Mono Blocked from MS Conference

Anonymous Coward writes to tell us that Microsoft has apparently blocked the Mono 'Birds-of-a-Feather' meeting from being held at their Professional Developers Conference for the second year in a row. Miguel de Icaza discusses the circumstances in his blog. From the blog: 'It is their conference, and they have every right to control what they will allow to be shown there, but they actively have misrepresented things.' Not terribly surprising but infuriating nonetheless.

Comments

Left hand doesn't know what the right is doing..

[lightyear4]

Sounds like left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.. Today's early "Race to Linux" thread about porting .Net linked to this article, which explicitly mentions mono as being an allowable language. This just seems odd to me, expecially because its also sponsored by the very same Microsoft Professional Developers Conversation..

MS embarassed by better implementation!

[jcr]

Film at 11...

Come on now, is anyone surprised by churlish behavior by MS towards the Mono developers? Does "Samba" ring a bell?

-jcr

lay down with dogs...

[Colonel Panic]

Wake up with fleas

Hmpf

[dedazo]

The PCD is Microsoft's event. It's for people who work with Microsoft technologies on the Microsoft platform. Maybe if Icaza had not sold the shop to Microsoft's competition then maybe they would have had a chance to get in there. Gawd knows Icaza has a lot of fans within Microsoft - he's respected by a lot of people in the mothership, especially those working with the most interesting technologies, such as Indigo/WFC.

But when the guy essentially works for Novell, what the fuck did he expect? They didn't let the Oracle folks in either, eh?

The zealotosphere will of course take this personally and another round of "OMFG TEH M$ IS TEH EVIL!!1!" is forthcoming. That's fine. Just remember that Microsoft is not into giving competitors slots on their conferences just so they can come across as being nice. The PDC is not an all-access proletarian gig. If Icaza was still independent I'd put good money on him getting into the PDC to demo his stuff. With the Novell t-shirt however, things are a little different.

Oh, and BTW... OS News and every two-bit blog out there had this days ago. Slashdot is late to the party - again.

Re:Hmpf

[dedazo]

That's misleading and sensationalist. Miguel de Icaza knows perfectly well what INETA is, what they do and how they operate. They do not "cower under the hand of Microsoft", they are very much married to Microsoft. BOF or no, the presentation would have taken place in the context of the PDC. Miguel de Icaza works for Novell. Whatever yahoo at INETA that thought it was a good idea to bring in an employee of Novell to the PDC didn't clear it with Microsoft. They didn't "lie" to Icaza, INETA probably raised the issue with the MSFT people late in the game and got reamed for it.

It's disingenious of Icaza to cry himself a river when he knows very well how things work. He's no stranger to Microsoft satellite orgs like INETA, and I expect he hasn't forgotten Novell pays his salary.

I'm not trying to prove Icaza 'deserved it', this whole deal still sucks. I'm making the point that he should have seen this coming and should have cleared it with someone other than some teenager at INETA. He knows enough people at Microsoft to do that. A simple email to friggin' Robert Scoble would have sufficed.

Re:Hmpf

[Keith Russell]

So then why did INETA accept the application for a slot? If they didn't think it was appropriate, why not simply reject the request for a slot, instead of trying to act like it didn't happen?

Exactly! Miguel was led to believe that his BOF made it on the ballot on merit, without having to call in any favors at Microsoft.

This is news?

[c]

Microsoft is behaving exactly the same way they've always behaved.

Look, Miguel, it's pretty simple. You go play in the sandbox with a reknown bully, you eat sand. Most people figure this out before their sixth birthday. You want to do this mono thing, fine, but you _are_ going to get screwed every time you venture into Microsoft's playground and you aren't going to get a lick of sympathy from the rest of the world when it happens.

c.

Re:This is news?

[demachina]

Its somewhat worse than that, Miguel has not only wasted his time, but he's suckered a large number of others developers in to expending massive effort on Mono. It is interesting and all, but it was as nearly as I can tell a complete waste of time, that could have been better spent on Java or standards not completely dominated by Microsoft. Now if there were interesting .NET web sites all over the Internet I wanted to use and had to have Mono to use on any non Windows platform then yes it would serve its purpose, I just don't think I've encountered such a web site. Are there any?

Not sure I grok why Miguel has such icon status in the open source world, he doesn't seem to have very good judgment.

