FUD is NOT acceptable

Story: Poor Microsoft Gives Poor Software to Youngsters, HopelessTotal Replies: 94
Author Content
DarrenR114

Feb 20, 2008
6:18 AM EST
Even if it comes from a Linux "advocate" like the ever-nutty Roy Schestowitz.

Mono is not "patent-encumbered" no matter what his wishful thinking is. This has not been proven in court, and until such does happen, this sort of cr@p statement is just that - cr@p.

This was discussed at length over a year ago: "https://bugs.launchpad.net/ ...ubuntu/+source/mono/+bug/70651"

The statement by Schestowitz is FUD, plain and simple.

dumper4311

Feb 20, 2008
8:09 AM EST
Apologies to dinotrac for using the following quote from a recent post:

"So often, I hear how proprietary software types don't get FOSS. As it turns out, neither do many FOSS types."

One of the most eloquent and accurate statements I've heard in a long time, and apparently applicable to good old Roy.
salparadise

Feb 20, 2008
9:03 AM EST
This is not the only place I've heard mention of mono becoming "patent encumbered" though I have to confess to not knowing whether the statements are true or not.

That said, I stopped using Gnome because of various statements by certain key developers. Microsoft will, if allowed, get patent encumbered stuff into Linux so they can start restricting and choking it. Whilst I don't really like hostility towards anyone, Microsoft should not be allowed to play their games with Open Source and seeing as we/they are Open Source it's up to us/them to see it coming, call it for what it is and refuse to co-operate. Once people take the attitude of "microsoft are inevitable we must be seen to acknowledge them " then the trap is sprung. And godfather like they demand respect and "dues" to be paid and this ought not to be.
DarrenR114

Feb 20, 2008
9:34 AM EST
@salparadise -

You should really stop using Linux in general then, because MS has made many public claims that Linux is violating their patents. And as you state, why take the chance?
dinotrac

Feb 20, 2008
9:38 AM EST
dumper --

No apologies needed.

Now...If I could just get the Bartlett's folks to realize what they're missing...
dumper4311

Feb 20, 2008
9:50 AM EST
@Dino: You really need to start demanding royalties. Except from me, of course.
dinotrac

Feb 20, 2008
10:12 AM EST
>Except from me, of course.

But you're the only one who quotes me!

Rats.

Disclaimer: Any similarity to characters by the late Charles Schulz, whether in the daily black and white funnies or the big color Sunday section are purely coincidental, even when the doctor is in.
salparadise

Feb 20, 2008
11:10 AM EST
You should really stop using Linux in general then, because MS has made many public claims that Linux is violating their patents. And as you state, why take the chance?

That is a complete and utter misunderstanding, or misquoting, of what I said. And I did not use the words "why take the chance?"

Microsoft claiming that Linux contains their IP is at best an empty threat and at worst an outright lie. Open Source Dev's cosying up to Microsoft is a whole different ball game,
tracyanne

Feb 20, 2008
11:14 AM EST
Quoting:Open Source Dev's cosying up to Microsoft is a whole different ball game,


You could just as easily say that of the SaMBa team, after all they do share security information about SMB/CIFS with Microsoft.

Paranoid crap Sal or are you Roy as well.
tuxtom

Feb 20, 2008
1:38 PM EST
Quoting:You could just as easily say that of the SaMBa team, after all they do share security information about SMB/CIFS with Microsoft.


Not too shabby considering they've done it with reverse engineering in great part.
schestowitz

Feb 20, 2008
1:47 PM EST
Don't take it from me. Take it from SJVN then.

"http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/ /Microsofts-OpenSource-Trap-for-Mono/"
Sander_Marechal

Feb 20, 2008
2:04 PM EST
@Roy: Did you read the article you're linking? The danger SJVN describes has nothing to do with Mono itself but with the MS .Net reference implementation. I.e. it's about MS's source code, not about the interfaces or API's.

And while SJVN's line of thinking could be a possible attack vector on Mono, it would be a steep battle for MS. Not only do they have to find a Mono developer that signed the license to look at the reference implementation, but they also need to prove that the Mono developer in question copied that MS code into Mono. Copyright infringement is hard to prove. Go ask SCO.

This is just plain and standard copyright that we've been dealing with since the inception of FOSS. You don't look at non-free code and then implement something similar yourself. You do cleanroom development. Have code monkey A look at the source and write up a spec. Then hand the spec to code monkey B and have him implement it. The fact that MS is screaming "Hey, come look at this code!" changes nothing.
schestowitz

Feb 20, 2008
2:16 PM EST
Hi Sander,

Yes, I'm aware of this. I think of this as a secondary 'risk'. The main one is s/w patents. As people who explored this said before, the RAND doesn't help here.
tracyanne

Feb 20, 2008
2:51 PM EST
Quoting:Not too shabby considering they've done it with reverse engineering in great part.


Except for the published SMB/CIFS documentation, yes, but that also applies to Mono, reverse engineering, plus published docos.
schestowitz

Feb 20, 2008
2:54 PM EST
Mono comes in separate forms depending on what's covered and documented and what's not, IIRC. There are bits that are bound to come under scrutiny, shall one want to scrutinise them. The Mono project divided them up recently.
hkwint

Feb 20, 2008
3:48 PM EST
Quoting:Mono is not "patent-encumbered" no matter what his wishful thinking is. This has not been proven in court, and until such does happen, this sort of cr@p statement is just that - cr@p


Patents don't have to be proven in court to be theoretically 'lawfully' enforceable. You're wrongfully accusing people of spreading cr@p apart from spreading misinformation. If you'd have done some simple research yourself instead of blatantly repeating other people without thinking for yourself, you would have known .NET is patent encumbered. Moreover, these patents have not be proven invalid in court. As long as patents concerning some technology have not been proven invalid in court, they are uncertain, people doubt about their enforceability in court and therefore they fear (indeed, FUD present), but they _should_ fear, because this fear is justified. So it _is_ justified to spread FUD, moreover, it is desirable FUD about these technologies is spread as long as it's not clear what Microsoft intents to do with its patents (written on paper).

Here you go: "http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/ .../nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2& ...Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2 ...FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=3& ...p=1&f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=%22 ...Application+program+interface+ ...network+software+platform%22& ...Query=%22Application+program+ ...interface+for+network+ ...software+platform%22" "http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/ .../nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2= ...HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2 ...FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50& ...s1=7,117,504.PN.&OS=PN/7,117,504& ...RS=PN/7,117,504" "http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/ .../nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF& ...d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2 ...FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50& ...s1=7,114,148.PN.&OS=PN/7,114,148& ...RS=PN/7,114,148"

Now, if those Launchpad URL which I could not reach (link was down sadly) proved a year ago these patents were invalid, please let me and USTPO know, so USPTO can cross out these patents. Until then, you're just wildly guessing and speculating, and blaming other people for being concerned though that people may have a valid reason you don't seem to understand.

