07.24.09
Posted in ECMA, Formats, ISO, Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument, Standard, XPS at 3:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: ECMA is done with Microsoft XPS, time to shove it down ISO’s throat
LAST YEAR we warned that Microsoft would attempt to repeat something like the OOXML fiasco, this time for a static document format. This was also alluded to in [1, 2, 3].
“It is Microsoft’s proprietary, inferior duplicate of PDF — just another proprietary format in Microsoft’s control.”Now that ECMA, a body that stamps virtually anything provided sufficient payments, is done with XPS (press release from this week), it is expected that Microsoft will try to ram it down ISO’s throat. It is Microsoft’s proprietary, inferior duplicate of PDF — just another proprietary format in Microsoft’s control. As David Gerard puts it, “Microsoft tries to push completely superfluous garbage through ECMA in preparation for ISO.”
Over at Wikipedia, the Microsoft proponents are pushing opinions of Microsoft as facts (see edit: “opinion was stated as fact”) and there are more corrections that annul the latest deeds of Ghettoblaster et al. It is worth keeping an eye on Microsoft's intervention in Wikipedia because of whisper campaigns. █
From the Campaign for Document Freedom
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.09.09
Posted in ECMA, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 3:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
…or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Look at the Wookie.
Misdirection is a curious thing, and in the hands of Microsoft “evangelists” (such as Miguel de Icaza), it’s positively dangerous.
Apparently, de Icaza is slavering [1] over Microsoft’s recent announcement [2] that they “will be applying the Community
Promise [3] to the ECMA 334 and ECMA 335 specs”.
That’s nice.
So now the pro-MONOpolists have three things to cheer about:
1. Poisoning Free Software with Microsoft’s IP (and paradigm)
2. The ECMA RAND /price/ guarantee
3. Microsoft’s misleading “covenant”
Let’s look at these in more detail.
First, if we naively assume there are in fact zero “IP” risks involved in implementing C#/CLI, that still leaves the question of why should the Free Software community help spread Microsoft’s standards, regardless of how “safe” any of those standards might be?
After all, Microsoft is the self-declared enemy of Free Software, they think it’s “a cancer”, and that GNU/Linux is “Microsoft’s number one competitor”. Their criminal and unethical behaviour alone, over the last three decades, should be sufficient reason to not want to help them, but given the very obvious conflicts of interest here, I’d say it’s patently obvious there must be a catch. Microsoft is not the sort of company that helps its competitors … ever, not unless it can work some nefarious angle (embrace, extend, and extinguish).
Historically, and still to this day (OOXML), Microsoft uses its proprietary, reinvented “standards” to try to squash all competition, by tying those “standards” to software that’s bundled with nearly all PCs, by OEMs, under financial coercion [4] [5].
Bear in mind that this devious “standards” tactic is the key weapon Microsoft uses to protect its monopoly.
Is this something we should be helping them with?
“Microsoft is not the sort of company that helps its competitors … ever, not unless it can work some nefarious angle (embrace, extend, and extinguish).”The second point, and I’ll make it brief since there’s very little to discuss about it, is that the ECMA RAND is only a guarantee of fair price (parity). It has nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft’s rights to sue you for patent violation. A classic misdirection used by the pro-MONOpolists.
The final, and most pertinent point, is that Microsoft’s so-called “Community Promise” is just another misdirection, because its “truths” are incomplete, in some cases questionable, and in yet other cases wholly irrelevant (essentially non sequitur).
Here’s a simple analysis:
The “covenant” (and the RAND) do not apply to large portions of .NET (e.g. ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Winforms). This is significant because it means .NET programs which utilise these components will not be (legally) interoperable with systems running Mono. This means there will be great disparity between C# programs on Windows and their ports on GNU/Linux, and this fact will be abused by Microsoft to promote Windows as the “better” system. It will also have the effect of attracting Mono developers over to Windows, who may subsequently abandon GNU/Linux. It may even represent an actual “IP” risk, if de Icaza and friends are not entirely vigilant (or possibly if they’re complicit with Microsoft’s anti-Free Software agenda. At this point, anything’s possible).
