No, I gave you the last word, as I said, because "engaging in discussion with you is pointlessly annoying".
The followup reply was as expected, nothing of substance that didn't address my argument: "You mention speed, but give no hard numbers. If, for example, RequestPolicy does its job in less than 1ms, then it doesn't matter if a hosts file is twice as fast or even ten times as fast, because either way the difference is imperceptible. I don't have any speed problems using RequstPolicy, at all."
The reply makes an empty claim about security, but doesn't address the whitelist vs blacklist argument, open source vs untrustworthy proprietary source, or cross-platform benefits.
FAKE NAME
Says the spammer who posts as Anonymous Coward and self-signs "apk".
NoScript? Hosts block adserver script sources
So does RequestPolicy, and NoScript stops all scripts, including ones on the mainpage. All this makes for a very fast web.
I would. The mess around pointers, types, and casting, and what is portable and what isn't, along with clever C hacks abounds.
You can certainly do things like that but even the most experienced programmer knows that it is an ugly unportable hack.
Which is why somebody recommended it and it got upmodded.
As for portability, properly written C is actually portable unlike most high level languages out there.
Well, sure, if you believe in the myth that we just need to have more education, hire better C coders, or strive to do better, C is a good choice for a "portable" language. But in reality C has inherent design flaws that make it easy to write non-portable code.
If you want to write programs that have actual portability there aren't that many alternatives to C.
That's because C has inertia and everybody ports it to their platforms. It's the king of worse is better.
* QUESTION: What've YOU personally done better that works vs. ads & numerous other threats online?
I use RequestPolicy because it's a whitelist and not a blacklist (that means threats are blocked by default, and not part of an evergrowing list of "bad" domains/IPs). I also use NoScript. For YouTube, I use youtube-dl and see no ads. That takes care of pretty much all my needs.
All those are much better than downloading proprietary software from some spammer on Slashdot.
At the very least, no matter what else, I've felt that Wu and others like Sarkeesian didn't deserve the nasty harassment they got.
First of, Brianna "Stayed Home" Wu injected themselves into the mix by making fun of GamerGaters. They then used the predictable backlash to claim they were fleeing for their lives... by going to a scheduled convention and tweeting exactly where they would be at the convention. They then gave interview after interview about how they had to flee their home... from their home.
But that's just one of the ridiculous sagas within GamerGate, and something never reported by the mainstream press, who were all too happy to present GamerGate as a harassment movement to drive women out of gaming.
It wasn't "pay-for-play" so much as a bunch of social justice idiots within the indie scene having a cozy relation with social justice idiots in the gaming press.
I've been asking for links to the review or an archive copy for ages now and no one has provided anything more than a single line content written before they were a couple.
This is such mythical bullshit that you probably have asked it before, and were given the correction to your bullshit, and then completely ignored it and repeat this shit ad museum whenever this topic comes up.
Unless their user base completely implodes, they should be fine as long as they trim the fat. I mean seriously, just how much would it take to run Twitter if you did it barebones?
I'd start by moving out of overpriced San Francisco, getting rid of most management and anybody else not essential to running Twitter or generating profit. Then just generate sweet profit, and fuck Wall Street "expectations" for growth.
What you haven't explained is how this makes.NET proprietary or how it is a threat to open source software.
I've already explained it. We're talking about what would have hypothetically happened if Google had did to.NET what they did to Java. It would have depended on what they actually did.
Yes, just like Java copied large parts of other platforms and systems; it's how software works.
Yes, but Java brought a good mix of new and old to the table. C# was a blatant clone with a few deviations.
You can try to "minimize" them, but the fact remains that Microsoft couldn't have sued Google for the things that Oracle sued Google for.
You keep asserting this, but we've already covered how it was entirely possible to run afoul of Microsoft's promises. The devil is in the details.
And Oracle's lawsuit was foreseeable even a decade earlier.
Uh huh, but the traps being laid by Miguel, Mono, and Tomboy were totally not traps, and the free/open source community and Linux should have followed Microsoft's lead and embraced C#. But I see you chose not to reply to that when I corrected your bullshit about Mono.
I am sorry that your religious hatred is so important to you that you are incapable of using Google.
It's not my job to substantiate your claims. I provided links for my claims.
It is a modular framework that runs on both the full.NET Framework, on Windows, and the cross-platform.NET Core.
