Username or EmailPassword
This gonna be good.
I have pop-corns and soda ready.
God, I know. Before I scroll down and check, I'm predicting lots of "FOSS are commies," and plenty of FSF bludgeoning.
Well everyone knows ... hippies don't age well. This is what you get if you have an unbalanced life. I heard one time he was looking for a wife and looking to have kids. May God help him with that, so that he can grow old happy and proud. If not, I doubt we've seen the last of his attacks on the rest of us.
Richard, Richard, Richard...for the love of Mike...get a decent shave and for gawd's sake, start bathing regularly.
That was gross.
But he has disturbing trend of pimping technology where we'll always be playing follow the leader. but at 20 paces behind. Edited 2009-09-24 14:04 UTC
RMS is just socially out of this world. If he had had a proper childhood free software would probably be much more advanced by now.
RMS just has this fundamentalist view and acts 100% according to it. Problem is the real world is not that black and white. That is what Mr. GNU SLASH LINUX does not get.
Miguel is very bright, but let us be honest .. He is a MS fanboy. He said things like: "OOXML is a superb standard"
Dirk Hohndel and Bob Surtor said it right at the Linuxcon: "Free software has to stop playing catch and innovate on the desktop"
Reimplementing MS tech is not the way to do it.
He copied all MS technologies of the day, back when he invented gnome, like bonobo, gconf and now mono. