a consistent message for a few decades now.

De Icaza's position seems to be that short-term convenience wins. Period. I just can't credit him with the same credibility or integrity as RMS. I mean, I guess he's at least consistent with his position, but I'm also consistent in liking the taste of peanut butter, and that doesn't win me any points.

If I had to pick a side - and I think it's becoming apparent that we do - then I'd have to go with RMS. Some of his conclusions are a bit... out there... but he solidly argues them from solid principles and it's kind of hard to disagree with him. Finally, he has a track record of making some pretty bold predictions that turn out to be dead on many years later. The Right to Read, anyone? When de Icaza has a couple of decades of predictive accuracy behind him, I'll start paying more attention to his words.

Re:A matter of credibility (-1, Flamebait)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656523)

Hitler was consistent in his principles, too.

Re:A matter of credibility (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656539)

Hitler was also very principled.

Re:A matter of credibility (3, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656553)

A lot of people dislike Stallman and his positions, but even his biggest detractors have to admit that he's a principled man.

Yes, Stallman is a principled man. The problem with Stallman and Mono, however, is that his objections are based on fear and innuendo, not on principles or reason.

Stallman has not been able to present a logical argument showing that the legal situation around Mono is any worse than it is around Linux, March, GNU C, or numerous other FOSS projects. In fact, Stallman doesn't even seem to understand the relationship between Mono and .NET; he is speaking from technical and legal ignorance.

Finally, he has a track record of making some pretty bold predictions that turn out to be dead on many years later.

And he has also made numerous bad predictions. Also, just because he understood the technology 20 years ago doesn't mean he understands today's technologies and their relationships.

Astroturfer alert! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656933)

How much did you get paid to write that?

Re:A matter of credibility (1, Offtopic)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656879)

I'm also consistent in liking the taste of peanut butter

[4chan] User was banned for this post. [/4chan]

Re:A matter of credibility (1)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656957)

If I had to pick a side - and I think it's becoming apparent that we do - then I'd...

It's not at all obvious to me that we need to "pick sides". Why does this issue have to polarized?

Frankly the presumption that every issue has to be dual and polarized is corrosive to intelligent discourse and useful politics at all scales (from software projects to running of countries). For just about any issue, there is a broad spectrum of opinions, with a fairly wide swath I consider to be "reasonable"... and rarely do I consider either extreme to be the most appropriate stance.

For what it's worth, I do agree that Stallman is consistent and correctly predicted many issues of software freedom. You're right that this should cause us to take his warning and opinions seriously. I often agree with his stances, and as such (for instance) use free software wherever possible. But I allow for more frequent pragmatism that Stallman would stand for. Just because he's right on many issues doesn't mean we have to accept all his opinions. And even if we agree with his overall arguments, that doesn't mean we agree with all his suggested methods and actions.

My only point here is that we should not fall into the trap of turning this into an "us vs. them" battle, where you have to pick a champion for your cause. I, personally, am going to make choices about what software to use, advocate for, and so on... based on my own interpretation/evaluation of the importance of software freedom and related issues.

What's the big deal? (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656265)

According to my doctor I had mono at some point in my life, and I didn't even know it. He asked me if there was ever point that I was tired for an extended period of time, and I said "Uh, college?"

He's right (3, Insightful)

cabjf (710106) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656269)

Stallman does seem to only see the world in black and white (or not-free and free in this case). That's why I tend to dismiss most of what I hear from him. His fear mongering is no better that the stuff people complain about companies like Microsoft doing. Microsoft is just a company. They may have many business practices I disagree with. They may even have leadership I more consistently disagree with, but that doesn't mean everything they do is wrong. Just like De Icaza says, "there are great people working for the company, and I know many people inside Microsoft that are steering the company towards being a community citizen." Now I don't personally know people inside Microsoft as De Icaza does, but it's not a stretch to believe that out of those thousands of employees, at least some of them would rather play nice and put out great products. You can't just dismiss everything based on past behavior. Especially for a corporate entity which changes directions more frequently than people do.

Re:He's right (3, Interesting)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656361)

Microsoft isn't only a corporation, it's a paradigm. Their memetic tyranny is twofold in attraction of members who have the same beliefs of proprietary software and the indoctrination of new employees to follow the way of the four-color panes.

