De Icaza Responds To Stallman 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."
MS patents and DRM are blocking compatibility (Score:3, Interesting)
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:He's right (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Stallman seems to have lost his way (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
When microsoft is involved (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Sorry, but going with Richard on this one. (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Well of course he's annoyed (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
spending time on opportunities ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
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... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A matter of credibility (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Not trying to troll... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:3, Interesting)
> 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 .NET
ANYTHING given sufficient interest. That means that it will also run
on MacOS, BeOS, AIX, Solaris and HP/UX given enough interest. If
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).
Mono guard (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
As a fellow Debian user, I too am incensed that Debian developers, without consulting the user base have taken a monumental leap away from the projects original stated goals and ideals. You now have a team of cockroaches inside the bread box: Eduard Bloch (Zomb), Mirco Bauer (meebey), Mirco Bauer (meebey), Sebastian Dröge (slomo), Jo Shields (directhex), and David Paleino (hanska) somehow got into Debian and are spending their time to inject contaminate it with Microsoft imitations of legitimate technologies.
Again, if Miguel's time on earth is so precious short, WTF is he spending it encouraging people to reinvent the wheel using failed products? Mono needs to be removed from Debian. The mono team needs to be removed from Debian.
The whole fiasco also speaks volumes to how the trade journals have been whittled down, removed and controlled. Debian was high-tech, ethical when it came out. Now gNewSense fills that role. However, there's no reason to cede Debian to Microsoft, especially not since important distros are built from Debian. But that would be the main reason Microsoft activist have it as a target to ruin.
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:4, Interesting)
The example is particularly ironic, being that there has never been any evidence that shoes are good for peoples feet, and there is ample evidence that shoes are bad for people feet.
Recently, Nike went to visit the Olympic running teams with bags of shoes in tow, and were sent away because the runners did not want them, nor did the coaches. So, they invented the Nike Free, which is designed to be like not wearing a shoe at all. Makes your mind spin.
Turns out, the shoes they've been marketing all these years were hurting the people who bought them. Of course, Nike always knew that their product wasn't good for their customers... they spent years trying to find scientific evidence that shoes are good for you in some fashion, without success. So, they made them fashion accessories and kept things quiet.
http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/ [nymag.com]
Keep pimping those shoes, Miguel!
Linus "does not believe in Freedom" (Score:3, Interesting)
From de Icaza's article: 'To him, ridiculous statements like Linus "does not believe in Freedom" are somewhat normal [1].'
Isn't that true, though? I always thought Linus came down heavily on the side of open source as an engineering philosophy and against the ideological side of software freedom? I'd have expected Linus to agree with the sentiment RMS is expressing, to be honest, as I believe it matches his real world stance.
RMS is obnoxious in the things he says or the way he says them sometimes. He also frequently comes across as patronizing in the way he states his beliefs as if they are Truth. But at least the guy is pretty consistent. I'm not sure having a hardliner such as him is as helpful now as it was was but you can at least rely on him to take a fairly consistent take and articulate his principles well, even if you don't believe in them. I respect him, even though he's maddening sometimes.
Re:Sorry, but going with Richard on this one. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:3, Interesting)
Since he is in Microsoft's employ, literally if not indirectly, the distinction is moot. Yet how did I know someone might make that nit-pick anyway?
I disregard these possibilities as foolish. In the words of others [slashdot.org]:
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:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it follows that because Microsoft is not a single human being, it never displays human behavior. In particular, I don't think it's safe to assume that Microsoft will suddenly start playing nice with the rest of the world, if the open source community just stops saying mean things about it.
If you'll excuse my saying so, that's one hell of a "merely". Corporate culture tends to be self perpetuating, and corporate policy is set from the top down. I'll grant you that there are plenty of folk at Microsoft who are decent people, and I always try and draw a line between the corporation and it's employees. But just because you get a couple of dozen free software fans working at Microsoft Research, that's not going to stop Ballmer and the rest funding attacks on free software.
Nor is it going to persuade a great many who work there that free software isn't a long term threat to their livelihood.
I think that evidence is open to other interpretations, however. Microsoft tend to see the free software movement as a clever trick by IBM to make the general public do a lot of unpaid coding for them. That's what MS would like to get out of free software. The rest of it, they'd shut down tomorrow were it only in their power.
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure why you think Miguel trusts Microsoft as a corporation anymore than anyone else here. Based on what I have read on his blog, it seems that he has met some people who work at Microsoft who support Free/Open Source software. He appears to be working with those people to make Microsoft more friendly to Free/Open Source software in the capacity that they can.
I would rather have someone trying to make Microsoft more friendly to Free/Open Source software than not. If no one tries to change their strategies then there is absolutely no hope that they will ever change. Will he succeed? Probably not, but I am glad that he is trying.