Quoting:You could just as easily say that of the SaMBa team, after all they do share security information about SMB/CIFS with Microsoft.


There is however a difference these days; Microsoft is forced to license it's IP including its surrounding patent portfolio concerning SMB/CIFS to third parties - at least in the EU, but that doesn't go for .NET.

So no, you could _not_ just as easily say that of the SaMBa team, as someone provided them with the bucks to license Microsofts IP.
tracyanne

Feb 20, 2008
3:59 PM EST
Quoting:There is however a difference these days; Microsoft is forced to license it's IP including its surrounding patent portfolio concerning SMB/CIFS to third parties


That's now. In the past the SaMBa team have had the same sort of relationship with Microsoft as the Mono team currently have. Indeed, now that the SaMBa team have even greater access to Microsoft's IP, their relationship could as easily get even closer.

The argument that Mono people are cosying upt to Microsoft is simply spurious, as equally spurious as any argument that the SaMBa team did or will cosy up to Microsoft.
schestowitz

Feb 20, 2008
4:12 PM EST
tracyanne,

Have you seen the Novell contract (redacted) with Microsoft? Have a look. See how it treats Mono and WinE. Then, look at the Linspire and Xandros ones. Not the same. Not a coincidence, in my humble opinion.
hkwint

Feb 20, 2008
4:15 PM EST
Quoting:The argument that Mono people are cosying upt to Microsoft


That's not the problem. The problem is the Mono developer team may, or may not, no one yet knows, introduce technologies in Mono for which Mono users have no valid IP-licenses. You can't blame the Mono-developer team for their users not having the right licenses, and not knowing which ones they need in first place. If the Mono-users don't know which ones they need, it's hard to blame them either, but it's _their_ responsibility, not the one of the Mono-devs. Therefore, they should decide if they want to take the risk of infringing enforceable IP for which they might not have a license or not. The probability that IP is enforced is one of the parameters to take into account when making such a decision.

My guesses are the probability of enforcement of SMB/CIFS IP is smaller than the enforcement of .NET technology because of the anti-trust cases in the EU (AFAIK they were not about .NET), but that's speculating again. However, I see it as a fact that both are patent encumbered.

On the other hand, Microsoft didn't invent SMB - so prior art may exist, but AFAIK they did invent .NET.
tracyanne

Feb 20, 2008
4:19 PM EST
So now we are going from the Microsoft is using Mono to sneak their 'IP' into Linux to the Mono people might accidenly introduce Microsoft 'IP'.

Mono is of course dangerous.. to Microsoft. It frees a hell of a lot of code, and Microsoft don't want it to succeed.
hkwint

Feb 20, 2008
4:49 PM EST
Quoting:Microsoft is using Mono to sneak their 'IP' into Linux


Supporting Mono and its developers might help Microsoft to reach this goal. However, it's not up to Microsoft if it can use Mono or not I guess, but if they had the chance to use Mono, of course they would. They want to spread their platform, in this case .NET, and 'lock people into it' in some way. That could be because it has a good IDE, because it's a good platform, because it's too much effort to migrate to a better solution. Using patents would be counterproductive to reach this goal I assume. Problem is, Microsoft didn't show its intents with its .NET patents, there's no Covenant Not to Sue apart from the parts which are standardized, and Microsoft is actively using patents as a threat weapon. Also, to harvest from a lock in of a certain platform, you need to own it, and you need to control it. IP is one of the means of owning a platform.

Microsoft could easily prevent this justification of the FUD by enabling people to receive a 'free' license to it's .NET IP, but it's not what they do. Therefore, those patents are still a threat in my opinion.
tracyanne

Feb 21, 2008
1:17 AM EST
Quoting:Microsoft is using Mono to sneak their 'IP' into Linux


That is completely out of context hkwint. What I said was:

Quoting:So now we are going from the Microsoft is using Mono to sneak their 'IP' into Linux to the Mono people might accidenly introduce Microsoft 'IP'.


Speaking to to the two previous posts, which have started to argue that the Mono developers might now do this accidently rather deliberately (at Microsoft's behest, which has been the line argued up until now)

Microsoft is most definately NOT trying to sneak it's 'IP' into Linux via Mono. What Microsoft is trying to do is destroy Mono through the use of FUD. FUD incidently that parnoid Linux people are spreading very efficiently on Microsoft's behalf.
DarrenR114

Feb 21, 2008
5:06 AM EST
@hkwint ... what does .NET being patent-encumbered have to do with Mono being patent-encumbered?

Just because it is true for one does not make it true for the other.

He's made the claim that Mono is patent-encumbered and I'm here to say that he has zero proof. If he does have the proof, then let's see it. Until he does, then it's the same thing that MS is doing - all talk and no walk.

If you, or anybody, says that Mono is patent-encumbered, then I say "prove it."
jdixon

Feb 21, 2008
5:18 AM EST
> He's made the claim that Mono is patent-encumbered and I'm here to say that he has zero proof.

It's not our place to show that Mono is bound by patents. It's Microsoft's.

My position is simple. I have no use for Mono. There are equivalent technologies which meet my needs as a user and have no connection of any kind to Microsoft, so I use them instead.
dinotrac

Feb 21, 2008
5:43 AM EST
>My position is simple. I have no use for Mono. There are equivalent technologies which meet my needs as a user and have no connection of any kind to Microsoft, so I use them instead.

I consider that to be a very reasonable position. It is your right to decide what you will and will not use.

I have no problem with mono personally, even play with it a bit. I don't like some mono apps, but I don't like some PHP, C, etc, apps, either.
thenixedreport

Feb 21, 2008
7:19 AM EST
Quoting:You could just as easily say that of the SaMBa team, after all they do share security information about SMB/CIFS with Microsoft.

Paranoid crap Sal or are you Roy as well.


The samba team share info with MS? You got proof of that man, 'cuz as far as I knew, they had to work all by themselves to get that project up and running. I also consider that statement astonishing, considering the fact that lead developer Jeremy Allison left Novell due to the deal with MS.

http://www.crn.com/software/196701774

Why not ask helios what his thoughts are instead of blindly defending mono (and for that matter, why not create an original unified development platform instead of being "compatible" with other mainstream platforms)?
dumper4311

Feb 21, 2008
8:56 AM EST
@thenixedreport: quote: "why not create an original unified development platform instead of being "compatible" with other mainstream platforms"

Come on man, you're just allowing yourself to get angry and losing your perspective. You don't want to do that for the same reason the SaMBa devs didn't want to do that. They took an existing specification, and provided interoperability with it on another platform.