Re:This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well not only that but all of Microsoft's next generation software is suppose to use this .net stuff. Well not really, but that's the kind of garbage they were saying a while back. So for example, this could very much be useful to the folks at Wine since they are going to need a way to mimic the.net structure if they want to run MS's programs. For example Paint.net requires the .net architecture and I'm sure a few of their other programs over time might need to as well.

However, more importantly, lets say you're a company. Now, one of your previous employees made an application based on .net that's important to your business. Now to save money you've decided to switch to Novell's Linux solutions. Would it not be easier to be able to port or use almost the entire source you had working on the windows server over to the new Linux servers??? Why yes it would, and it would be cheaper. From my understanding, this is the main reason why Novell wants mono; cause they can say "hey no worries your system will still work the exact same on our servers". That's a nice thing to be able to say to a client isn't it? So mono isn't really for a standard user, its designed more for enterprise solutions as in businesses

More importantly

[WindBourne]

when they drop the hammer on the GNOME/mono group for using their IP, they will be able to tell the truth in court (for once) that they have never supported this project. In addition,they never fully understood how much of their IP this project walked on (I wonder if they can do that with a straight face?).

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, yes.

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162 579&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=109&mode=thread &cid=13588090

(I didn't feel like typing a long answer to you as well and this one works just fine)

bottom line, you are wrong and are part of the problem.

On empires....

[zappepcs]

The Roman empire, as others, was built by dominating all possible enemies, or politically playing them off against each other. This works okay for a while, but eventually it always seems to lead to the empire's undoing.

The Roman Catholic church, following the fall of the Roman empire, in turn conquered much of the world by assimilation and adaptation.

Perhaps MS will take this lesson from history one day before it is too late?

Linux conferences.

[atomic-penguin]

I wouldn't expect Microsoft to have a .NET Birds of a Feather group at a Linux conference. It probably wouldn't go over well with the attendees, I can just imagine everyone attending the MS BOF pointing out how what MS hasn't done for Linux. Furthermore, the sponsors may have political issues with them having a slot in the conference.
 
It seems very silly to hold them to a double standard. Microsoft is under no obligation to cater to Novell and their associates. Just as you would not expect groups associated with Linux to be under any obligation to cater for Microsoft.

Re:Linux conferences.

[cgenman]

Except that they're not held to a double standard. Microsoft sits on the boards for OpenGL and a lot of other standards. Microsoft has been to Linuxworld and other open-source or Linux conferences. They also show up at Macworld and other Apple conferences.

They might grumble a lot, but Open Source supporters seem to have given Microsoft as many rights as anyone else in the community may have. Microsoft doing a MONO/.net promotion at a Linux conference would be completely acceptable.

Mono is better in many ways

[ron_ivi]

1. For high-end computing - Mono runs on Sparc, S390, and Power support, Mono's really the only choice for high-end computing platforms.
2. For embedded designs - Mono runs on ARM with MIPS soon to come, which makes Mono really the only choice for embedded platforms.
3. For businesses - Many companies are able to provide support for the Mono engine, only one is able to support microsoft's implementaion. Any rational business will not allow any product that's sole-sourced from a single vendor, whether it's screws, bolts, gasoline, or software engines. With Microsoft's implemention your business is left at the whims of a single vendor who can pull the rug out from you whenever they feel like (remember Visual Basic 6, and the contempt MSFT showed business relying on that platform).

Basically, for any serious C# application, Mono is the only choice.

Re:Mono is better in many ways

[The Slashdolt]

You hit the nail on the head. Mono is the only choice for a serious C# application. Unfortunately, the rest of the industry figured this out years ago and wrote all their code in java, which runs on all the platforms you mentioned and has nothing to do with microsoft. Why you wouldn't use an existing and mature cross platform language that is non-microsoft is beyond me.

Re:Mono is better in many ways

[TummyX]

Woah. Talk about delusional.


For high-end computing - Mono runs on Sparc, S390, and Power support, Mono's really the only choice for high-end computing platforms.

Except that there's no proof that mono itself will scale on those platforms and P4 and AMD64 aren't exactly lightweights these days.


For embedded designs - Mono runs on ARM with MIPS soon to come, which makes Mono really the only choice for embedded platforms.


Well the compact framework runs on those processors too as does Portable.NET/DOTGNU.


