Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
GNU is Not Unix Novell Patents News

Jeff Jaffe Named CEO of W3C 145

Posted by kdawson
from the what-price-standards dept.
blozza2070 notes the news that Jeff Jaffe has been appointed CEO of the World Wide Web Consortium. Until January Jaffe was CTO at Novell and, while his name hasn't come up very often in this community, he is one of the architects of the Novell-Microsoft patent deal. A reading of Jaffe's blog while at Novell tends to paint him as a software patent supporter, Microsoft apologist, and no fan of the FSF. This strongly worded page at Boycott Novell features copious links to support the above characterization.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jeff Jaffe Named CEO of W3C

Comments Filter:
  • Mixed Feelings (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pwnies (1034518) *
    I have mixed feelings on this. While it's true that he does appear to be fairly biased against the FSF's philosophy, at the same time he also has good diplomatic relations with Microsoft (this could be a good thing). The reason why this could be a good thing is that hopefully (and this is a big hopefully) it will allow w3c to influence Microsoft more when it comes to adhering to web standards in IE.
    Obviously this can go the other way as well, with IE imposing its standards onto w3c, and forcing the spec it
    • good relations with microsoft. neither for their partners, nor their consumers.

      and if ie imposes its own standards to w3c, we developers are going to ignore their standards. its simple as that.

      • There is always the WHATWG.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        What a bunch of crap. Developers don't disregard standards just because they came from Microsoft. Hopefully nothing ridiculous will become a *standard*, but if it does, developers should boycott it because it's stupid and not who it came from. And if Microsoft comes up with a great idea (ahem, XmlHttp/AJAX?), maybe it *should* become a standard because it's a good idea? Oh but if Microsoft came up with it, we should ignore it... can't have that...

        The problem isn't necessarily "Microsoft standards", it's peo

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Yvan256 (722131)

          I think what he meant is that if Firefox, Safari, Opera and Chrome all support one way to add a new feature and IE decides to support it in a different way, the W3C shouldn't make the IE way the standard one.

          Talking about that, where's Opera's support for box-shadow and border-radius? They're at version 10 for crying out loud.

          • by tehcyder (746570)

            Talking about that, where's Opera's support for box-shadow and border-radius?

            Do they matter to most people?

      • by Arthur Grumbine (1086397) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @08:20PM (#31421368) Journal

        we developers are going to ignore their standards. its simple as that.

        Bravo! Well said! In support of this stance, I'll be happy to take care of any of your clients that are foolish enough to want their websites to look and function similarly across all major browsers. Viva la revolucion!

        • by westlake (615356)

          I'll be happy to take care of any of your clients that are foolish enough to want their websites to look and function similarly across all major browsers. Viva la revolucion!

          and what of the client who wants to differentiate his site by offering tech that has emerged and evolved outside the standards, like Flash?

          the wheels of the gods grind slowly.

          there is nothing to stop some new or unexpected entrant - from unleashing the next must-have plug-in.

          the plug-in that is well on its way to 98% penetration of the

      • As a developer I shall not set hand at those none FSF standards.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Jazz-Masta (240659)

      it will allow w3c to influence Microsoft more

      Or do you mean allow Microsoft to influence W3C more?

      • by Penguin (4919)

        it will allow w3c to influence Microsoft more

        Or do you mean allow Microsoft to influence W3C more?

        The Sphinx: To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn.

        The Sphinx: He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions.

        The Sphinx: When you care what is outside, what is inside cares for you.

        Mr. Furious: Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? "If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right." It's...
        The Sphinx: Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your r

    • by gehrehmee (16338)

      As long as Microsoft had a decent standard, that could be implemented without patent/IP-rights, I don't even care that much. A workable standard people follow is better that a perfect standard that 70% of deployed browser instances promptly ignore.

      • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @07:19PM (#31420814)
        But the problem is, they rarely do. Generally Microsoft's ideas start out just fine, then they play the patent card, extend features and end up with a product radically different than their specifications. The problem isn't that Microsoft is making the standards, it is just because in recent years Microsoft hasn't made a single, decent, workable standard without playing the patent card.
        • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

          by causality (777677) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @08:28PM (#31421454)

          But the problem is, they rarely do. Generally Microsoft's ideas start out just fine, then they play the patent card, extend features and end up with a product radically different than their specifications. The problem isn't that Microsoft is making the standards, it is just because in recent years Microsoft hasn't made a single, decent, workable standard without playing the patent card.