The “covenant” conveniently ignores these essential details.
Microsoft also makes a big deal out of its claim that this “covenant” is “legally binding”. Well, is it? Not really. It’s not legally binding in the sense that an actual patent grant is, since that is an explicit contract with a named party. It may become legally binding … if used as a challenge in court. But of course it does actually need to be tested in court /first/. If you were, for example, Red Hat, would you want to be the guinea pig? Oh how Microsoft would love the opportunity to squash that piggy.
In fact, it’s debatable whether they’d even be covered by this “covenant” at all, since (in Microsoft’s own words) “The CP applies only if the implementation conforms fully to required portions of the specification. Partial implementations are not covered” … and “The Community Promise applies to all existing versions of the specifications”. So this raises the questions what is covered, and exactly how feasible is it to implement this “full specification” under Mono (or DotGNU, or any other unlicensed implementation)? Even more importantly, what will not be covered in the future, as and when the specifications change?
Oh yes, Microsoft also make a big deal about their claim that these rights are “irrevocable”, but they fail to clarify that these
“irrevocable rights” only apply to the standard as it stands today. And we all know how Microsoft loves to “extend” things, don’t we?
So in summary, Microsoft’s “promise” is worthless, irrelevant, and entirely misleading. I’m sure it’ll bring a brief moment of euphoria to the pro-MONOpolists, who will now believe they have a new argument to support their aspirations to poison Free Software with Microsoft’s toxin, but in the long term it amounts to nothing. Nothing but trouble, at least. █
____
[1] http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jul-06.html
[2] http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the…
[3] http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
[4] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200…
[5] http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-boot…
Analysis by Slated
“The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among human creatures.” ~ Abraham Lincoln
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.22.09
Posted in Antitrust, ECMA, Finance, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Patents, TomTom at 8:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Mono suffers from an issue of trust — one must trust Microsoft just like TomTom trusted them
NOVELL, like Mono, is impossible to trust. Would anyone trust a company whose CEO rakes in millions in bonuses despite abysmal performance? Yes, Novell fires GNU/Linux developers (supposedly its business focus) while giving Ron Hovsepian a $6 million bonus. Novell fails to beat its own goals and it had been taking loans while its CEO was essentially robbing the company for personal benefit. Why do so many good reporters fail to see this?
“Whose agenda is actually served by Mono? Microsoft’s of course.”As the treasonous deal with Microsoft demonstrated, Novell is a morally deprived company, with the possibility of imminent financial bankruptcy too, or at least the splitting for sake of survival. Whose agenda is actually served by Mono? Microsoft’s of course. And the more times goes on, the more obvious it becomes. In fact, Novell has begun development which puts Windows in a position of advantage even for Mono [1, 2, 3]. What more compelling proof do proponents of Mono require before the Eureka moment? Some of those Mono proponents are former Microsoft employees and at least one person from the Mono team is working for Microsoft at present.
And with this blunt introduction off my chest, I hand it over to Slated, who equally bluntly wrote the following about what makes Mono so dangerous:
This single, vague yet far reaching example, is as much as I personally have been able to discover.
The ECMA declaration is indeed just a statement of intent.
However, the substantive point is that .NET is Microsoft technology, and as such you can be sure they have it patented up to the hilt, and one way or another Microsoft will use those patents as a weapon against its enemies. It would be extremely naive (in fact dangerous) to assume otherwise, because Microsoft have a violent history of aggression in their crusade to protect their racketeering operation.
“The best case scenario might be that Mono developers find themselves having to abandon whole projects, or at least significant parts of them, in order to “work around” the problem.”The problem is that, outside of Redmond HQ (and presumably UPSTO), nobody has the faintest clue as to what these patents might be, if any, and of course Microsoft have so far remained silent on the issue (much like the infamous “Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents” scandal, except this time the intent is initially somewhat more subtle and subversive, rather than being a more obvious and aggressive FUD attack). This also begs the question of how de Icaza and friends intend to “work around” non-ECMA covered patents, if he doesn’t have the first clue as to what
exactly is, or is not, patented, and by the time he eventually finds out, it may be too late (assuming he isn’t already privy to Microsoft’s darkest secrets).