For businesses - Many companies are able to provide support for the Mono engine, only one is able to support microsoft's implementaion. Any rational business will not allow any product that's sole-sourced from a single vendor, whether it's screws, bolts, gasoline, or software engines. With Microsoft's implemention your business is left at the whims of a single vendor who can pull the rug out from you whenever they feel like (remember Visual Basic 6, and the contempt MSFT showed business relying on that platform).


YOu gotta be kidding me. In reality, there more many more companies supporting .NET development. Sure, Microsoft are the only ones that can do anything about the runtime but there are literally thousands of vendors of .NET components (most of whom only support .NET on windows).


Basically, for any serious C# application, Mono is the only choice.


That's really delusional you know. Most C# applications being written today are on ASP.NET and SWF apps written for windows (many are internal custom applications).

Mono's VM, although continuously improving is not as stable as Microsoft's and their class library isn't either complete or, again, as stable as Microsft's. There is also no decent IDE for mono (monodevelop is so far away from being able to compete with visual studio or borland's offering that it's not funny).

Re:Mono is better in many ways

[blincoln]

Why you wouldn't use an existing and mature cross platform language that is non-microsoft is beyond me.

C# doesn't require that you have version 1.4.01_04 of the runtime installed for one app, 1.4.01_03 installed for a second, and 1.5.02_01 for a third.

Java is an awesome language, but the runtime-version-specific nature of *every* Java app we have at work ruins it in my mind.

Re:Mono is better in many ways

[msormune]

What the hell are you talking about? If your applications really need that strict version numbering, you must be doing something really wrong. I have been a Java developer for 8 years and I know this for a fact.

Re:Mono is better in many ways

[mpcooke3]

Swing may be slow and crappy, java is definately not. The compromise in speed that you make in a large Java application compared to a large C++ program is negligable for most application development, and of course development in a modern OO language is much easier. Plus the tools for java such as IntelliJ and Eclipse are still a year or two ahead of microsofts intellistudio and about 5 or 6 years ahead of open source development tools.

Java on desktop linux will die unless a good open implementation becomes popular like harmony/GCJ etc. Java is of course firmly entrenched in many banks and large development companies because its the only modern development platform suitable for large scale cost efficient development that isn't tied to Microsoft. It's also become increasingly popular to write large multiplayer online game backends in Java.

To make out that being a modern OO language is a disadvantage is laughable. It's a bit like saying "I'm still going to use my horse'n'cart because cars are just fad and soon we'll all be flying planes." Sure, the java platforms isn't suitable for people who haven't learnt modern development practices of for hacking togethor small or temporary scripts, but that's not it's core market.

I wouldn't declare Java dead yet, given the only viable alternatively currently is the .NET platform.

GET A CLUE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you hear once more that developers who buy into .NET are not interested in developing or targeting other platforms other than Windows. Those who would want to have Linux then rather use PHP, Perl, etc. That is so crazy and ignorant that it doesn't make any sense! Or maybe, the people expressing those opinions are not "Real Software Engineers" -- or good business people for that matter.

It is NOT an all or nothing proposition. You can develop in Visual Studio and very well target Linux, Mac OS X and anything else that runs Mono. As much as I use the totally cool MonoDevelop (a.k.a Bad Ass IDE of the future), I still use Visual Studio .NET 2003 quite regularly. In fact, now that I have discovered the beauty of VMWare, it will be that much more comfortable to create projects in Visual Studio that are resting on a VMWare shared folder and use them instantly in the Linux host.

But make no mistake, that is just one of those rich kids whim of mine. I have, for the past two years, used a Windows box that has mapped drives to my Samba enabled Linux boxes to achieved the same effect.

One must also keep in mind the great utility of Mono's Windows incarnation. Thanks to my add-in (sorry for the shameless plug) you can use Visual Studio and test in Mono without having a Linux or Mac OS box anywhere in sight. In some cases, I very purposefully create Mono applications using handy dandy Visual Studio .NET 2003 with the intention to deploy and run in Windows boxes whose only .NET Framework runtime is the Mono for Windows SDK.

In the early 1980's IBM put out the specifications for the PC and regardless of what were their intentions back then, the world of IT has become what it is today because of all of the innovations that we later had by contributors like Compaq, Dell, HP, Apple, Toshiba and many others.