          Agreed. It's not an issue of acceptability of standards. Microsoft has lots of talented employees to whom it could assign that task. It's an issue of trust. Time and again, this company has proven that it will act in its own interests (which is acceptable from a corporation) to the detriment of everyone else's interests (which is not acceptable from anyone).

          Meanwhile, it has given few or no examples of honoring the purpose of open standards. There's simply no reason whatsoever to believe that this time they really intend to play fair and be honest, and by that I mean the-truth-and-the-whole-truth honesty. It's an amazing example of collective stupidity and/or a collective short memory that anyone even pretends this is a question. It might be comedic if it didn't cause so many complications for so many people.

          Naturally Microsoft doesn't have to bear the cost of those complications. When it decided long ago that IE would not follow standards very well, this forced many Web developers to expend a great deal of extra effort to handle IE's incompatibilities. Let X equal the amount of time and effort it would take to design such a Web site for a single universal standard to which all browsers adhere. Let Y equal the (larger) amount of time and effort it took to design such a Web site that handles IE's intentional incompatibilities. Do you think Microsoft has ever had to pay for Y - X? In principle this makes them a lot like spammers, not in the sense that MS sends tons of unsolicited e-mails, but in the sense that others have to bear the cost of their marketing.

          • 99.999% Agreed.

            The 0.001 difference means I don't believe that part about microsoft not being responsible for spam. 99% of all spam comes from botnets. Botnets are only possible because of their shitty, intentionally insecure operating system. They have to keep their friends at norton and similar companies in business, and they need their users to desperately buy the new version whenever it rolls out in a stupid attempt to finally make their computers stable and secure. So, they keep their OS insecure ON PU

            • by hairyfeet (841228)

              Uhhhh...GNU-dude? If you want someone to blame for the botnets I can point you in the right direction, but it is NOT MSFT...it is the OEMs crippling machines before the customer ever opens the box. You see pre SP2 you would get a new Windows XP machine and it would give you the "first run" screen, where it would ask you to come up with a username and password and advise you to turn on autoupdates.

              Now you will see every machine that rolls out of the OEMs pre-activated with a trivial to guess username and pas

              • by Jedi Alec (258881)

                You see pre SP2 you would get a new Windows XP machine and it would give you the "first run" screen, where it would ask you to come up with a username and password and advise you to turn on autoupdates.

                Was this the same pre SP2 area where a fresh XP machine would be running Blaster anywhere between 30 and 60 seconds after the first time the network driver kicked in? ;-)

                Ahhh.....good times.

                • by hairyfeet (841228)

                  Only if you didn't turn the default firewall to ON, which most of the OEM boxes I encountered at the time actually did. Ever since SP2 the OEMs have acted like "the firewall will fix everything" and thrown out even the most basic best practices. If I did to any other consumer product what the OEMs do to PCs before selling them I would in all likelihood be busted for negligence.

                  Even a first year IT guy will tell you letting a machine loose with updates disabled is a BAD idea, yet millions of boxes are sol

        • Not only the patent card. You know how things work at m$. They are huge, and they extend everywhere. They spoke about .net for about 5 year before finally deciding what the fuck it was exactly. So, they said It's going to be a ripp off of Java. Then they said fuck it! It'll be Basic. And then they fucked up C, and made C#. Nop, sorry, It'll be Ada, and it'll be called Ada#. They managed to get their fingers on things like Gnome, and prompted Gtk# through the shadows. Don't mind the man behind the curtain. I

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I always laugh when someone thinks they're going to influence Microsoft, rather than the other way around. Ain't gonna happen.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by h4rr4r (612664)

      A good thing for Microsoft maybe. Expect the W3C to start saying the IE way is the standard anyday now.

    • Oh dear. Not OOXML again.
  • That's no human (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by binarylarry (1338699)

    He's a clone of Bill Gates! Created by Microsoft over the span of the last decade to ensure Microsoft conquers the world!