There's only so many crimes against humanity anyone can commit before they can no longer be redeemed. In the view of Stallman and many, many others, Microsoft crossed the line long before the world really knew who they were.

There's no changing the connotation of Microsoft's name, they must be... supplanted.

Re:He's right (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656449)

There's only so many crimes against humanity anyone can commit before they can no longer be redeemed.

The GNU/Linux desktop is a crime against humanity.

Re:He's right (2, Insightful)

CaseCrash (1120869) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656769)

Holy shit. I hope this is supposed to be a funny ironic attack on iconoclasts and fundamentalists, because otherwise you're way the fuck out there and you sound like old school communist and fascist orators.

Re:He's right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656813)

Bullshit, Microsoft is just a corporation. It's composed of many different individuals, and many people in key positions are different than the ones a decade ago. Don't be so fucking naive.

Re:He's right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29657073)

You do realize the complete contradiction in your view don't you?

Can these few override Ballmer? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656425)

Or any exec?

No.

So when it comes down to "strategic" planning to maintain monopoly or playing nice with GPL, which way will the ***company*** go?

The way these few people want or the way that screws up GPL?

I mean it's just as valid to say out of all those thousands, there are probably many who believe that the GPL is the spawn of satan and will kill all projects even thought of touching it and therefore RMS is right and Miguel wrong.

Re:He's right (5, Insightful)

domatic (1128127) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656621)

The leadership of MS is on record as calling FOSS Un-American, a cancer, and other pejoratives. Their leadership has also been caught red-handed more than once attempting to sabotage FOSS. The recent nastiness with the anti-Linux patent package intended for troll use comes to mind. The actions of MS' leadership are far more relevant than the fact a few coders in cubicles don't bear FOSS any particular ill will. Now I don't hate MS but distrusting MS isn't in the least unreasonable.

Re:He's right (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656669)

If you mix black and white you get gray. If you try mixing free and not-free the result is not-free. Thus Free and Not-free don't mix.

Re:He's right (1)

Savior_on_a_Stick (971781) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656743)

You can't just dismiss everything based on past behavior. Especially for a corporate entity which changes directions more frequently than people do.

You do if you're going to play the blame game, and heap all the fault for every FOSS failing on MS doorstep.

Re:He's right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656819)

Stallman on software: Step 1: Release software as open source, make it free for people to use

Step 2:

Step 3: Profit!

Being marked down as a troll in 3...2...1...

You may not like my views on the open source/free software movement, but you cannot deny that many, including Stallman himself, have a sometimes overly deluded view with regards to people paying for things like food and rent when software is always being made open source and given out for all to use. I prefer to actually have things like a place to live, food to eat, and a car for getting where I need to go.

Re:He's right (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#29657061)

Thank you for a thoughtful and rational post concerning a subject that seems to attract neither. I'd heard rumors of the mythical 'rational person', but never hoped to see one in the wild. :-) You make a point that should not be overlooked. As a former employee (and spouse of a current employee) of a company in another industry that's commonly hated - pharmaceuticals - I can attest to Miguel's point about people inside Microsoft wanting to do the right thing. A good many people in pharma, particularly in research (which I'm most familiar with) are motivated to be there because they want to develop great medicines. They can be just as frustrated with the actions of company leadership (shareholders and management) as the general public. What keeps a lot of people there despite the frustration is the realization that change can only come from the inside - you have little real influence from outside. In addition, at larger companies, it's much easier to create local pockets of "goodness" that can help balance out the negative, whether it's by taking advantage of the large employee base to achieve massive contributions to charitable organizations or spearheading programs to donate medicines to disadvantage nations/seniors and such. The inside of a company is just a reflection of the world around us - you do what you can where you can to make things better. A superior approach to just doing nothing, IMHO. So what Miguel says about good people inside Microsoft who want to do the right thing rings very true. To be honest, blindly hating a company and everything about it is just as stupid as hating every citizen of a particular nation. Given the world-wide, multicultural nature of the free software community, I think most people realize that judging people based on the country they reside in is unreasonable. I submit that it's just as unreasonable to dismiss the efforts of good people because they are associated with a "hated" company. If there are people inside Microsoft who are trying to facilitate change, they deserve just as much help and consideration as the citizens of a nation with an oppressive regime who wish to do the same. It's certainly a more civilized way to make things better than rushing in will guns blazing and killing everyone who opposes you. A healthy degree of suspicion regarding Microsoft and yes, Mono and Miguel are fine and reasonable. Extremely reasonable, considering past actions (but keep the words of a certain Gordon Sumner in mind - history will teach us nothing). The blind, knee-jerk guilt-by-association I'm seeing from the FLOSS community strikes me as highly irrational, however. Has Microsoft got everyone so cowed that winning the upper hand in every confrontation is just a foregone conclusion, so it's better to run away and avoid them? I guess that's one strategy to follow. Another is to have some confidence in the ability of one's own community to hold its own in the face of adversity and go toe-to-toe and win what you can. Taking back lost ground and ultimately making a former rival a willing member of one's own community seems a much better long term strategy than turning inward in the hope that ignoring them entirely will eventually make them go away.