Today, being a .NET developer that only wants to use .NET in Windows would be as silly as a PC user back in 1987 who only wanted to use IBM hardware.

I say we have an extremely similar situation with the original submission from Microsoft to the ECMA of the C# language and the CLI specification. Now, in 2005, you have a great group of contributors that include Novell, Microsoft, IBM, HP and many others.

But perhaps the most striking difference from my IBM PC analogy is the role of the individual contributor. You see, I want to suggest that Open Source .NET will be much bigger -- and better for everyone -- than Microsoft .NET alone.

No really, from a business perspective, you would have to be brain damaged to create an application or system of any sort and not hope that it can run in as many platforms (meaning customers that are willing to pay) as possible!

So you mean to tell me that there is some .NET developer at the PDC or elsewhere that would not grin once he/she sees their application running on Linux or Mac OS X?

For GOD sake, GET A CLUE!!!!

Re:Left hand, right hand (former Microsoftie here)

[einhverfr]

As the years have gone by, I keep waiting for it to "become" Java, but all we've got to show for it is an architecture with the speed of Java (slow) and the portability of a native Win32 exe (not portable at all).

And the security of ActiveX.....

Actually, it is not too unportable via Mono, but I worry about a non-sandboxed security model based on digital signatures.

.NET is a Diversion Maneuver

[rednaxel]

It hurts Java AND Linux at the same time, using the same trick for both: luring developers. Every minute a Java developer wastes using C# is a minute that he/she is not using Java. Every time a Linux developer tries Mono, he/she is wasting resources in a doomed technology. Even if .NET is headed to be a total failure - as a technology - at some point in the future, it's already a success as a marketing tool: it's slowing down Java and Linux.

It's obvious that Mono will NEVER be able to run every .NET application. As soon as Microsoft starts seeing Mono as a thread, something will happen.

BTW, where's the big wave of .NET applications?

Re:.NET is a Diversion Maneuver

[RAMMS EIN]

``It hurts Java AND Linux at the same time, using the same trick for both: luring developers. Every minute a Java developer wastes using C# is a minute that he/she is not using Java.''

Frankly, I don't see it that way. When introduced, .NET was a better technology than Java. Instead of being a platform designed to be targetted by a single language, .NET enabled interoperability between languages. Microsoft has worked hard to improve this interoperability, even making changes to their VM to better suit functional languages. C# also had some really good features (generics come to mind) that Java lacked. So when a Java developer is ``is not using Java'', perhaps they're simply evaluating other, possibly better options.

Because of .NET's advantages over Java, it has forced Java to get better. Java 5 is a great improvement over Java 4, and I doubt that this would have come as quickly had it not been for .NET. Java is hurt by .NET in terms of market share, but I'd say it's rather helped in terms of quality.

Finally, I don't see your point about .NET hurting Linux. How many people are not using Linux because of .NET? How has .NET harmed the quality of Linux? If anything, .NET makes Linux better and more attractive; better because Linux now offers it as an additional choice (through Mono and Portable.NET), and more attractive because applications written in .NET will require less porting than applications using the win32 or MFC APIs.

Re:.NET is a Diversion Maneuver

[Billly Gates]

.Net is not and never will be compatible. I have not even heard of any applications being portable between the 2.

I don't mean hello world programs either. .NET is a way to migrate linux users to Windows and no one with a brain would use mono.net on any production based webserver. Its just not stable and it will always be behind Microsoft's offerings. If you want .NET then you must use Windows.

Or face the task of a nightmarish scenario. Besides who says MS wont pull the plug on Mono? I was reading another article about fustrated developers using VB6 and being screwed since its no longer supported. MS is known to pull the plug on its own software. What makes you think Mono will be different?

Re:Something for MS to Think About

[rtb61]

It does not matter whether you don't believe that "MS' only road to victory is to destroy everyone". It is obvious that they believe it and it reflects in their behaviour. They have committed themselves to that path for so long it is now nearly impossible for them to go in any other direction. They have virutally made the whole of the rest of the computer industry their enemy.

Re:Is this news?

[markdavis]

"It is their conference, and they have every right to control what they will allow to be shown there. Is this news?"

No. It is business as usual. I can't believe anyone would expect otherwise! .Net is a lot more about .Lockin than about .open or .compatible or .competition.

de Icaza better duck from flying chairs.....