The best case scenario might be that Mono developers find themselves having to abandon whole projects, or at least significant parts of them, in order to “work around” the problem. The worst case scenario is that Microsoft begins an all-out frontal attack (just like they did with TomTom).
Naturally Microsoft finds this situation very useful, since it enables them to poison Free Software in a subversive fashion, and with little resistance, especially as they have pacified certain key developers with “RAND” assurances. The problem is that the ECMA RAND only pertains to certain parts of the .NET framework, and moreover the “RAND” itself only refers to price (i.e. a fair and reasonable price). This doesn’t actually prevent Microsoft from suing those who implement that technology without a license, and the private (i.e. unofficial) assurances they’ve given regarding “royalty free” are, at this stage, nothing more than hot air (i.e. dependent on implicit trust, rather than being legally binding). To be legally binding, every GNU/Linux distro would require an explicit patent grant from Microsoft, which is not what either the ECMA RAND nor the so-called “covenant” are. Novell presumably has such a grant, as part of their agreement, others don’t. Exactly what sinister implications entering into such an agreement entails, is anyone’s guess, since they are (like everything else Microsoft does) yet another dark secret (Memorandum of Understanding), but you can be sure it isn’t good, or at least it is very good for Microsoft, which means it will inevitably be very bad for everyone else.
IOW it’s all a big mystery, and deliberately so (patent pending).
Then again, maybe not.
After all, this is Microsoft we’re talking about, and there’s very little mystery about their motives, is there? So do we actually even need to know the details? We should all know more than enough about the history of these gangsters, to steer well clear of anything tainted by them.
Here’s a shortlist of things we can safely assume Microsoft considers to be their “enemy”:
. Competing operating systems
. Interoperability (i.e. anything which enables operation on the above)
. Open Standards (ditto)
. Free Software (ditto)
. Any company which distributes or primarily utilises any of the above
And here’s a few key facts about Microsoft:
. They have a global software monopoly
. They abuse that monopoly to suppress competition
. They use highly unethical, and often illegal, tactics in the above
. They are only motivated by power and greed, to attain domination
. They essentially operate like gangsters
Now study those two lists, then give me one good reason why anyone should implicitly trust Microsoft to:
a) Do anything that helps GNU/Linux
b) Keep their legally non-binding “royalty free” promise
c) Keep their “covenant to not sue” promise (hint: TomTom)
d) Not launch a submarine patent attack against Mono projects
e) Not abuse the confusion over Mono as leverage for cross-licensing “deals”, to pervert the GNU/Linux distro landscape into an extension of Microsoft’s portfolio of rotting carcasses
Seems pretty simple to me, but then I am allegedly rather “monochromatic”.
Ultimately, one only needs to ask oneself this single question, to determine whether or not they should have anything to do with Mono, either as users or developers:
Do you trust, and therefore wish to help, the self-declared enemy of Free Software, Microsoft, a company which inhibits all competition using immoral and criminal methods, similar to gangsters running a racketeering operation?
My answer: No.
I really don’t need to know any more.
Case closed. █
“Our partnership with Microsoft continues to expand.”
–Ron Hovsepian, Novell CEO
“[The partnership with Microsoft is] going very well insofar as we originally agreed to co-operate on three distinct projects and now we’re working on nine projects and there’s a good list of 19 other projects that we plan to co-operate on.”
–Ron Hovsepian, Novell CEO
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.12.09
Posted in ECMA, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, OpenSUSE at 8:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Siouxsie and the Banshees
Summary: Banshee brings Winforms with it after all (not part of ECMA reference)
ONE of our contributors mailed us regarding this post where we were vilified for suggesting that Banshee needed Winforms. Well, our contributor says that “it’s true that Ubuntu’s implementation of Banshee does not depend on Winforms, but on Fedora 11 it does. So does Tomboy. At least, when I try and install tomboy or banshee, they both want to pull in winforms.
“Whether it is actually needed by either application I’m not sure, but even though Red Hat is shipping Fedora 11 without Tomboy installing it will pull in Windows forms by default when users install it. Whether this is actually a problem or not, I can’t say.”