A matter of credibility (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656385)

RMS is a lot of things his critics accuse him off: he's a radical hippy type who pisses people off and makes the most outlandish predictions. He's also one of the most principled people I know. You can pretty much tell where Stallman will fall on an issue before anyone thinks to ask him - he'll be on whichever side means the most freedom for users. Yeah, a lot of his conclusions initially sound crazy, but he starts with solid principles and makes logical arguments from there. If he follow is reasoning from start to end, it's kind of hard do disagree with him.

Contrast with de Icaza, whose main principle seems to be "short term convenience wins". Well, by that standard, I have a principled position on liking the taste of peanut butter.

When de Icaza has a couple of decades of predictive accuracy rivaling RMS's under his belt, I'll start to listen to what he says. Until then, he has no more credibility with me than any other random programmer.

Re:A matter of credibility (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656461)

Sorry for posting on the same theme twice. Slashdot did its best impression of eating my first post and it didn't show up when I reloaded the page.

Re:A matter of credibility (2, Insightful)

TiberSeptm (889423) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656575)

I find it strange that people seem to think it's ok to say something outlandish and crazy if you started with principles and logic. Doesn't that make it all the more lamentable that even though you started with principles and logic you still managed to make it crazy? That seems to suggest a sort of world view that can not be tempered even by logic and principles doesn't it?

I'm not really commenting on Stallman in particular, just the general idea that doing or saying something nutty is ok if you started somewhere sane and had principles You could extend that rationale to a lot of terrible things throughout history. I think it's more upsetting when someone starts with sound reasoning and principles and, through zeal or intolerance, ends up somewhere very dark and nasty than if they had just been crazy to begin with.

Re:A matter of credibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656683)

Do you really think it's that good to never change your mind anyway? Don't you think we learn from experience enough to change our minds a bit in time?

The real problem with RMS is that he decided a long time ago that he would not listen anymore. He knows his truth, and he teaches his truth for others to learn, but he will never acknowledge any mistakes in it nor change it to try and improve on his initial concept. This it not a good thing, and people shouldn't use their own stubbornness as a demonstration of how right or wrong they are.

Smart people are open to listening what others have to say, and may decide to change their minds eventually, sometimes a lot, sometimes a little bit. Sticking to a goal you set more than 10 years ago without letting anyone influence you at all, not even to add a coma, talks to me about a lack of interest in looking for real improvements. Claiming to be on higher moral grounds because of it is idiocy.

Re:A matter of credibility (2, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656801)

Do you really think it's that good to never change your mind anyway? Don't you think we learn from experience enough to change our minds a bit in time?

When it comes to your core principles, I think it's perfectly fine to stick with them. RMS's judgement criterion is always: "does this action increase or decrease a user's freedom?" If it increases it, he's vocally for it. If it takes something away, then he's vocally against it.

No, I don't want him to change his mind on something that fundamental. The day I hear him explaining why something freedom-limiting is OK because it's convenient is the day I stop considering his opinion. I can make my own prediction here: that day will never come.

Re:A matter of credibility (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 4 years ago | (#29657025)

You're right about RMS. However, he has a clear view that anything capitalistic or corporate is inherently against user freedom, and will fight against EVERYTHING involving commercial use of open source software. I appreciate his consistency and sense of ethics, but I don't agree with his zealotry and blindness.

sparse (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656399)

De Icaza doesn't raise many points in his defence.

