Jeff waugh, who is interviewed in the video below (from 2006), is unhappy with the output we produce in this Web site. He must understand, however, that we are seeing Novell's increased level of intervention in the GNOME project. With Ximian on board and with SuSE's focus gradually shifted away from KDE, Novell must be responsible enough to keep Mono conveniently separable from GNOME. As mentioned hours ago, Mono is close to intruding Evolution. Please, Jeff, assist the prevention of Mono-isation of GNOME. It's an excellent desktop environment and we believe we know what Microsoft is up to with Mono.
Comments
e-2e#t
2007-11-24 09:56:49
I guess we can all look forward to the day when you rename your blog "Boycott GNOME". The next logical steps will be "Boycott Linux", "Boycott Computers", "Boycott Life" and "Help!".
There is no "Mono-isation" of GNOME. I've told you this already, but you apparently refuse to accept what I have said: The broader GNOME community simply isn't behind it. Rail all you want about Novell, Miguel and Mono, but don't assume that those voices speak for the GNOME community.
I have no idea where your "increased intervention in the GNOME project" charge comes from either. It is simply not based on reality or any kind of knowledge of the project.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 15:08:40
Meanwhile, on a post titled "Love GNOME, Beware of Mono", you've left your true attitude open with the subtitle, "NÃËvell, gNÃËme, and moNÃË". Nice, real nice.
heinz-ruediger
2007-11-24 17:36:39
A charmingly destructive article in best Usenet-tradition! ;)
I think Roy doesn't deserve Jeff's attention.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-24 19:51:27
I have no idea where your “increased intervention in the GNOME project” charge comes from either. It is simply not based on reality or any kind of knowledge of the project.
What about recent plans to have Mono 'extensions' in Evolution (for example)?
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 20:23:42
What about recent plans to have Mono ‘extensions’ in Evolution (for example)?
Novell (and Ximian) developers have been the primary maintainers of Evolution since it was launched. It's not at all surprising that Novell would seek to create Mono-based plugins for Evolution, considering their position on Mono (on which they are essentially alone among GNOME-contributing organisations) and long term investment in the creation of Mono-based applications.
Like pretty much everything else they've done to integrate Mono-based features with GNOME (such Beagle search), Novell developers will have to make it optional at compile time to be accepted by the general community.
That better demonstrates the broader GNOME community's attitude towards Mono than any self-serving, ill-informed "evidence" you've managed to come up with in any of your posts about GNOME and Mono.
Again, I encourage you to fact-check the accusations made in your articles before you post them, particularly when you're writing about communities in the FLOSS world: You have greater access to them than you will ever have access to the companies, and if your intentions towards the FLOSS community are good, then you should pay respect to the people who are actually doing the work of creating Free Software.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-24 20:44:27
Like pretty much everything else they’ve done to integrate Mono-based features with GNOME (such Beagle search), Novell developers will have to make it optional at compile time to be accepted by the general community.
From what I can gather, the "general community" that uses GNOME might no longer use Evolution because of .NET IP.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 20:54:29
A build of Evolution without support for Mono extensions (in fact, even a build of Evolution *with* support for Mono extensions) won't include any Mono code, nor any ".NET IP". There is simply no technical basis for your accusation.
No, that's ridiculous... A groupware client that doesn't interoperate with itself? One that already implements SMTP, POP3, IMAP, and a whole raft of other open standards? You're suggesting they'd have to break all of this just to make Mono extensions? Not only would Novell never be stupid enough to do something like this, no one in the community would accept something so ridiculous.
Come on. Be serious. You're dramatically over-reaching for conspiracies here.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-24 21:31:18
No, I was thinking along the lines of limited compatibility in Evolution-Exchange Server, with many more things on the way, including SharePoint, OOXML, and whatnot.
The integration strategy and extension of so-called ECMA 'standards' is nothing new. I fear that Microsoft tries to drag Linux along with its own agenda, only to be a second fiddle with a second-class Silverlight viewer and a broken 'translator' for OOXML (the world needs ODF, not multiple formats and what Heise called the 'translator hoax').
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 21:39:39
In fact, right now, Novell are building on the work of the OpenChange project (created by folks from Samba) to include increased support for Exchange by using the MAPI protocol instead of the somewhat hackish (but clever) OWA method. So they're substantially increasing compatibility with Exchange through cooperation with another FLOSS project.
What Novell do with OOXML and OpenOffice.org is of no relevance to GNOME. Nor is Moonlight -- a great disappointment to many in the GNOME community, by the way.
It should be noted that we supported Jody's participation in ECMA TC45-M (after he left Novell) to make sure OOXML is properly documented as a result of his work on Gnumeric. It supports the binary Microsoft formats (as does OOo), and Jody is working on initial support for DOCX. Interoperating with shitty Microsoft formats is not something we like doing, but we do it so that users can capably shift to FLOSS solutions without losing access to all their documents. There is *NOTHING* wrong with that. I'm sure your readers appreciate FLOSS support for shitty Microsoft office formats every day for precisely this reason.
DOUGman
2007-11-24 22:03:46
Hmmmmm....I do know that Evolution *does* not work with Exchange 2007. The only client available?......M$ Outlook.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-24 22:14:31
What worries me is that Microsoft is likely to 'pull a Moonlight' (essentially mooning us again) by adding complementary functionality to Evolution only in the form of Mono code. Microsoft doesn't do it per se, but it uses close friends in the Linux world to have it implemented. If compatibility is concerned, then it's a case of all or nothingat all (i.e. swallow the Mono bait or be unable to bring Linux to an enterprise with Exchange, or access Silevrlight-based Web sites).
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 23:03:10
I'm sorry that concerns you. Note that Microsoft do not control Novell, they do not control Novell developers who contribute to GNOME or maintain Evolution, and they do not control the response of the GNOME community should anything ugly appear to be happening with Evolution (or elsewhere in the project).
I know, despite their lack of basis in reality, that you will continue to trumpet these concerns. I find that disingenuous and disappointing.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-24 23:15:12
I’m sorry that concerns you. Note that Microsoft do not control Novell, they do not control Novell developers who contribute to GNOME or maintain Evolution
With all due respect, I beg to differ. We have collected plenty of evidence which shows that Microsoft affects Novell's decisions (notably at a managerial/marketing level). That's an indication one one seizing partial control. Since Novell developers are obedient to their bosses, they will naturally comply with the requests of Novell (and Microsoft, by proxy).
What concerns me are the many attempts to take a hit at this Web site's credibility and reputation. Some people hope for an embargo; they harm the message and hope it goes away. I know other sites whose reputation was ruined by such attempts and I can confirm there is slander going on, such as anonymous posters arguing that we launch DDOS attacks. More recently, folks said we distribute Trojans as means of getting us blacklisted (again, using utterly false accusation).