@jdixon: quote: "It's not our place to show that Mono is bound by patents. It's Microsoft's."

And yet, half this discussion's participants can hardly contain themselves, screaming "patent-encumbered!!!"

spreading such hysteria only benefits interests outside the "community" (such as it is).

No use for Mono? Thats cool, and I'm totally ok with that. But to ignore a large portion of the computing world (or openly assault it) is counterproductive. Such a stance deprives us (the F/OSS "community") of influence we could otherwise use to further our own ends.

What's the worst that can happen? IP interests are either busted as being prior art, or are worked around. To employ the "evil empire's" tactics of FUD against our own is worse than pointless.
salparadise

Feb 21, 2008
9:34 AM EST
I never screamed anything. I clearly stated I didn't know whether the subject under discussion was true or not.

My point about "open source dev's cosying up to microsoft" is not "paranoid crap" (such a lovely choice of words), no one here can say with 100% certainty that there's nothing sinister in mind. Because some of the key gnome people are employed by Novell, which has in turn signed an agreement with microsoft, gnome has a question mark hanging over it. I choose not to use it for that reason, that and KDE is a lot easier to use. It's not a character judgement against any of the people concerned, merely a personal choice based on alarm bells ringing within. Thus far, Redmonds record is one of corrupting most of what it touches, taking what it wants and disregarding morality and legality in the process. Maybe they'll change, who can tell. But it would be more of a surprise if they did than if they didn't.
dumper4311

Feb 21, 2008
9:48 AM EST
@sal: I do think you're a little paranoid :) but I wouldn't say it's crap. Quite the contrary, I'd say - with 100% certainty - that given the chance, MS would pull something sinister. Being the evil empire and all.

The question remains: what's the worst that can happen? It's open source, so they can't do much to really hurt the devs. The IP claims either get busted in court as prior art, or get worked around, and whomever the unfortunate company is that gets sued takes the brunt for the community. That's just part of doing business in a country with such a fatally broken patent system.

But as long as the devs are careful, then it's up to MS to either put up or shut up. And as I understand IP law (IANAL), if they don't put up, eventually they loose any reasonable claim to "damages". So I'm more than happy to let the corporate interests duke this out for me. The simple fact is that MS is not very likely to take action, unless they have a slam dunk case. The loss risk (cost, PR, market share, etc.) is just too great.
tracyanne

Feb 21, 2008
11:22 AM EST
Quoting:The samba team share info with MS? You got proof of that man,


Jerememy Allison has blogged on that subject himself, he related a story where Microsoft developed a security patch for SMB/CIFs (it's in a recent back issue ofthe Linux magazine who writes for) based on the SaMBa teams advice, but refused to make additional changes (because the the patch was about to be released), when the SaMBa team came back to them with issues they had with the patch.
hkwint

Feb 21, 2008
11:51 AM EST
Quoting:@hkwint ... what does .NET being patent-encumbered have to do with Mono being patent-encumbered?

Just because it is true for one does not make it true for the other.


.NET is patent encumbered. Microsoft tried to receive patents for most of its API's I read:

http://www.news.com/2100-1001-984052.html

Mono is an implementation of .NET. Most implementations of patented technologies are patent encumbered too. Patents are meant to be about the implementation, and theoretically Mono is a different implementation of .NET than Microsotf's one. But everybody knows this is not the way software patents work in the reality. Practice is 'idea patents' are granted by EPO/USPTO (don't know about Australia, NZ, Japan and China) on a regular basis. So Mono too is patent encumbered, because the patent system fails. Just like the way OpenOffice's .doc export filter is probably patent encumbered too, though Microsoft didn't apply as much for software patents when it 'invented' .doc I guess. If the Mono developers used 'clean room' engineering the problem becomes even bigger, because they will probably have about the same 'patent encumbered' implementation of .NET as the Microsoft one, but I'm not sure if the Mono team used reverse engineering or not. As far as I know the public available standards describing .NET are not enough to make a working implementation.

Anyway, Microsoft is going to grand RAND licenses for the patents that apply to .NET I understand, I just posted the MS press release claiming this.

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/ext_link.php?rid=99808

So there's less uncertainty, therefore doubt decreases, and so should fear. I made the mistake of believing MS PR-messages before however, so only time will tell about this new one, if it's all a big lie or not.
thenixedreport

Feb 21, 2008
2:24 PM EST
hkwint,

Thank you!

Quoting:Jerememy Allison has blogged on that subject himself, he related a story where Microsoft developed a security patch for SMB/CIFs (it's in a recent back issue ofthe Linux magazine who writes for) based on the SaMBa teams advice, but refused to make additional changes (because the the patch was about to be released), when the SaMBa team came back to them with issues they had with the patch.


Got a link for that? Anyhoo, something tells me that whoever provided the patch may have gotten in trouble (or if they didn't, got lucky), because according to the person I interviewed who used to work for said company, the bosses wouldn't allow collaboration.
hkwint

Feb 21, 2008
2:29 PM EST
Here's the important part of the MS PR-message:

Quoting:"The interoperability principles and actions announced today apply to the following high-volume Microsoft products: Windows Vista (including the .NET Framework)...

Microsoft will publish on its Web site documentation for all... ...(APIs) and communications protocols in its high-volume products...

Microsoft is providing a covenant not to sue open source developers for development or non-commercial distribution of implementations of these protocols... ...Companies that engage in commercial distribution of these protocol implementations will be able to obtain a patent license from Microsoft, as will enterprises that obtain these implementations from a distributor that does not have such a patent license."


This is Microsoft saying enterprises that do not have a patent license for _implementations_ (and that's the important part) are "able to obtain" a patent license for that implementation. So yes, Microsoft says Mono is patent encumbered for companies that engage in commercial distribution of the Mono implementation of the .NET protocol, or enterprises obtaining the Mono implementation of the .NET protocol from a distributor that does not already have a patent license. Black on white in a press release coming from Microsoft.

And then you are saying stating Mono is 'patent encumbered' is cr@p? Well, here's news for you: The above FUD today spread by Microsoft itself states at least Microsoft says you're completely wrong. It's indeed not tested in court, so it may as well be cr@p, but that's not the important part. My point is, until we are sure it's cr@p and those patents are declared void in court, or you are sure they are not enforceable for whatever reason, you better should fear the patents applying to implementations of Microsoft protocols.

