Slashdot Mirror
De Icaza Responds To Stallman
ndogg writes "It's no secret that Stallman doesn't like Mono. Miguel, however, has been pretty quiet about those criticisms, until now. It seems he'll no longer be quiet. He's responded strongly to an article by Stallman that criticizes Codeplex about its aims due to its origin at Microsoft. Miguel says Stallman is fearmongering, and is missing an opportunity by his criticism."
Microsoft should ask for its money back. de Icaza is a terrible troll.
Stallman is of course right to point out that he is a Microsoft apologist - he is a notorious one. It is beyond argument that Microsoft spends significant dollars in direct and "personal" attempts to crush free software development projects such as Linux through the most indefensible barratry. It's also widely known that this is only one of a multi-prong strategy that includes coopting competing projects, through many means, including hiring key team members, and PR efforts, including hiring astroturfing firms - some of which patronize this very site, and you will meet some of their employees (or contractors) today. :)
Miguel must chuckle at himself when he writes things like "Fear mongering is a vibrant industry." It is too rich in irony for him not to know it. Yes, he suggests Microsoft is our "ally." A hilarious notion that, when he writes it, makes it clear what contempt he has for you, the reader.
If you judge someone by their actions, then there is no need to discuss how we judge Microsoft and their relationship to free software. It is easy to understand the lense through which we see codeplex even if they were to say nothing controversial. But apparently one of their goals is already clear - to throw another line of men at the front of the rhetorical "war" between free as in beer and free as in speech.
Just keep in mind that this is pure wasted time. RMS correctly points out that the war was won long ago - by a recognition of the value of the GPL and of free software. It's quite easy to understand - most people, when they give away their work, have a common moral compass, and they share certain values about how they would like to see that work go out into the world. i.e. They would rather some 3rd party not get paid for what they did for free. And they would rather others have the freedom to tinker, just as they did. Most ("important, widely used, active") open source software is free software for this reason. Of course, the "debate" will never end, either. But let's just keep it in perspective.
Ah Miguel. His rant may have virtually zero actual content, but at least he gets points for plugging "The Power of Nightmares." Just a few years too late, alas. From that and his Bush-based name calling, he may lose the conservative portion of the audience he is supposed to be reaching, but as I said, MS should get a refund.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Richard - "The first thing we see is that the organization ducks the issue of users' freedom; it uses the term "open source" and does not speak of "free software"."
Miguel - "The creation of the CodePlex foundation was an internal effort of people that believe in open source at Microsoft. "
Open source on whose terms?
He and others written a useful, complex and (hopefully) well implemented set of software components through much in the way of blood, seat and tears.
So of course he's not going to agree that what he did was either a waste of time or evil. I'm not exactly sure which side of this debate I fall on. Doesn't affect me too much as a C programmer...
A lot of people dislike Stallman and his positions, but even his biggest detractors have to admit that he's a principled man. You know where RMS stands on issues before he even comments on them because he's had a consistent message for a few decades now.
De Icaza's position seems to be that short-term convenience wins. Period. I just can't credit him with the same credibility or integrity as RMS. I mean, I guess he's at least consistent with his position, but I'm also consistent in liking the taste of peanut butter, and that doesn't win me any points.
If I had to pick a side - and I think it's becoming apparent that we do - then I'd have to go with RMS. Some of his conclusions are a bit... out there... but he solidly argues them from solid principles and it's kind of hard to disagree with him. Finally, he has a track record of making some pretty bold predictions that turn out to be dead on many years later. The Right to Read, anyone? When de Icaza has a couple of decades of predictive accuracy behind him, I'll start paying more attention to his words.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Stallman does seem to only see the world in black and white (or not-free and free in this case). That's why I tend to dismiss most of what I hear from him. His fear mongering is no better that the stuff people complain about companies like Microsoft doing. Microsoft is just a company. They may have many business practices I disagree with. They may even have leadership I more consistently disagree with, but that doesn't mean everything they do is wrong. Just like De Icaza says, "there are great people working for the company, and I know many people inside Microsoft that are steering the company towards being a community citizen." Now I don't personally know people inside Microsoft as De Icaza does, but it's not a stretch to believe that out of those thousands of employees, at least some of them would rather play nice and put out great products. You can't just dismiss everything based on past behavior. Especially for a corporate entity which changes directions more frequently than people do.
