Stallman Clarifies Position RE:Gnome & .Net

RMS ^? has sent The Register an email in which he corrects their 'inaccurate' representation of his stance on the GNOME & .NET issue. He states, "I am pretty sure something was garbled in the quotation which has me asking Miguel to 'explain himself to us', because those words would be explicitly confrontational, and I did not have any wish to do that."

Comments

Missing Link & more...

[NOT-2-QUICK]

I actually have a few issues to address regarding the Register's report...

First, I would like to raise the question of exactly where it is that I can view de Icaza's comments.

"Miguel de Icaza has issued his own clarification, here, which also amounts to 'move along folks, there's nothing to see'."

Unfortunately, however, the good people at the Register neglected to actually link the here in that statement! Anyone have any ideas???

Next, I move to a quote the Register supplies from de Icaza regarding the .NET framework -
".NET is a fantastic technology upgrade for GNOME from Microsoft,"

Perhaps it's just me, perhaps it is the fault of the translation, but in this quote it sounds to me as if de Icaza is portraying Microsoft as having graciously created the .NET technology specifically for GNOME. As we all know, that is far from the case... While this involves a quite obvious conflict of interest for M$ as a corporation (industry acceptance of .NET -vs- inadvertently providing Linux w/ new technology), I wouldn't say that M$ has been overly cooperative!!!

And finally, I point to the final line of the article referencing comments by de Icaza -
"In the interview, he praised many aspects of .NET including SmartClients and the new Microsoft security model. ®"

Please...someone say it ain't so!!! Is this individual actually praising the evil empire's security model? Has he been smoking dope!!! I think I'll just forget that I saw that and move on as if nothing ever happened...

Re:Missing Link & more...

[omega9]

the Register neglected to actually link the here in that statement!

I believe "here" was meant as "here at The Register", so it's a small matter of going to The Register's front door and doing a search for "Icaza". You'll probably be most interested in the three most recent articles. If you still can't find the connections, just look a little harder.

Icaza is portraying Microsoft as having graciously created the .NET technology specifically for GNOME

Oh, don't be such a drama queen. You, me, and everyone else here know that's just silly and obviously unrealistic. Put your tinfoil hat back on and take some deep breathes.

Is this individual actually praising the evil empire's security model?

You can say a lot of horrible stuff about Microsoft, and in most cases they will deserve it. But just accept for a moment a difference between a security model and a security implementation. While it could easily be argued that their model may not be the best, Microsoft has generally had a bad history of implementing security. If the same model were given to a bunch of Linux zealots and a bunch of Microsoft suits, though both based on the same foundation, I think we can agree that our prized zealots would pull through with a better implementation. So, for me at least, it not that bad of a sin to praise their security model. I just wish they would follow through a little better.

On an OT note: If you really want to throw up, read this. Direct quote - "The recent release of Windows XP illustrates the concept of intelligent design. If Windows XP points to Bill Gates, how much more do the marvelous complexities of DNA point directly to God, the great Intelligent Designer?"

Re:RMS? Confrontational??!! Naw!

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks you are mis-judging him. I had my attitude about RMS corrected at The Bazzar.

One of the 'linux columists' (aka he had web site where everything is rosy in the Linux world, everything would be running linux, etc la) was standing next to RMS. RMS said 'I need to get my ID badge' and the 'journalist' said "Badges? You are RMS, you don't need no stinking badges" RMS then put him in his place by explaining there was no need to be confontational with the security guard who was just going to do his job and ask for a badge.

RMS is passionate about his GNU thing. And, he's willing to be confrontational about the GNU thing.

What we're dealing with is a total lack of respect

[Komodo]

It's no big secret that I don't like Stallman.... however, he's had some good ideas and he gave us the GPL, one of the most useful pieces of software of the last 20 years (yes, contracts are software too!)

So why is it that he continually manages to irritate so many people? I think the answer is, you have to think a lot like RMS in order to understand what he's saying... particularly on the first try. As a result, he's prone to miscommunication. He appears confrontational because he frequently speaks his mind in a way that's going to get misinterpreted by everyone else. So is it our fault for not understanding his 'great mind'?

I don't think so. Richard, if you'd just have some respect for other people's 'user interfaces', you'd have a lot fewer problems, and do the community a whole world of good. RMS is not 'intuitive' or 'user friendly' for most of the world. Understanding how people communicate is critical to building effective interfaces to software. It's even more critical as a tool of persuasion. The Free Software community, like it or not, has a public face now, and you're it. Do you really want to keep hurting the community you built?

Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman

[Arandir]

There are thousands of us that argue against the dialectics of RMS. Maybe you're just reading Slashdot at too low a threshold, and seeing at the ACs trying to get their jabs in.

For someone on the other side of the fence from GNU, there is great temptation to prod him. His legendary stubborness is outmatched only by the fragility of his ego. He acts as if any dispute against his ideas is a direct personal assault. He can't stand to be wrong, and will never admit it if proven.

This is the guy who invented the whole concept, this is the man who made it happen.

Bullshit. He may have invented the concept of copyleft, but he certainly did not invent the concept of free software.

Re:Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Stallman

[Kraft]

Someone else on /. suggested in his .sig

LiGNUx

It aint pretty, but...