Explain why OOXML is a "superb standard" Miguel. (Score:2, Interesting)
Miguel
This is off topic but speaks to your integrity. You claim OOXML is a "superb standard". Can you explain how this is anything but the comments of some sycophant that has been bought off by Microsoft?
Re:Sorry, but going with Richard on this one. (Score:3, Interesting)
For me as a user, the single most important thing about free software is that I know it won't go away.
I've been bitten multiple times by proprietary software being discontinued, forcing me to scramble to find a replacement package and migrate my data. While open data formats help, they're not a panacea. It's a pain in the ass when you suddenly can't buy any more licenses of the software you are using, and it stops working because of changes to the OS. With free software, you can get it fixed and you don't have the license problem.
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:3, Interesting)
Years ago I had a brief email exchange with RMS about "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux". His point was that Linux is NOT an operating system, just the kernel of one. But GNU isn't an operating system either, it's just a good set of utilities that an OS needs to be useful. Linux by itself is sorta like a head without a body, but GNU is then a body without a head.
Re:He's right (Score:2, Interesting)
The patent nastiness was only a month or two ago. I'm not judging MS on what they might do or on what their PR says about being chummy with Open Source. Their actions lately are consistent with a history of hostile actions. If MS accumulates a long long of positive actions while refraining from negative ones my mind will change about them. But until they actually do I maintain that mistrust of MS is reasonable. Note well that I'm not unwilling to change my mind about MS but I currently see no reason to do so.
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:2, Interesting)
After re-reading what Miquel has said multiple times, both here and on his blog, under no rational interpretation can I derive what you claim he said.
So you take on that strawman and win -- congrats! -- but it has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that's a bit of a stretch, don't you?
Miguel's argument: RMS attacked me, but he's also famously attacked many of the most important players in bringing parts of his ultimate dream to reality. Conclusion: RMS's has an unproductive penchant for attacking people in his speaking and writing, including his own allies, if they don't subscribe to all of his philosophies.
Your interpretation: People who don't agree with me are mindless zombies.
A bit of a stretch, you must admit.
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly you have a different definition of what a language must have to be considered a 'functional programming' [wikipedia.org] language. If all it takes to make a programming language "functional" is exposing a lambda function, C++ (with the right libraries) is a functional programming language...
...and I'm a chimpanzee.
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps it hasn't cost Miguel his soul, but it's certainly cost him his credibility. Like Colin Powell joining the Republican Party and standing up for the war in Iraq, it's a betrayal of the very principles and practices that allowed him to advance in his field. And standing up for Mono has cost Miguel his credibility.
It's possible Miguel believes Microsoft is attempting to play nice with open source: but we have long memories about Microsoft abuses, ranging from their abuse of Netscape to their theft of patented technologies from business partners, the amazing abuse of ISO to get OOXML ratified, and Microsoft's theft of the XML technology from lfj (for which they were fined $290,000,000.00). That level of abuse is not "an aberration". That takes policy, from former and current leaders of Microsoft, to commit that kind of abuse: a desire to play nice by your group when your bosses are that level of criminal requires extraordinary proof, which you've not provided.
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:3, Interesting)
From the analysis I've read of the CodePlex charter...it's not something anyone in his right mind would agree to. It seems to be based on the idea that, as with an EULA, most people won't understand what they're agreeing to.
As I result I don't trust anyone who recommends joining CodePlex. The excuse at the time was "The organization is still in beta". Perhaps. I haven't heard that they've changed the ground rules yet. Maybe they will. If they do, maybe I'll consider it again. But I wouldn't bet on it. I only have so much time that I'm willing to spend considering licenses. That's *one* of the reasons that I like the GPL. It cuts down on the amount of time I need to spend thinking about licenses. (Note that any other standardized license would serve the same purpose, so that's *NOT* a sufficient characteristic. Merely a desirable one.)
Re:Analysis of Miguel's article (Score:3, Interesting)
True
True
Not as much as programs written in Java do. Who writes programs in Java? Businesses who think they might want to have their software to be cross platform. I think this is the core reason Java is being used so much right now. Talking to a .NET coder the first thing they talk about when you bring up the MS lock in to them is 'well we have Mono'. But what happens when they actually use Mono? Last I heard Mono, while a great effort, turns out to be a few steps behind MS's .Net implementation. This causes .Net languages to almost always run better on a Windows machine. This is not a new MS trick either. Remember Microsoft Office XML and HTML under the rule of IE6?
.Net implementation used by MS. This is a threat that will continue to exist unless MS can lock down the OS market again.
In short Mono kills the bigger threat of cross platform languages while allowing Mono to forever be a step behind the real