Those examples we were given (as above) can be proven as follows.
For Bashee:
Loaded plugins: downloadonly, refresh-packagekit
Setting up Install Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package banshee.i586 0:1.4.3-3.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gdk-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(notify-sharp) = 0.4.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NDesk.DBus.GLib) = 1.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Cairo) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) = 0.4.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Boo.Lang.Compiler) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(mscorlib) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Addins.Gui) = 0.4.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(pango-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(MusicBrainz) = 1.4.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Data.SqliteClient) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gconf-sharp) = 2.24.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Xml) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(glib-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Web) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Addins) = 0.4.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Posix) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gtk-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib) = 2.84.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Data) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(glade-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Zeroconf) = 2.0.0.76 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NDesk.DBus) = 1.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gnome-sharp) = 2.24.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: banshee-musicbrainz = 1.4.3-3.fc11 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(taglib-sharp) = 2.0.3.2 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: podsleuth for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono-addins for package: banshee
--> Running transaction check
---> Package banshee-musicbrainz.i586 0:1.4.3-3.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package boo.i586 0:0.8.1.2865-6.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NAnt.DotNetTasks) = 0.85.2478.0 for package: boo
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NAnt.Core) = 0.85.2478.0 for package: boo
---> Package gnome-sharp.i586 0:2.24.0-3.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package gtk-sharp2.i586 0:2.12.7-4.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-addins.i586 0:0.4-6.20091702svn127062.1.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-core.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(monodoc) = 1.0.0.0 for package: mono-core
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Configuration.Install) = 1.0.5000.0 for package: mono-core
---> Package mono-data.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-data-sqlite.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-web.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Design) = 2.0.0.0 for package: mono-web
---> Package mono-zeroconf.i586 0:0.7.6-8.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(avahi-sharp) = 1.0.0.0 for package: mono-zeroconf
---> Package ndesk-dbus.i586 0:0.6.1a-4.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package ndesk-dbus-glib.i586 0:0.4.1-4.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package notify-sharp.i586 0:0.4.0-0.6.20080912svn.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package podsleuth.i586 0:0.6.3-2.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package taglib-sharp.i586 0:2.0.3.2-2.fc11 set to be updated
--> Running transaction check
---> Package avahi-sharp.i586 0:0.6.25-1.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-extras.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-winforms.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package monodoc.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package nant.i586 1:0.85-27.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(nunit.util) = 2.2.10.0 for package: nant
--> Processing Dependency: mono(ICSharpCode.SharpCvsLib) = 0.35.3721.507 for package: nant
--> Processing Dependency: mono(nunit.core) = 2.2.10.0 for package: nant
--> Processing Dependency: mono(log4net) = 1.2.10.0 for package: nant
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NDoc.Core) = 1.3.3344.0 for package: nant
--> Running transaction check
---> Package log4net.i586 0:1.2.10-5.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-ndoc.i586 0:1.3.1-4.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-nunit22.i586 1:2.2.10-9.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-sharpcvslib.i586 0:0.35-9.fc11 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Dependencies Resolved
================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository
Size
================================================================================
Installing:
banshee i586 1.4.3-3.fc11 fedora 3.0 M
Installing for dependencies:
avahi-sharp i586 0.6.25-1.fc11 fedora 35 k
banshee-musicbrainz i586 1.4.3-3.fc11 fedora 40 k
boo i586 0.8.1.2865-6.fc11 fedora 810 k
gnome-sharp i586 2.24.0-3.fc11 fedora 327 k
gtk-sharp2 i586 2.12.7-4.fc11 fedora 819 k
log4net i586 1.2.10-5.fc11 fedora 96 k
mono-addins i586 0.4-6.20091702svn127062.1.fc11 fedora 484 k
mono-core i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 12 M
mono-data i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 1.5 M
mono-data-sqlite i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 158 k
mono-extras i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 1.5 M
mono-ndoc i586 1.3.1-4.fc11 fedora 304 k
mono-nunit22 i586 1:2.2.10-9.fc11 fedora 148 k
mono-sharpcvslib i586 0.35-9.fc11 fedora 502 k
mono-web i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 3.1 M
mono-winforms i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 3.0 M
mono-zeroconf i586 0.7.6-8.fc11 fedora 60 k
monodoc i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 7.3 M
nant i586 1:0.85-27.fc11 fedora 637 k
ndesk-dbus i586 0.6.1a-4.fc11 fedora 52 k
ndesk-dbus-glib i586 0.4.1-4.fc11 fedora 11 k
notify-sharp i586 0.4.0-0.6.20080912svn.fc11 fedora 14 k
podsleuth i586 0.6.3-2.fc11 fedora 48 k
taglib-sharp i586 2.0.3.2-2.fc11 fedora 188 k
Transaction Summary
================================================================================
Install 25 Package(s)
Update 0 Package(s)
Remove 0 Package(s)
Total download size: 36 M
Is this ok [y/N]: Exiting on user Command
Complete!
For Tomboy:
Loaded plugins: downloadonly, refresh-packagekit
Setting up Install Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package tomboy.i586 0:0.14.1-2.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gdk-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Addins) = 0.4.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(mscorlib) = 2.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Posix) = 2.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gtk-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Addins.Gui) = 0.4.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NDesk.DBus) = 1.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gnome-sharp) = 2.24.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(pango-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gconf-sharp) = 2.24.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NDesk.DBus.GLib) = 1.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Xml) = 2.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Cairo) = 2.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gconf-sharp-peditors) = 2.24.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(glib-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) = 0.4.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System) = 2.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gnome-panel-sharp) = 2.24.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Running transaction check
---> Package gnome-desktop-sharp.i586 0:2.26.0-1.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package gnome-sharp.i586 0:2.24.0-3.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package gtk-sharp2.i586 0:2.12.7-4.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-addins.i586 0:0.4-6.20091702svn127062.1.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-core.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Web) = 2.0.0.0 for package: mono-core
--> Processing Dependency: mono(monodoc) = 1.0.0.0 for package: mono-core
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Configuration.Install) = 1.0.5000.0 for package: mono-core
---> Package ndesk-dbus.i586 0:0.6.1a-4.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package ndesk-dbus-glib.i586 0:0.4.1-4.fc11 set to be updated
--> Running transaction check
---> Package mono-extras.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Windows.Forms) = 2.0.0.0 for package: mono-extras
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Transactions) = 2.0.0.0 for package: mono-extras
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Windows.Forms) = 1.0.5000.0 for package: mono-extras
---> Package mono-web.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Data.Sqlite) = 2.0.0.0 for package: mono-web
---> Package monodoc.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Running transaction check
---> Package mono-data.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-data-sqlite.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-winforms.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Dependencies Resolved
================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository
Size
================================================================================
Installing:
tomboy i586 0.14.1-2.fc11 fedora 4.6 M
Installing for dependencies:
gnome-desktop-sharp i586 2.26.0-1.fc11 fedora 211 k
gnome-sharp i586 2.24.0-3.fc11 fedora 327 k
gtk-sharp2 i586 2.12.7-4.fc11 fedora 819 k
mono-addins i586 0.4-6.20091702svn127062.1.fc11 fedora 484 k
mono-core i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 12 M
mono-data i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 1.5 M
mono-data-sqlite i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 158 k
mono-extras i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 1.5 M
mono-web i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 3.1 M
mono-winforms i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 3.0 M
monodoc i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 7.3 M
ndesk-dbus i586 0.6.1a-4.fc11 fedora 52 k
ndesk-dbus-glib i586 0.4.1-4.fc11 fedora 11 k
Transaction Summary
================================================================================
Install 14 Package(s)
Update 0 Package(s)
Remove 0 Package(s)
Total download size: 35 M
Is this ok [y/N]: Exiting on user Command
Complete!
Some months ago we saw that in OpenSUSE, Evolution depended on Mono. Whether this dependency was a mistake or not is almost irrelevant to the fact that Mono becomes less separable from some GTK applications and Winforms is an even bigger issue.█
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.08.09
Posted in ECMA, Microsoft, Mono, Patents, Ubuntu, Windows at 4:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
[Updated: Quote in post corrected (partly omitted/crossed out) because Banshee does not depend on Windows Forms.]
