Novell makes itself even harder to trust

tracyanne, there's winform stuff we found.

jdixon, if it were not for Novell, /MICROSOFT/ would port to GNU/Linux (that's how Microsoft explained it). It lets others do the 'copying'.

Quoting:tracyanne, there's winform stuff we found.

So what.

You haven't answered my previous question.

All you've done is add more FUD.

Actually non-sequitor was what I was thinking TA. Bouncing from one to the next so as not to get pinned down on any.

Ahh, so the hubub is about nothing. Thanks

@az, yes it is actually.

@jd

Quoting:though I don't think anyone will bother, as it's not worth the effort

As far as I'm concerned, it's either C# Mono Moolight, or some other language "Moonlight", I can't tell the people to whom I want to sell Linux equiped computers "sorry you can't access your fitness education/[fill in the type here] website as Linux doesn't do Silverlight, so all those education programs you paid for will now be inaccessible, but buy my Linux computers anyway.

Do you not accept that Microsoft must support GNU/Linux... would be forced to by regulators had Novell not decided to create a second-class citizen that steps on Microsoft 'IP' toes?

> I can't tell the people to whom I want to sell Linux equiped computers "sorry you can't access your fitness education/[fill in the type here] website as Linux doesn't do Silverlight.

Linux can't do everything. Barring a major change in management direction, Microsoft will never support Linux, so Microsoft based technologies will always be a hit or miss proposition. If people choose to tie themselves to Microsoft based technologies, then they're willing choosing a monopoly provider, and deserve the consequences.

Yes, that means you may not be able to sell Linux machines to them. But some headaches aren't worth it.

> Do you not accept that Microsoft must support GNU/Linux... would be forced to by regulators...

Did you watch the same trial and aftermath I did? Microsoft was convicted... and got their wrist slapped. No, I don't think for a second that US regulators would require Microsoft to support Linux. The EU is another matter, but even they can't be counted on to do anything, and if they did it would probably take 5 years or more.

Quoting:Do you not accept that Microsoft must support GNU/Linux... would be forced to by regulators had Novell not decided to create a second-class citizen that steps on Microsoft 'IP' toes?

That still doesn't answer my question Roy. Why are you evading the real issue?

Novell should join the rest and complain about the attack on the standards-based Web, as opposed to supporting this attack.

tracyanne -

Stop this foolishness now.

You cannot engage in rational discourse with an irrational being.

It's like talking to my dog. He listens, appears to care about what I say, but outside of a distinctly limited vocabulary, it's in one ear and out the other, with maybe a tail wag in-between.

I think Roy raises some valid points. Perhaps some refinement is needed, but IMHO there is something in what he's saying.

>there is something in what he's saying.

Yes there is.

There's something in my toilet, too.

Quoting:Novell should join the rest and complain about the attack on the standards-based Web, as opposed to supporting this attack.

As futile as I know this is.

@Roy you are still avoiding my question, please answer it. Stop trying to change the subject.

> I think Roy raises some valid points.

Roy has several valid points and some which, while they may not be valid, deserve consideration.

1) Microsoft is an evil corporation. I think this is demonstrated by historical evidence well enough that it can be accepted as a given.

2) Novell has made a deal with Microsoft which was (take your pick) incompetent/unwise/evil. Again, while your choice of modifier may vary, we can agree that Microsoft will try to use the deal to hurt FOSS in general and Linux in particular.

3) Because of this deal, Novell cannot be trusted to have the best interests of FOSS at heart. Well, since no corporation can, this is somewhat of a given, but I agree that at the very least it makes Novell's judgment in FOSS matters suspect.

4) Mono, being derived from Microsoft products via Novell, cannot be trusted and should not be used. The added corollary is that Microsoft will use it to attack FOSS/Linux in any way possible. This one is far more problematic, and Roy's arguments are unconvincing to many. I personally tend to agree, but that's simply because I don't trust Microsoft and prefer to avoid their technologies, not because I believe Mono is a legitimate attack vector.

Feel free to add to the list, with appropriate commentary if desired.

Quoting:Mono, being derived from Microsoft products via Novell, cannot be trusted and should not be used.

Correction. Mono was not a Novell product, it did not come out of the Novel Microsoft deal. Mono is not derived from a Microsoft product anymore than SaMBa is derived from a Microsoft product. Mono, like SaMBa was developed from publically available specifications. In the case of Mono from the ECMA published open specification for C# and the .NET Framework.

Mono was originally developed by Miguel de Icaza's company Ximian, which he founded with Nat Friedman. Ximian were also responsible for Evolution and other GNOME software. They were eventually purchased by Novell prior to the Microsoft deal.

> Mono was not a Novell product,

I understand the details aren't correct, TA, but I was trying to summarize the gist of Roy's points, not making my own. I think what I said is an accurate summarization of his position.

@jd, sorry, I miss read you.

> ...sorry, I miss read you.

If it was that easy to misread my comments, the fault was mine, not yours.

Roy is, of course, free to correct my points as he sees fit.