Anyway, my point is that trying to take cheap shots at the site (as a whole) is a task which is better off left to Bruce Lowry. He does just that when he sort of warns bloggers not to link to us. Why shoot the messenger?
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 23:27:29
I question the site's credibility and reputation because you simply do not do research, you do not speak to the relevant community stakeholders, not even when full access is offered. You don't simply report the issues, you also include silly propaganda imagery. You consistently repeat questions about issues that have been answered. You even question the integrity of community members and their spouses in an extraordinarily inappropriate fashion, suggesting they have a financial interest in harming the community.
Finally, you've said "it's just a blog" and that it is not intended to reflect a balanced view. From my perspective, on the receiving end of your behaviour, I can confirm that you are not even interested in *attempting* a balanced view.
And yet, I have offered my help to you over and over and over again. It is getting beyond a joke at this point, but I have enough integrity and belief in the GNOME project and community that I will attempt to contribute positively to your reporting despite the outrageous barbs and inappropriateness of your behaviour.
SundayRefugee
2007-11-25 01:47:25
Jeff,
I love the GNOME DE personally. I vastly prefer it to KDE. However, I wouldn't hesitate to drop it in a second if there are ethical (wrt FOSS), patent, or legal liabilities (even potential). Can the GNOME foundation then offer some sort of indemnity/guarantee that, to the best knowledge of the developers, users are working with a patent-free/FOSS DE? If not, I think the distinctions need to be made. It would clear up alot on both sides, for users without the technical know-how ;) In a nutshell - many GNOME users are using GNOME to get AWAY from MS and proprietary software. Are such GNOME users using the right DE?
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-25 01:57:29
The GNOME Foundation couldn't do it, certainly not in those terms.
But keep in mind that basically no FLOSS project (or organisation behind the project, such as the GNOME Foundation) could *EVER* do it in those terms. That requires real money, a real income, and most likely, licensing fees. Obviously that's completely unsustainable for non-profit organisations that do not derive income from their software projects.
Also, pretty much every piece of software, FLOSS or proprietary, would be in violation of a patent (of not more than one). Of course, this is a problem with the patent system, not with software developers.
That said, we *are* doing things to protect GNOME developers and distributors from legal issues (particularly with regards to patents)... You're very likely to see some announcements about that in upcoming weeks.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-25 02:00:46
Thanks, Jeff. I look forward to something like this as well. It would be nice to see some sort of an official commitment that will bury all doubts and worries about GNOME's future direction. You have me convinced that at present it is possible to separate GNOME from Mono, technically speaking.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-25 02:01:47
I didn't say anything at all about "GNOME's future direction".
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-25 02:04:41
Oh, sorry. I misread SR's message where he said "Can the GNOME foundation then offer some sort of indemnity/guarantee that, to the best knowledge of the developers, users are working with a patent-free/FOSS DE?"
He was talking about the legal case (a la Red Hat), which isn't what I thought it was (based on your reply).
SundayRefugee
2007-11-25 20:06:55
You were actually quite correct, Roy.
An illustration of my point:
Various polls circa 2004 show KDE outnumbering GNOME on the home desktop 2/1 to 3/1, depending on the poll. Along comes Ubuntu, and these numbers are now roughly equal.
Even a quick perusal of the Ubuntu forums shows that a great many (most) are using Ubuntu to get AWAY from Windows and Microsoft technology and IP. Recent surveys show most users don't use WINE. The trends all seem to be indicating MS-free Linux environments.
The last thing a Ubuntu user wants is to find out, 2 years from now, that their distro is embroiled in an IP battle wrt MS tech.
Can the GNOME Foundation indemnify GNOME devs, distributors, and users, to best knowledge, against MS IP? If not, why? If there are specific known instances in which this cannot be done, is it not best to avoid the tech altogether?
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-25 20:13:28
Can the GNOME Foundation indemnify GNOME devs, distributors, and users, to best knowledge, against MS IP? If not, why? If there are specific known instances in which this cannot be done, is it not best to avoid the tech altogether?
Do you know what indemnification means? It means, substantially, having an enormous amount of insurance. The GNOME Foundation simply can't do that. We don't have the money or income to provide any kind of serious indemnification for any of those audiences. Do not mistake this for a fault of the GNOME Foundation, it is simply out of reach for any FLOSS project or backing organisation.
Commercial distributors can and do provide such indemnification for a whole range of FLOSS products. As they have substantial incomes and customers, they have the incentive and funds available to do this. All of the major distributors have chosen GNOME as their desktop of choice, so you'll be able to find this kind of legal support from them.
Again I'll stress that all software, proprietary or FLOSS, is extremely likely to violate patents. It is simply the nature of software, and the broken patent system that this is the case.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-25 20:16:27
I think I've stated this recently, but I would be relieved if the GNOME foundation could promise that GNOME will always be trivially separable from Mono. A promise is all one needs.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-25 20:21:25
Another thing:
Again I’ll stress that all software, proprietary or FLOSS, is extremely likely to violate patents. It is simply the nature of software, and the broken patent system that this is the case.
For a start, the GNOME Foundation doesn't make technical decisions. Secondly, you're not seeing how obvious this sentiment is from the technical community, because you don't ask questions and you don't do research. :-)
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-25 20:26:29
Of course there are other issues to consider, but your article doesn't explain why the legal comparisons between Mono and Samba are wrong. I don't have to agree with the intent of Mono to explain why it may not be the *legal* poison you suggest it is. You always assume the worst, and forget to actually ask questions!
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-25 20:31:52
Neelie Kroes has already addressed the issue of Samba because the need to inter-operate is fundamental. On the contrary, Mono is among the 'luxuries'.
The Commission has also acknowledged the fact that Microsoft made "trivial and pointless" modifications to established interoperability protocols, probably to stifle competition.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-25 21:20:08
Again, you're talking about intent, not legal issues. My answer was *obviously* about legal issues, not intent... and you have never asked me about intent. So stop weaselling your way into a position to sledge me. You could do that if your research was reputable, and your reporting open and honest to begin with.
SundayRefugee
2007-11-26 07:28:34
I'm sorry, Jeff, if I may be permitted to call you that. "Indemnify" was a terribly poor choice of wording. IANAL, but a concerned end user (posting this from GNOME Fedora werewolf, BTW, and a most elegant DE it is!). Please replace "indemnify" with something along the lines of "assure end-users that no MS/Windows IP/tech beyond what is necesary for network/file interoperability". Basically no more than necessary to access their docs and networks.
The problem is that there is already a known attack vector. The vector comes from Novell, ala "moonlight", active and open support (not just requesting better documentation, but "yes" votes) for OOXML, and possibly Mono. It's happening in part because a VP is not only the creator of these but also of GNOME. GNOME use of Mono in distro, if not in development, does not appear to be decreasing. I don't think it can be argued that Miguel very much wants a Microsoft Linux, and the appropriate pat on the head now, whatever incredibly talented and uniquely gifted visionary he has been. To read the GNOME Foundation on the ECMA list does nothing to quiet fears.