I completely agree the patent FUD is not acceptable. If those patent abuse didn't exist, we didn't have to argue about this whole Mono thing, and I probably would use it myself too. The best way to stop the unacceptable FUD is to 'change the corrupt political system' like you stated, but that's a big and tough job. An easier way to stop the FUD is change a small part of the corrupt political system, and to lobby against broad software patents. That means supporting the 'Patent Reform Act 2007', just like Microsoft itself does, but which is being blocked by the big med-companies like Novartis and the like, and small inventors. Maybe exclude 'chemical compounds' from the patent reform act or so might be the solution. So, team up with Microsoft against the maybe even mightier Pfizer, Merck, Bayer, Novartis et. all. to decrease the scope of patents. If the current abuse of the patent system came to a halt, 90% of the whole issue would be gone.
dinotrac

Feb 21, 2008
5:17 PM EST
Hans -

You never will get it, will you? Microsoft publishing lists of patents is just about the best thing that could possibly happen, especially in the way that they are doing it.

First, publishing the patents lets other developers determine if they do, indeed, infringe a Microsoft claim. That provides an opportunity to invent around the claim. Second, by publishing them in this manner, Microsoft effectively says not to worry about patents not on the list. That is an important thing legally, because, in the US, collecting damages for patent infringement requires notification that patents apply. By saying "this is the list" Microsoft is implicitly notifying developers that their other patents are NOT on the list, hence they cannot be liable for infringement.

> So yes, Microsoft says Mono is patent encumbered for companies that engage in commercial distribution of the Mono implementation of the .NET protocol,

No. Microsoft says nothing of the sort. First, they don't claim that all of their APIs are covered by patents. Second, they can say what they want, doesn't mean its so. Good news -- they will provide a list of applicable patents. That means that the mono team, if they see any .NET stuff on the list, can tell

1) If they are infringing on any claims, and 2) ask the legal beagles if those patents hold water.





tracyanne

Feb 21, 2008
5:41 PM EST
Yes this is great news, not just for Mono, but a lot of FOSS projects.
theboomboomcars

Feb 22, 2008
4:42 AM EST
Yes, it seems that MS is finally responding to the "put up or shut up" calls. It took them long enough, but they are finally saying what is we are infringing on.
gus3

Feb 22, 2008
7:18 AM EST
Quoting:they are finally saying what is we are infringing on.
Careful. Their cry of "infringement!" doesn't make it so.

I suggest saying instead, "they are finally admitting that mere accusations of infringement are insufficient in the court of public opinion."
theboomboomcars

Feb 22, 2008
7:58 AM EST
Quoting:Their cry of "infringement!" doesn't make it so.
That is true, but like dino said, they are stating specifics so we know where to look and make changes if necessary, which is good. Those they don't mention, we don't have to worry about.

Quoting:Second, by publishing them in this manner, Microsoft effectively says not to worry about patents not on the list. That is an important thing legally, because, in the US, collecting damages for patent infringement requires notification that patents apply.


thenixedreport

Feb 22, 2008
11:02 AM EST
Actually, according to an e-mail I got from helios, this is nothing more than a used carsalesman's trick? Hint: look closely at the semantics.
tracyanne

Feb 22, 2008
12:31 PM EST
thenixedreport
Quoting:Got a link for that?


From http://www.tuxdeluxe.org/node/255
Quoting:This reminds me of an exchange of email during the efforts by Microsoft to standardize the file sharing protocol that Samba implements (CIFS). After a white paper was published demonstrating a man-in-the-middle security attack against the current protocol Microsoft responded by publishing a specification for cryptographically signing the packet exchange. This change fixed the security hole and was a good first response to the attack. Unfortunately, after analysis by some of the experts on the list we discovered that there were some theoretical holes to the new signing protocol, which needed a few trivial changes in order to fix and improve the security. After these proposals were submitted, the response came back from Microsoft that although the fixes were valid, unfortunately the code was already written and was going to be shipped in the next service pack. End of discussion. It wasn't even in a shipping product yet, but the specification was determined to be unchangeable as they didn't want to change their existing code.
hkwint

Feb 22, 2008
1:08 PM EST
Quoting:First, publishing the patents lets other developers determine if they do, indeed, infringe a Microsoft claim. That provides an opportunity to invent around the claim.


That won't do if the claims are far too broad and specify ideas instead of implementations, like which is the usual practice at EPO/USPTO. That's what I was trying to explain, but I'm afraid you didn't get that.

Looking at one of the patents for example 7.165.239, I see 12 small claims, and about 25 pages of 'detailed description' covering the implementation. Of course, like usual, it ends with

"Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described. Rather, the specific features and acts are disclosed as exemplary forms of implementing the claimed invention."

So those 12 small claims may cover a plethora of other implementations too.

Quoting:Second, by publishing them in this manner, Microsoft effectively says not to worry about patents not on the list.


OK, that's great. However, I wonder if there are other companies having patents in this area? Look at the patent I mentioned, it mentions a list of 'referenced patents'. A lot of those are from companies other than MS, like Quadvox, Accenture and IBM for example. Those patents may apply to the Mono implementation of .NET too. So, a list of those 'few' Microsoft patents applying to .NET is not enough to make sure no patents are infringed, and to be safe from patent trolls. No, like I said, that's going to require a change of the patent system.

Quoting:First, they don't claim that all of their APIs are covered by patent


They filed a lot of patents for their API's. Now you are telling me they claim those API's are not covered by the patents they filed for it? They must be rather stupid if that was true, or I'm misunderstanding.

Quoting:Second, they can say what they want, doesn't mean its so


Like I said, but you don't seem to get it, that doesn't matter anything. As long as those patents are there and they're not proved invalid in court, they could be considered a threat. Change the patent system, and the problem is gone.

Quoting:Good news -- they will provide a list of applicable patents. That means that the mono team, if they see any .NET stuff on the list, can tell

2) ask the legal beagles if those patents hold water.


Indeed, good news. But only for the legal beagles who earn lots of money from this mess, and use that money to buy influence to make sure the patent system stays the way it is. A good example is the discussion at JURI in the EuroParliament, where the juridical committee has to decide about software patents. Of course, that juridical committee was stuffed with the legal beagles you are referring to (one of them also lobbying for Microsoft, but that's a detail), so the outcome was predictable; they are not spoiling their own bread. There's a whole district in Bruxelles filled with lawyers and the like, but there are almost no SMB IT-firms over there, let alone those going to EP's to tell them their wishes, or who hire lobbyists (the lobbyist live in the same district as the lawyers 'coincidentally'). You may guess whose interests are looked after.
dinotrac

Feb 22, 2008
5:14 PM EST
>or I'm misunderstanding.

Aggressively and deteminedly so, it would appear.
schestowitz

Feb 23, 2008
12:40 AM EST
Hans et al,

Maybe it's time to present Microsoft with your own 'big announcement'? (hint: http://lxer.com/module/db/viewby.php?dbn=13&uid=115 )
dinotrac

Feb 23, 2008
2:24 AM EST
Roy -

It's an interesting thought, but doesn't quite work.