Even in your own cite, it uses terms that argue against you: "the full.NET Framework, on Windows, and the cross-platform.NET Core"
So maybe you should stop misusing the term ".NET Framework".
Now, I acknowledge your link to the Scott Hanselman blog. But it's early days, and Microsoft has changed directions in the past, so it remains to be seen whether the Windows-specific ".NET Framework" is indeed a "legacy" version of.NET.
If you use Microsoft patents for implementing "anything else", whether that is OK depends on whether you use Microsoft patents in that code or not.
*facepalm* That's what I've been saying.
Sun started out by making a proprietary version of BSD.
So? How was that an "attack" on an open source project? There were a lot commercial Unix-clone companies around. They didn't attack BSD or Linux. No threats of lawsuits or actual lawsuits.
Then they tried to kill X11, first with SunView, then with NeWS.
I still fail to see how this makes them "utterly evil", on par with Oracle or Microsoft.
Mono and Miguel's business model don't represent a legal threat to the FOSS community.
This is utter horseshit. If you go back 10+ years ago, Miguel was infecting Gnome via Mono and Tomboy with patent and copyright traps. Tomboy was a default of Gnome and made use of Microsoft-specific technologies that were ported over, way beyond whatever was standardized as part of ECMA. Miguel was wholeheartedly embracing Microsoft technology for Linux, including Silverlight, which Microsoft made to try and recapture the Web.
Java advocates were confused about this point
No, there was no confusion beyond the attempted obfuscation of Microsoft shills like you. The threat was obvious and clear to the majority of the free/open source community.
Java simply isn't a viable platform for general purpose computing
Uh huh. Funny how there's tons of people successfully using it for general purpose computing.
Yes, it would have been. C# is technically a much better platform, and while you can't trust any big company, Microsoft's legal guarantees were (and still are) better than Sun's/Oracle's.
Bull-fucking-shit. First off, C# wasn't "much better", it was a reasonable improvement of the Java platform they essentially copied. Second, those guarantees were minimal for the time, as I've already argued.
Sure, today, I can look at something like.NET Core, which is fully open sourced and fairly functional, and it's much more viable, but even then, legally I see it as only marginally better than dealing with Oracle and making use of the OpenJDK.
Try to take a look at the current situation please.
I am. The current situation is as I described, not as you described. ".NET Framework" is still Windows-specific and proprietary.
OK, let me elaborate..Net Platform, the Windows specific framework, will continue to exist.
Notice they didn't call it ".Net Platform" in my link. They called it ".NET Framework".
So, yes, while Windows specific.Net is going to receive continued maintenance, that has no bearing on.Net Core, which does supersede.Net 4.
I asked where this was explicitly stated, and not just in your own mind. Where's the link to Microsoft?
So, instead of gathering information about a topic, you resort to personal insults?
Sorry, the sheer stupidity of the argument got to me.
In the mean time you can read this article on the topic.. It basically states that yes, if you adopt.Net as a platform, there is nothing Microsoft can do vis-a-vis patents. If you, on the other hand, want to create a new version of.Net where you remove features from the.Net Core platform, you are not protected (you can extend it to your hearts content and be protected).
Now this is funny, because you started out arguing against me when I said Microsoft could have sued Google if they had done to.NET what they did to Java for Android. You know, remove some features and make a non-conforming version of it.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of our religious beliefs, shall we?
Where has this been stated, explicitly, and not just in your own mind?
If I violate someone's patent, I am in violation of that patent, what framework and programming language I use to do so is irrelevant.
If you exercised your brain cells, you'd realize that you'd be much more likely to violate somebody patent by adopting their framework and programming language which is steeped in patents.
No, that is incorrect. The patent promise applies to all implementations, even partial, non-conforming implementations.
Let me spell it out in equation form so you can stop dodging what I'm saying. Two possibilities:
1) (patents + partial conforming) = ok 2) (patents + partial conforming) + (patents + non-conforming) = not ok
The devil is in the details, and would have depended on how Google would have hypothetically did their own thing, following 1 or 2.
Oracle and Sun are utterly evil and have been for many years; they have attacked numerous open source projects over the years, and lied over and over again. And their technology is crap.
I agree Oracle is a horrible corporation, on par with Microsoft, but what open source project did Sun attack (before they were bought by Oracle)?
