Re:Is the MONO project a ticking bomb?
on
Mono Beta 2 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In like kind, I pose a question to you:
If patent problems exist, why go looking for them?
Could Python, Java, et al have patent problems? Maybe. Does Mono have patent problems? ABSOLUTELY. It is a known constant. The others are variables, they are wild-cards, they are unknowns.
So, at that point, it becomes a question of which is a lower risk. Anyone can see that a 1:x chance is a lot more less likely then a 1:1 chance.
No, the GPL says "here's the code, use it how you want but you have to give it back if you make a binary publicly available." This is one clearly-defined use condition that is easily met. The way you describe the GPL is more fitting of SharedSource or any of a number of other, proprietary vendor's license on source. Many of whom started with or included BSD-licensed code.
Wait. You used a POP or IMAP server, which requires sending your password in clear text, on a network you have no knowledge of and unknown logging ability?
You need someone who speaks it. If you don't have someone who can hear when you pronounce things incorrectly, expectally when you start, you will be wasting your time.
Just getting the ra ri ru re ro sounds correct is difficult with a teacher for most. It's something in between a L and a R sound on the 'r', but there isn't a real analog in english to it. To try and learn it without someone who's ear is accustommed to it... That's just not going to happen.
Seriously, if you check your local community college even, they will likely have a course. It's worth it if nothing else then to have someone else give you pointers in real time.
Grab eFiji. It's a small, slightly buggy root window image setter I wrote as a random background setting program. No GTK, no big requirements, just X11 and ImLib. Hell, you could probably find one that's been maintained more that'd do the same job.
Debian/Testing is quite current. Debian/Unstable is as bleedin'-edge as they come.
Gentoo's nice too, but don't pick on Debian because Stable is old. Stable's not meant to be used by people who want the latest and greatest, it's for people who want a system that they can set up without things changing nightly.
New ideas in Free software always meet with resistance if there is already a 'solution.' If you have a good idea, just impliment it and ignore what anyone has to say about it unless it's a constructive critisism on how to improve it. Otherwise nothing'll get done.
If you get it working, and no one uses or codes on it, THEN you can consider dropping it, but until then, just code away.
All this is actually kind of funny... because couldn't all of his arguments be fix by simply... adding the option to browse in a single window as a menu option???
Seems like a trivial complaint to bash GNOME as a whole... and one that can be fixed easily.
I think that's his point. It'd be trivial to add the option, GNOME's developers didn't even think of it before throwing something new and foreign at their user base. Most don't like it, and to 'fix' it they have to be fairly technical and know what to change in GConf2.
It can be fixed, but most likely it won't. They've found something that "work's better," user's opinions be damned.
While his rant only adresses that, there are many things that should be in the fixed (Option for Nautilus not starting showing desktop icons, a MIME-Associator that was worth a damn, Gedit's options layout being horrendous, so on) that the GNOME developer 'fix' by just pushing things into GConf, or ignoring. IMHO at least.
Let's be realistic here. What Linux user doesn't have Acrobat Reader, Flash, a Java runtime, and RealPlayer loaded on their machine?
That would be me.
Sorry.
My computers do not use any closed software or drivers.
And that's important, because unless we start to get some real market share soon, your precious little Debian uber-free utopiOS won't be viable for any mainstream tasks anymore.
If you install closed software on a 'Free' OS, then it isn't a Free os. Just another collection of closed bits. So what's the difference? The names on the box?
If these things are so needed, then we need open, Free versions of them. GNU Class Path is coming along great for Java, there is a GPL version of Flash that is compatable with Flash 4 and with some love it could be brought up to speed, reading PDFs (which is what you use Adobe's product for, I assume) with Adobe's product is silly as there are hundreds of Free PDF viewers, many tailored directly to GNOME and KDE.
When we allow ourselves to use closed software, we are slowly killing the things that made using GNU/Linux and the BSDs worth-while in the first place any good: access to the code of the OS and tools one uses daily so that fixing any problems can be done in a expedient manner by any who wish. If you really wish to give up that Freedom, then there's no real point in using a Free OS.
If we should 'thank' them for the drivers, where is the code? Your right, we should thank GPl and BSDed driver coders. But closed driver authors should garner nothing but our ire and distrust.
The code isn't GPLed. As such, it's just as hidden as the Windows/OS X drivers. We should not thank companies which force us to use closed drivers to utilize hardware we've already paid for, but demand these deceitful cretins give us back the right and Freedom to use that which we already own.
If I was using Debian in a commercial setting that required the use of one of the "bad" drivers... what would my choices be?
Add a non-free apt repository?
This is about main. There's plenty of non-free software in contrib and non-free. They're just pulling this non-free software out of main as main only contains 100% Free software. Most likely there will be a few encumbered kernels in the non-free repositories at some point, or loadable modules for hotplug.
Additionally, you could place presure on the hardware vendor to respect the law and release their firmware under a GPL-compatable license which would allow for it's inclusion in the main kernels.