Re:sparse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656423)

Points in his defense? Why should he have to defend himself from a crazy zealot?

Stallman seems to have lost his way (4, Interesting)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656411)

When Stallman started the GNU project, the software he was cloning had been created by a big, litigious, evil monopoly called "AT&T". There was a good chance that they were going to shut him down for copyright and patent infringement. He took that risk, and the rest is history.

The situation surrounding Mono is actually far less serious. Yes, Microsoft is a big, litigious, evil monopoly, but they actually have made a pretty watertight commitment to keeping those portions of .NET that Mono relies on open and free.

Re:Stallman seems to have lost his way (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656493)

So maybe you should stop calling us "evil". We do a lot of good work.

Actually RMS has been constant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656689)

As most of the above posters mention, like him or not, RMS has been pretty constant in his beliefs.

One person mentioned that you know where he stands on a question before he even answers it.

So constance is a given with him.

Your 2nd paragraph seems like straight out of the Mono-lovers handbook.
No, the GNU project isnt the same as mono so dont even try it.
As for Redmond's commitment.
Please read a bit of tech history if youre too young to remember the last 20, 10 or 5 years....

The only group that gets screwed more than MS competitors are its partners. Eventually somewhere down the partnership, they will take you for a car ride and the big beefy guy seated behind you will slip a wire around your neck.

Re:Stallman seems to have lost his way (4, Insightful)

urulokion (597607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656825)

When Stallman started the GNU project, the software he was cloning had been created by a big, litigious, evil monopoly called "AT&T". There was a good chance that they were going to shut him down for copyright and patent infringement. He took that risk, and the rest is history.

The situation surrounding Mono is actually far less serious. Yes, Microsoft is a big, litigious, evil monopoly, but they actually have made a pretty watertight commitment to keeping those portions of .NET that Mono relies on open and free.

There were no software patents back then. Only copyright and very proprietary (read: expensive) software licenses. RMS started creating work alike and very often superior software. The software was written independent of any of the Unix source code to avoid any chance of it being tainted by that same source code. There was no chance of AT&T shutting down GNU software; because, they didn't have any legal leg to stand on.

Re:Stallman seems to have lost his way (2, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29657091)

There was no chance of AT&T shutting down GNU software; because, they didn't have any legal leg to stand on.

The legal issues simply hadn't been settled in court, but there was a very real risk that AT&T could have made both patent claims (they had some software patents already) and copyright claims (based on identifier names and interfaces) against the GNU project. Furthermore, many of the people contributing to GNU did have access to UNIX source code in principle, resulting in yet more ways in which AT&T could have challenged GNU. At the very least, they could have tied up GNU in legal knots for years. And whether the GPL itself would hold up in court was yet another legal uncertainty.

The GNU project has always lived under legal clouds and threats; that just comes with the territory.

When microsoft is involved (4, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656437)

Stallman's a fanatic, but on the other hand, Microsoft is Microsoft. Which is to say, it's probably difficult to be too paranoid about their intentions with respect to competition. Stallman's article isn't even particularly paranoid; it boils down to "we've seen similar groups do bad things before, so we should watch this group. Also, we disagree with some of their goals".

BTW, Miguel, George Bush did not invent "Good vs Evil". And while I've never seen anything that approaches pure Good, there's no shortage of "sufficiently evil".

Re:When microsoft is involved (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656659)

Microsoft is Microsoft.

Open source has had many enemies over the years. For years, Apple was enemy number one for Stallman (and, in that case, for good reason). AT&T, IBM, and many other companies have, at times, tried to hurt open source.

Every open source project is a calculated risk. But then, so is every closed source project and every business venture. Stallman has not been able to make a good argument that using Mono is any riskier than Python or D or GNU C.

don't listen to Stallman (-1, Flamebait)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656469)

Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or .NET. He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR, .NET, and Mono is. And he has no idea of what the legal situation is.

If Stallman has a credible legal point to make, he should make it. But spreading FUD about other FOSS projects is irresponsible. I used to respect the guy, but not anymore.

Re:don't listen to Stallman (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656609)

Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or .NET.

Neither have I, but I know what they are.