Microsoft mono Embrace extend extinguish
Summary: Boycott Novell contributors explain why Mono and Moonlight are real risks
Microsoft is trying to embrace, extend, and extinguish GNU/Linux, largely with the help of Novell. Moonlight is already called "Microsoft Moonlight" in the Novell/Microsoft Web site and one reader wrote to say: “Here is one more proof than Microsoft is backing Moonlight. Go to http://silverlight.live.com/. If you connect from Linux O/S, it will offer you to install Silverlight, click install, you will be redirected to Moonlight page.”
“Mono fans are meanwhile censoring opposers of Mono over in Ubuntu.”Mono fans are meanwhile censoring opposers of Mono over in Ubuntu. Sometimes it's Novell employees and some of those who are responsible (not Novell employees) are writing about proprietary computer games (yes, Windows) at the moment. Those very same people are also pushing hard to put Novell's own Banshee inside Ubuntu, by default, at the expense of other media players.
DaemonFC writes: “If Ubuntu uses Banshee by default, they’ll have to ship Windows Forms/System Forms, so unless they have a Microsoft deal in the works, I don’t know how they’d pull this off. Up til now Ubuntu only ships the ECMA standard parts of Mono. Windows Forms is not part of the standard, so only Novell has permission to distribute that. [...] Well, like I said, if they signed an agreement with Microsoft like Novell has, it would be legal, otherwise they’re opening themselves up to be sued. Microsoft doesn’t want to sue, they want to keep pointing at things like this and saying “Nyaaaah!” when companies are considering Linux.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.25.09
Posted in ECMA, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Patents at 5:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: ECMA is seemingly unable to offer answers regarding Microsoft Moonlight and Mono
OVER AT iTWire, Sam Varghese has just published a detailed story about his attempt to acquire a licence for (or information about) Microsoft Moonlight, Mono, and Microsoft patents. It is no surprise that ECMA, which was corrupted by Microsoft throughout (or before) the OOXML scandals, is unable to supply answers.
How difficult or easy is it to obtain one of the much-touted “royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory” licences for Microsoft patents that are part of a technology like Mono?
[...]
He replied two days later, pointing out, “Ecma does not have anything to do with possible licensing of .NET. But Microsoft is one of our members, so I have asked them whom to contact there – if anything is needed, what I just do not know.”
Dr Sebestyn added: “My contact at Microsoft said that you should contact Peggy Moloney there, who would be able to help you.”
I wrote to Ms Moloney on April 28, asking for the same information: “I understand that the terms of the licences to the patents which Microsoft holds on the .NET development platform permit people to obtain a royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory licence to use them. I would be grateful if you let me know exactly how one obtains such a licence.”
I also asked her about the variance in the terms for the licensing of Moonlight, a clone of Microsoft’s Silverlight, using which the company hopes to capture the market that is dominated by Adobe’s Flash. De Icaza is behind this project as well.
[...]
There’s a been a deafening silence since then. There the matter stands after nearly a month. You would think that’s a decent period for anyone to think things through and respond – if the intention of doing so exists.
To me, it looks this licence is as real as the unicorn. Or maybe Santa Claus. I think Mono fans need to think of a fresh defence when people talk about the dangers of patent suits arising over this technology. The licence talk has worn more than a little thin.
When we asked Microsoft for a Mono licence Microsoft was willing to sell one. But what kind of a procedure is this? This is not Free software. To use a term that Slated once coined, it’s “Poisonware” — meaning it’s a patent trap disguised as “open source”.