    Look and see: http://investincotedazur.com/en/newsletter/index.php?txt=act9129 [investincotedazur.com]

    *tinfoil hat activated*

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...so why would they care anymore whether IE will ever be compliant as long as corporate IT continue to make IE the default browser?

    • by causality (777677)

      ...so why would they care anymore whether IE will ever be compliant as long as corporate IT continue to make IE the default browser?

      You've apparently put a little thought into it, so anything Microsoft says about standards is not intended for you. It's intended for people who honestly believe (because they have not thought about it) that an organization with billions of dollars, vast resources, and many talented developers could not make a standards-compliant browser if it really wanted to. Microsoft has never wanted to compete in a level playing field on the basis of merit, in terms of who can produce the best implementation of a giv

    • For precisely the same reason why Silverlight works in Firefox, Safari and Chrome, and on OS X and not just Windows.

  • How about? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Darkness404 (1287218)
    How about we break away from the W3C and its strange policies and instead appoint a community-based chair with people from Mozilla, Apple, Opera, Google, Microsoft (if they would show) and anyone else who wanted to make a browser. I'm not really seeing the benefit of the W3C lately, and with this, why don't we just break away?
    • Re:How about? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dkf (304284) <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk> on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @07:42PM (#31421052) Homepage

      How about we break away from the W3C and its strange policies and instead appoint a community-based chair with people from Mozilla, Apple, Opera, Google, Microsoft (if they would show) and anyone else who wanted to make a browser. I'm not really seeing the benefit of the W3C lately, and with this, why don't we just break away?

      The main reason to not do that is that you probably won't get either the (main) browser makers or the users to show up. Without them, you're simply irrelevant. But if they do turn up, you've effectively got the W3C (with maybe a round of musical chairmanships at the top). Lot of fuss and bother to achieve nothing of value.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by causality (777677)

        How about we break away from the W3C and its strange policies and instead appoint a community-based chair with people from Mozilla, Apple, Opera, Google, Microsoft (if they would show) and anyone else who wanted to make a browser. I'm not really seeing the benefit of the W3C lately, and with this, why don't we just break away?

        The main reason to not do that is that you probably won't get either the (main) browser makers or the users to show up. Without them, you're simply irrelevant. But if they do turn up, you've effectively got the W3C (with maybe a round of musical chairmanships at the top). Lot of fuss and bother to achieve nothing of value.

        That's only the case because we are doing this market thing backwards. Specifically, the corporations involved have more power than their customers. So instead of listening to what their customers want and creating products in response to this demand, they produce the products first that serve their own interests and use clever marketing (and take advantage of existing marketshare) to artifically create demand for them. The result is that things like IE are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis that is not open

        • by Jedi Alec (258881)

          That's only the case because we are doing this market thing backwards. Specifically, the corporations involved have more power than their customers. So instead of listening to what their customers want and creating products in response to this demand, they produce the products first that serve their own interests and use clever marketing (and take advantage of existing marketshare) to artifically create demand for them. The result is that things like IE are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis that is not open to

          • by causality (777677)

            That's only the case because we are doing this market thing backwards. Specifically, the corporations involved have more power than their customers. So instead of listening to what their customers want and creating products in response to this demand, they produce the products first that serve their own interests and use clever marketing (and take advantage of existing marketshare) to artifically create demand for them. The result is that things like IE are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis that is not open to negotiation.

            Ehmm, it's a browser. It has to *just work*.

            I'm not talking about whether that is the case. I am talking about how that is arranged and what is wrong with the current way (i.e. market forces) that we arrange it. Therefore, yours was a rather superficial response.

          • by lennier (44736)

            Ehmm, it's a browser. It has to *just work*.

            Where 'work' means 'funnel revenue to its parent corporation'...

    • Precisely such a thing exists, and is called WHATWG [wikipedia.org]. That said, specifically for HTML5 purposes, after developing it for a while separately from W3C, they've effectively forced W3C into dropping XHTML 2.0, and forming an HTML5 working group with essentially the same membership as WHATWG. The separate organization still exists, though.