You aren't listening; we are just talking about C# and the core of.NET.
It just so happens I'm being double-teamed by another Microsoft fanboy who's going way beyond that. And even you go beyond that by invoking the past:
In any case, the ship has sailed for C# for open source software
Yeah, see, now you have to wind the clock back to 10 years ago, back to Mono, Miguel, and Tomboy. It was never just about the core language. They used and ported Microsoft-specific parts. And that's why the Linux and free/open software community was so against it. It would have been incredibly dangerous and stupid to follow Microsoft's lead and embrace their technology.
Java fanbois like you managed to kill it and condemned the open source community to a decade of C++ programming
You know, there were plenty of GUI toolkits in other languages besides C++. And even if programmers didn't like it, they still could have used Java. How many millions did Notch make with Minecraft? And even Microsoft avoided C# for their apps for a very long time (they still might, for all I know).
and tying large parts of the modern web infrastructure to a platform controlled and owned by Larry Ellison
I'm not happy with Oracle and Java, but there's still OpenJDK, and you can always fork it.
hope you're proud of your accomplishment and the damage you have done.
*snort* Because running away from Sun/Oracle into the arms of Microsoft would have been such a bright move.
It tells you exactly what would have happened, namely nothing. Microsoft couldn't have sued Google like Oracle sued Google.
You haven't demonstrated that. The patent promise was specific to conforming implementations. The devil is in the details.
No, the problem is that you are confusing multiple meanings of.NET.
And that's the problem with following Microsoft's lead. They have a long history of pretending to play nice with others and then ultimately finding a way to keep users tied to their proprietary Windows platform. Meanwhile, the Microsoft fanboys pretend how everything is open and there is no danger, because Microsoft is such a good boy, unlike that big meanie Oracle.
The.Net Foundadtion is a 501(c) organization is the steward of the.Net framework going forward.
Why are you making up stuff it does not say on the Foundation page? The.NET Framework is Windows-specific, has a propriety license, and is not included as a Foundation project.
Where could MS sue anyone for extending the.Net framework?
By using one of their patents that don't conform to a spec, as outlined in their legal promises.
Ah, but unlike Oracle with Java, Microsoft doesn't own.Net.
Your link doesn't say that. It only says, "improve open-source software development and collaboration around the.NET Framework". In particular, not all of what might be considered ".NET" is hosted by that foundation, as ".NET Framework" is proprietary to Microsoft.
Google has basically the same rights to.NET as does Microsoft.
Microsoft still owns their patents, so if hypothetically Google had used them in a non-conforming manner, they still could have been sued.
If you look at the situation honestly, it's obvious that's there's an endemic problem with violence and authoritarianism within Islam that no other religion comes close to today. Islam has bloody borders:
"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
That clause simply means that Microsoft only grants you patents that are necessary for implementing the spec, no more and no less.
Which is just rewording what I said. That doesn't tell us what would have hypothetically have happened if Google had decided to do to.NET what they did to Java. If Google implemented something off the spec using one of the covered patents, they wouldn't be covered under the promise.
I.e., Microsoft keeps creating new libraries for the.NET platform and creates patents for them. That's just like Google, Apple, IBM, Oracle, Facebook, and others do for C++, Java, Swift, and other platforms.
Now you're moving the goalposts. It was your argument the patents didn't matter because they were all going to expire soon anyways. You were wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen you shotdown on requestpolicy
No, I gave you the last word, as I said, because "engaging in discussion with you is pointlessly annoying".
The followup reply was as expected, nothing of substance that didn't address my argument: "You mention speed, but give no hard numbers. If, for example, RequestPolicy does its job in less than 1ms, then it doesn't matter if a hosts file is twice as fast or even ten times as fast, because either way the difference is imperceptible. I don't have any speed problems using RequstPolicy, at all."
The reply makes an empty claim about security, but doesn't address the whitelist vs blacklist argument, open source vs untrustworthy proprietary source, or cross-platform benefits.
FAKE NAME
Says the spammer who posts as Anonymous Coward and self-signs "apk".
NoScript? Hosts block adserver script sources
So does RequestPolicy, and NoScript stops all scripts, including ones on the mainpage. All this makes for a very fast web.
I wouldn't say that C in infamous for it.
I would. The mess around pointers, types, and casting, and what is portable and what isn't, along with clever C hacks abounds.