No dropping to a commandline. No GCC flags for the user to get hung up on. No need to be root. Just unpack it, click it, and it runs.
Toss ZeroInstall in the mix so that all the requirements are seamlessly pulled for the user, and no one has to worry about installation again. If you want to know if current apps would work as AppDirs, take a look here:
http://www.cs.sunyit.edu/~geerp/rox/appdir-packa ge s.html
It's a collection of regular programs like Aterm and Dillo placed in AppDirs. Now imagine if all the requirements for those were also available as AppDirs. Just click the AppDir and let ZeroInstall get the libraries for you, or grab them yourself and pop them in, say,/home/$user/lib/$lib_name, click the AppDir, and boom, it just runs.
Surely it couldn't be because they're using a large number of 32-bit UNIX-like systems, and that there's the UNIX epoch in all UNIX-like OSes on 32-bit systems is 2038.
I mean, that'd just be kha-raaaaaaazie!1! It's obvious that they set the cookie to 2036 so they could steal our Precious Bodily Fluids. Where's the tin foil? Where?
Err. Yah. Yah, at that point I think it's safe to say anything on the site can be honestly diregarded as bunk. Or at best poorly writen SciFi. Either way, it's relationship with reality is on the rocks, and reality is already calling it's mother and a divorce laywer.
That's why a patch set for Java's sources was in the FreeBSD ports forever, yet everyone says 'freebsd didn't have Java.' There was no binary distribution of that possible because it hadn't passed through Sun yet.
The Java specs are available for the most part. The only problem is no one knows what the tests for Java compliance are, but anyone with the cash can send software to take them and be able to be called 'Java.' Other then that, everything you asked for in your post is already true.
Slashdot Mirror
In like kind, I pose a question to you:
If patent problems exist, why go looking for them?
Could Python, Java, et al have patent problems? Maybe. Does Mono have patent problems? ABSOLUTELY. It is a known constant. The others are variables, they are wild-cards, they are unknowns.
So, at that point, it becomes a question of which is a lower risk. Anyone can see that a 1:x chance is a lot more less likely then a 1:1 chance.
No, the GPL says "here's the code, use it how you want but you have to give it back if you make a binary publicly available." This is one clearly-defined use condition that is easily met. The way you describe the GPL is more fitting of SharedSource or any of a number of other, proprietary vendor's license on source. Many of whom started with or included BSD-licensed code.
Wait. You used a POP or IMAP server, which requires sending your password in clear text, on a network you have no knowledge of and unknown logging ability?
Yes, aren't 'those' clueless folks great.
You need someone who speaks it. If you don't have someone who can hear when you pronounce things incorrectly, expectally when you start, you will be wasting your time.
Just getting the ra ri ru re ro sounds correct is difficult with a teacher for most. It's something in between a L and a R sound on the 'r', but there isn't a real analog in english to it. To try and learn it without someone who's ear is accustommed to it... That's just not going to happen.
Seriously, if you check your local community college even, they will likely have a course. It's worth it if nothing else then to have someone else give you pointers in real time.
GTK? WTF?
Grab eFiji. It's a small, slightly buggy root window image setter I wrote as a random background setting program. No GTK, no big requirements, just X11 and ImLib. Hell, you could probably find one that's been maintained more that'd do the same job.
the day after 'when it's done?'
Hmm... That's odd, guess they pushed the release date back two days.
(laugh, it's a joke)
Debian/Testing is quite current. Debian/Unstable is as bleedin'-edge as they come.
Gentoo's nice too, but don't pick on Debian because Stable is old. Stable's not meant to be used by people who want the latest and greatest, it's for people who want a system that they can set up without things changing nightly.
They didn't refund the money out of the kindness of their hearts, they were taken to court. They grudgingly refunded money.
Not to start a flame war or anything, but they didn't just refund the cash out of the blue.
If you repeat a lie enough times, it will be believed.
It appears to my untrained eyes that this is the new FUD tactic.
New ideas in Free software always meet with resistance if there is already a 'solution.' If you have a good idea, just impliment it and ignore what anyone has to say about it unless it's a constructive critisism on how to improve it. Otherwise nothing'll get done.
If you get it working, and no one uses or codes on it, THEN you can consider dropping it, but until then, just code away.
I think that's his point. It'd be trivial to add the option, GNOME's developers didn't even think of it before throwing something new and foreign at their user base. Most don't like it, and to 'fix' it they have to be fairly technical and know what to change in GConf2.
It can be fixed, but most likely it won't. They've found something that "work's better," user's opinions be damned.
While his rant only adresses that, there are many things that should be in the fixed (Option for Nautilus not starting showing desktop icons, a MIME-Associator that was worth a damn, Gedit's options layout being horrendous, so on) that the GNOME developer 'fix' by just pushing things into GConf, or ignoring. IMHO at least.