    • Re:How about? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@slashBLUEdot.org minus berry> on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @08:31PM (#31421492)

      What do you think the W3C is? It’s exactly that! And believe it or not, parts of the most important standards even came from Microsoft people. They are not all evil, you know.

      I’m very happy that we now, for the first time, finally have all browsers support one single set of standards (XHTML 1.x / CSS 2.x / DOM 2 / JS), by listening to the W3C again. Instead of the chaos of the entire 90s and 00s!

      What strange policies are you talking about? I find the work of the W3C nice. They care. Which is obvious, since they are the browser makers, amongst other interested groups.

      Are you even a web developer?

      • parts of the most important standards even came from Microsoft people. They are not all evil, you know.

        Particularly their box model. That's right, I said it. The Microsoft box model is actually better than the w3c's css 2.1 model.

        With either box model, you have the equation ContainerWidth = Padding + ContentWidth. But under the w3c model, you have to solve this equation, every time ContainerWidth or Padding changes. That's assuming you're using units where this is actually possible. If you want to use relat

        • Particularly their box model. That's right, I said it. The Microsoft box model is actually better than the w3c's css 2.1 model.

          I agree. :) But , as far as I know, you can choose the box model in every major browser since the time where CSS2 is fully supported. Did in in Firefox, years ago.

          But I don’t think it’s that bad. It has its uses.

          What will definitely make think a lot better, is the support of math equations in CSS3. Like (50%+3px). :)

      • Generally, the W3C though seems to attempt to manipulate HTML for artificial means. Rather than the sane thing that most languages (both real and constructed) do and that is adapt to what the speakers/writers do, they simply say that they can do things a roundabout way rather than simply adapting the language. For example, the "font" element, "blink" and "marquee" which although very much used (especially during the early web) they were reluctant to actually do anything with what the writers wanted.

        And
        • You think 'blink' was worthy of support.

          Your argument is invalid.

          • I'm not advocating the use of it, but for a while it was so widespread that it is equivalent to preventing the use of ain't in English because you don't like it and keeping it out of dictionaries even though people use it all the time.
    • by grcumb (781340) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @09:03PM (#31421746) Homepage Journal

      How about we break away from the W3C and its strange policies and instead appoint a community-based chair with people from Mozilla, Apple, Opera, Google, Microsoft (if they would show) and anyone else who wanted to make a browser.

      Who is this 'we' you keep talking about?

      The W3C is a Consortium (that's the 'C') consisting of interested industry members. Right now, businesses who care how web technologies are developed have a vested interest in sitting down together and at least going through the motions of standardising languages and protocols.

      The W3C might have democratic mechanisms, but it is neither a populist nor a grassroots organisation. It is, and always has been, an industry body.

      I honestly don't know why Tim Berners-Lee decided that an industry consortium would be the best means to achieve web standards. I do know, however, that he chose deliberately and only after consideration. I suppose he hoped that collective interests would trump selfish motives and, if that failed, that other companies could be relied on to reign in the more egregious abuses.

      It needs to be said that, in this respect at least, the W3C has been largely successful, but only in the way that standards bodies generally are: Through endless, awkward compromises that sometimes defy reason, and often with only reluctant support from the very people who developed the standards in the first place.

      The W3C was born at a time when Netscape Communications ruled the roost, and acted like they didn't need anyone else. Virtually all of the abominations of early 'Tag Soup' HTML can be laid at Netscape's feet. Following that, we saw years of tug-of-war spec development, in which MS and Netscape defined their competing and incompatible implementations of numerous new elements and attributes.

      But the W3C persevered and (painfully) slowly managed to bring us back from the brink to HTML 4 and eventually XHTML. There've been some interesting manoeuvres of late regarding WHATWG and HTML 5, but most interesting is the fact that the 'Tag Soup' crew and other unilateralists are more often on the defensive than in control. Much of that - indeed much of the conventional wisdom that Web Standards are Good - is the result of the efforts of the W3C and its members.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by durdur (252098)

        The W3C might have democratic mechanisms, but it is neither a populist nor a grassroots organisation.

