Miguel de Icaza, Microsoft MVP
ari.torhamo at gmail.com
Sat Jan 16 20:57:30 GMT 2010
la, 2010-01-16 kello 10:25 -0600, Samuel Thurston, III kirjoitti:
> Before I even start, I want to say that it's pretty clear from your
> responses that you're a Stallmanite*, so I want you to understand that
> below are pragmatic statements only, lest I offend your deeply held
> Stallmanian religious beliefs.
You seem to assume that if you in the beginning of your post announce
that Conrad is a "Stallmanite", you get some kind of upper hand against
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Conrad Knauer <atheoi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > And yet MS didn't give him the MVP for Gnome...
> No. They didn't exactly give him MVP "for" mono either.
You very probably have know real knowledge of their motivations. A good
guess would be the confusion de Icaza has created inside the free
software movement, and future services Microsoft expects from him.
> Well, in the last 10 years, MS has introduced their own open source
> license, which while not "truly free" is a step closer than we had
We can only guess the aims of the MS open source license program. Your
guess is that it's one step towards making Microsoft an open source
company. My guess is that the aim is to hurt open source and free
software. Do you have anything to base your optimism on? I base my
realism on Microsoft's past documented behaviour against free software,
competitors, allies, law, etc.
> And they have recently contributed GPL'ed code to the linux
> kernel. So I don't know about "never."
The code they "contributed" was already in violation of GPL.
> Miguel knows what he's doing.
What makes you believe that?
> He's an adult and makes his own
> He rightly points out that wine
> plays an important role which was exactly the point I was making.
> His comment has a little bit of nuance to it: "yeah, we don't really
> want wine & windows apps to be our thing, but we need it for things
> like games and corporate migrations." it is, for the time being a
> necessary evil of the software landscape reality. Sure it's not the
> ideal. But really what ever is?
You seem to be using Wine as a straw man.
> (this is where I figured out that you're an RMS follower. My clue is
> the the irrational separation between "should" and "is")
This is where I figured out that you can't be taken seriously. My clue
is your irrational labelling of other people.
> you don't want to, you can remain ideologically pure. That is your
> choice, and I am thankful to Miguel for offering my choice.
You are using a straw man again. Conrad wasn't in any way asking anyone
to be "ideologically pure" - nor did he say or imply that he himself is.
You seem to make up things of people, and then use those things as a
reason to attack them.
> libmono is installed because it's a dependency of F-Spot. There is
> apparently a push from the release team to replace F-Spot with
> something ideologically pure.
Is "ideological purity" really the stated aim of those behind the push,
or did you make that up?
> But is there anything that is both as
> easy to use and as full featured as F-Spot from the FOSS community? If
> there is, great include it! and if not, well then, we have mono there
> to fill the void until such time as the purists answer the call.
Here "purist" serves both as a straw man and a label.
> But, let's say that by 10.04 gThumb perfectly does everything that
> f-spot does and it replaces F-Spot. libmono no longer satisfies any
> dependencies and is removed from the install CD. What damage has been
> done? Where's the terrible downside to the proprietary gateway drug
> that is Mono?
More things depend on Mono than just F-Spot. Anyway, *If* things would
go the way you described, not too much harm would have been done, other
than some waisted efforts and separation inside the community. What most
people are worried about are the possible future risks with Mono. If we
step off the Mono wagon in time, those risks can be completely avoided,
just like you said. And that's what people have been saying: let's step
off the Mono wagon now when it's still easy.
> Again I ask you: at what point did a software library set up to
> facilitate cross platform development become part of an evil scheme
> for world domination?
Quite straw-manish again.
> When did the magical beast known as Microsoft
> convert Miguel from a right-thinking FOSS agent to an evil
> co-consipirator in the great War Against FOSS?
This one too.
> java wasn't gpl when it was first ported over to linux. Java is a
> perfect example of something like C#/.NET, where sun was creating this
> cross-platform dev language but they had everything patented and had
> to rubber-stamp 3rd party implementations. Clearly it didn't lead
> FOSS down the dark road to proprietary land, and I submit to you that
> .NET is really on a remarkably similar path as java was in its early
> years. Except Sun was suing the Miguel's of their day instead of
> heaping them with praise.
You don't know what Sun aimed to achieve with Java, you only know what
became of it. Sun was in very different position in the software world
then compared to position of Microsoft today. Java and Mono also aren't
> in summary, practical use-cases and real-world conditions will always,
> always, outweigh ideological purity.
You keep waiving your beloved "ideological purity" straw man. If I
remember right, not so long ago even RMS wasn't opposing Mono. Only
quite recently he changed his mind after he became aware of some very
practical risks involved in the platform.
> and I maintain that it's a good
> thing that I can choose to develop for linux on Mono or I can choose
> not to.
Removing Mono from Ubuntu would have no effect on that.
More information about the sounder