Re:Something for MS to Think About

[mrchaotica]

If MS really wants .Net to take off, they need to ensure that it's adopted by as many people as possible.

But they don't. .NET is a tool to promote Windows, not the other way around.

You are missing the big picture

[einhverfr]

Microsoft's dominance in the corporate workstation market is largely due to superior development tools (compared to other rivals) for line of business tools.

For other tools (large scale/higher performance, nice-looking apps), MFC/VC++ is still the way to go.

Native calling is pretty easy to do in >NET and many developers use Win32 calls to gain missing (perhaps purposely) in .NET and Windows.Forms.

Sure but how many line of business apps need this? How many benefit from this? This was not .Net's goal.

Avalon is going to be Vista's killer API and it will be exposed through .NET. Unlike Windows.Forms though Avalon will not be part of the .NET standard (it will be under the Microsft namespace) and will be very dependent on Vista technology. Developers will flock to this to make their applications "Vista-friendly" and kill cross platform interop with Windows.Forms.

Line of business tools again?

The point though is that Mono makes it much easier to move from a Microsoft-centered shop to a Linux-centered shop. Even with Avalon, this is still a reality. Now with Avalon, I still think that you are going to see quick Linux compatibility develop, and so Microsoft will have a number of problems keeping developers there.

You have another issue. How many companies are still running Windows 2000 primarily? How fast will Vista be adopted?

I don't think that they ever intended to allow .Net to be this dangerous to them. But it is extremely dangerous.

The original strategy was to go with .Net to kill Java and Software Assurance to lock people into subscription contracts, but people forgot about Linux....

Re:Left hand, right hand (former Microsoftie here)

[AgentJJ]

Sure, we *could* pass Win32 calls to WINE (hoping they work), but that defeats the whole point of using .NET to be a truly cross platform development API. We might as well ditch Mono and just focus on getting the Microsoft .NET runtime to work over WINE by your philosophy.

Native function calls and Avalon pose a major problem in having applications developed with only Windows in mind working on Linux. Of course Linux developers can still benefit from using .NET for themselves, but the dream of "write once, run everywhere" is at risk if using native calls and Avalon becomes norm rather than the exception.

Re:Mono: **Listen up! Trolls, Uninformed and delud

[Lord of the Fries]

I admit to being somewhat of the loop on this. I used to Gnome, I ditched it when they dropped Sawfish in favor of Metacity.

But I was interested when they came to this conclusion that some sort of Application Development Framework, over and above what they could iron out of C(++) was needed. What I don't get is why .NET? And no, I wouldn't have gone Java.

Why not go with Objective-C? Want the memory manager, link with libgc. It works GREAT! And if you don't feel the need to play ever catch up with Apple, you can link the GNUstep stuff with libgc, and fork off in your own direction. It's amazing to me what the GNUstep guys are able to do with such a small amount of developers. And then you can start playing with the StepTalk stuff being done in GNUstep, which gives you a *really* fluid application toolset. You get the C, the objects, the messages, the elegance (i.e. no need for the language to bolt on another 20 features every rev because it somehow never really figured out what it wanted to be, nee Java), and the uber fluid Smalltalk stuff at the top. And you can pick and choose, so you don't have the religous flamewars.

Am I on Slashdot??!?! Oh. Sorry. You caught me on my soapbox in front of my mirror.

Re:Well, it does seem to confirm...

[throx]

As a legally-declared monopolist...
You misunderstand the law. Microsoft has been declared to have a monopoly in the x86 desktop market. They haven't been declared to have a monopoly in the virtual machine market, the conference market, the server market or any other market I could imagine relavent to a .NET/Mono discussion.

The whole "declared monopolist" thing is silly. All they are not permitted to do in the US is leverage their desktop monopoly to gain competitive advantage in other spaces.

Re:Well, it does seem to confirm...

[mrchaotica]

All they are not permitted to do in the US is leverage their desktop monopoly to gain competitive advantage in other spaces.

What the fuck do you think .NET is, if not a way to leverage their desktop monopoly? Leveraging their desktop monopoly is very nearly the only thing Microsoft ever does!

Re:Something for MS to Think About

[Sux2BU]

Think about MS's core business areas: Windows and Office. It doesn't make sense for the company to embrace projects or groups that undermine those business areas. The company uses .Net as a way to enhance Windows, so while they are supportive of it, they're going to keep an eye on their core business first.

This isn't MS being monopolistic, it's just good business practice. Apple's core business areas are OS and hardware (and now music), which is why Jobs killed off the 3rd party hardware. IBM's core business is consulting and hardware, which is why you won't see them partnering with other hardware companies.

Not coherent

[BerntB]

By using the monopolic practice of embedding Internet Explorer in Windows, Microsoft opened to the gates (no pun intended) to the information superhighway, without realizing that this would allow people to get organized and fight against their own monopoly

You are claiming that internet use and open source organization on the net wouldn't have happened without Internet Explorer?!

That is some strange history writing...

Re:I don't get Mono

[uberchicken]

> *prepares for the flames*

The apathy is much more disappointing, isn't it?

Re:Why not Java? Here's why.

[Homology]

Certified, compatible implementations are available for just about any relevant platform you can imagine (yes, probably not for BSD's but that's because they are not relevant).

Hey, wasn't Java supposed to be cross platform or something? Those poor *BSD people don't have someone like IBM behind them to pay for the certification.

I don't know if there is something in Sun's licensing policies which prevent a fully GPL'ed SDK being done by someone, but I really couldn't care less about "open source" Java SDK or runtime environment. SDK's are essentially free anyway and they work well; whether they are open source or closed source is totally irrelevant.

So in which way is Sun Java policies any different in effect than Microsoft's .NET policies?

Re:Why not Java? Here's why.

[SillyNickName4me]

SDK's are essentially free anyway and they work well; whether they are open source or closed source is totally irrelevant.

That is true only when you look at the initial cost and ignore anything after it.

When people tell me .NET is cross-platform...

[Anonymous Coward]

...because Mono exists, I tell them: "Yeah right, and Windows is cross-platform because WINE exists"

Re:Java isn't in the running anymore

[kaffiene]

Almost every sentance in that post is utter BS.

Java has not "proven to scale" any more than Mono has

Like fuck! You are clueless.

What did they expect?

[ChaoticCoyote]

The entire Mono project is based on the false assumption that Microsoft will bestow its blessings on those who clone .Net (and its tools). Given Microsoft's predatory and paranoid history, I can't imagine why Miguel persists in his Quixotic quest.

Re:Mono: **Listen up! Trolls, Uninformed and delud

[Anonymous Coward]

with gnome dead everyone would standardize on KDE

That would be an unbelievably stupid response.

If someone manages to kill Gnome then that would show the importance of having alternatives instead of being locked down to one approach. We would be able to rely on KDE and XFCE while other alternatives are developed. Same if someone launches a succesful attack against KDE, we can focus on Gnome and XFCE while repairing the damage / starting new alternatives.

Saying "oh look, a mistake can lead to a DE being wiped out, let's rely on just one" would be insane. (Yes, I know, you're thinking "well but the kde developers would be prescient superhumans who would never make a mistake letting their project be vulnerable", but honestly anyone who thnks like that deserves what they get).

Re:Mono: **Listen up! Trolls, Uninformed and delud

[BillKaos]

Harsh as this may sound, I am actually hoping this happens. It would have a number of very necessary consequences:

This happened with the whole BitMover/BitKeeper(TM:) debacle, and it seems that nobody had learned from it.

Re:Why not Java? Here's why.

[idlake]

Certified, compatible implementations are available for just about any relevant platform you can imagine (yes, probably not for BSD's but that's because they are not relevant).

Thank you very much, but I want to decide for myself which platforms are relevant.

I don't know if there is something in Sun's licensing policies which prevent a fully GPL'ed SDK being done by someone, but I really couldn't care less about "open source" Java SDK or runtime environment.

There are no third party Java implementations at all, whether commercial or open source or free. Java isn't a language or a platform, it's a proprietary implementation from Sun that's been ported to a few platforms by various licensees.

SDK's are essentially free anyway and they work well; whether they are open source or closed source is totally irrelevant.

I've been through this cycle several times before: whether platforms are proprietary or open does matter a lot. You'll eventually figure it out for yourself when you have to stop shipping a product or pay inflated licensing fees.

logic meltdown

[goon]

"... the entire OSS community would learn to never ever rely on proprietary tech again, ... (continues) ... with gnome dead everyone would standardize on KDE ..."

*sigh*