RMS is a lot of things his critics accuse him off: he's a radical hippy type who pisses people off and makes the most outlandish predictions. He's also one of the most principled people I know. You can pretty much tell where Stallman will fall on an issue before anyone thinks to ask him - he'll be on whichever side means the most freedom for users. Yeah, a lot of his conclusions initially sound crazy, but he starts with solid principles and makes logical arguments from there. If he follow is reasoning from start to end, it's kind of hard do disagree with him.
Contrast with de Icaza, whose main principle seems to be "short term convenience wins". Well, by that standard, I have a principled position on liking the taste of peanut butter.
When de Icaza has a couple of decades of predictive accuracy rivaling RMS's under his belt, I'll start to listen to what he says. Until then, he has no more credibility with me than any other random programmer.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Or any exec?
No.
So when it comes down to "strategic" planning to maintain monopoly or playing nice with GPL, which way will the ***company*** go?
The way these few people want or the way that screws up GPL?
I mean it's just as valid to say out of all those thousands, there are probably many who believe that the GPL is the spawn of satan and will kill all projects even thought of touching it and therefore RMS is right and Miguel wrong.
Stallman and de Icaza have completely different goals, as do the larger Free Software and Open Source movements they are part of. There is unfortunately a tendency on the Open Source side to obscure this difference by claiming that Free Software is a subset of Open Source, often through the use of equivocation with the ambiguous English word "free", but Free Software is not a subset of Open Source.
The Free Software movement's position is essentially ideological, based on the philosophy that closed source is ethically and morally wrong. The Open Source position is essentially pragmatic, based on the theory that closed source (the cathedral) is less efficient than open source (the bazaar). Free Software is an ethical stance; Open Source is a high-level development methodology. The two sides end up shouting over each other's heads more often than not, as they are today, because they are using much of the same terminology to describe completely different things.
As such, de Icaza is wrong when he says that Stallman is missing an opportunity here. From the perspective of Free Software, especially given Microsoft's well-documented past behavior, cooperation with Microsoft is not an opportunity, it's a trap with a flashing neon TRAP sign above it. Conversely, it might well be an opportunity for Open Source, at least insofar as the literal issue of "open source" is concerned, though probably only in the short term.
Closed source software vendors ultimately make their money from artificial scarcity. Yes, it is possible to make money with open source, but the kind of money that Microsoft and most of its peers rake in comes only from closed source. To the extent that they are publicly-owned businesses, and therefore exist to make as much money as possible, they will only expend their assets -- including opening some of their source -- if they believe that it will lead to greater profits. Stallman is entirely correct to be wary of Microsoft here. Microsoft views the Free Software and Open Source movements as competitors, just as they view other conventional closed source companies as competitors. To expect them to behave in a genuinely cooperative fashion with groups that are, in an increasing number of areas, eating into their profits is to live in a utopian fantasy world.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or .NET.
Neither have I, but I know what they are.
He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR, .NET, and Mono is.
So you disagree with RMS: fine. But you're doing yourself a grave disservice by dismissing him as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Love him or hate him, he's a sharp guy who knows his stuff.
And he has no idea of what the legal situation is.
I'm sure the founder of the FSF and the author of the first GPL is wholly ignorant of legal issues in software development.
Don't be stupid. Again, it's OK to disagree with the man. Just don't do it on the grounds of "he's old and doesn't know anything", because it's possible (in fact, certain) that he knows more about it than you do.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I always thought it was hilarious that Senor Miguel's motive for starting GNOME was that the then non-free QT wasnt 'free enough' to his tastes
and that now that he is on the other side of the equation, he has utter contempt for the people have the same opiinions of him.
We all become our fathers eventually. Soon Miguel will tell us to get off his lawn.
Im still waiting to see if .NET will become the framework for GNOME 3 or version 4 like he has promised us.
Microsoft controlled free software: like a warm bowl of leftover barf.
Hmm....
Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or .NET. He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR, .NET, and Mono is...