Given the tangled web above, it's not hard to see why it's a confusing issue. GNOME is the primary attack vector for Novell/Miguel, and the GNOME foundation's silence on the issue almost seems to confirm the worst fears. It's the old "Man, if that were even remotely false, they'd come out swinging and deny it...". Guilt is often made by association now, and in this case it's Miguel/GNOME. Miguel/Novell are helping to MSize Linux, primarily through (their) GNOME, and in light of that, retaining Miguel, and going so far as defending his continuing membership sends, at the very least, a mixed message to much of the community that sees a continuing "windowization" of Linux, primarily through GNOME. I think most of the community wants a clear line of demarcation, and a separation of the "windowization" faction from the "FLOSS" faction in GNOME, or at least something we can see publicly.
With the above entangled web of a situation, (at least as far as the public, such as myself, can research and see), the lines are extremely blurred. That the GNOME Foundation as a whole has not been more proactive about these issues has hurt them.
Please understand that I do not write this from the perspective of a developer, distributor, or maintainer. Just an ordinary user. A user who greatly prefers GNOME to KDE, XFCE, E17, and everything else on the market. A user who wants to keep MS out of my Linux, and those who want to shill MS clones out of my GNOME, but to be able to continue using my beloved GNOME (and I used it before the Ubuntu explosion).
I would take it as a kindness if you did not respond with any ad-homs such as "stupid", "idiocy", etc... I have not meant to be disrespectful anywhere in my post. I acknowledge I do not have 1/100th of your Open Source or GNOME knowledge, which is why I am trying to take advantage of a rare opportunity to address this directly. If you feel that this post is beneath you, I would rather you simply not respond. Ad-homing genuinely concerned users would look bad for the project, and I would rather not see that happen. Even if you think the user is a nutter :p
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 09:12:32
Please replace “indemnify” with something along the lines of “assure end-users that no MS/Windows IP/tech beyond what is necesary for network/file interoperability”. Basically no more than necessary to access their docs and networks.
Well, aside from the fact that you've set up a dangerous double-standard there, of course I can't assure users of that -- I don't know which patents Microsoft hold, because they won't tell us... and Microsoft are actually not the greatest danger to FLOSS organisations and users. Consider that it is Acacia that have gone up against Red Hat and Novell about GNOME technology, not Microsoft (whatever the conspiracy theories of the day are about Microsoft's relationship with Acacia).
You're asking for something that isn't practicable, and something that no one else could give you.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 09:22:30
(whatever the conspiracy theories of the day are about Microsoft’s relationship with Acacia).
Why do you try to argue that sites revolve around conspiracy theories? Is it because sites that doubt Novell and the GNOME Foundation's handling of OOXML happen to present relevant evidence? You know, the whole SCO-Microsoft connection used to a conspiracy theory as well several years ago. Who had the last laugh?
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 09:36:23
Until there's proof, all of this is just conspiracy theories. You're not doing any active, investigative research, so you're just repeating the cool conspiratorial suggestions of the day.
What "relevant evidence" about "the GNOME Foundation's handling of OOXML" have you reported, and what was it evidence of? You've reported your insinuations about potential financial considerations of GNOME Foundation directors including myself (and by association in your post, my wife) -- but these were only questions, and did not expose any relevant evidence or even research to suggest that there was any basis of truth whatsoever.
I can tell you clear as day what the answer to those questions is, but you don't ask. You're only interested in posting the snide insinuations, not the actual truth of these matters. Any truths you do post are second-hand and not of your own research.
You're 100% FUD until you can link to something real, and even if you're shown to be wrong, you still post snarky questions and snide insinuations. You've suggested that I've lied to you or not told you the complete truth on multiple occasions, calling my integrity into question.
You continue to attack leaders in the FLOSS community and their projects, and yet you refuse to be accountable for your actions.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 09:45:48
In a different context, similar accusations were made calling for concrete proof like a court-stamped E-mail from Bill Gates to Steve Ballmer saying "we need to exterminate Linux and Free software." Companies, including Novell, are secretive. We investigate possibilities and collect proof where it is available. We then connect dots. IANAL, but it's an interesting experience. We collect information and we let the readers decide. It's an open forum. There's nothing here that cannot be rebutted. We don't delete comments. We never did.
_e_e_t_
2007-11-26 09:49:26
You don't have a single case of hard evidence, Roy.
When I repeatedly asked to produce some, you labeled me 'troll', averted the question and conveniently weaseled your way out of the situation by playing offended.
Luckily you cannot play this game any longer, as you don't dare doing it with Jeff Waugh.
It is time the Linux community sees you for what you really are. A troll.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known, pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusiveInternet troll
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 09:52:00
We investigate possibilities and collect proof where it is available. We then connect dots. IANAL, but it’s an interesting experience. We collect information and we let the readers decide.
Which possibilities did you investigate, and which proof or information did you collect to inspire your post that questioned my integrity, the integrity of my fellow GNOME Foundation directors, and the integrity of my business and wife? What backing do you have for that? That kind of nastiness and baseless insinuation is inappropriate in public life. Are you familiar with the strength of UK libel laws?
"and we let the readers decide"... You openly admit you're a one-sided blog, and you say this. You don't even realise that you're echoing Fox News here?
You have a serious problem with ethics and accountability.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 09:52:05
It is time the Linux community sees you for what you really are. A troll.
That's hilarious coming from you. You've been told time after time by this site's readers to take a hike. Why don't you? You're here only to troll with personal attacks.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 09:58:04
Which possibilities did you investigate, and which proof or information did you collect to inspire your post that questioned my integrity, the integrity of my fellow GNOME Foundation directors, and the integrity of my business and wife? What backing do you have for that?
See the context along with Web sites that we cited, such as the GNOME Web site which sports what seems like a promotional Novell contact. This is a violation of GNOME's rules, I believe. There were other examples and I made no accusations. I presented various bits of information and then asked questions.
Are you familiar with the strength of UK libel laws?
You have a serious problem with ethics and accountability.
I haven't at all any such problems. It is companies like Novell and Microsoft who have such issues and I will happily provide examples.
_e_e_t_
2007-11-26 10:03:16
"We investigate possibilities and collect proof where it is available."
'Investigating possibilities' = fantasizing.
This is not what we would call 'investigating' like in 'journalism'. Investigation first and foremost means calling the people you write about, asking them questions, recording the interviews - and this is something you never ever did.