He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR, .NET, and Mono is.

So you disagree with RMS: fine. But you're doing yourself a grave disservice by dismissing him as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Love him or hate him, he's a sharp guy who knows his stuff.

And he has no idea of what the legal situation is.

I'm sure the founder of the FSF and the author of the first GPL is wholly ignorant of legal issues in software development.

Don't be stupid. Again, it's OK to disagree with the man. Just don't do it on the grounds of "he's old and doesn't know anything", because it's possible (in fact, certain) that he knows more about it than you do.

Re:don't listen to Stallman (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656785)

I'm sure the founder of the FSF and the author of the first GPL is wholly ignorant of legal issues in software development.

His argument is that "Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents". Which specific patents would Microsoft use to do that? How could they do that given their public, legally binding commitments not to do this? What reason is there to believe that applications written in C# are at a bigger risk of that than applications written in Python?

Just don't do it on the grounds of "he's old and doesn't know anything",

He is about the same age as I am.

Don't be stupid.

Take your own advice. Instead of going all starry eyed because you recognize someone's name, use your own head and ask the right questions.

Re:don't listen to Stallman (5, Insightful)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656731)

Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or .NET. He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR, .NET, and Mono is...

That's preposterous -- it's like saying someone is in no position to judge whether or not the Nazis were evil... unless he speaks German.

Stallman's position is that anything built on Mono is built on a foundation of trust in Microsoft, which means a foundation made of sand.

You don't need to write any Mono code to judge whether or not his contention is true. All you need to know is that, time after time after time, Microsoft have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted.

Merely conjecture (1)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656533)

From stallman

Today we can only try to anticipate what it will do, based on its statements and Microsoft's statements.

It's all conjecture, the entire basis of his attack is that it could be bad because it's heavily influenced by microsoft. I don't trust microsoft as much as the next person, but get them for what they DO do (while safeguarding yourself from harm), as opposed to what they could potentially do, with their own platform.

The people that are making this initiative have every right to do what they want with their own code.

Impedance mismatch (5, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656547)

Stallman and de Icaza have completely different goals, as do the larger Free Software and Open Source movements they are part of. There is unfortunately a tendency on the Open Source side to obscure this difference by claiming that Free Software is a subset of Open Source, often through the use of equivocation with the ambiguous English word "free", but Free Software is not a subset of Open Source.

The Free Software movement's position is essentially ideological, based on the philosophy that closed source is ethically and morally wrong. The Open Source position is essentially pragmatic, based on the theory that closed source (the cathedral) is less efficient than open source (the bazaar). Free Software is an ethical stance; Open Source is a high-level development methodology. The two sides end up shouting over each other's heads more often than not, as they are today, because they are using much of the same terminology to describe completely different things.

As such, de Icaza is wrong when he says that Stallman is missing an opportunity here. From the perspective of Free Software, especially given Microsoft's well-documented past behavior, cooperation with Microsoft is not an opportunity, it's a trap with a flashing neon TRAP sign above it. Conversely, it might well be an opportunity for Open Source, at least insofar as the literal issue of "open source" is concerned, though probably only in the short term.

Closed source software vendors ultimately make their money from artificial scarcity. Yes, it is possible to make money with open source, but the kind of money that Microsoft and most of its peers rake in comes only from closed source. To the extent that they are publicly-owned businesses, and therefore exist to make as much money as possible, they will only expend their assets -- including opening some of their source -- if they believe that it will lead to greater profits. Stallman is entirely correct to be wary of Microsoft here. Microsoft views the Free Software and Open Source movements as competitors, just as they view other conventional closed source companies as competitors. To expect them to behave in a genuinely cooperative fashion with groups that are, in an increasing number of areas, eating into their profits is to live in a utopian fantasy world.

Icaza, not Stallman, has credibility here (2, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656939)

The Free Software movement's position is essentially ideological, based on the philosophy that closed source is ethically and morally wrong

When Stallman objects to things based on ethics, morality, or legality, I often agree with him. But Stallman's objection to C# is not based on ethics, morality, or legality; the Mono license and the ECMA C# standard are completely above board in those regards. Stallman's objection to C# is based on his fear of hidden legal dangers. But Stallman has been unable to translate his fear into specific legal scenarios.