        It's better than some. For one thing they are very committed to having debate and discussion take place in open forums, with email discussion and F2F meeting notes available to the public. This is the polar opposite of the closed door process Microsoft has lately preferred.

    • by mnot (71203)

      Because the Web is more than a browser.

  • Given all of the link ins between the w3C and the corporations, maybe it is times to abolish it and start with a new standards body. One of the problem with involving companies like Microsoft in this is that they tend to try to subvert the process to keep standards from addressing needs, so they can implement their own proprietary solutions (like video in html5). Maybe it should be run by people who have no ties to corporations and who develop open source software only. Or why not allow the people who run

    • You have to have all of these people on board for things to work.

      If no one even attempts a standard and everyone does their own thing in parallel, do you think it would make web developer *easier*?

      No fucking way, it would mean you'd get to write the website 10x instead of 3x like you do now.

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      Maybe it should be run by people who have no ties to corporations and who develop open source software only.

      So people who have no relevancy to the world.

    • by DragonWriter (970822) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @08:13PM (#31421314)

      Given all of the link ins between the w3C and the corporations, maybe it is times to abolish it and start with a new standards body.

      The links between W3C and the corporations that actually implement technology used on the web are one of the things that make it useful as a standards body.

      If the major vendors weren't involved in the standards body, it would be an academic exercise with no impact on the real world.

    • Uuum, and so is everybody else in there. Believe me, IBM doesn’t like MS fucking up W3C. And so do the others.

      But I agree about election in general. Just that that is even easier to subvert, since people are cattle. Look at the government elections. That is what would happen. Only worse.

      If, then it should be decided by competent people. election power = competence. election actual choice = election power * election choice.
      competence = measured by others with competence.
      The only problem is, how to star

  • The W3C is long dead already, the WHATWG is the way to go for the future.

    • by W3bbo (727049) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @07:37PM (#31420998)
      You've been asleep for the past couple of years: The WHATWG was formed in response to the W3C's slow pace on HTML standards development. After a few months of prodding the W3C took the point and subsumed the WHATWG's work on HTML5 (formerly Web Applications 1.0). The W3C has been making fine progress on HTML5 and CSS3 of late; whilst the WHATWG does still exist, it's only working on a handful of less-important specifications that won't impact the majority of web designers and developers.

      As for the W3C, it's far from dead. If anything it's the WHATWG that's dying: none of their other projects have anywhere near the same community following HTML5 did.
      • Your are assuming the people who forked once won't fork twice, if they do not get progress. Doubtful. Unless if in the merger process the WHATWG subsumed the W3C (like NeXT actually subsumed Apple).
  • Ugh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tjstork (137384) <todd.bandrowsky@nOsPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @07:25PM (#31420894) Homepage Journal

    I have had queezy feelings about the W3C for some time now and this just makes them even sicker. At this point, I would rather almost have the FSF friendly browser makers create a standards body that is, well, for those people that are interested in open systems and not playing leverage games with it.

    I reminded of what became of OpenGL, when a cool little company tried to make a nice standard for everybody and instead the whole thing got hammered by a bunch of egos until it was more or less abandoned in mainstream Windows based 3D rendering.

    Finally, I wish people could see that patents and lengthy copyrights are less free market than what we have now. You can say a system is free market when it is really a hodge podge of government subsidies and monopoly grants. I would propose that FSF people start calling themselves Free Market Services, and simultaneously label closed shops as Government Regulated Services, which is really what they are.

  • Oh, HIM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by segedunum (883035) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @07:25PM (#31420898)
    If you aren't familiar with Jeffe Jaffe, just read his Novell blogs. They're full of the most buzzword-laden bullshit I've ever seen from a CTO who is supposed to know what things are about technically. He certanly wasn't fit to fill Alan Nugent's shoes. While I didn't get the impression from what I'd read that he was a Microsoft apologist (although I certainly wouldn't be surprised), it wouldn't be so bad if I had actually seen him write (or even type) two words of sense together.