As for the 'collecting proof'-part - you never have collected any evidence whatsoever. If you did - come on, out with it! Give us some hard evidence for your conspiratorial theories! Present us with a recording of Ballmer discussing the destruction of Linux with Hovsepian. Nothing of the sort? Well, admit it then, finally, that you haven no proof. None whatsoever.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known, pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusiveInternet troll
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 10:04:11
By the way, by talking about legal actions you're burying yourself deeper in the sand because if I spread such information around, that will reflect negatively not just on Novell and its ilk, but also a project that I love. I never said anything libelous and you know this. Showing factual information and raising possibilities is analysis (I even said that it shall be assumed to be false). In fact, you had your chance to rebut this, so there's balance and clarification all in the same page (and parity when it comes to font size, i.e. visibility).
Do you think I have not had the filthiest libelous stuff spread against me by anonymous cowards (some of whom used my own name to say stuff 'on my behalf')? Search the Web and find out more.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 10:07:54
Present us with a recording of Ballmer discussing the destruction of Linux with Hovsepian.
"Microsoft Corp is using scare tactics to exert pressure on PC vendors not to explore the potential of desktop Linux", according to Novell Inc president and COO, Ron Hovsepian.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 10:07:55
See the context along with Web sites that we cited, such as the GNOME Web site which sports what seems like a promotional Novell contact. This is a violation of GNOME’s rules, I believe. There were other examples and I made no accusations. I presented various bits of information and then asked questions.
Listing a press contact for Novell on the GNOME press page is not a violation of any "GNOME rules". You could've asked me about that before you claimed it. It has been there for ages, is probably even inaccurate by now, and does not indicate any kind of financial relationship between GNOME Foundation *directors* and Novell. The fact that Novell is a member of the GNOME Foundation Advisory Board is a matter of very public knowledge.
The websites you linked to provide absolutely no context for questioning the integrity of GNOME Foundation directors including myself (and by association with my company, my wife). I'm sorry, you can't get out of this one. You did ask questions: They were inappropriate, and you had absolutely no evidence to suggest that they were anything but FUD on your part.
I haven’t at all any such problems. It is companies like Novell and Microsoft who have such issues and I will happily provide examples.
Stop falling back on Novell and Microsoft when you are called to account. You are not taking responsibility for the things you have written on this site. You are not showing an ethical (or even sensible) approach to your handling of issues on this site. If you were sensible, you'd do everything you possibly could to make sure this site was above reproach, so that your sustained attack on Novell could be regarded as trustworthy.
You need to back up your accusations and insinuations that GNOME Foundation directors, my company and my wife have financial considerations related to Novell or Microsoft. To avoid this, you are avoiding accountability, and showing that you are willing to muck-rake to create content for this website.
Show me why you've questioned my personal and professional integrity, Roy.
_e_e_t_
2007-11-26 10:08:34
"That’s hilarious coming from you. You’ve been told time after time by this site’s readers to take a hike. Why don’t you?"
Well, there you go again.
You have seriously offended me, and any other critical reader of your blog, by insinuating that every critical voice against your FUD comes from a Microsoft-henchman.
You should rather work on your thesis instead of spending all your time spreading FUD. Which might in the end get you rightfully sued by those you've attacked personally in a nasty and devious way.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known, pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusiveInternet troll
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 10:13:16
By the way, by talking about legal actions you’re burying yourself deeper in the sand because if I spread such information around, that will reflect negatively not just on Novell and its ilk, but also a project that I love. I never said anything libelous and you know this. Showing factual information and raising possibilities is analysis (I even said that it shall be assumed to be false). In fact, you had your chance to rebut this, so there’s balance and clarification all in the same page (and parity when it comes to font size, i.e. visibility).
This is a lie, and a rationalisation to avoid holding yourself to account for your statements. Here is a slight modification of your insinuations against me, my fellow GNOME Foundation directors, my company and my wife:
"Is Roy Schestowitz a paedophile? Does he molest four year olds? I am merely asking because I have not inquired, so these are not facts. Let’s just assume that it’s all false."
I wonder how you feel about that. I wonder if you feel that asking questions such as that, with absolutely no basis in fact, is ethical?
Show me why you’ve questioned my personal and professional integrity, Roy.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 10:21:51
I wonder how you feel about that. I wonder if you feel that asking questions such as that, with absolutely no basis in fact, is ethical?
Show me why you’ve questioned my personal and professional integrity, Roy.
There has been all sort of libelous things used against me in many public forums (this comes from Microsoft shills). It includes claims that I am transgendered, that I have a police record, that I molest children, that I'm a spammer, that I'm gay... you name the lie, the shills have probably spread it by now. It's just a character assassination attempt based on outright lies, so don't think that I'm unfamiliar with the experience of libel.
Show me why you’ve questioned my personal and professional integrity, Roy.
Bear in mind that I did not state anything as though it was a fact and I even explicitly said that the answers to my questions should be assumed to be "No". I believe in your personal and professional integrity, yet I am permitted to express my opinion that I do not trust the integrity of Mr. de Icaza. Moreover, by association, I worry that GNOME's agenda is being subverted by various forces, fueled by promises of fame and power.This is my personal opinion which I am allowed to express. These are not facts.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 10:25:26
I believe in your personal and professional integrity, yet I am permitted to express my opinion that I do not trust the integrity of Mr. de Icaza.
You questioned *MY* integrity, that of GNOME Foundation directors, that of my company, and that of my wife. What you say about Miguel is irrelevant to my question: Show me why you’ve questioned my personal and professional integrity, Roy.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 10:36:54
There are various things that raised suspicion.and I will happily share them with you so that you can understand my concerns:
We pointed out on several occasions (by "we" I mean myself and my readers) that GNOME is being delivered -- as a complete desktop solution in various GNU/Linux distribution -- with Mono encumbrances. You very strongly oppose any such statement and observation made by us and you refuse to accept that we are concerned by this.
GNOME's stance on OOXML (and particularly actions, no matter who coordinates Jody's work) makes the mind boggle. Various other forums, which include people who only read Bruce Byfield's article, are appalled by GNOME's policy on this issue. Quite frankly, we are concerned too.
Both points have one main benefactor -- Microsoft. Quite truthfully, I cannot think of any company that would gain any more from this (not even Novell). Until I receive some answers (in the form of action), I hold the opinion that something is amiss in GNOME. That is my belief. It is my right to believe and I have explained my reasoning.
_e_e_t_
2007-11-26 10:40:44
No, it is not your right to publicly question anyone's personal integrity based on the belief in unproven conspiracies.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known, pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusiveInternet troll
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 10:49:54
We pointed out on several occasions (by “we” I mean myself and my readers) that GNOME is being delivered — as a complete desktop solution in various GNU/Linux distribution — with Mono encumbrances. You very strongly oppose any such statement and observation made by us and you refuse to accept that we are concerned by this.