That's preposterous -- it's like saying someone is in no position to judge whether or not the Nazis were evil... unless he speaks German.
Stallman's position is that anything built on Mono is built on a foundation of trust in Microsoft, which means a foundation made of sand.
You don't need to write any Mono code to judge whether or not his contention is true. All you need to know is that, time after time after time, Microsoft have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
When Stallman started the GNU project, the software he was cloning had been created by a big, litigious, evil monopoly called "AT&T". There was a good chance that they were going to shut him down for copyright and patent infringement. He took that risk, and the rest is history.
The situation surrounding Mono is actually far less serious. Yes, Microsoft is a big, litigious, evil monopoly, but they actually have made a pretty watertight commitment to keeping those portions of .NET that Mono relies on open and free.
There were no software patents back then. Only copyright and very proprietary (read: expensive) software licenses. RMS started creating work alike and very often superior software. The software was written independent of any of the Unix source code to avoid any chance of it being tainted by that same source code. There was no chance of AT&T shutting down GNU software; because, they didn't have any legal leg to stand on.
"I'm sick and tired of the attacks on everyone who might go against the juvenile group-think on this website and actually feel some of the things microsoft produce have something to offer the world and would like to extend it."
Sorry, but after years of trying to undermine and bring an end to the free software and open source software movements, Microsoft needs to make the first move. Thus far, all they have done is contributed some drivers to Linux that make it easier to run Windows in a VM, and made it slightly easier for open source developers to develop software for Windows. Note their emphasis on running Windows. Note that Windows is more proprietary, more shackled than ever before.
Call me when Windows and/or MS Office have been GPLv3'ed.
Palm trees and 8
The Free Software movement's position is essentially ideological, based on the philosophy that closed source is ethically and morally wrong
When Stallman objects to things based on ethics, morality, or legality, I often agree with him. But Stallman's objection to C# is not based on ethics, morality, or legality; the Mono license and the ECMA C# standard are completely above board in those regards. Stallman's objection to C# is based on his fear of hidden legal dangers. But Stallman has been unable to translate his fear into specific legal scenarios.
As such, de Icaza is wrong when he says that Stallman is missing an opportunity here.
But Stallman has already proven that his judgment in areas of technology is weak. It was people like Linus, Icaza, and the founders of the various Linux distributions that really made free software happen. If it had been up to Stallman and his plodding approach, we'd probably still be running GNU Emacs on Solaris.
Icaza has far more credibility and a much better track record in picking a winner for writing end user applications than Stallman.
There was no chance of AT&T shutting down GNU software; because, they didn't have any legal leg to stand on.
The legal issues simply hadn't been settled in court, but there was a very real risk that AT&T could have made both patent claims (they had some software patents already) and copyright claims (based on identifier names and interfaces) against the GNU project. Furthermore, many of the people contributing to GNU did have access to UNIX source code in principle, resulting in yet more ways in which AT&T could have challenged GNU. At the very least, they could have tied up GNU in legal knots for years. And whether the GPL itself would hold up in court was yet another legal uncertainty.
The GNU project has always lived under legal clouds and threats; that just comes with the territory.
The 'embrace' part? Its going to feel lovely, fluffy and warm.
MS is going to be your best friend forever.
Then comes the extend part. A few changes, nothing bad.
The end is like having a few years of your life taken to the mine waste heap and dumped.
If your such a fan of African history may I suggest the book "King Leopold's Ghost" and understand the true meaning of "Business opportunity" in Africa.
Empty ships arrive, full ships leave.
Just like Bill Gates it was all done under the cover of ""philanthropic" care.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Is there some 'sane' reason to include languages like C# for purpose of installing GNOME and other vital parts of the system ? I could not agree more with RMS here.
There are people who sit by the side and whinge about how things should be, and there are people who actually go out and do stuff.
Miguel - dont waste your time engaging in this conversation. You clearly have more important goals to achieve.
I think your work is great, and I wish you the best of luck.
Such words might be effective against someone who doesn't read both articles, but it seems fairly clear RMS has important content, namely that codeplex's positioning seems designed to add confusion on software freedom issues, which is both dangerous and consistent with Microsoft's notorious predatory policies towards free software and its developers.