As such, de Icaza is wrong when he says that Stallman is missing an opportunity here.

But Stallman has already proven that his judgment in areas of technology is weak. It was people like Linus, Icaza, and the founders of the various Linux distributions that really made free software happen. If it had been up to Stallman and his plodding approach, we'd probably still be running GNU Emacs on Solaris.

Icaza has far more credibility and a much better track record in picking a winner for writing end user applications than Stallman.

Cathedral vs. bazaar...and why I hate that analogy (1)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 4 years ago | (#29657019)

A cathedral - A generally beautiful building where people gather together to be filled with hope, listen to the Good Word with their families, give some money to the collection plate to help with expenses so that the cathedral can continue to operate and be a special place for future generations. It is a generally solemn place that people from all over visit because of the beauty and complexity of the architecture, as well as to simply join together in a shared set of beliefs that deal with hope and life.

A bazaar - A generally chaotic area, filled with men and women all around you shouting at you, trying to get business for mostly shoddy goods, that the merchants try to overcharge for. The goods generally fall apart after basic usage after a month, at which point, if you wish to continue using the goods, you must go back and hope for a better product if you can find the merchant again. The merchants generally care only about your business, and will hope to extort as much as they can from their customers before the customers figure out that the goods are generally crap. Granted, though, if a customer realizes that the goods are not going to be store-bought quality, and will not have many of the features that comes from more expensive product, they won't be as disappointed, but on the whole, if someone doesn't go to the bazaar, and goes to the store instead, they can get a better quality product with half the annoyance of going to the bazaar and checking out a dozen different merchants with marginally different products in order to the find the 'one' that most closely resembles what they want(though it is generally never 'quite' the same).

This is not to say that I am opposed to open source. But use a better analogy. Really.

You Don't Know, little richard (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656717)

RMS states, "Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C#...". Memo to RMS, 'dottie-NET' doesn't natively run on Linux, or Mac. As for me, listening to pundits of m$ is like watching Darth Vader participating at a Cheer Leading Summer Camp.

Stallman is your lord and master (0, Troll)

Adolf Hipster (1486687) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656733)

All shall bow down before him.

spending time on opportunities ? (4, Interesting)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656739)

"Since we only have a limited time on earth, I have decided to spend my time on earth as much as I can trying to be like the second salesman. Looking at opportunities where others see hopelessness"

Which begs the question as to why expend so much energy in duplicating dotNET onto the Linux platform. Isn't whole the MONO effort diverting developers from developing native Linux applications?

"The creation of the CodePlex foundation was an internal effort of people that believe in open source at Microsoft. They have been working from within the company to change it. Working at CodePlex is a great way of helping steer Microsoft in the right direction"

What was wrong with SourceForge. If I was cynical and recalling Microsoft's past behaviour, including tthe NovoSOFT trojan .. er covenant, I would suspect this as yet another attempt to co-opt and control a technology they don't own. Why not contribute to SourceForge instead of creating and stacking their own organization. Same with the numerous Microsoft 'open source' licenses. It's very telling that GPL 3 is not one of the supported [codeplex.com] licenses on CodePlex.

And as an 'open source' supporter I fail to understand how you would recommend something called the LinuxHater's Blog [tirania.org]

'If you're a freetard, but you need to run Windows at work or something, I've got an idea for a utility that will keep you true to the cause'

'How many hours do I have to waste wading through the monument of shit known as the debian package repository?'

Not trying to troll... (2, Interesting)

gravyface (592485) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656759)

but was/is there a real need for Mono? Anyone actually using it in a production environment? If so, why?

Re:Not trying to troll... (2, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656815)

I'm a sysadmin at a web host, and we are an all-Linux (CentOS and a few 'real' RedHat machines) in server-space. We have a few customers on VPS or Dedicated hosting who have mod_mono installed into Apache so that they could port over ASP.NET code that they had and still wanted to use. They have had varying degrees of success depending on the complexity of what is they're actually trying to pull off.

It still seems like a hack-job to me, though... and as a regular Perl user and evangelist, that's something I know a thing or two about... mod_mono is a bigger cludge than any of them though.

Both are right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656777)

... for their side of the story.