Multiple distributions do deliver GNOME applications that are written in Mono. In almost every case, all of those applications can be removed without affecting much of the system, and certainly not the GNOME desktop experience (this may be a little different in SUSE, but not as a result of any decision by GNOME). These are decisions made by distributions, and not in any way related to GNOME. The only application in GNOME's official release suites that is built with Mono is Tomboy. You can simply choose not to build it, or to remove it from your distribution. I absolutely accept that you are concerned by the choice made by distributions to include Mono, but I refuse to accept your criticism of GNOME as a result.
GNOME’s stance on OOXML (and particularly actions, no matter who coordinates Jody’s work) makes the mind boggle. Various other forums, which include people who only read Bruce Byfield’s article, are appalled by GNOME’s policy on this issue. Quite frankly, we are concerned too.
That's fine. I'm completely happy to agree to disagree about this. But I reject your persistent demonisation of GNOME and its contributors as a result. We are a project steeped in the philosophy of Software Freedom, and we would not be involved in TC45-M if we thought our involvement was a threat to Software Freedom. We're also not extreme in our views about this issue -- we do not believe that our participation in ECMA necessarily means that we are in league with Microsoft. That is preposterous. We're not supporting ISO standardisation of OOXML, and that has been 100% clear from our statement.
Both points have one main benefactor — Microsoft.
You are stating this as fact (not opinion) and it is an absolute, outright lie. Microsoft are not a benefactor of the GNOME Foundation. There is no relationship between Microsoft and GNOME. Where is your collected information or proof of this? You must now back this up.
I hold the opinion that something is amiss in GNOME. That is my belief. It is my right to believe and I have explained my reasoning.
That's fine, but you are still avoiding the question by roping in other, unrelated topics: Show me why you’ve questioned my personal and professional integrity, Roy.
And now, to add to that based on your claim above: Show me how Microsoft is a benefactor of the GNOME Foundation, Roy.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 11:10:59
I absolutely accept that you are concerned by the choice made by distributions to include Mono, but I refuse to accept your criticism of GNOME as a result.
Fair point. I apologise for barking up the wrong tree. I also hope that GNOME will remain practically separable from Mono (in a classic deployment scenario).
That is preposterous. We’re not supporting ISO standardisation of OOXML, and that has been 100% clear from our statement.
Thanks. I am relived to hear this. I also hope that you are aware of the fact the the Foundation's participation in ECMA (as passive and reluctant as it may be) actually helps OOXML. I realise that it's unfortunate to both us because neither you nor me accept OOXML, right?
You are stating this as fact (not opinion) and it is an absolute, outright lie. Microsoft are not a benefactor of the GNOME Foundation.
No, no. :-) You misinterpreted my words. What I mean to say is that Mono in Linux and GNOME Foundation in ECMA (to correct OOXML issues) is something which Microsoft gains from the most, IMHO.
There is no relationship between Microsoft and GNOME. Where is your collected information or proof of this? You must now back this up.
See above. It's a case of complete misinterpretation. I would never ever think of such a thing. Gawd, no.
Show me why you’ve questioned my personal and professional integrity, Roy.
I didn't question a personal and professional integrity, I said that I wondered if there's a correlation between Microsoft's deal with Novell and some strategic decisions in GNOME. I also wondered about Novell's funding of GNOME. The only part which you consider "personal" here is a sentence where I stated that you run a consultancy. You know, I actually used to admire you for this when I quoted articles about it (from the Aussie press). Now you're attacking me for being curious about something you're affiliated with.
And now, to add to that based on your claim above: Show me how Microsoft is a benefactor of the GNOME Foundation, Roy.
See above. Misinterpretation. Perhaps it's my fault for not being clear enough or accidentally ambiguous.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 11:20:45
I also hope that you are aware of the fact the the Foundation’s participation in ECMA (as passive and reluctant as it may be) actually helps OOXML.
I don't believe this is the case, and have pointed out ways that our involvement in TC45-M has actually helped the case against ISO standardisation of OOXML. I'm totally happy to agree to disagree on this issue (particularly around the issue of "perceived support"), but don't accept your demonisation of GNOME as a result.
You misinterpreted my words.
I did not. You very clearly said: "Both points have one main benefactor — Microsoft." I absolutely reject that Microsoft is a benefactor of the GNOME Foundation, in general or in specific regards to OOXML or Mono. This is absolutely false.
I didn’t question a personal and professional integrity
You did. You questioned my personal and professional integrity by suggesting that I, other GNOME Foundation directors, my company and my wife might (secretly and/or unethically) financially benefit from Novell or Microsoft. Now you've said "I actually used to admire you for this", which appears to seal the deal of your question about my personal and professional integrity.
So, again: Show me why you’ve questioned my personal and professional integrity, and show me how Microsoft is a benefactor of the GNOME Foundation, Roy.
You must take responsibility and provide evidence for your statements on this website.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 11:33:08
I did not. You very clearly said: “Both points have one main benefactor — Microsoft.” I absolutely reject that Microsoft is a benefactor of the GNOME Foundation, in general or in specific regards to OOXML or Mono. This is absolutely false.
Blame my English for this. By benefactor I meant "one that benefits". My bad. I didn't intend to sound like that, whatever it probably means. Beneficiary is maybe a better word? I've just checked to be sure.
"1. Holding some office or valuable possession, in
subordination to another; holding under a feudal or other
superior; having a dependent and secondary possession."
Oh, wait. that's still a bad word to use because it doesn't exactly mean what I intend to say. Anyway, Microsoft is a winner in a situation where Mono and OOXML are treated in this way.
Now you’ve said “I actually used to admire you for this”, which appears to seal the deal of your question about my personal and professional integrity.
Huh? What I meant to say is that I admired your ability to turn a Free software career into a business.
All in all, in one case a word I wrongly used led to misunderstanding (my fault, I'll admit) and the latter case is another misinterpretation.
I'm being truthful with you here. I'm a very calm person and if there's ever a feel of hostility, then it's because we correspond in textual form,
Comments
e-2e#t
2007-11-24 09:56:49
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 14:09:42
I have no idea where your "increased intervention in the GNOME project" charge comes from either. It is simply not based on reality or any kind of knowledge of the project.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 15:08:40
heinz-ruediger
2007-11-24 17:36:39
I think Roy doesn't deserve Jeff's attention.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-24 19:51:27
What about recent plans to have Mono 'extensions' in Evolution (for example)?
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 20:23:42
Novell (and Ximian) developers have been the primary maintainers of Evolution since it was launched. It's not at all surprising that Novell would seek to create Mono-based plugins for Evolution, considering their position on Mono (on which they are essentially alone among GNOME-contributing organisations) and long term investment in the creation of Mono-based applications.
Like pretty much everything else they've done to integrate Mono-based features with GNOME (such Beagle search), Novell developers will have to make it optional at compile time to be accepted by the general community.
That better demonstrates the broader GNOME community's attitude towards Mono than any self-serving, ill-informed "evidence" you've managed to come up with in any of your posts about GNOME and Mono.