Microsoft is providing notice that its technology is covered by patents - and which technology is covered by which patents. They have a vested interest in doing so -- they can't get damages if they can't establish that people were given notice the patents that apply to their technology.

The list in the link is impressive, but whose list is it, and to what end? The very first entry is an Adobe patent. Interesting to Adobe, but is it interesting to us? What FOSS software is protected by that patent? Do we have any idea which Microsoft software might infringe on its claims? Do we know that they don't have any licensing agreement with Adobe? If so, they don't infringe.

Better question - If there is reason to believe that Microsoft infringes this patent, why aren't the Adobe lawyers going into battle? Microsoft doesn't have a great track record in infringement suits.

gus3

Feb 23, 2008
8:14 AM EST
dino: The point isn't patents; it's hypocrisy. The AT&T vs. UC Berkeley case over BSD "infringements" was effectively stopped in its tracks when the BSD side showed how AT&T had "appropriated" many BSD innovations without explicit permission.

Microsoft should themselves beware that they fail even the most superficial test using their own standards of "infringement."
dinotrac

Feb 23, 2008
5:19 PM EST
>Microsoft should themselves beware that they fail even the most superficial test using their own standards of "infringement."

Except that...to my knowledge, the holders of all those patents in the list are not making such a claim.
hkwint

Feb 24, 2008
11:30 AM EST
Quoting:>or I'm misunderstanding.

Aggressively and deteminedly so, it would appear.


OK, how? You nowhere explained apart from saying 'you're right and I'm wrong'. Why do you think Mircosoft patents don't apply to their API's? Where did they claim their patents don't cover their API's? How would it make sense for Microsoft to apply for (amongst others .NET) patents that do _not_ apply to their API's? If the patents don't apply to API's, then where _do_ they apply to? Why is Lisa M Bowman wrong in the article I pointed to when she says:

"If approved as is, the patent would cover application programming interfaces (APIs)"

If the API's are not covered, then why is the patent called:

"Application program interface that enables communication for a network software platform"?

Read the first three letters and you see this IS an API patent.

Until you come up with serious arguments I will consider your reaction (Agressively and det...) to be just a bad joke, because I'm used to hear some good arguments from your side instead of this utterly nonsense. But maybe you're out of Lavazza again, in which case I could understand it... No, you're leaving a very bad impression here. The fact that you 'aggressively and determinedly' - and above all desperately like to believe 'everything is out of the way' after Microsoft publishes its patent list doesn't make it true. We have to get rid of the patent system, because its anti-capitalistic and anti-free-market. Is that so hard to grasp? The only use of the current patent system is to get rid of the SMB's. That already happened in the US (only big companies - the one favouring from monopolies on ideas - seem to exist, a lot of the SMB's are gone), and the big companies like the EU to follow. If that would happen, all SMB competition and innovation would be gone. Software patents are also the only reason Hollywood doesn't put their over a decade old CGI programs out into the open: They're afraid the programs they made _themselves_ and which probably nobody else uses infringes on 'old' patents. So the current system forces inventors to keep their inventions closed to the public, and therefore is disabling cooperation. That's totally unacceptable in our western world where knowledge should be shared, and not be put away into a dark corner to prevent people from looking at it. The whole idea of sharing ideas and inventions is the basis of the current scientific society. Most currently used inventions would have been impossible if todays patent regime was used back when those inventions were made.

Quoting: Except that...to my knowledge, the holders of all those patents in the list are not making such a claim


Apart from being right, you didn't get the intention of the list. You should read the title. It says: Patents Microsoft might infringe. It doesn't say: Patents Microsoft infringes. I made the list, in case you were wondering, after Steve Ballmer started with his talk about 'Linux infringes 283 software patents'. This was based on an OSDL report which concluded "Linux may infringe 283 software patents'. Notice the difference?
dinotrac

Feb 24, 2008
12:17 PM EST
>you didn't get the intention of the list

Ummm...Words live in context. Roy put provided the link in context of a discussion on Microsoft's recent announcements. Excuse me for presuming that the context was in some small way related to his intent on posting the link.

As to your misunderstanding -- You're right. I've made my points ad nauseum. I'm pretty sure everybody's as tired of hearing them as I am of making them.

What you choose to believe is both your right and none of my business.
hkwint

Feb 24, 2008
12:31 PM EST
Quoting:What you choose to believe is both your right and none of my business.


Uhhm, well, if our goals were the same, a free-market-economy with a leveled playing field, in which innovation prospers and because of such innovations that free-market-economy make our lives easier and better and offers a solution to fatal diseases, than it would be strange and sad at the same time if we were to disagree about the current hindrances of such a free-market-economy I assume. But again I may be 'aggressively and determinedly' wrong of course.

And please bear in mind, though your audience may be sick of your arguments, I'm not. Nothing is as educational as being completely wrong and being pointed to that fact, and I can tell I really learned some thing(s?) from your arguments in the past, though admitting I was completely wrong is still hard, so I'm not going to. But theoretically it's not impossible I'm completely wrong, right? And if so, I still like to know.
dinotrac

Feb 24, 2008
12:58 PM EST
Hans -

You are not completely wrong. Far from it. My reference was not to the depth of your misunderstanding but to the depth of your persistence.

Nothing wrong with that, but I'm old and I'm tired, I am not the world's most knowledgable source, and, quite simply, am not up to the task.
hkwint

Feb 24, 2008
1:17 PM EST
Quoting:Nothing wrong with that, but I'm old and I'm tired, I am not the world's most knowledgable source, and, quite simply, am not up to the task.


Then, apart from being old, I'm just like you. However, I was delighted to attend a speak by Pieter Hintjes yesterday at FOSDEM. You know, the guy who was the boss of the FFII for a while, and being far more persistent against software patents than I am and ever will be. He serves a bit as my example, and maybe I'm a bit influenced too much by him and the FFII, who'd say. He - and his FFII - made me believe software patents are bad, and I found his talk quite inspiring. But I learned I should not trust someone blindly, so I'm trying to be open to arguments, which is quite hard sometimes. Persistence on things which turned out to be wrong / false made me look stupid far more than once, but it's also what made me earn my LPIC certification (and completely off-topic things too), so that still presents a dilemma from time to time.

Back to the .NET/Mono FUD again: I still think changing the patent system is the key to the solution of this 'unacceptable FUD'. There are other ways too, like circumventing the patents, but they require (far) more efforts, while at the same time changing the patent system wouldn't do much harm - but that's my believe.

