Slashdot Mirror
Weigh In On the OOXML Issue During Live Debate
lisah writes "Linux.com's Robin 'Roblimo' Miller will moderate a live debate today, Wednesday, December 5 at 1pm US EST (GMT -5), between the GNOME Foundation's press officer Jeff Waugh and fair competition advocate Roy Schestowitz. Both have strong — and opposing — points of view regarding GNOME's involvement with Microsoft's OOXML standard and vehemently defend their positions, so getting them together in the same virtual room ought to prove quite interesting. Although the broadcast will be archived as a podcast and available for free download, you can listen live as it's recorded and also call in to participate and ask questions."
This should be like the youtube debates, only more asinine.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
"Those who do not wish to use proprietary software (Flash, MP3) to hear this conference over the Internet are also invited to use this call-in number. It will be active approximately 10 minutes before the live podcast begins."
Join the Free Software Foundation
Slashdotted already ? Or maybe the Novell boycotter also boycotted the invoices from the webhost ?
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
"Look, GNOME and Microsoft are both in the business of restricting what users can do with their computers - we just have different approaches. So let's work together!"
Without trying to stir up a flamewar, it is things like this one that bug me, and have always bugged me about the GNOME project. Far more than the technical issues, as the project has clearly been producing a lot of high-quality software.
I see no reason why a project which was started as a direct response to another project perceived not to be completely Free (which was quite justified at that time) should have anything to do with certifying obfuscated formats made by monopolists or support their proprietary software platforms (see Mono) and pushes by some people within GNOME to make them a central part of the GNOME infrastructure. I don't understand experiments like Eazel, with big industry hotshots coming in to design proper interfaces for the masses who don't understand them, and there are other confusing examples. GNOME was originally a project with a political goal, so I don't understand how its politics have become so bizarre.
As an external observer who doesn't use much GNOME technology, but values the contributions that the project has done to the Free Software landscape, I have to wonder what the hell some people in there are thinking. I realise that there are many different viewpoints within the GNOME project and that this issue is likely not as grave as some are trying to make it, but there is simply no excuse for supporting OOXML in my eyes. None.
then can we also request a song and dedicate it to someone?
"Hello, who's that?"
"Hi Robin, it's Richard"
"Hello Richard, do you have a question?"
"Well actually, I wanted to request a song please"
"Um, I'm sorry Richard, but this isn't that kind of show"
"Oh, OK then."
*Hangs up*
"OK, if anyone has any questions, not song requests, then please call this number..."
Summation 2
Does it strike anyone else as strange that GNOME (which, I understand, began as an alternative to KDE because of its reliance on non-free software) is apparently such an enthusiastic supporter of Microsoft technologies like OOXML and .NET?
Not if you follow the money it doesn't. Then it starts to make quite a great deal of sense.
.Net? No. OOXML? Yes.
.Net is a great framework. The fact that it is cross-platform (as long as you're careful with windowing toolkits) is also a bonus. Microsoft purposefully released specs for the framework and it seems to be fairly well specified based on the amount of support in Mono.
For the developer who wants to spend his time developing applications rather than worrying about memory management then
OOXML is a bit stranger for Gnome to get involved in. Surely it's something that apps like Open Office should be concerned about, not the desktop people? I'd rather they were putting their effort into improving some of the tools they do have rather than working in things they don't have to directly support.
.
Disclaimer: I use Linux, I even use Gnome (have done since Redhat 7.3), I enjoy the freedom and power of open source, and I do dual-boot Windows XP. I code my own projects in C# and don't hate things purely because they're MS, just because they're generally not as well specified or obviously flawed compared to alternatives.
I'll be listening in and I'm really hoping for a lively debate with lots of ad hominem attacks.
Jeff: "... and the document size is excellent!"
Roy: "Yeah, but tell me one thing: why should we believe someone who cheats on his wife?"
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
.Net? No. OOXML? Yes. Didn't you mean ".Net? Yes. OOXML? No." ?OOXML is a bit stranger for Gnome to get involved in. Surely it's something that apps like Open Office should be concerned about, not the desktop people? They are not only "desktop people". I'm not too familiar with Gnome developement but isn't Gnome Office (Abiword,Gnumeric etc.) part of the Gnome project?
There's no smoking gun, but Miguel's own writings on the topic suggest that even GNOME was intended to be a playpen for him to start cloning Microsoft's technologies. From http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/gnome-history.html:
No fancy editing on my part - he really does go straight from describing his admiration for ActiveX to describing his work on GNOME - the GNU Network Object Model Environment.
Thank God other people wrested control of the project from him years ago.
No, the parent post to that said "don't you think it's strange that..." so I was saying no it's not strange for .Net but yes it is string for OOXML. It wasn't "do I want .Net? No. Do I want OOXML? Yes" as that would just be crazy ;)
Gnome people might not be just desktop people, but Gnome (to me and probably most people) is based around the desktop and the window management/appearance (yes, WM is metacity, but metacity is generally Gnome and not KDE). It includes various config apps and some of the core stuff (basic games, text editors, calculators, file compression, file management) but why should it bother about which complex proprietary format to support as a whole project?
Abiword isn't Gnome, although Gnumeric is. If there is a decision to be made in one of the sub-projects about whether they add support for a format or not then surely it should be within the sub-project as the ability to open/edit a file rather than in the whole of Gnome as whether format X should be approved or not?
Not sure that was clear, but basically: why is Gnome seemingly (as a project) fighting about what format to support to get standardised? Apps should decide what they open/edit and people can have their own personal opinions, but that kind of battle isn't something directly related to the whole of Gnome.
sudo aptitude install kdebase
Where have I been? Living under a rock?!
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
... for those who can't be bothered to do the maths...
My little Linux and tech blog
I'm going to eat 3 animals today in your honor.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Just what we need, yet more sound and fury, absent any real information. Just two guys who never run out of words, and yet who never really say anything. Waste of time- go watch Springer; it's the same thing, plus chairs will be thrown.
we will end no whine before its time
TFA says the debate will be hosted at BlogTalkRadio. Fine, but WTF is up with the meta tags on that page? Representative samples include:
No one says a blog has to stay on-topic, of course, but that's... diverse.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Cross-platform, garbage collected languages existed long before .NET rolled around. Is it really that much better than Python? And now that Java is FOSS, is there truly still a niche for C# on Linux? Hint: "no" works well for both.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I've never seen a "full app" written in Python, and especially not one for Windows, only small config utilities and the like for Gnome etc. It is possible, since Exaile is a Python app, but Python is still very much in the minority.
.Net does that Windows users are used to. If you're publishing for the non-tech savvy then that counts for a lot.
.Net, but how many of them are as widely installed?
As for Java, it still doesn't have the direct runable-ness of an exe that
There may have been other cross-platform, garbage collected languages before
And whose fault is that?
Answer: Microsoft, for not including a JRE in Windows. Apple has a JRE, you can just directly run a
(Also, I don't have a
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I was under the impression that Bittorrent was rather popular with the kids.
There may have been other cross-platform, garbage collected languages beforeOn Linux, many of them. Since the question at hand involves Gnome software, that seems pretty relevant.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Answer 2: it is also Sun's for having JAR files that aren't necessarily executable and can't be differentiated from library JARs. .Net, on the other hand, has .exe for executable and .dll for library code (normally). To your basic user then that's far more accessible and understandable than these strange JAR files that sometimes run and sometimes don't.
.Net is perfect, but for a .exe application then it is much closer to what the vast majority of the public consider "the norm" and is much easier for them to run (e.g. no command line with class path to mess around with as it is generally all in the right places). I've also yet to see a JAR that shows its own icon like an exe does in Windows.
Even after I've installed Sun's JRE/JDK on Windows then JAR files end up with a "text file" icon. That's sure to confuse people and should be something that Sun have control over in their installer.
I'm not saying
Let me start by saying that i am EXTREMELY ignorant on the topic at hand.
But I have been using Azureus on windows and I never had to wonder about JAR or not JAR with it.
At the end of the day it's all up to the people who package the software.
I actually like the fact that jar is both an executable and library.
.Net, I HAVE to create a project as a library to use Classes in another project. I can't use classes in EXE files at all.
In
With a jar, I can execute it and it runs, or I can use it as a library, no problems. If it doesn't have an Executable class defined it fails.
Scott Carr
And, importantly from a non-techy point of view, it normally fails without a visible message.
.Net apps aren't greatly better with their cryptic error and error number, but at least it gives you something to look for to work out why it isn't working.
.Net app I'm writing at the moment purposefully has back-end DLLs and then an exe for the GUI so that I can easily write separate GUIs and plug them onto the same back end because of good separation.
Okay, so
Jars being libraries and executables can be advantageous in one way but at the same time then it is a bit like bending to rules and botching a solution. Yes, you can re-use an app that is Jared up as a library for another app, but that then means you've not properly separated your library code from your GUI code. The
I'll bite - it has been Microsoft, ECMA and ISO that have made this political, not us armchair critics. DIS29500 is a shit document that doesn't stand scrutiny - why else has MS had to go through all these pathetic gyrations to get it recognised?
I agree, let people get on with their admirable task of development but from an honest need, not the machinations of a company bent on destroying open source software.
I am not a robot. I am a unicorn.