Only those without principles or with friends in perfect agreement all the time have the benefit of never "attacking their friends." Perhaps you are more concerned with relationships than principles.
If in your own post you pointed out all of the places where codeplex and Microsoft clearly do understand the open source and free software distinction, and make a clear effort to avoid confusion... If you had some possible explanation for Microsoft's massively ugly behavior towards linux, or open document standards bodies, etc...
But you have none. You seem to find the incidental, but correct observation of your widely-known status as a Microsoft apologist to be the greater issue, and you devote most of your words to denying that, along with some vague name calling, a few appeals to emotion by metaphor, and (probably ill-advised) political sniping.
It is your own writing that is quite clearly without content, and it's my professional opinion that you know it. Thus, the term "cynical hypocrisy."
I find your suggestion that Microsoft could be an ally (however much you deny you've made it, or if you even choose to) to be laughable.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
No, "apologist" in this context is clearly a reference to the fact that Miguel has fairly consistently defended the Microsoft position, that's what that word means. It's only a pejorative if you think Microsoft is bad. If you approve of Microsoft then you really should approve of Microsoft apologists, that's coming from a proud FSF apologist of course!
Despite all the mud that gets thrown at him, RMS is actually very honest about what he does and doesn't believe and why he believes it; anyone who's used to serious political debate (not what you read in the papers or see on TV) will find it quite easy to digest the polemical style of RMS and won't wind themselves up by reading personal attacks where there are none.
Also, I find it hilarious that Miguel links to an apology from RMS about an inaccurate claim he made regarding Mac OS X as proof that he "makes up facts". That's a clear show of intellectual dishonesty, and, dare I say, an astonishingly bold use of a classic trolling technique!
Nick
That's not a personal attack.
"Apologist" often has a negative connotation, especially when paired with a subject that is widely considered not worthy of any such defense.
And in the target audience of these letters, Microsoft is widely and for very good reason considered unworthy of defending on the subject of Software Freedom (if not everything else).
RMS knows this, and he intended it as a pejorative. MdI knows this too, which is why he considers himself attacked, and denies the claim.
But therein lies the end of the argument for me. He simply can't claim Microsoft hasn't been a consistent and ongoing enemy of Free Software, but also claims they're safe to work with. Microsoft threatens Linux with hundreds of imaginary patent violations, but we're going to welcome a bunch of actual MS-patented tech into Linux on purpose and under MS' watchful eye? If you're going to tell me that isn't insanely stupid, you better at least be willing to be an apologist for Microsoft.
The enemies of Democracy are
I didn't have any mod points, but this is EXACTLY what I wanted to say.
Despite MANY good standards in the open document arena, De Icaza was supporting OOXML, which is an obvious trap by MS to make all other office products incompatible with the "standard" they are trying to ram through.
No matter WHAT De Icaza has done, this alone cements him as a scum bag. A corporate whore, a liar, and a charlatan. Even if you hate RMS's vitriol, as usual, he is right, and everyone against him is clearly, and most solidly in the wrong.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
As a fellow Debian user, I too am incensed that Debian developers, without consulting the user base have taken a monumental leap away from the projects original stated goals and ideals.
What leap? Mono isn't DFSG compliant?
What else do you want from Debian - follow your personal agenda where it doesn't matter whether something is FLOSS or not, but so long as it has any relation to Microsoft, it's automatically evil?
"He also frequently comes across as patronizing in the way he states his beliefs as if they are Truth."
You mean when he takes his own set of principles regarding whose freedoms deserve protection by what mechanisms and insists on referring to this collection of ideas as "Freedom"? Yeah, that whole ultimate-arbiter-of-morality-with-respect-to-software thing is perhaps slightly patronizing.
"I respect him, even though he's maddening sometimes."
I don't respect him; his cause deserves a better advocate. I actually know what the collection of principles he's advancing are; I substantially agree with much of them, and am probably persuadable on some more. But he won't persuade me, because I won't listen to him, or those who talk like him. If I wanted that, I'd invite the Jehovah's Witnesses in for tea.
You are an idiot by claiming (and maybe even believing) that the reason behind the foundation and the hosting company sharing the same name is due to "it is already a known brand". By controlling the hosting site Microsoft in effect controls the availability of the content (where, how, whom to share), which means that ultimately it controls the project. Meanwhile the foundation, which is also controlled by Microsoft, serves only as a public relations faÃade whose objectives is to try to make believe that Microsoft somehow is pro-FLOSS.
Yeah, and in 1970 there was no iPod.
What exactly is your point? That at some point in time, businesses didn't fear digital copies and now they do? What was M$ supposed to do? Say 'no, we refuse to implement anything to legally cover our ass when we get sued for facilitating piracy'?
Yeah, Windows now has drm. That has a lot more to do with media companies demanding it in order to allow their product to work in Windows than M$ inventing it and forcing the masses to its will.
I won't claim M$ isn't and hasn't been shady as hell, but to blame them for closed source drm evil is as insane as the people that listen to RMS whine about it being 'GNU/Linux' They seem to miss the point that after DECADES, RMS can't get his damn kernel to a point where Linux isn't a better product.
Blame M$ for the things they have done, not for the things you imagine they will do. In the end, it is just F-ing software, use what you like and get on with your life... nothing to see here.
What a load of baloney:
MS grudgingly gave the Samba people a pile of incomplete documentation, after it was forced to do so by the EU
MS desperately attacked ODF, came up with its pile of crap MS-OOXML, which it specifically named such that it was easily confused with ODF, and then when they managed to force it through the ISO organization, in the process pretty much destroying that organization, they abandoned the standard because even their own Office program didn't implement it.
Firefox? You're full of it.
Apache, they gave money to the Apache foundation. We don't know why yet, maybe to make apache run better on Windows.
"It is beyond unfortunate that the Foundation adopted the name from the hosting site."
"The CodePlex foundation has no control over the contents of CodePlex.com."
And you are not an apologist? Are you *sure* of that? Who is in control of CodePlex? Not even the name is safe!
How about explaining why they don't use source forge as the parent requested? Or any other tool in use by open source for that matter?
I've no doubt that you love managed code, and I've no doubt that having multiple languages run on a common platform can do some serious good. But as far as Microsoft goes, you've got your head so far in your arse that you don't even see what you are writing.
Regardless of how you feel about "free" software or open source or Microsoft, Stallman's article is very definition of FUD. He speculates about what Codeplex might do, then attacks them as though they had already done it.
Miguel de Icaza is indeed a Microsoft apologist. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in and of itself, but as far as it goes, Stallman has him pegged.
As to the article itself, the reasons for the open-source community not to trust Microsoft are many and varied. The attacks they have repeatedly launched on the community are well-documented, with many more that were not actually launched but were known planned. They continue to espouse models which are antithetical to the OSS mindset, often with an eye toward undermining important infrastructure on which the community is built. Their actions speak a lot louder than their words.
Perhaps someday, Microsoft will prove to my satisfaction (and that of many others in the community) that they can be trusted. It could happen; the small overtures they have made are indeed steps in the right direction, and should be encouraged. But they have a very long way to go, and if de Icaza wants to gain any more traction in the community he is first going to have to accept that Microsoft is not in the position of an accused on trial; it is in the position of an ex-con trying to reintegrate. If de Icaza can start arguing from that position, he might find that he begins to hold more traction.
As a possible suggestion for a place to start, perhaps he could tell us of his own experiences with beginning to trust Microsoft. How did MS manage to win de Icaza's trust back in 2004?
The context was Stallman noting it as (when viewed along with the fact that the background of other board members) a basis for wariness about CodePlex, but dismissing it as a basis for concluding that CodePlex's actions will be bad, before going on to focus on specific actions and statements of Microsoft and CodePlex are to point to areas where those statements, rather than the identities of its board members, were reasons for concern.
The paragraph referring to Icaza as an "apologist" is, in full:
This is not a pejorative use. It is pointing to a relevant source of bias as a basis for concern that future actions might be tainted by that bias, and then also stating that that bias is not alone a basis for concluding that future actions by the biased actor will be bad.
It's also the only reference to de Icaza in the article; both Icaza's claim that the article is content free and his claim that it features are personal attack on him ring rather hollow. One might disagree with the importance of the Free Software philosophy that Stallman embraces, and (even if one does not) one might validly disagree with his painting of the particular actions cited in the article as reasons for concerns about Mirosoft/CodePlex's intentions with regard to Free Software, but it is ludicrous to paint the article as content free, and even more ludicrous to paint to the reference to the relationship of board members including Icaza to Microsoft as a "personal attack" on Icaza.
I certainly do believe that people and the organizations they control can change. I believe that MS can change.
I also believe that Charles Manson can change. I really do believe it is possible.
But I wouldn't petition the parole board to have Charles released under my supervision and have him live in my spare bedroom.
Let me make a little different point a little less drastically.
My spouse an I have children we care very much about. Like most parents, we occassionally leave our children with a baby-siiter. That may be a grandparent, an aunt or uncle, or a teenager down the street.
If we have a bad experience with a baby-sitter, or a series of small issues with a baby-sitter, we avoid that baby-sitter.
If we have built up a pool of half a dozen baby-sitter candidates, it is natural to rank them according to the experiences we have had with them as baby-sitters. There is no reason to make an offer to our least-favorite baby-sitter unless all the others are unavailable.
If we have some horrible experience, like a hospital visit, with a baby-sitter, they would obviously be promptly removed from the list of candidates. We would never invite them again.
Unless... the only alternatives were worse than our children being hospitalized.
Now, maybe that one incident was a horrible accident. Or maybe that baby-sitter has changed their ways. Maybe things are better now, and that problem would never happen again.
It doesn't matter. I still won't invite that baby-sitter back ever as long as their is a better alternative. And missing out on a date with my spouse is a better alternative than that baby-sitter. Taking the children along on the date is a better alternative. Ordering food in an a Redbox rental is a better alternative. Trying out the new teenager that moved in last month is a better alternative.
That isn't to say that I hate the unfortunate baby-sitter. I just won't ever use them again. And if anyone asks a reference of them, mine will not be an endorsement.
The first two sentences were my favorite, in which he called RMS' referral to him as a "Microsoft apologist" a "personal attack," then proceeded to launch into his apology for Microsoft.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Stallman and the FSF have a history of just making shit up when they decide they don't like something. Look at some of the stuff they've written about trusted computing for examples of this. Miguel is right - the guy plays fast and loose with the facts repeatedly. I see lots of people praising his consistency in this discussion. Well guess what - it's easy to have a consistent position over a long period of time when you flatly refuse to accept factual reality.
Mr. Stallman deserves the utmost respect from all developers because he truly wishes to protect the right of all users/developers alike by ensuring we have the freedom to tinker with whatever we buy and by ensuring we have the freedom to adapting whatever we buy to our on-going requirements without having to pay surprise unexpected fees on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Icaza has his point of view to make some MS stuff work in Linux. The effort he has placed deserves respect also I give him that.
The problem is that developers need to remember the kind of under-handed tactics MS has done to developers and to users as a whole to make money. :). This is not to mention the prices for the developer kits entry level MSDN 99$(TECHNET/DEVNET Knowledge BASE), Professional over 500$, and Enterprise over $1500 on a yearly basis. Mind you the value as respectable for the number of CDs/DVD's they send you. The problem is we have only so much time in the day to learn all the api's they created or unveiled to us. DOS, MFC, DIRECTX, DDK, DirectMedia, ODBC, DAO, ODB, VBA, OLE, ACTIVEX, COM, ATL to mention a few. Depending on what level of MSDN subscription you had, the more information they unveiled to you about each of these apis. Sometimes, you wouldn't know an api existed because you didn't have the Enterprise level subscription. The entry-level and Pro level would make no mention of the DirectMedia SDK, Enterprise DATABASE API/Enterprise DATABASE tools available through DevStudio GUI for example. By purchasing the Enterprise level MSDN, you had THE EDGE if you discovered its MSDN's existence. The internet was still in its infancy and not everyone knew what was going on or had money to access Special-Interest-Groups Bulletin-Board-Systems through a modem. Even if you did, the data you received would take forever to get because the average modem then was 56Kbps and the average user/wannabe developer couldn't afford to get the T1 1Mbps connection which was over 500$ a month.
My favourites are:
1)When Windows NT Workstation was discovered to be LIMITED with 64 TCP/IP connections, while Linux had no such limitations and the source and binaries were freely available for your perusal. One needs to recall the prices for Windows 95/NT Workstation/NT Server. Both NT Workstation and NT were starting to become highly exclusive(1000$+) while the Win95 was around 99$. Linux 0$-20$
2)The UNDOCUMENTED DOS/WINDOWS book describing all the different API calls discovered being used by MS software products that no other company previously knew existed. The fact is the undocumented apis gave MS an edge of the competition. Once this was discovered, this created a market for non-microsoft debuggers. The sanctioned MS debugger Nu-Mega Softice was respected, but IDA pro came to fill a necessary void to ensure the developers were getting the whole picture when debugging their software or when trying to understand how other software worked in order to gain inspiration.
3)Internet Explorer and Netscape web page HTML/javascript code incompatibilities.
4)Microsoft Java JVM and Sun Java JVM incompatibilities.
Simply by the existence of incompatibilities, the user didn't know so they would just opt with what was installed by MS, because that was the easy route to take and especially for updates. This in turn greatly hurt Netscape and Sun until they brought Microsoft to court, but the damage was done.
5)Doublespace. Here's a company that created a disk compression technology that doubled the amount of data your hard drive could hold, but MS put them out of business by adding in a tool to their windows offering that did exactly the same thing. If you bought MS-Dos 6, you would get this disk compression tool from MS. The disk compression product competitor went out of business because MS squeezed them out of the market niche. Note this is similar to what happened to Netscape. Originally Netscape sold their web browser product, but then MS added in their Internet Explorer tool as part of the Windows O
Oh, I'm pretty sure he's aware of the patent situation. I have never seen him argue that Mono and Moonlight aren't patent encumbered, or that they won't exist merely by the grace of Microsoft. I've only seen him argue that in spite of the Patent Axe looming over head it will All Turn Out Okay. He either sincerely believes this, or sincerely wants us to believe it.
The enemies of Democracy are
I often wonder where your real motivations lie Miguel. Between your efforts on Gnome and Mono you seem to be a one man wrecking ball designed to destroy Linux on the desktop. In particular you were a prime mover in creating the fissure between KDE and GNOME, which has so fragmented the Linux desktop world its unlikely to ever compete against Windows and the Mac on the desktop. I've certainly given up on it ever mattering as a desktop OS, Now you are trying to infect Linux and Gnome with Microsoft patented technology which seems to be an even more overt and blatant attempt to wreck Linux to Microsoft's benefit.
In my attempt to fathom your motivations the only answers I come up with:
A. You actually think pushing .NET and C# in to Linux is a good idea, and you actually think Microsoft is a nice company. If so you are either naive or just not very bright because Microsoft has always been and still is one of the most ruthless of tech companies and its prime directive is and always has been to destroy all its competitors. Linux is a competitor, not their friend. .NET and C# are quite interesting technologies but no one with any sense would think they are appropriate to introduce as a core technology in Linux.
or
B. Sometime ago you actually started working for Microsoft under the table and you have been working to destroy Linux from within, at their behest, by pretending to be a member of the open source community while you've pushed one agenda and then another designed to complete wreck Linux as a desktop OS.
Now its kind of tin foil hat to go with B) but when you think about it, Microsoft was faced with an existential threat from Linux and they couldn't use the same tactics to destroy it they used on more traditional incorporated competitors. Bill Gates is, if nothing else, smart with a heavy dose of ruthless, and to be honest Miguel, your whole agenda for years seems to be a perfect fit for the role of a mole Microsoft planted in the Linux community to destroy it from within. Planting a high profile mole is, when you think about it, the ideal strategy for a company like Microsoft to use to sabotage a community based threat like Linux.
Stallman is kind of abrasive and his religious purity can be annoying to no end, but I can be sure he is what he appears to be, his heart and mind are relatively pure and he does have a great track record for spotting snakes in the grass. By contrast I don't think I would ever trust your motives. It is impossible to tell where your heart really is and seem to bear a striking resemblance to one of those snakes in the grass Stallman is so good at spotting.
@de_machina