Check the page. Unscrewed lives! :D
;)
That and XPlay are the only reasons I watch, they're both staying. As far as I'm concerned they can just dump the rest of the schedule.
Ah, see. This only further proves my point. They confused me even as I wrote them! ;)
'Sure, I'll need that by 02/07'
/..
'Umm... Boss, it's already March.'
'Wha... What? No.. No, I need that in July.'
'And then, in 02/02/04 -'
'Feburary 2nd, 2004?!?'
'No. Moron. March 4th, 2002.'
Because humans insist on using shortform when it's confusing as all hell.
If I say 2/4, is it US notation? European? April 2nd or March 4th?
If I say 2004-02-04, you instantly know March 4th, 2004.
Of course, that wouldn't happen in spoken word, but I can't remember the last time someone made a audio-post to
That would be me.
Sorry.
My computers do not use any closed software or drivers.
If you install closed software on a 'Free' OS, then it isn't a Free os. Just another collection of closed bits. So what's the difference? The names on the box?
If these things are so needed, then we need open, Free versions of them. GNU Class Path is coming along great for Java, there is a GPL version of Flash that is compatable with Flash 4 and with some love it could be brought up to speed, reading PDFs (which is what you use Adobe's product for, I assume) with Adobe's product is silly as there are hundreds of Free PDF viewers, many tailored directly to GNOME and KDE.
When we allow ourselves to use closed software, we are slowly killing the things that made using GNU/Linux and the BSDs worth-while in the first place any good: access to the code of the OS and tools one uses daily so that fixing any problems can be done in a expedient manner by any who wish. If you really wish to give up that Freedom, then there's no real point in using a Free OS.
It is dark. You have been eaten by a GNU.
If we should 'thank' them for the drivers, where is the code? Your right, we should thank GPl and BSDed driver coders. But closed driver authors should garner nothing but our ire and distrust.
The code isn't GPLed. As such, it's just as hidden as the Windows/OS X drivers. We should not thank companies which force us to use closed drivers to utilize hardware we've already paid for, but demand these deceitful cretins give us back the right and Freedom to use that which we already own.
Of course they do. Doesn't everyone use off-site storage?
I used to think that.
Then I saw someone with a DVD, a Quake 3 game, and a UT2k3 demo all running in windows with mozilla browsing a forum on a screenshot.
My mind is still trying to parse how that set-up works.
Add a non-free apt repository?
This is about main. There's plenty of non-free software in contrib and non-free. They're just pulling this non-free software out of main as main only contains 100% Free software. Most likely there will be a few encumbered kernels in the non-free repositories at some point, or loadable modules for hotplug.
Additionally, you could place presure on the hardware vendor to respect the law and release their firmware under a GPL-compatable license which would allow for it's inclusion in the main kernels.
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
a ge s.html
/home/$user/lib/$lib_name, click the AppDir, and boom, it just runs.
AppDirs, AppDirs, AppDirs.
No dropping to a commandline. No GCC flags for the user to get hung up on. No need to be root. Just unpack it, click it, and it runs.
Toss ZeroInstall in the mix so that all the requirements are seamlessly pulled for the user, and no one has to worry about installation again. If you want to know if current apps would work as AppDirs, take a look here:
http://www.cs.sunyit.edu/~geerp/rox/appdir-pack
It's a collection of regular programs like Aterm and Dillo placed in AppDirs. Now imagine if all the requirements for those were also available as AppDirs. Just click the AppDir and let ZeroInstall get the libraries for you, or grab them yourself and pop them in, say,
Simple, n'est pas?
Maybe because no one has heard of the Real audio store until this? Hell, I can't even remember it's name let alone tell you why someone would use it.
Lets face it, if your buying DRMed music online, it's from Apple. Not Real, Napster or WalMart.
And you don't get Apple to help you when you write them a threatening letter asking for 'help.'
This is a web site that claims the cookie expires in 2038 because of pending 'brain implants.'
Surely it couldn't be because they're using a large number of 32-bit UNIX-like systems, and that there's the UNIX epoch in all UNIX-like OSes on 32-bit systems is 2038.
I mean, that'd just be kha-raaaaaaazie!1! It's obvious that they set the cookie to 2036 so they could steal our Precious Bodily Fluids. Where's the tin foil? Where?
Err. Yah. Yah, at that point I think it's safe to say anything on the site can be honestly diregarded as bunk. Or at best poorly writen SciFi. Either way, it's relationship with reality is on the rocks, and reality is already calling it's mother and a divorce laywer.
Somehow, I doubt any of the people looking to buy know the real value of it.
That's what they do.
That's why a patch set for Java's sources was in the FreeBSD ports forever, yet everyone says 'freebsd didn't have Java.' There was no binary distribution of that possible because it hadn't passed through Sun yet.
The Java specs are available for the most part. The only problem is no one knows what the tests for Java compliance are, but anyone with the cash can send software to take them and be able to be called 'Java.' Other then that, everything you asked for in your post is already true.