The only thing we can do is joining one or the other. I join RMS as I do want to make business with Microsoft and not Microsoft to make business on me.

cb

RMS == Darl McBride (0, Troll)

Charles Dodgeson (248492) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656961)

I've long since come to the conclusion that Richard Stallman and Darl McBride share the same crazy belief. Both are convinced that free software is an anti-capitalist plot. The difference between the two is that for RMS this is a good thing.

A consequence of this is that RMS sees anyone who supports capitalists as the enemy. I really don't know enough about the case with Mono, and I am certainly skeptical of any dealings with Microsoft, but I am also highly suspicious of RMS's judgement in these matters.

Divide and Conquer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29656991)

It's the mono people trying to push the platform, something many in the F/OSS community see as a trojan with the potential to usurp years of hard work. I for one do not trust Microsoft and it matters not what assurances they give. Given the opportunity to ignore the Mono people completely many of us would.

Miguel is left arguing from the position of a scumware pusher. If enough folk were foolish enough to side with Miguel, there'd be a split in the free software community. At that point, Mono would have fulfilled it's strategic goal and it's users can look forward to paying-off the monopoly.

Tirania.org blocked (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29656993)

Anyone got an alternate link? My corporate overlords won't let me hit that site, so I'm just getting Stallman's side of things.

Linus on RMS (1)

Xunker (6905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29657067)

From a interview with Torvalds many years ago:

"I think a lot of the extreme people are much too extreme, like Richard Stallman; He's a very extreme person, and while I admire a lot of his ideals, I don't admire him because he is so extreme that he can't relate to other people; and that's a limitation."

No taking sides for me, just pointing out that RMS has his own issues.

'Political' Free Software vs. 'Practical' OSS (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#29657101)

I think that this has less to do with De Icaza and RMS than it does with the split that's been brewing since around the Bubble days between the "Free Software" people and the "Open Source" people. For the "Free Software" people, nothing less than everything is ever going to be enough. I don't mean this is a troll, but just a simple observation. For them its a political crusade mixed with a sort of religion -- especially for RMS. That much is obvious.

On the other side of this divide are the more practically-minded Open Source people. Open Source is seen every bit as much as a tactical, if not a strategic, business move as it is a social experiment. It helps level the playing field, reduces barriers to entry, and prevents the establishment of monopolies. It allows users to build communities, but doesn't really seek to impart its view of the world onto users actively.

De Icaza has moved more towards the Practical Open Source camp over time. Let's not forget that he started GNOME -- the G of which means GNU -- because KDE wasn't really "free software" -- it was merely, more or less, open source. He then went on to found Helix, which was a company based around providing commercial support and integration for GNOME. The Mono project, I do believe, was started to aid in their plans on integrating into the already established corporate environment and easing the ability to port applications off the MS platform and onto a more open one, such as Linux.

Now, I've never been the world's biggest MS fan, but it really seems to me that hating a company to such personal levels as many people hate MS is really just sort of off base. I know I used to partake of the MS bashing myself as well when I was younger, and maybe its just that now that I'm older and have more experience in life I can see what a waste of effort it is. It's also been because Microsoft has really made visible strides towards openness.

Microsoft has been for the last several years a co-sponsor of the O'Reilly Open Source Convention, put in a lot of money to fund the event and sending some really amazing speakers to give presentations. I have yet to get to go to one of these things live, but I do watch the videos and I saw some really bang-up speeches from Microsoft employees on everything from functional programming, to open-source plugin extensions for Office and other tools to aid the work flow for scientists (who are very practically minded when it comes to picking tools).

They are releasing code, they are joining in on community projects, they are funding conventions and projects (Apache anyone?). They aren't the same company they were 10 years ago, but they are still a company and it would be unreasonable to expect them to give away the major bacon. Does it really matter if they were to open up Windows? Office? No, not really.

Frankly, I think that getting Microsoft to just stick to open standards for information exchange -- document formats, protocols, etc -- would be more than enough. Anything else they want to do would be icing on the cake, but in the mean time we may as well take what we can get and encourage them with good will rather than shifty-eyed suspicion, because like it or not, they are THE major player in the industry and it's better to peacefully co-exist than to try and bash each other's brains out. I think Microsoft has started to figure this out and we, as a community, really ought to let them have a shot and proving it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>