    I can't fathom how people like that get jobs like this, what on Earth he is going to do (conversations with Tim Berners-Lee are likely to be cut rather short) and why this is deemed to be news. It's just another nail in the coffin of the W3C to have an idiot CEO like this.
  • First we get Chris Wilson as the chair of the HTML working group, and now Jeff Jaffe as W3C CEO. Tim Berners-Lee is now going to focus on HTML5? He could have focused on XHTML2 and we'd have ended up with a better standard.

    How many not-necessarily-desirable people are going to infiltrate the W3C before it becomes completely useless?

    One more reason why W3C needs to be absorbed into a body that can stick to its mission.

  • This is terrible news.

    His swan song even talks about the "great satisfaction" of working with "Inventive people who write more software patents per capita than anywhere else".

    HTML5 already has big problems with software patents forcing it to exclude all video format recommendations. What influence will this guy have in W3C?

  • "Copious links"? (Score:3, Informative)

    by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @08:22PM (#31421384) Journal

    This strongly worded page at Boycott Novell features copious links to support the above characterization.

    So I follow the link in TFS. And? I see a barely coherent rant about "evil enemies of Linux" infiltrating W3C - a bunch of links to that effect, but none to do specifically with Jeff - followed by the part that actually mentions him as the new "evil guy" on the block. The specific quote is "He was chosen despite his love for software patents", followed by 3 links. Of those, only two are actually unique (#2 and #3 are the same link). I reproduce them here, in order, for convenience:

    http://boycottnovell.com/2009/02/21/mono-moonlight-novl-strategy/ [boycottnovell.com]
    http://boycottnovell.com/2010/01/31/jeff-jaffe-and-zonker-quit/ [boycottnovell.com]

    Now, here's the thing. Neither one of those even contains the word "patent" anywhere, much less in any citations!
    Apparently - judging by the first of those links - the sole reason why they even speak of his "love of software patents" is because he dares to promote Mono and Moonlight.

  • Yet more proof, if it were needed, that once you reach the CXX level there are never any consequences for any of your actions :-(.

    Jeremy.

  • Witch hunts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 09, 2010 @10:36PM (#31422300)

    I love the smell of witch hunts in the morning. That guy wasn't a "key architect" of the Novell deal, he wasn't even part of the company's leadership when it was finalized between Hovsepian and Ballmer. What he did do for many years was run the openSUSE project. But why let facts get in the way? The submitter of this flamebait (because what does one call it?) is one of BoycottNovell's groupies. He hangs out on their chat room as "ender270" and is currently in the middle of a legal dispute with David Schlesinger, one of the members of the GNOME board of directors - who incidentally was also attacked by BoycottNovell - subsequently the proprietor "Dr." Schestowitz was forced to issue an apology [boycottnovell.com] for that.

    But of course, his crime is that he dared work for Novell. For this he should be punished for all eternity.

    BoycottNovell and the 12 people (including one of our past [slashdot.org] resident trolls) who count themselves as members of that "community" are the ass-end of FOSS advocacy.

    • Re:Witch hunts (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jeremy Allison - Sam (8157) on Wednesday March 10, 2010 @12:18AM (#31422956) Homepage

      Jeff was *definitely* one of the architects Novell/Microsoft deal, and had been part of the leadership for at least a year when it was finalized. I know. I was there.

      But don't let facts get in the way of your post.

      Jeremy.

  • The WC3 is getting a CEO that was the CTO at Novell. Crap-fucking-tastic!

    Yeah this is the same idiot that pushed Novell in the direction of self destruction along with the Idiot of a CEO who is more then likely going to get a hell of a golden parachute when Elliot takes Novell apart and scatters it to the 4 winds.

    While I used to only think that the WC3 was worthless, now I am completely convinced.

  • This strongly worded page at Boycott Novell features copious links to support the above characterization

    Those "copious links" point to other Boycott Novell pages. And the cites in most of those also point to Boycott Novell pages. If you actually follow all of these until you get external links, the external links don't back the Boycott Novell claims.

    This is typical of that site. It will make some claim, sometimes being semi-honest and marking it as speculation or just suspicious, and cite an external source. Then, a bit later, it will repeat the claim, without marking it as speculative, and it will cite the e

  • that HTML5 won't be a substitute for Silverlight.

There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?

Working...