You can certainly do things like that but even the most experienced programmer knows that it is an ugly unportable hack.
Which is why somebody recommended it and it got upmodded.
As for portability, properly written C is actually portable unlike most high level languages out there.
Well, sure, if you believe in the myth that we just need to have more education, hire better C coders, or strive to do better, C is a good choice for a "portable" language. But in reality C has inherent design flaws that make it easy to write non-portable code.
If you want to write programs that have actual portability there aren't that many alternatives to C.
That's because C has inertia and everybody ports it to their platforms. It's the king of worse is better.
* QUESTION: What've YOU personally done better that works vs. ads & numerous other threats online?
I use RequestPolicy because it's a whitelist and not a blacklist (that means threats are blocked by default, and not part of an evergrowing list of "bad" domains/IPs). I also use NoScript. For YouTube, I use youtube-dl and see no ads. That takes care of pretty much all my needs.
All those are much better than downloading proprietary software from some spammer on Slashdot.
What can block APK spam?
Syntactic whitespace makes me twitch, too; but it neatly resolves many of the codestyle hubbub issues you see in other language environments.
Well, it could have, by being more strict, but no.
At the very least, no matter what else, I've felt that Wu and others like Sarkeesian didn't deserve the nasty harassment they got.
First of, Brianna "Stayed Home" Wu injected themselves into the mix by making fun of GamerGaters. They then used the predictable backlash to claim they were fleeing for their lives... by going to a scheduled convention and tweeting exactly where they would be at the convention. They then gave interview after interview about how they had to flee their home... from their home.
But that's just one of the ridiculous sagas within GamerGate, and something never reported by the mainstream press, who were all too happy to present GamerGate as a harassment movement to drive women out of gaming.
Basically, it comes down to pay-for-play
It wasn't "pay-for-play" so much as a bunch of social justice idiots within the indie scene having a cozy relation with social justice idiots in the gaming press.
I've been asking for links to the review or an archive copy for ages now and no one has provided anything more than a single line content written before they were a couple.
This is such mythical bullshit that you probably have asked it before, and were given the correction to your bullshit, and then completely ignored it and repeat this shit ad museum whenever this topic comes up.
Unless their user base completely implodes, they should be fine as long as they trim the fat. I mean seriously, just how much would it take to run Twitter if you did it barebones?
I'd start by moving out of overpriced San Francisco, getting rid of most management and anybody else not essential to running Twitter or generating profit. Then just generate sweet profit, and fuck Wall Street "expectations" for growth.
Sounds like the kind of non-portable hacks C is infamous for.
The US has similar laws. You could always take a company to court for not honoring their warranty.
We know what Google got sued for by Oracle, and Microsoft could not have sued for the same things.
We know one after the fact, and the other is hypothetical and unknown, despite your naked assertions.
I didn't notice that you attempted to make a factual statement or a technical argument; try harder next time.
I did make factual statements. Not my fault you're such a Microsoft fanboy that you ignore them. You have no answer for them.
What you haven't explained is how this makes .NET proprietary or how it is a threat to open source software.
I've already explained it. We're talking about what would have hypothetically happened if Google had did to .NET what they did to Java. It would have depended on what they actually did.
Yes, just like Java copied large parts of other platforms and systems; it's how software works.
Yes, but Java brought a good mix of new and old to the table. C# was a blatant clone with a few deviations.
You can try to "minimize" them, but the fact remains that Microsoft couldn't have sued Google for the things that Oracle sued Google for.
You keep asserting this, but we've already covered how it was entirely possible to run afoul of Microsoft's promises. The devil is in the details.
And Oracle's lawsuit was foreseeable even a decade earlier.
Uh huh, but the traps being laid by Miguel, Mono, and Tomboy were totally not traps, and the free/open source community and Linux should have followed Microsoft's lead and embraced C#. But I see you chose not to reply to that when I corrected your bullshit about Mono.
I see you're an Angel'o'sphere sock puppet.
I see you are an idiot making false accusations.
And you should learn to respect history and stop being such a Microsoft fanboy. Also serious.
I am sorry that your religious hatred is so important to you that you are incapable of using Google.
It's not my job to substantiate your claims. I provided links for my claims.
It is a modular framework that runs on both the full .NET Framework, on Windows, and the cross-platform .NET Core.