Again, I encourage you to fact-check the accusations made in your articles before you post them, particularly when you're writing about communities in the FLOSS world: You have greater access to them than you will ever have access to the companies, and if your intentions towards the FLOSS community are good, then you should pay respect to the people who are actually doing the work of creating Free Software.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-24 20:44:27
From what I can gather, the "general community" that uses GNOME might no longer use Evolution because of .NET IP.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 20:54:29
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-24 21:04:40
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 21:22:42
Come on. Be serious. You're dramatically over-reaching for conspiracies here.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-24 21:31:18
The integration strategy and extension of so-called ECMA 'standards' is nothing new. I fear that Microsoft tries to drag Linux along with its own agenda, only to be a second fiddle with a second-class Silverlight viewer and a broken 'translator' for OOXML (the world needs ODF, not multiple formats and what Heise called the 'translator hoax').
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 21:39:39
What Novell do with OOXML and OpenOffice.org is of no relevance to GNOME. Nor is Moonlight -- a great disappointment to many in the GNOME community, by the way.
It should be noted that we supported Jody's participation in ECMA TC45-M (after he left Novell) to make sure OOXML is properly documented as a result of his work on Gnumeric. It supports the binary Microsoft formats (as does OOo), and Jody is working on initial support for DOCX. Interoperating with shitty Microsoft formats is not something we like doing, but we do it so that users can capably shift to FLOSS solutions without losing access to all their documents. There is *NOTHING* wrong with that. I'm sure your readers appreciate FLOSS support for shitty Microsoft office formats every day for precisely this reason.
DOUGman
2007-11-24 22:03:46
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-24 22:14:31
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 23:03:10
I know, despite their lack of basis in reality, that you will continue to trumpet these concerns. I find that disingenuous and disappointing.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-24 23:15:12
With all due respect, I beg to differ. We have collected plenty of evidence which shows that Microsoft affects Novell's decisions (notably at a managerial/marketing level). That's an indication one one seizing partial control. Since Novell developers are obedient to their bosses, they will naturally comply with the requests of Novell (and Microsoft, by proxy).
What concerns me are the many attempts to take a hit at this Web site's credibility and reputation. Some people hope for an embargo; they harm the message and hope it goes away. I know other sites whose reputation was ruined by such attempts and I can confirm there is slander going on, such as anonymous posters arguing that we launch DDOS attacks. More recently, folks said we distribute Trojans as means of getting us blacklisted (again, using utterly false accusation).
Anyway, my point is that trying to take cheap shots at the site (as a whole) is a task which is better off left to Bruce Lowry. He does just that when he sort of warns bloggers not to link to us. Why shoot the messenger?
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-24 23:27:29
Finally, you've said "it's just a blog" and that it is not intended to reflect a balanced view. From my perspective, on the receiving end of your behaviour, I can confirm that you are not even interested in *attempting* a balanced view.
And yet, I have offered my help to you over and over and over again. It is getting beyond a joke at this point, but I have enough integrity and belief in the GNOME project and community that I will attempt to contribute positively to your reporting despite the outrageous barbs and inappropriateness of your behaviour.
SundayRefugee
2007-11-25 01:47:25
I love the GNOME DE personally. I vastly prefer it to KDE. However, I wouldn't hesitate to drop it in a second if there are ethical (wrt FOSS), patent, or legal liabilities (even potential). Can the GNOME foundation then offer some sort of indemnity/guarantee that, to the best knowledge of the developers, users are working with a patent-free/FOSS DE? If not, I think the distinctions need to be made. It would clear up alot on both sides, for users without the technical know-how ;) In a nutshell - many GNOME users are using GNOME to get AWAY from MS and proprietary software. Are such GNOME users using the right DE?
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-25 01:57:29
But keep in mind that basically no FLOSS project (or organisation behind the project, such as the GNOME Foundation) could *EVER* do it in those terms. That requires real money, a real income, and most likely, licensing fees. Obviously that's completely unsustainable for non-profit organisations that do not derive income from their software projects.
Also, pretty much every piece of software, FLOSS or proprietary, would be in violation of a patent (of not more than one). Of course, this is a problem with the patent system, not with software developers.
That said, we *are* doing things to protect GNOME developers and distributors from legal issues (particularly with regards to patents)... You're very likely to see some announcements about that in upcoming weeks.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-25 02:00:46
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-25 02:01:47
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-25 02:04:41
He was talking about the legal case (a la Red Hat), which isn't what I thought it was (based on your reply).
SundayRefugee
2007-11-25 20:06:55
An illustration of my point:
Various polls circa 2004 show KDE outnumbering GNOME on the home desktop 2/1 to 3/1, depending on the poll. Along comes Ubuntu, and these numbers are now roughly equal.
Even a quick perusal of the Ubuntu forums shows that a great many (most) are using Ubuntu to get AWAY from Windows and Microsoft technology and IP. Recent surveys show most users don't use WINE. The trends all seem to be indicating MS-free Linux environments.
The last thing a Ubuntu user wants is to find out, 2 years from now, that their distro is embroiled in an IP battle wrt MS tech.
Can the GNOME Foundation indemnify GNOME devs, distributors, and users, to best knowledge, against MS IP? If not, why? If there are specific known instances in which this cannot be done, is it not best to avoid the tech altogether?
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-25 20:13:28
Do you know what indemnification means? It means, substantially, having an enormous amount of insurance. The GNOME Foundation simply can't do that. We don't have the money or income to provide any kind of serious indemnification for any of those audiences. Do not mistake this for a fault of the GNOME Foundation, it is simply out of reach for any FLOSS project or backing organisation.
Commercial distributors can and do provide such indemnification for a whole range of FLOSS products. As they have substantial incomes and customers, they have the incentive and funds available to do this. All of the major distributors have chosen GNOME as their desktop of choice, so you'll be able to find this kind of legal support from them.
Again I'll stress that all software, proprietary or FLOSS, is extremely likely to violate patents. It is simply the nature of software, and the broken patent system that this is the case.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-25 20:16:27
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-25 20:21:25
This isn't the first time that you mention this (we discussed this via E-mail), but yesterday I wrote to explain why the analogies you use are flawed and there are other issues to consider. Mono isn't just about patents.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-25 20:22:45
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-25 20:26:29
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-25 20:31:52
The Commission has also acknowledged the fact that Microsoft made "trivial and pointless" modifications to established interoperability protocols, probably to stifle competition.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-25 21:20:08
SundayRefugee
2007-11-26 07:28:34
The problem is that there is already a known attack vector. The vector comes from Novell, ala "moonlight", active and open support (not just requesting better documentation, but "yes" votes) for OOXML, and possibly Mono. It's happening in part because a VP is not only the creator of these but also of GNOME. GNOME use of Mono in distro, if not in development, does not appear to be decreasing. I don't think it can be argued that Miguel very much wants a Microsoft Linux, and the appropriate pat on the head now, whatever incredibly talented and uniquely gifted visionary he has been. To read the GNOME Foundation on the ECMA list does nothing to quiet fears.
Given the tangled web above, it's not hard to see why it's a confusing issue. GNOME is the primary attack vector for Novell/Miguel, and the GNOME foundation's silence on the issue almost seems to confirm the worst fears. It's the old "Man, if that were even remotely false, they'd come out swinging and deny it...". Guilt is often made by association now, and in this case it's Miguel/GNOME. Miguel/Novell are helping to MSize Linux, primarily through (their) GNOME, and in light of that, retaining Miguel, and going so far as defending his continuing membership sends, at the very least, a mixed message to much of the community that sees a continuing "windowization" of Linux, primarily through GNOME. I think most of the community wants a clear line of demarcation, and a separation of the "windowization" faction from the "FLOSS" faction in GNOME, or at least something we can see publicly.
With the above entangled web of a situation, (at least as far as the public, such as myself, can research and see), the lines are extremely blurred. That the GNOME Foundation as a whole has not been more proactive about these issues has hurt them.
Please understand that I do not write this from the perspective of a developer, distributor, or maintainer. Just an ordinary user. A user who greatly prefers GNOME to KDE, XFCE, E17, and everything else on the market. A user who wants to keep MS out of my Linux, and those who want to shill MS clones out of my GNOME, but to be able to continue using my beloved GNOME (and I used it before the Ubuntu explosion).
I would take it as a kindness if you did not respond with any ad-homs such as "stupid", "idiocy", etc... I have not meant to be disrespectful anywhere in my post. I acknowledge I do not have 1/100th of your Open Source or GNOME knowledge, which is why I am trying to take advantage of a rare opportunity to address this directly. If you feel that this post is beneath you, I would rather you simply not respond. Ad-homing genuinely concerned users would look bad for the project, and I would rather not see that happen. Even if you think the user is a nutter :p
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 09:12:32
Well, aside from the fact that you've set up a dangerous double-standard there, of course I can't assure users of that -- I don't know which patents Microsoft hold, because they won't tell us... and Microsoft are actually not the greatest danger to FLOSS organisations and users. Consider that it is Acacia that have gone up against Red Hat and Novell about GNOME technology, not Microsoft (whatever the conspiracy theories of the day are about Microsoft's relationship with Acacia).
You're asking for something that isn't practicable, and something that no one else could give you.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 09:22:30
Why do you try to argue that sites revolve around conspiracy theories? Is it because sites that doubt Novell and the GNOME Foundation's handling of OOXML happen to present relevant evidence? You know, the whole SCO-Microsoft connection used to a conspiracy theory as well several years ago. Who had the last laugh?
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 09:36:23
What "relevant evidence" about "the GNOME Foundation's handling of OOXML" have you reported, and what was it evidence of? You've reported your insinuations about potential financial considerations of GNOME Foundation directors including myself (and by association in your post, my wife) -- but these were only questions, and did not expose any relevant evidence or even research to suggest that there was any basis of truth whatsoever.
I can tell you clear as day what the answer to those questions is, but you don't ask. You're only interested in posting the snide insinuations, not the actual truth of these matters. Any truths you do post are second-hand and not of your own research.
You're 100% FUD until you can link to something real, and even if you're shown to be wrong, you still post snarky questions and snide insinuations. You've suggested that I've lied to you or not told you the complete truth on multiple occasions, calling my integrity into question.
You continue to attack leaders in the FLOSS community and their projects, and yet you refuse to be accountable for your actions.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 09:45:48
_e_e_t_
2007-11-26 09:49:26
When I repeatedly asked to produce some, you labeled me 'troll', averted the question and conveniently weaseled your way out of the situation by playing offended.
Luckily you cannot play this game any longer, as you don't dare doing it with Jeff Waugh.
It is time the Linux community sees you for what you really are. A troll.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known, pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 09:52:00
Which possibilities did you investigate, and which proof or information did you collect to inspire your post that questioned my integrity, the integrity of my fellow GNOME Foundation directors, and the integrity of my business and wife? What backing do you have for that? That kind of nastiness and baseless insinuation is inappropriate in public life. Are you familiar with the strength of UK libel laws?
"and we let the readers decide"... You openly admit you're a one-sided blog, and you say this. You don't even realise that you're echoing Fox News here?
You have a serious problem with ethics and accountability.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 09:52:05
That's hilarious coming from you. You've been told time after time by this site's readers to take a hike. Why don't you? You're here only to troll with personal attacks.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 09:58:04
See the context along with Web sites that we cited, such as the GNOME Web site which sports what seems like a promotional Novell contact. This is a violation of GNOME's rules, I believe. There were other examples and I made no accusations. I presented various bits of information and then asked questions.
I'll take that as a threat. Miguel has already attempted this. It would be sad if you chose to go down this route.
I haven't at all any such problems. It is companies like Novell and Microsoft who have such issues and I will happily provide examples.
_e_e_t_
2007-11-26 10:03:16
'Investigating possibilities' = fantasizing.
This is not what we would call 'investigating' like in 'journalism'. Investigation first and foremost means calling the people you write about, asking them questions, recording the interviews - and this is something you never ever did.
As for the 'collecting proof'-part - you never have collected any evidence whatsoever. If you did - come on, out with it! Give us some hard evidence for your conspiratorial theories! Present us with a recording of Ballmer discussing the destruction of Linux with Hovsepian. Nothing of the sort? Well, admit it then, finally, that you haven no proof. None whatsoever.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known, pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 10:04:11
Do you think I have not had the filthiest libelous stuff spread against me by anonymous cowards (some of whom used my own name to say stuff 'on my behalf')? Search the Web and find out more.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 10:07:54
On Microsoft and Novell (2006):
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 10:07:55
Listing a press contact for Novell on the GNOME press page is not a violation of any "GNOME rules". You could've asked me about that before you claimed it. It has been there for ages, is probably even inaccurate by now, and does not indicate any kind of financial relationship between GNOME Foundation *directors* and Novell. The fact that Novell is a member of the GNOME Foundation Advisory Board is a matter of very public knowledge.
The websites you linked to provide absolutely no context for questioning the integrity of GNOME Foundation directors including myself (and by association with my company, my wife). I'm sorry, you can't get out of this one. You did ask questions: They were inappropriate, and you had absolutely no evidence to suggest that they were anything but FUD on your part.
Stop falling back on Novell and Microsoft when you are called to account. You are not taking responsibility for the things you have written on this site. You are not showing an ethical (or even sensible) approach to your handling of issues on this site. If you were sensible, you'd do everything you possibly could to make sure this site was above reproach, so that your sustained attack on Novell could be regarded as trustworthy.