According to our reader, ushimitsudoki, Microsoft “has changed the Moonlight covenant on their web site. [...] right now the only thing I have noticed is that it mentions Moonlight version 1.0 and 2. Before it was 1.0 and 1.1 and this was a point I had been making in a few places around the web [...] Miguel (or someone claiming to be him) said they were trying to get it changed from 1.1 -> 2.0 in response to me on Ars Technica, so I am not surprised at the change.” █
“I saw that internally inside Microsoft many times when I was told to stay away from supporting Mono in public. They reserve the right to sue”
–Robert Scoble, former Microsoft evangelist
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.15.09
Posted in ECMA, Europe, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Open XML at 8:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Watching and learning how Microsoft uses its employees and lobbying arms (with intersections) to promote its interests
SOME months ago we mentioned Microsoft’s Martin Bean, who turns out to be also involved in CompTIA, a Microsoft lobbying gun [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Among many other things, CompTIA played a role in the OOXML corruptions and there may be overlap with the BSA, which is also tied to Bill Gates' father.
Probably without awareness of all the above, one reader alerted us that “CompTIA manager buys house.” The article actually says “Microsoft manager” because it’s one of those cases where lobbyists wear multiple hats. For example, Jan van den Beld [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] was working at ECMA while also playing ball for CompTIA (and Microsoft of course).
Anyway, here is part of the new article about Martin Bean:
He has also presented to the U.S. Senate on behalf of the Technology Workforce Coalition, and moderated a town hall meeting for former President George W. Bush. In addition, he was also a board member of Jobs for America’s Graduates, the chair of the CompTIA Public Policy Committee and the president of AIESEC International.
For a Microsoft employee, he sure does a lot of political things. No conflicts of interests there?
Mr. Bean has already invaded the Open University, which sort of vilified Free software shortly afterwards. This appointment may be part of Microsoft's crusade for influence inside education (getting children "addicted" while they are young, even at no cost). Martin Bean is connected to BECTA too because he is mentioned in related documents.
Another Microsoft manager who chalked Free software off the national education agenda recently quit the company. Amid all this, let’s refer back to last month’s post which asks and addresses the question, is Microsoft a "political movement"?
In other news of this kind, <No>OOXML has found out that Fraunhofer Fokus, which is funded by German taxpayers, may in fact be connected to Microsoft; for a fact, it sure serves Microsoft’s corporate interests. The conclusion of the detailed analysis is:
The question is who will trust the research results of Fraunhofer Fokus? And why does the German tax payer invest in a research institution that sells out to companies across the Atlantic regardless of our national public interest in interoperability? For instance Fraunhofer Fokus applauded(!) the ISO adoption of Open XML.
For those who may be interested, we wrote about misbehaviour at the German Institute for Standardization (DIN) in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. ECT has not exactly forgotten the OOXML fiasco and it is being recited in LinuxInsider right now, even though they it tone down a little too much.
Looking ahead, standards organizations “need to sit down and admit there is a problem, and then decide if they want to help or hinder industry progress,” Mack said.
“I’m hoping the ISO recovers from this,” he added. “They have been publicly humiliated by the debacle but refuse to admit anything went wrong. Monty Python’s ‘Black Knight’ imitation would actually be amusing if the stakes weren’t so high.”
ECT is not gutsy enough to say the truth. Contrariwise, another Microsoft lobbying arm, ACT [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], is now being accused by Sun’s Simon Phipps, who says that “ACT are pretty active advocates of all that makes FOSS difficult or impossible.” Phipps packs it up with the usual IBM-hostile venom.█
“Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”
–Napoleon Bonaparte
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.21.08
Posted in ECMA, Microsoft, Open XML, Patents at 12:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
SEVERAL MONTHS after the unforgettable OOXML corruptions come out some documents which may confirm OOXML to be a discriminatory software patent trap without satisfying clarifications. Here are the details:
Microsoft excludes competitors with OOXML patent license?
ECMA has just published two documents related to the patent licensing of ECMA376v1 and ECMA376v2. Microsoft promises to give a patent license under so called “reasonable terms”. Reasonable for whom?
[...]
We have requested a commercial patent license in July, but radio silence since then on the Microsoft side. Yet another proof that the patent system does not work.
Is anybody surprised? Of course not. It’s easier to tell the truth now that’s too late. As Tim Bray put it, “What Microsoft really wanted was that ISO stamp of approval to use as a marketing tool. And just like your mother told you, when they get what they want and have their way with you, they’re probably not gonna call you in the morning.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA