Gee. You might want to inform the FSF then. They say very clearly that *BSD's are Free Software.
You seem to think that only GPL software is Free software. This is not true. Not even the FSF believes or says that. Read their list of Free Software licenses.
Oh you lovable scamp. Indeed he did not invent the internet - which is why I did not say he did.
And I didn't say you said he did. See, that works both ways.
I was making a point, not claiming you made one.
You can't go 5 seconds on the net without hitting free software.
True, but irrelevant. BSD is also free, and they don't like the GPL much.
Emacs? Screw Emacs! What would the world be like with GCC? Without glibc? What about if Perl just disappeared?
What does RMS have to do with Perl?
Before GCC existed (or rather, before it became popular) there were other free compilers. There was a BSD C compiler also. Granted, GCC won out, but if it wasn't around, something else would have replaced it.
What would the world be like if we didn't have the collaboration that happens in free software projects?
Free software existed long before the GPL was created, and there's a ton of it that is not GPL'd.
But all this is beside the point. You made it out that RMS was basically responsible for the internet existing or functioning. The fact of the matter is that the internet doesn't run on Linux, it runs largely on BSD based products (Cisco, *BSD's, etc..) Most Web sites run on Linux, but that's not the internet itself.
Yes, RMS is responsible for a lot, but I don't for one second believe that it was impossible for that to happen without him.
Based solely on Microsoft's claims of patents, why is it that you dismiss the fact that Linux may violate MS's patents, but believe it as gospel that Mono does?
Both are equally vague. Both are voiced from the same source. But yet you choose to dismiss one, but be ultra paranoid about the other? That really doesn't make sense.
Ok, so Microsoft created the specs for C# and the CLI, which Mono Implements. But they also created the specs for other technologies used in Linux. Samba, (v)FAT, hell even XML has Microsoft persons name on it (as do a number of RFC's impelemented by Linux). Did you know that Microsoft bought most of SGI's 3D patents in 2002? These include patents relating to OpenGL.
Seriously, if Microsoft wanted to use patents on Linux, there's a HELL of a lot better targets than Mono.
That's a ridiculous claim. I've seen Apple's source code for earlier versions of MacOS. It was written in Pascal. Windows was written in C. There's no way they could have used it. They could have based Windows on it, but then Windows would be substantially similar to MacOS at a low level... it's not. It's not even close. They both suck, but they suck in totally different ways.
No, MS did not successfully sue TomTom. TomTom settled. Also TomTom sued Microsoft (something most people seem to forget). They managed to get a complex patent lawsuit off the ground in only a couple of weeks, which indicates they'd been planning the suit for a long time, and considering TomTom has sued others for patent infringement, it's a pretty strong guess TomTom was planning to sue MS anyways, MS just got to court first.
Mono is not an STD. It's called the "kissing disease", it's communicable by any direct contact with saliva, though. Unless you consider kissing to be "sex".
However, Mono is not named after that. Mono is the spanish word for "monkey", which is a play off Ximian's name which is a play off Simian or ape-like species.
But if you insist, Unix is named after castrated harem guards.
RMS did not invent the internet, nor did his software have much to do with the internet. It's true that Linux heavily uses GNU software, but if GNU software weren't around, they could just as easily be using BSD versions of most of those commands.
RMS wrote Emacs, and without Emacs programmers might be a lot less efficient, but Emacs is really the only thing he "created", everything else was just copies of other stuff.
I hate to be all memeish and all.. but "citation needed". I've been around a long time, and i've never heard of either of those events, and google searches don't seem to show anything either.
This really makes little sense, since Excel was written for the Mac, and later ported to OS/2 then Windows. Word has been on the mac since nearly the beginning.
Sadly, most people would rather just scream "Liars!" to everything without even really considering them. Certainly this is marketing, no worse than 3 different car companies saying "We're #1".
The parts of the campaign that are true are really true, the parts that are false are barely false, the parts that are so-so are just 6 of one half a dozen of another.
IE8 does much worse at ACID3, so it is less standards compliant.
Apart from the fact that, even as the WaSP project admits, the ACID tests are not standards compliance tests, the parts of ACID3 that IE8 fails are not part of HTML or CSS 2.1, but rather CSS3 (not a standard yet) and DOM level 2, SVG, data url's, etc..
Support for those technologies is important, of course, but MS didn't claim total standards compliance, they claimed better support for CSS 2.1.
Fact: Internet Exploiter is PART OF THE USER INTERFACE of every windows operating system since 95
False. IE was removed from the UI in Vista, and is still not part of the UI in 7.
Fact: You can't uninstall IE without effecting your core operating system functionality. (Windows updates, programs that use IE's rendering engine for their own user interface - antivirus software, I'm looking at you!)
False again, As of Vista, Windows update and Explorer no longer depend on IE. Some apps may still depend on the rendering engine, but that's used only as a library, not part of the OS.
Fact: A VAST majority of Windows users have automatic updates enabled by default and will receive IE8 whether they like it or not
False yet again, IE8 does not install automatically. You have to agree to do so.
When IE8 first became a "Critical Windows update" and customers were installing it, we were inundated with fxxked computers that lost network connectivity, or crashed, or ran dog slow.
Microsoft did not make IE8 a critical update, they made it an "important" one and they did not do so immediately and published quite clearly tools to disable system from treating it as such. If you had half a clue how to do your job you would know about them. Depsite IE8 being an important update, it requires the end users to accept the install for it to install, and it will never do so during automatic updates.
Indeed. And you'll notice, neither Goolge or Mozilla claim their browsers are CSS 2.1 compliant.
Sure, IE doesn't support CSS3, but they chose to focus on full CSS 2.1 support instead, given that CSS3 is still a ways out from offcial standard status.
Unfortunately, parts of CSS have been raised to Final Call, then lowered back to draft status before. For example, CSS 2.1 has had that "honor", so it's impossible for anyone to say that this won't happen.
Acid 3 is, unfortunately, heavily dependent upon CSS3 functionality, which isn't officially standard yet and could change. So claiming that Acid3 is some kind of test only tests if you're compliant with drafts.
The undo icon is on the "quickbar" which is in the titlebar, and always visible. It's right next to the save icon. It is weird, though it's the only place undo and redo buttons exist.
And what is the functional difference between the File menu and the Office menu?
ECMA is a standard body and IS NOT an API similar to.NET. There's not such thing as ECMA APIs in your context
You're being obtuse. He clearly means the API's that are published by ECMA as ECMA standards.
Microsoft submit C# to ECMA for open standard. This doesn't prevent them from filing a patent on its implementation at the same time. You can have an open standard with patent like OOXM, PDF, etc
There are no known patents on ECMA C# or CLI, or their ISO versions. That doesn't stop MS from filing a patent that may cover it in the future, but as of right now, nobody has found any. But then, Anyone can file a patent on any technology. All they have to do is prove they did it first (the patent can come years afterwards).
Secondly, Python, Ruby and Perl do not have core that are patent ambiguous
Neither does ECMA/ISO C# and CLI. Yes, Microsoft has some patents on things to do with web services and other parts of the Windows stack, but not the ECMA/C# stuff. This is pure FUD. "Microsoft *might" do this, or they *may* have that". It's the definition of FUD.
Mono is just a direct implementation of.NET which is patented.
No, Mono is a direct implementation of ECMA/ISO C#/CLI, which is *NOT* patented. They also do implement some of the Windows stack, but they seperate that code and you are free to not use it if you want a patentless stack.
Do you know all of Microsoft patents? I guess not. Until then why should Linux take the risk when Balmer is touting that Linux violated 200+ Microsoft's patent.
So, if you're going to accept that Microsoft may have patents on Mono, why do you reject that Microsoft may have patents that cover Linux? That's an illogical argument.
By your way of thinking, you should completely throw away Linux because Microsoft claims they have patents on it.
This is literally true, but very misleading. Microsoft has ECMA bless.NET from time to time
And of course ISO as well. You did know that C# and the CLI are ISO standards as well, right?
Sun attempted to put Java through the PAS system 2 or 3 times, but pulled out every time, pissing off people that had done a lot of work and ended up with nothing.
JCP is meaningless. It's an advisory board. Sun has no requirement to listen to the JCP.
Mono: open standard, closed reference VM, closed reference library
Untrue. Microsoft released, many years ago, an open source (BSD Licensed) Reference platform and library.
Java: open standard (de-facto), open reference VM, open reference library
False. Java is only a de-facto standard. "Open standard" means it's been standardized by an open standards body, such as OASIS, ECMA, ISO, etc.. Further, Not all of Java is open sourced, there are still significant portions that have not been opened.
Better alternative languages? Non-Java languages are not supported by Sun. In comparison, Microsoft publishes and supports half a dizen languges themselves and openly solicits other languages (like Eiffel, for instance) of which there are literally hundreds.
Slashdot Mirror
Both Groklaw and BoycottNovell claim to be "objective". BN in particular claims to be "journalism".
They're don't represent themselves as "opinion columns", they represent themselves as news sources.
That's what makes them biased.
BSD is not free. It is merely open.
Gee. You might want to inform the FSF then. They say very clearly that *BSD's are Free Software.
You seem to think that only GPL software is Free software. This is not true. Not even the FSF believes or says that. Read their list of Free Software licenses.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses
Until you are cognizent of this item, we can't even have a discussion, because your entire belief system is a lie.
This is pretty tame compared to such shining Linux example blogs as Groklaw and BoycottNovell.
There's plenty of bias to go around.
Oh you lovable scamp. Indeed he did not invent the internet - which is why I did not say he did.
And I didn't say you said he did. See, that works both ways.
I was making a point, not claiming you made one.
You can't go 5 seconds on the net without hitting free software.
True, but irrelevant. BSD is also free, and they don't like the GPL much.
Emacs? Screw Emacs! What would the world be like with GCC? Without glibc? What about if Perl just disappeared?
What does RMS have to do with Perl?
Before GCC existed (or rather, before it became popular) there were other free compilers. There was a BSD C compiler also. Granted, GCC won out, but if it wasn't around, something else would have replaced it.
What would the world be like if we didn't have the collaboration that happens in free software projects?
Free software existed long before the GPL was created, and there's a ton of it that is not GPL'd.
But all this is beside the point. You made it out that RMS was basically responsible for the internet existing or functioning. The fact of the matter is that the internet doesn't run on Linux, it runs largely on BSD based products (Cisco, *BSD's, etc..) Most Web sites run on Linux, but that's not the internet itself.
Yes, RMS is responsible for a lot, but I don't for one second believe that it was impossible for that to happen without him.
I have a question for you.
Based solely on Microsoft's claims of patents, why is it that you dismiss the fact that Linux may violate MS's patents, but believe it as gospel that Mono does?
Both are equally vague. Both are voiced from the same source. But yet you choose to dismiss one, but be ultra paranoid about the other? That really doesn't make sense.
Ok, so Microsoft created the specs for C# and the CLI, which Mono Implements. But they also created the specs for other technologies used in Linux. Samba, (v)FAT, hell even XML has Microsoft persons name on it (as do a number of RFC's impelemented by Linux). Did you know that Microsoft bought most of SGI's 3D patents in 2002? These include patents relating to OpenGL.
Seriously, if Microsoft wanted to use patents on Linux, there's a HELL of a lot better targets than Mono.
Silverlight aka Moonlight is substantially similar to WPF. I don't see why they won't take their moonlight code and use it as a basis for WPF.
That's a ridiculous claim. I've seen Apple's source code for earlier versions of MacOS. It was written in Pascal. Windows was written in C. There's no way they could have used it. They could have based Windows on it, but then Windows would be substantially similar to MacOS at a low level... it's not. It's not even close. They both suck, but they suck in totally different ways.
No, MS did not successfully sue TomTom. TomTom settled. Also TomTom sued Microsoft (something most people seem to forget). They managed to get a complex patent lawsuit off the ground in only a couple of weeks, which indicates they'd been planning the suit for a long time, and considering TomTom has sued others for patent infringement, it's a pretty strong guess TomTom was planning to sue MS anyways, MS just got to court first.
Mono is not an STD. It's called the "kissing disease", it's communicable by any direct contact with saliva, though. Unless you consider kissing to be "sex".
However, Mono is not named after that. Mono is the spanish word for "monkey", which is a play off Ximian's name which is a play off Simian or ape-like species.
But if you insist, Unix is named after castrated harem guards.
RMS did not invent the internet, nor did his software have much to do with the internet. It's true that Linux heavily uses GNU software, but if GNU software weren't around, they could just as easily be using BSD versions of most of those commands.
RMS wrote Emacs, and without Emacs programmers might be a lot less efficient, but Emacs is really the only thing he "created", everything else was just copies of other stuff.
I hate to be all memeish and all.. but "citation needed". I've been around a long time, and i've never heard of either of those events, and google searches don't seem to show anything either.
This really makes little sense, since Excel was written for the Mac, and later ported to OS/2 then Windows. Word has been on the mac since nearly the beginning.
If I had points, i'd mod you up..
Sadly, most people would rather just scream "Liars!" to everything without even really considering them. Certainly this is marketing, no worse than 3 different car companies saying "We're #1".
The parts of the campaign that are true are really true, the parts that are false are barely false, the parts that are so-so are just 6 of one half a dozen of another.
ignore ads from selected addresses
Hosts file. Not great, but it works.
disable flash unless I tell it to play.
Not specifically flash, but you can set all activex to prompt you, including flash.
disable flash unless I tell it to play.
Set Javascript to "prompt"
That url says the exploit doesn't work on Vista SP1 or Windows 7 due to ALSR/DEP.
IE8 does much worse at ACID3, so it is less standards compliant.
Apart from the fact that, even as the WaSP project admits, the ACID tests are not standards compliance tests, the parts of ACID3 that IE8 fails are not part of HTML or CSS 2.1, but rather CSS3 (not a standard yet) and DOM level 2, SVG, data url's, etc..
Support for those technologies is important, of course, but MS didn't claim total standards compliance, they claimed better support for CSS 2.1.
Fact: Internet Exploiter is PART OF THE USER INTERFACE of every windows operating system since 95
False. IE was removed from the UI in Vista, and is still not part of the UI in 7.
Fact: You can't uninstall IE without effecting your core operating system functionality. (Windows updates, programs that use IE's rendering engine for their own user interface - antivirus software, I'm looking at you!)
False again, As of Vista, Windows update and Explorer no longer depend on IE. Some apps may still depend on the rendering engine, but that's used only as a library, not part of the OS.
Fact: A VAST majority of Windows users have automatic updates enabled by default and will receive IE8 whether they like it or not
False yet again, IE8 does not install automatically. You have to agree to do so.
When IE8 first became a "Critical Windows update" and customers were installing it, we were inundated with fxxked computers that lost network connectivity, or crashed, or ran dog slow.
Microsoft did not make IE8 a critical update, they made it an "important" one and they did not do so immediately and published quite clearly tools to disable system from treating it as such. If you had half a clue how to do your job you would know about them. Depsite IE8 being an important update, it requires the end users to accept the install for it to install, and it will never do so during automatic updates.
Indeed. And you'll notice, neither Goolge or Mozilla claim their browsers are CSS 2.1 compliant.
Sure, IE doesn't support CSS3, but they chose to focus on full CSS 2.1 support instead, given that CSS3 is still a ways out from offcial standard status.
That page is out of date. Afterwards, Microsoft agreed to enable standards mode by default.
Of course, don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.
Unfortunately, parts of CSS have been raised to Final Call, then lowered back to draft status before. For example, CSS 2.1 has had that "honor", so it's impossible for anyone to say that this won't happen.
Acid 3 is, unfortunately, heavily dependent upon CSS3 functionality, which isn't officially standard yet and could change. So claiming that Acid3 is some kind of test only tests if you're compliant with drafts.
The undo icon is on the "quickbar" which is in the titlebar, and always visible. It's right next to the save icon. It is weird, though it's the only place undo and redo buttons exist.
And what is the functional difference between the File menu and the Office menu?
Uhh.. what? I'm using 64 bit Vista with Windows Home Server. The connector works just fine.
What are you talking about?
ECMA is a standard body and IS NOT an API similar to .NET. There's not such thing as ECMA APIs in your context
You're being obtuse. He clearly means the API's that are published by ECMA as ECMA standards.
Microsoft submit C# to ECMA for open standard. This doesn't prevent them from filing a patent on its implementation at the same time. You can have an open standard with patent like OOXM, PDF, etc
There are no known patents on ECMA C# or CLI, or their ISO versions. That doesn't stop MS from filing a patent that may cover it in the future, but as of right now, nobody has found any. But then, Anyone can file a patent on any technology. All they have to do is prove they did it first (the patent can come years afterwards).
Secondly, Python, Ruby and Perl do not have core that are patent ambiguous
Neither does ECMA/ISO C# and CLI. Yes, Microsoft has some patents on things to do with web services and other parts of the Windows stack, but not the ECMA/C# stuff. This is pure FUD. "Microsoft *might" do this, or they *may* have that". It's the definition of FUD.
Mono is just a direct implementation of .NET which is patented.
No, Mono is a direct implementation of ECMA/ISO C#/CLI, which is *NOT* patented. They also do implement some of the Windows stack, but they seperate that code and you are free to not use it if you want a patentless stack.
Do you know all of Microsoft patents? I guess not. Until then why should Linux take the risk when Balmer is touting that Linux violated 200+ Microsoft's patent.
So, if you're going to accept that Microsoft may have patents on Mono, why do you reject that Microsoft may have patents that cover Linux? That's an illogical argument.
By your way of thinking, you should completely throw away Linux because Microsoft claims they have patents on it.
This is literally true, but very misleading. Microsoft has ECMA bless .NET from time to time
And of course ISO as well. You did know that C# and the CLI are ISO standards as well, right?
Sun attempted to put Java through the PAS system 2 or 3 times, but pulled out every time, pissing off people that had done a lot of work and ended up with nothing.
JCP is meaningless. It's an advisory board. Sun has no requirement to listen to the JCP.
Mono: open standard, closed reference VM, closed reference library
Untrue. Microsoft released, many years ago, an open source (BSD Licensed) Reference platform and library.
Java: open standard (de-facto), open reference VM, open reference library
False. Java is only a de-facto standard. "Open standard" means it's been standardized by an open standards body, such as OASIS, ECMA, ISO, etc.. Further, Not all of Java is open sourced, there are still significant portions that have not been opened.
Better alternative languages? Non-Java languages are not supported by Sun. In comparison, Microsoft publishes and supports half a dizen languges themselves and openly solicits other languages (like Eiffel, for instance) of which there are literally hundreds.