On the other hand, while discussing in this thread, I also start to believe Mono is not different from other platforms / software to be found in Linux. It's just the ease to 'circumvent Mono' which makes - at least me - believe it would be bad to use Mono, but right now I believe Tracyanne was right when saying Mono is not much different from other software. If - like I suggest - API's are covered by MS patents than Wine is probably the biggest minefield out there. I'm afraid Wine can't circumvent patented API's. But as it is hard to circumvent Wine for some tasks, I'm tempted to say it's OK 'to use unlicensed MS IP' when using Wine, but not when using Mono. That's not fair. It could possibly be a perception problem too: Wine implements 'old established monopolized' API's, Mono implements API's of a platform which is not fully established and monopolized yet; and may be helping that establishment and monopolization creating a lock-in.
jdixon

Feb 24, 2008
1:49 PM EST
> ...made me believe software patents are bad...

They are. Software was never intended to patentable, anymore than a book can be. It was a court decision which allowed software patents, not an act of law. "Business methods" are another such travesty.

> Mono is not different from other platforms / software to be found in Linux.

From a patent perspective, the only differences with Mono are that Microsoft has actually claimed that there are patents on some aspects of Mono (Added: Correction, this should say .Net) and that it's Microsoft we're dealing with.

The other difference is that Mono is essentially a copy of a copy, since .Net is really just a reimplementation of the full Java environment (yes, I know that's an over-simplification, but it's still largely true). Thus, Mono is far less essential for day to day operations than most other Microsoft technologies.
dinotrac

Feb 24, 2008
2:48 PM EST
>Mono are that Microsoft has actually claimed that there are patents on some aspects of Mono and that it's Microsoft we're dealing with.

Do you have a reference for that? I've never heard any such thing.

>The other difference is that Mono is essentially a copy of a copy

No. It is Unix implementation of a platform that was originally developed by Microsoft for the Windows platform.

As to being a copy of Java, bull. It is a copy of Java in the way that COBOL was a copy of FORTRAN and python a copy of perl.

For that matter, you could make the case that the essence of Java's uniqueness was borrowed from Pascal's P-code.

Everything fulfills a role that something else fulfills.







tuxchick

Feb 24, 2008
3:03 PM EST
Mono is distasteful because of Miguel de Icaza's oft-expressed love of the Borg. The Samba team have no affection for MS whatsoever.

I also don't care for creeping dependencies on lardy frameworks. Gnome has enough of that already, where installing some trivial app requires pulling in great steaming chunks of Evolution Server or mounds of Mono itself. Sorry to be vague about which ones; I'll start keeping track. I don't use Gnome all that much, and the creeping larditis doesn't make it any more attractive- it reminds me of all the horrid Windows nags about my Sun Java Trademarked Experiences, and Passport nags, and all the other crap you have to keep beating down like whack-a-mole.
jdixon

Feb 25, 2008
7:42 AM EST
Do you have a reference for that? I've never heard any such thing.

You are correct. I meant to say .Net and not Mono. I've noted the correction above. Thanks for correcting me.

The patents on .Net have been mention several times in these fora, and I've never seen anyone deny it.

> As to being a copy of Java, bull.

That's a matter of opinion, and I am not alone in my view, but I admit that mine may be a minority viewpoint.

> For that matter, you could make the case that the essence of Java's uniqueness was borrowed from Pascal's P-code.

Which I did shortly after Java came out.
dinotrac

Feb 25, 2008
8:18 AM EST
jdixon -

Clearly, .Net is not a copy of Java. Highly informed by it? Sure. Trying to fill the same niche? Sure again.

And that makes it unique in the history of IT exactly how?
tuxtom

Feb 25, 2008
8:36 AM EST
Quoting:Clearly, .Net is not a copy of Java.
Most certainly not...but C# is a blatant copy of Java.
jdixon

Feb 25, 2008
8:42 AM EST
> Clearly, .Net is not a copy of Java.

I didn't say it was. I said it was a reimplementation.

> And that makes it unique in the history of IT exactly how?

It doesn't.
dinotrac

Feb 25, 2008
8:48 AM EST
>Most certainly not...but C# is a blatant copy of Java.

Or Java is a blatant copy of C++ with garbage collection and no multiple inheritance. Or whatever.

So what?

Everything in IT copies everything else to some extent.

A good thing -- good ideas should be copied.
Abe

Feb 25, 2008
8:50 AM EST
Quoting:Clearly, .Net is not a copy of Java.
"Copy of" depends on what you copy.

.Net is not a copy of code , but is is 95% copy of ideas, syntax, and functionality.

The agreement between Sun & Microsoft, which Microsoft paid a little less than $2 Billions to Sun, must have partially covered Java etc... technologies.

tuxtom

Feb 25, 2008
9:05 AM EST
@jdixon: Well, we can talk about the syntax and constructs of a particular programming laguage, as in my C# comment. Or we can talk about bytecode and runtime environments, etc. In that context, I agree with your reimplementation view somewhat, but I really think it is more of an evolution. Although Java is more portable to different platforms, the scope of features and functionality in .NET are far ahead of where Java left off. You could accurately say that Java is a subset of .NET. At least that's my view after being a Java developer for several years and diving into the .NET world for a stint. As much as I dislike Redmond, I cannot deny .NET's prowess.
jdixon

Feb 25, 2008
9:43 AM EST
> I agree with your reimplementation view somewhat...

Well, I admitted that it was an over-simplification.
hkwint

Feb 25, 2008
11:24 AM EST
'Decsendant' seems to be a better word. Someone gave me a large poster of the 'Programming language history timeline' two days ago, and looking at it I got the impression almost 'everything' (except brainfuck maybe, ahem) was a descendant of FORTRAN, COBOL, Lisp, ML, Prolog, sh and B. It was interesting to note .NET was not on the timeline; it took me some time to realize it's not a programming language, but just a bin of proprietarized existing languages I believe.

Sadly the poster is far too big to fit under my A4 scanner, but it's based on the familiar one available on the net: http://www.levenez.com/lang/
Sander_Marechal

Feb 25, 2008
11:28 AM EST
I love that poster. I got three (two for colleguas of mine). I really hope that next year at FOSEDM they had out a similar poster, but based off http://www.levenez.com/unix/ instead.
tuxtom

Feb 25, 2008
1:10 PM EST
Quoting:'Decsendant' seems to be a better word.
You may be shocked to know just what .NET supports. To call it a descendant of Java is a massive misrepresentation.

http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
Abe

Feb 25, 2008
7:00 PM EST
Quoting:You may be shocked to know just what .NET supports
Tuxtom,

I assume you are talking about Byte Code support and running code written in other language, right?

How many of these are available and who is supporting them?

How important that would be on a platform other than Windows?

How important that would be for future developments?

Is it worth the hassle or better than a re-write using more advanced languages like Java where one can develop on one platform and run on any?