You need to back up your accusations and insinuations that GNOME Foundation directors, my company and my wife have financial considerations related to Novell or Microsoft. To avoid this, you are avoiding accountability, and showing that you are willing to muck-rake to create content for this website.
Show me why you've questioned my personal and professional integrity, Roy.
_e_e_t_
2007-11-26 10:08:34
Well, there you go again.
You have seriously offended me, and any other critical reader of your blog, by insinuating that every critical voice against your FUD comes from a Microsoft-henchman.
You should rather work on your thesis instead of spending all your time spreading FUD. Which might in the end get you rightfully sued by those you've attacked personally in a nasty and devious way.
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known, pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 10:13:16
This is a lie, and a rationalisation to avoid holding yourself to account for your statements. Here is a slight modification of your insinuations against me, my fellow GNOME Foundation directors, my company and my wife:
"Is Roy Schestowitz a paedophile? Does he molest four year olds? I am merely asking because I have not inquired, so these are not facts. Let’s just assume that it’s all false."
I wonder how you feel about that. I wonder if you feel that asking questions such as that, with absolutely no basis in fact, is ethical?
Show me why you’ve questioned my personal and professional integrity, Roy.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 10:21:51
There has been all sort of libelous things used against me in many public forums (this comes from Microsoft shills). It includes claims that I am transgendered, that I have a police record, that I molest children, that I'm a spammer, that I'm gay... you name the lie, the shills have probably spread it by now. It's just a character assassination attempt based on outright lies, so don't think that I'm unfamiliar with the experience of libel.
Bear in mind that I did not state anything as though it was a fact and I even explicitly said that the answers to my questions should be assumed to be "No". I believe in your personal and professional integrity, yet I am permitted to express my opinion that I do not trust the integrity of Mr. de Icaza. Moreover, by association, I worry that GNOME's agenda is being subverted by various forces, fueled by promises of fame and power.This is my personal opinion which I am allowed to express. These are not facts.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 10:25:26
You questioned *MY* integrity, that of GNOME Foundation directors, that of my company, and that of my wife. What you say about Miguel is irrelevant to my question: Show me why you’ve questioned my personal and professional integrity, Roy.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 10:36:54
Both points have one main benefactor -- Microsoft. Quite truthfully, I cannot think of any company that would gain any more from this (not even Novell). Until I receive some answers (in the form of action), I hold the opinion that something is amiss in GNOME. That is my belief. It is my right to believe and I have explained my reasoning.
_e_e_t_
2007-11-26 10:40:44
Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known, pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 10:49:54
Multiple distributions do deliver GNOME applications that are written in Mono. In almost every case, all of those applications can be removed without affecting much of the system, and certainly not the GNOME desktop experience (this may be a little different in SUSE, but not as a result of any decision by GNOME). These are decisions made by distributions, and not in any way related to GNOME. The only application in GNOME's official release suites that is built with Mono is Tomboy. You can simply choose not to build it, or to remove it from your distribution. I absolutely accept that you are concerned by the choice made by distributions to include Mono, but I refuse to accept your criticism of GNOME as a result.
That's fine. I'm completely happy to agree to disagree about this. But I reject your persistent demonisation of GNOME and its contributors as a result. We are a project steeped in the philosophy of Software Freedom, and we would not be involved in TC45-M if we thought our involvement was a threat to Software Freedom. We're also not extreme in our views about this issue -- we do not believe that our participation in ECMA necessarily means that we are in league with Microsoft. That is preposterous. We're not supporting ISO standardisation of OOXML, and that has been 100% clear from our statement.
You are stating this as fact (not opinion) and it is an absolute, outright lie. Microsoft are not a benefactor of the GNOME Foundation. There is no relationship between Microsoft and GNOME. Where is your collected information or proof of this? You must now back this up.
That's fine, but you are still avoiding the question by roping in other, unrelated topics: Show me why you’ve questioned my personal and professional integrity, Roy.
And now, to add to that based on your claim above: Show me how Microsoft is a benefactor of the GNOME Foundation, Roy.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 11:10:59
Fair point. I apologise for barking up the wrong tree. I also hope that GNOME will remain practically separable from Mono (in a classic deployment scenario).
Thanks. I am relived to hear this. I also hope that you are aware of the fact the the Foundation's participation in ECMA (as passive and reluctant as it may be) actually helps OOXML. I realise that it's unfortunate to both us because neither you nor me accept OOXML, right?
No, no. :-) You misinterpreted my words. What I mean to say is that Mono in Linux and GNOME Foundation in ECMA (to correct OOXML issues) is something which Microsoft gains from the most, IMHO.
See above. It's a case of complete misinterpretation. I would never ever think of such a thing. Gawd, no.
I didn't question a personal and professional integrity, I said that I wondered if there's a correlation between Microsoft's deal with Novell and some strategic decisions in GNOME. I also wondered about Novell's funding of GNOME. The only part which you consider "personal" here is a sentence where I stated that you run a consultancy. You know, I actually used to admire you for this when I quoted articles about it (from the Aussie press). Now you're attacking me for being curious about something you're affiliated with.
See above. Misinterpretation. Perhaps it's my fault for not being clear enough or accidentally ambiguous.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-26 11:20:45
I don't believe this is the case, and have pointed out ways that our involvement in TC45-M has actually helped the case against ISO standardisation of OOXML. I'm totally happy to agree to disagree on this issue (particularly around the issue of "perceived support"), but don't accept your demonisation of GNOME as a result.
I did not. You very clearly said: "Both points have one main benefactor — Microsoft." I absolutely reject that Microsoft is a benefactor of the GNOME Foundation, in general or in specific regards to OOXML or Mono. This is absolutely false.
You did. You questioned my personal and professional integrity by suggesting that I, other GNOME Foundation directors, my company and my wife might (secretly and/or unethically) financially benefit from Novell or Microsoft. Now you've said "I actually used to admire you for this", which appears to seal the deal of your question about my personal and professional integrity.
So, again: Show me why you’ve questioned my personal and professional integrity, and show me how Microsoft is a benefactor of the GNOME Foundation, Roy.
You must take responsibility and provide evidence for your statements on this website.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-26 11:33:08
Blame my English for this. By benefactor I meant "one that benefits". My bad. I didn't intend to sound like that, whatever it probably means. Beneficiary is maybe a better word? I've just checked to be sure.
"1. Holding some office or valuable possession, in subordination to another; holding under a feudal or other superior; having a dependent and secondary possession."
Oh, wait. that's still a bad word to use because it doesn't exactly mean what I intend to say. Anyway, Microsoft is a winner in a situation where Mono and OOXML are treated in this way.
Huh? What I meant to say is that I admired your ability to turn a Free software career into a business.
All in all, in one case a word I wrongly used led to misunderstanding (my fault, I'll admit) and the latter case is another misinterpretation.
I'm being truthful with you here. I'm a very calm person and if there's ever a feel of hostility, then it's because we correspond in textual form,