Even in your own cite, it uses terms that argue against you: "the full .NET Framework, on Windows, and the cross-platform .NET Core"
So maybe you should stop misusing the term ".NET Framework".
Now, I acknowledge your link to the Scott Hanselman blog. But it's early days, and Microsoft has changed directions in the past, so it remains to be seen whether the Windows-specific ".NET Framework" is indeed a "legacy" version of .NET.
If you use Microsoft patents for implementing "anything else", whether that is OK depends on whether you use Microsoft patents in that code or not.
*facepalm* That's what I've been saying.
Sun started out by making a proprietary version of BSD.
So? How was that an "attack" on an open source project? There were a lot commercial Unix-clone companies around. They didn't attack BSD or Linux. No threats of lawsuits or actual lawsuits.
Then they tried to kill X11, first with SunView, then with NeWS.
I still fail to see how this makes them "utterly evil", on par with Oracle or Microsoft.
Mono and Miguel's business model don't represent a legal threat to the FOSS community.
This is utter horseshit. If you go back 10+ years ago, Miguel was infecting Gnome via Mono and Tomboy with patent and copyright traps. Tomboy was a default of Gnome and made use of Microsoft-specific technologies that were ported over, way beyond whatever was standardized as part of ECMA. Miguel was wholeheartedly embracing Microsoft technology for Linux, including Silverlight, which Microsoft made to try and recapture the Web.
Java advocates were confused about this point
No, there was no confusion beyond the attempted obfuscation of Microsoft shills like you. The threat was obvious and clear to the majority of the free/open source community.
Java simply isn't a viable platform for general purpose computing
Uh huh. Funny how there's tons of people successfully using it for general purpose computing.
Yes, it would have been. C# is technically a much better platform, and while you can't trust any big company, Microsoft's legal guarantees were (and still are) better than Sun's/Oracle's.
Bull-fucking-shit. First off, C# wasn't "much better", it was a reasonable improvement of the Java platform they essentially copied. Second, those guarantees were minimal for the time, as I've already argued.
Sure, today, I can look at something like .NET Core, which is fully open sourced and fairly functional, and it's much more viable, but even then, legally I see it as only marginally better than dealing with Oracle and making use of the OpenJDK.
Try to take a look at the current situation please.
I am. The current situation is as I described, not as you described. ".NET Framework" is still Windows-specific and proprietary.
OK, let me elaborate. .Net Platform, the Windows specific framework, will continue to exist.
Notice they didn't call it ".Net Platform" in my link. They called it ".NET Framework".
So, yes, while Windows specific .Net is going to receive continued maintenance, that has no bearing on .Net Core, which does supersede .Net 4.
I asked where this was explicitly stated, and not just in your own mind. Where's the link to Microsoft?
So, instead of gathering information about a topic, you resort to personal insults?
Sorry, the sheer stupidity of the argument got to me.
In the mean time you can read this article on the topic.. It basically states that yes, if you adopt .Net as a platform, there is nothing Microsoft can do vis-a-vis patents. If you, on the other hand, want to create a new version of .Net where you remove features from the .Net Core platform, you are not protected (you can extend it to your hearts content and be protected).
Now this is funny, because you started out arguing against me when I said Microsoft could have sued Google if they had done to .NET what they did to Java for Android. You know, remove some features and make a non-conforming version of it.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of our religious beliefs, shall we?
Indeed.
was
Still is.
and has been superseded by the .Net Core framework
Where has this been stated, explicitly, and not just in your own mind?
If I violate someone's patent, I am in violation of that patent, what framework and programming language I use to do so is irrelevant.
If you exercised your brain cells, you'd realize that you'd be much more likely to violate somebody patent by adopting their framework and programming language which is steeped in patents.
No, that is incorrect. The patent promise applies to all implementations, even partial, non-conforming implementations.
Let me spell it out in equation form so you can stop dodging what I'm saying. Two possibilities:
1) (patents + partial conforming) = ok
2) (patents + partial conforming) + (patents + non-conforming) = not ok
The devil is in the details, and would have depended on how Google would have hypothetically did their own thing, following 1 or 2.
Oracle and Sun are utterly evil and have been for many years; they have attacked numerous open source projects over the years, and lied over and over again. And their technology is crap.
I agree Oracle is a horrible corporation, on par with Microsoft, but what open source project did Sun attack (before they were bought by Oracle)?
You aren't listening; we are just talking about C# and the core of .NET.
It just so happens I'm being double-teamed by another Microsoft fanboy who's going way beyond that. And even you go beyond that by invoking the past:
In any case, the ship has sailed for C# for open source software
Yeah, see, now you have to wind the clock back to 10 years ago, back to Mono, Miguel, and Tomboy. It was never just about the core language. They used and ported Microsoft-specific parts. And that's why the Linux and free/open software community was so against it. It would have been incredibly dangerous and stupid to follow Microsoft's lead and embrace their technology.
Java fanbois like you managed to kill it and condemned the open source community to a decade of C++ programming
You know, there were plenty of GUI toolkits in other languages besides C++. And even if programmers didn't like it, they still could have used Java. How many millions did Notch make with Minecraft? And even Microsoft avoided C# for their apps for a very long time (they still might, for all I know).
and tying large parts of the modern web infrastructure to a platform controlled and owned by Larry Ellison
I'm not happy with Oracle and Java, but there's still OpenJDK, and you can always fork it.
hope you're proud of your accomplishment and the damage you have done.
*snort* Because running away from Sun/Oracle into the arms of Microsoft would have been such a bright move.
It tells you exactly what would have happened, namely nothing. Microsoft couldn't have sued Google like Oracle sued Google.
You haven't demonstrated that. The patent promise was specific to conforming implementations. The devil is in the details.
No, the problem is that you are confusing multiple meanings of .NET.
And that's the problem with following Microsoft's lead. They have a long history of pretending to play nice with others and then ultimately finding a way to keep users tied to their proprietary Windows platform. Meanwhile, the Microsoft fanboys pretend how everything is open and there is no danger, because Microsoft is such a good boy, unlike that big meanie Oracle.
The .Net Foundadtion is a 501(c) organization is the steward of the .Net framework going forward.
Why are you making up stuff it does not say on the Foundation page? The .NET Framework is Windows-specific, has a propriety license, and is not included as a Foundation project.
Where could MS sue anyone for extending the .Net framework?
By using one of their patents that don't conform to a spec, as outlined in their legal promises.
Ah, but unlike Oracle with Java, Microsoft doesn't own .Net.
Your link doesn't say that. It only says, "improve open-source software development and collaboration around the .NET Framework". In particular, not all of what might be considered ".NET" is hosted by that foundation, as ".NET Framework" is proprietary to Microsoft.
Google has basically the same rights to .NET as does Microsoft.
Microsoft still owns their patents, so if hypothetically Google had used them in a non-conforming manner, they still could have been sued.
If you look at the situation honestly, it's obvious that's there's an endemic problem with violence and authoritarianism within Islam that no other religion comes close to today. Islam has bloody borders:
"Nevertheless, there is a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of Muslim history: From the time that the first Muslims established themselves as the rulers of Medina, Islam was a political and increasingly a legal system as well as a faith. In Medina Muhammad continued to be a prophet, but he also became the head of a state and a military leader. With the exception of Southeast Asia (where Islam was spread by traders from the the subcontinent), what we now know as the Muslim world was established by conquest. It is no accident that in traditional Muslim thought the world is divided into two spheres--the realm of Islam (dar ul-Islam) and the realm of war (dar ul-harb). Put simply, it is assumed that the border between Islamic rule and the rest of the world marks a state of war, even if periods of armistice are possible. One should be cognizant of the important fact that there are Muslim thinkers today who are reformulating the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and of Islamic war (jihad) in a much more liberal manner. But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."
No, because they aren't stupid and know that they are replaceable and will end up back in their home country, working for less money.
That clause simply means that Microsoft only grants you patents that are necessary for implementing the spec, no more and no less.
Which is just rewording what I said. That doesn't tell us what would have hypothetically have happened if Google had decided to do to .NET what they did to Java. If Google implemented something off the spec using one of the covered patents, they wouldn't be covered under the promise.
I.e., Microsoft keeps creating new libraries for the .NET platform and creates patents for them. That's just like Google, Apple, IBM, Oracle, Facebook, and others do for C++, Java, Swift, and other platforms.
Now you're moving the goalposts. It was your argument the patents didn't matter because they were all going to expire soon anyways. You were wrong.