In my opinion, this is nothing more than Microsoft luring customers to the Windows platform, nothing more nothing less.

If not, could you explain what that means?

Thanks,

tuxtom

Feb 25, 2008
7:47 PM EST
Abe: The absolute brilliance of it is that individual applications using those different languages can share each others' API's to build aggregate applications with reading a line of code from the existing applications. You can build large, complicated projects without the need to port legacy apps...or apps in an unfamiliar language. You just tap into the API's. .NET also introduces a fantastic set of its own exclusive components that accelerate development. You can make calls to C#, C++,Visual Basic, FORTRAN, COBOL and .NET libraries in the same app. As far as who's supporting them, there are links to almost all of them in the URL I posted.

Java's portability is no great panacea. Java requires a lot of man hours...bigger teams...and mucho configuration overhead. Microsofts VIsual Studio tools greatly accelerates development in those areas. A cursory review of job postings will reveal the Supply and Demand (craigslist is a good indicator for major metros).

Now, I have to agree with you 1000%...100,000%...on the Windows platform, which is why I don't do .NET development. If they even made the slightest effort to allow deployment a *nix system, I would be a lot more likely to steer in that direction. I despise the Windows Server OS and if I told you how I feel about IIS my account would here would be deleted and the neighbors would call the cops, so I must refrain. But that does nothing to negate the technical merits of the .NET platform and innovations it brings to computing.
dinotrac

Feb 26, 2008
4:49 AM EST
tuxtom -

I am expert in neither java nor .NET, but I worked in a shop that had both. I have to tell you .... Java folks seemed to take longer to do less with more bugs than .NET folks.
jdixon

Feb 26, 2008
5:28 AM EST
> ...Java folks seemed to take longer to do less with more bugs than .NET folks.

On how many platforms? :)

Yes, you'll be more productive with .NET, but if Microsoft had it's way it would be on Windows only. One of the good points of Mono is that it may solve that problem
dinotrac

Feb 26, 2008
7:14 AM EST
>On how many platforms? :)

Heres an FYI for those who missed the memo:

How many platforms do you need? Very few shops use more than 1 or 2 platforms. If your platform is supported, or you can live with one that is, you are golden.

Java does have the benefit of letting you use a Windows frontend and whatever backend. That, for any given shop, amounts to 2 platforms. If you use a web-based frontend, it amounts to 1 platform.





tuxtom

Feb 26, 2008
8:37 AM EST
In my Java days we had a homogeneous shop. Most of the stack was Windows, mainly because Weblogic would only interface with IIS at the time (OSS in that arena was very young at the time) and MS-SQL Server was the corporate RDBMS. The beauty of it is that Windows admins took care of most of the MS server nightmares. I was admin for our Linux servers and used Perl to process web metrics from the IIS farm. As I took on more distributed Java projects I started developing implementing them on Linux...remote message queue listeners, etc. Of course these days you can do everything Java on Linux with industrial-strength Open Source.

I guess my point is that a mixed shop is not necessarily all evil, and it is easiest to perform Windows subversion from the inside. My greatest disappointment is that MS didn't separate the web server from the application server in .NET. I don't know if any of you have ever tried to manage 100+ domains on a 6-pack farm of IIS servers, but to say it's a nightmare is the understatement of the century...and then to process logs? There's a reason I'm bald. I think more companies would do better to use .NET to develop Web Services for the "enterprise" apps (I hate that word) if they need to and leave the presentation layer to FOSS technology.
tracyanne

Feb 26, 2008
11:27 AM EST
Quoting:One of the good points of Mono is that it may solve that problem


The point I've made many times.

BTW: MonoDevelop is in Beta 2, it seems much more stable, but that seems to be at the cost of the GUI Web dev tool, which seems to be missing on the install I did the other day.
hkwint

Feb 26, 2008
2:04 PM EST
It was interesting to hear an OpenOffice developer speak on the new UNO bridges in OOo; it sounded like it should be able to do the same as .NET when it comes to 'interoperability between prog. languages' in the near / not so near future.

Quoting:How many platforms do you need?


That's an unimportant question if you're locked in to the Windows platform and you want to switch to a 'second' platform, I assume. The more (hw)platforms something supports, the greater the choice at the time of migration; the more a sensible choice of platform can be made on the basis of the technical merits of that (hw)platform; and not based on if it supports Microsofts lock-in (sw)platforms or not.
Sander_Marechal

Feb 26, 2008
2:41 PM EST
Quoting:It was interesting to hear an OpenOffice developer speak on the new UNO bridges in OOo; it sounded like it should be able to do the same as .NET when it comes to 'interoperability between prog. languages' in the near / not so near future.


I don't know what's new in the UNO bridges and I don't know how .Net handles it, but the Uno bridges I've used for Ooo 2.0 and 2.2 are pretty atrocious to work with. Too complicated, verbose and under documented. The Java version is supposed to be better (because it's mostly native) but I've never used that one. I used the Python version.

As for cross-language bridges, I really like SWIG (http://www.swig.org/). SWIG can generate very clean bridges between languages. Most of the Python modules (the Gnome, GTK and GStreamer libraries come to mind) are generated by SWIG from C code, yet they still feel very Python-y. It's one of the reasons Python grew so fast; lots of modules becoming available pretty fast.
jdixon

Feb 26, 2008
3:00 PM EST
> Very few shops use more than 1 or 2 platforms.

True. But then we're talking in house only code. To play devil's advocate, not all code is for in house use only. How many platforms do your customers, suppliers, and partners have that you need to support?
hkwint

Feb 27, 2008
10:38 AM EST
Quoting:but the Uno bridges I've used for Ooo 2.0 and 2.2 are pretty atrocious to work with.


Uhm, yeah, please remind me to write about the improvements for OOo 2.4. Though I'm no programmer, even I could understand this multiple-inheritance thing makes all a lot easier. Easier doesn't mean it becomes simple though...
Sander_Marechal

Feb 27, 2008
1:33 PM EST
Please do. My main beef with UNO is that it imposes it's java-esque style of programming into any programming language that it supports. Doing java-esque programming in anything but java usually turns ugly very quickly. SWIG's main advantage so far is that it can also change the way the API is used in the target platform. C library APIs converted to Python with SWIG feel very python-y and nothing like their C counterpart.

