| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The FSF warns (again) against MonoThe FSF warns (again) against MonoPosted Jul 17, 2009 13:57 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)In reply to: The FSF warns (again) against Mono by trasz Parent article: The FSF warns (again) against Mono
Why do you say it's FUD? What about it isn't true?
(Log in to post comments)
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 14:32 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
You know, FUD can be true and still be FUD... for example many people believe both that 'Microsoft spreads FUD about patent liabilities in free software' and also that 'Microsoft holds patents which really can be used to attack free software', and this is not inconsistent.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 14:44 UTC (Fri) by regala (subscriber, #15745) [Link]
anyway, this article is just another rephrasing of what RMS said last week, so much ado for nothing.
Indeed, with FUD clearly stated as FUD:
"Microsoft is bad, because:
I am not that fond of that Do-what-I-say-not-what-I-do line, but lobbying is their job, after all.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 20, 2009 9:24 UTC (Mon) by TheMadHatter (guest, #59661) [Link] anyway, this article is just another rephrasing of what RMS said last week, so much ado for nothing. Indeed, with FUD clearly stated as FUD: "Microsoft is bad, because: - they ate my dog; - Fat chance - they'd get eaten - they ate your granny's; - they ate yours - they said 3 years ago they would eat anyone's dogs in the world" I am not that fond of that Do-what-I-say-not-what-I-do line, but lobbying is their job, after all. Lobbying is part of their job? Prove it. With direct links to the part of the Federal Register (or other regulation) that says that lobbying is part of their job. Producing high quality software is their job. Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten this.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 15:14 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] If the FUD is true, then it's an excellent reason to avoid Mono, no?
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 14:40 UTC (Fri) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227) [Link]
FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Unless you can prove the bad stuff is true, the fact that it may be true doesn't stop it from being FUD. Trying to scare people using "maybes" is what FUD is all about.
It's in the article Posted Jul 17, 2009 15:16 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] The "maybes" involved are of the type: "maybe that hungry fox will attack that nearby lamb". No no no, I'm just spreading anti-fox FUD, no one can prove what the fox is thinking. We should wait until after the attack before making any comment about the safety of leaving the lamb beside the fox. Despite various wordy announcements, MS still has broad unwaived patent rights on c# related things which could be used to launch patent threats against users/developers/distributors of Mono and related software in the future. Staying away from that area is simply common sense. (We should also try to end software patents, such as by instructing the USA's Supreme Court on how and why when they review Bilski)
It's in the article Posted Jul 19, 2009 22:02 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Eggsackerly.
The promise basically *only* covers a *complete* implementation of the spec. And the spec is buggy and incomplete.
So if you reduce the spec to logic, you get something like "A = not B" and "If A and B then you are safe". Putting the two together, the only possible logical conclusion is that the promise is worthless, and you are not safe.
So saying the promise isn't worth the paper it's written on is NOT FUD. Just applying basic mathematical logical reduction shows that the promise will self-destruct. So you can't rely on it.
Cheers,
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 15:20 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Trying to scare people using "maybes" is what FUD is all about. Perhaps so, but given Microsoft's past behavior, I don't think Linux distros should have anything to do with Mono technology. "Maybe" Microsoft won't try it's darndest to destroy Linux and Free Software... and "maybe" I really did win that lottery mentioned in the e-mail from Nigeria. In 1997, "The Right To Read" may have seemed like far-fetched FUD, but in the days of the DMCA, it's not so funny. RMS was prescient on that topic; maybe he knows a thing or two about the world.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 15:52 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
The trouble is, all these 'Microsoft patent' arguments apply equally well to Samba, and distros are happy to ship that...
(RMS is not arguing against the existence of Mono, or its use to run C# programs on free operating systems, or even against including it by default in Linux distributions, but rather he warns against writing new free applications in C#.)
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 16:44 UTC (Fri) by setecastronomy (guest, #59621) [Link] "The trouble is, all these 'Microsoft patent' arguments apply equally well to Samba, and distros are happy to ship that..." This is at least as far as I know not entirely correct. While negoiating the PFIF, the Samba project went out of their way to ensure that result would cover their asse(t)s while keeping it compatible with word and spirit of the GPL :After paying Microsoft a one-time sum of 10,000 Euros, the PFIF will make available to the Samba Team under non-disclosure terms the documentation needed for implementation of all of the workgroup server protocols covered by the EU decision. "Although the documentation itself will be held in confidence by the PFIF and Samba Team engineers, the agreement allows the publication of the source code of the implementation of these protocols without any further restrictions. This is fully compatible with versions two and three of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Samba is published under the GNU GPL which is the most widely used of all Free Software licenses. In addition it allows discussion of the protocol information amongst implementers which will aid technical cooperation between engineers. Under the agreement, Microsoft is required to make available and keep current a list of patent numbers it believes are related to the Microsoft implementation of the workgroup server protocols, without granting an implicit patent license to any Free Software implementation. (emphasis mine).
The second part is what (imho) sets the PFIF agreement apart from the community promise. C.f.
You've correctly pointed to the biggest difference, but not the implications Posted Jul 17, 2009 16:46 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] RMS is not arguing against the existence of Mono, or its use to run C# programs on free operating systems, or even against including it by default in Linux distributions, but rather he warns against writing new free applications in C#. Exactly. Because mono is good for existing C# programs: may be you'll be used by Microsoft in the future, may be not, but in the end - without CLR implementation you can not use such programs at all. The trouble is, all these 'Microsoft patent' arguments apply equally well to Samba, and distros are happy to ship that... By the same logic samba should be shipped and used where it's unavoaidable (for example to work with existing Windows-based systems), but not for the tasks where it can be replaced with something else (for example you should use real LDAP server, not Samba's AD replacement in pure Linux environment). AFICS Samba is used exactly in this fashion: it exists for interoperability with Windows, but not for anything else. It's the sad world we live in (Samba really can be better for some things then "native alternatives") but we can not easily swap it for other and so yes, we should treat Samba like mono: use it for interoperability with Windows, but for nothing else.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 17, 2009 22:20 UTC (Fri) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]
Samba wasn't developed by a company who did a dodgy patent deal with Microsoft shortly thereafter (which SuSE/Novell did).
I can see why that worries some.
The FSF warns (again) against Mono Posted Jul 22, 2009 15:46 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
In fact Mono has existed for a long time, before Ximian was bought by Novell and long before Microsoft decided to officially recognize that Linux exists.
Novell and Samba Posted Jul 18, 2009 17:01 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I think you have to look at the bigger picture to know why distros are more comfortable with Samba (even if there is always some danger). The Samba team has testified before the European Commission in an antitrust trial against Microsoft. Samba is used to interoperate with Windows on the network. That should make Microsoft think before using their patents against anyone distributing it.However a lawsuit against people distributing Mono would probably be seen as Microsoft limiting distribution of their development platform. Mono is used to run .NET software on other platforms, and antitrust authorities do not care so much about that. If there was the same awareness about development platforms as there is for interoperability, Mono would probably be in the clear.
|
|
||||||||||||