There's a downside of course. AFAICT UNO works pretty much automatically. With SWIG you still have to write definitions for each target language. These defintions tell SWIG how to translate the C/C++ API into the target API. A simple example: You can tell it that for Python, all functions starting with gtk_window_ should be put in the module "gtk" as class functions of the "Window" object. That way, you could say in Python something like:

import gtk my_window = gtk.Window() my_window.some_function()
hkwint

Feb 27, 2008
3:35 PM EST
Oh yeah, it _is_ ugly, at least to my untrained eye. Something like

open.sun.instance.new_stuff_of_this. operation.create.new_class.thats_it

is quite common I believe. I don't know if that's what you mean with java-esque style of programming, but I whould die if I had to type that stuff to often, let alone read it.
Sander_Marechal

Feb 27, 2008
8:54 PM EST
Quoting:I don't know if that's what you mean with java-esque style of programming


Well, your example pretty much nails it :-)
jezuch

Feb 28, 2008
2:12 AM EST
Quoting:open.sun.instance.new_stuff_of_this. operation.create.new_class.thats_it


Is it Java-esque or JavaScript-esque? I'm a Java programmer and haven't written anything like that in years (since the last time I wrote an "import" statement by hand instead of Eclipse doing it for me). JavaScript, on the other hand...
tracyanne

Feb 28, 2008
10:59 AM EST
Quoting:since the last time I wrote an "import" statement by hand instead of Eclipse doing it for me


So where were you been hiding when I was posting about my problems with Eclipse?
jezuch

Feb 28, 2008
1:34 PM EST
Quoting:So where were you been hiding when I was posting about my problems with Eclipse?


I don't know. When was it? :) I'm refraining from mentioning Java and my preferred IDE because in the world of freedom and choice is it too much of a flamebait and I don't like high temperatures (summer in somewhat chilly Poland is enough for me to melt). And I'd rather be programming in Haskell or Lisp ;)

Oh, BTW: Java-esque style would be more like: anInterestingObject.getThis(). .getThat().setSomething(fooBarBaz);
Sander_Marechal

Feb 28, 2008
1:41 PM EST
Quoting:anInterestingObject.getThis(). .getThat().setSomething(fooBarBaz);


That's just gross. Go wash your mouth. Or keyboard. Or whatever :-)
tracyanne

Feb 28, 2008
3:26 PM EST
@juzuch

What's it like in your neck of the woods. The company I work for had a job application from someone in Poland, the bloke has a Masters in Computer Science, and was applying for a job as a Junior .Net programmer.
tuxtom

Feb 28, 2008
5:57 PM EST
@tracyanne - I meet people like that all the time. There's a woman down the street here working a liquor store who holds a Master's in Comp Sci...she's Iraqi. (FYI: here in SoCal all convenience stores are liquor stores)

I was in for a gatorade or something and noticed she was reading an SQL book. We got to talking for 15 minutes or so. She was very bright, smarter than me, but her self-esteem was way down in the bottom of the barrel. Trying to get work through traditional channels is difficult if you don't have a recent track record. And being a woman in I.T. AND an Iraqi at this point in history in the U.S.A. has got to be psychologically debilitating. I guess I take it for granted that I can just answer an ad or get a referral and turn it into a productive opportunity. If you are new to a country and just want to get on your feet it's not a big surprise that you would try to grab anything to build a track record.

I'm going to hire that woman when the startup I'm with gives me a budget, even if it is just part time.
jezuch

Feb 29, 2008
1:44 AM EST
Quoting:The company I work for had a job application from someone in Poland, the bloke has a Masters in Computer Science, and was applying for a job as a Junior .Net programmer.


Hah, probably one of those young smarts that think that the ecosystem in Poland is anti-human and want to build New Poland somewhere abroad (they emigrate but never ever would assimilate). One of the leading items on the platform of recently elected government was pulling guys like those back from Ireland and Britain :) BTW: I'll have a Masters in CS in a month, too. Prospective employers welcome ;)

Quoting:There's a woman down the street here working a liquor store who holds a Master's in Comp Sci...she's Iraqi.


Poles were once famous for this. I heard a story about a woman who had a degree in Finance (!) and used to work in a bank and went to do cleaning houses of rich Jews in America... and was very happy with the money she got. There were jokes about doctors of philosophy and such working on construction sites... Well, I guess now Iraquis are inheriting this tradition.
tuxtom

Feb 29, 2008
8:52 AM EST
@jezuch: I fail to see your point. You sound more than half-drunk with conspiracy theory. Are you in the U.S.A.?
jezuch

Feb 29, 2008
1:57 PM EST
Quoting:You sound more than half-drunk with conspiracy theory. Are you in the U.S.A.?


No, I'm half-drunk with history as told by my parents who witnessed the Solidarność movement and the collapse of Communism and the following transformation-era depression first hand. And with my own observations later on. I don't know what was my point either, actually ;) And no, I'm not in the USA. I'm still in a town near Warsaw.
tuxtom

Feb 29, 2008
2:18 PM EST
@jezuch: I meant no offense, but your comments were quite callous. Your perspective and the social context under which you developed it are a far cry from the experience I tried to relate.

hkwint

Feb 29, 2008
2:44 PM EST
The point was probably just that it happens often to see foreigners with high (IT) education doing jobs which doesn't match their education at all.
tuxtom

Feb 29, 2008
2:54 PM EST
Kinda like Aspen?
jezuch

Mar 01, 2008
2:32 AM EST
Quoting:The point was probably just that it happens often to see foreigners with high (IT) education doing jobs which doesn't match their education at all.


The thing is that they are happy to get *any* job in their field (or even any job at all), because it will be probably better paid than whatever they can get in their countries. It's not that it's so bad there (it's only a little bad), but that you people in the developed world are so spoilt ;)
tuxtom

Mar 01, 2008
10:53 AM EST
Quoting:you people in the developed world are so spoilt ;)
Relatively speaking, I cannot disagree with you there. However, as the old saying goes 'the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence". The state of the Polish economy is not bad, relatively speaking. It's the "California" of Eastern Europe, is it not? I'd like to make it over there. My family heritage is Lithuanian, yet I've never visited the Baltic region.
jezuch

Mar 01, 2008
1:17 PM EST
Quoting:The state of the Polish economy is not bad, relatively speaking. It's the "California" of Eastern Europe, is it not?


I would say "almost" :) This is one of the biggest countries in the region and it has rather large inertia. AFAIK, Lithuania fares much better (small and nimble ;) ). I'm not an economist, anyway... But the economy seems to be pretty good indeed - what is rather amazing considering all the roadblocks (also literally). BTW: we prefer to say we're in Central Europe ;) The Eastern Europe is quite different culturally and Poland always was more on the West side.
tuxtom

Mar 01, 2008
1:33 PM EST
Quoting:BTW: we prefer to say we're in Central Europe ;)
Agreed. "Eastern" is a relic expression from the Cold War era. Most Americans aren't aware of just how many "Eastern European" states re-emerged in the aftermath of the USSR. Names like Belarus and Ukraine confuse most Americans geographically.

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]

Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!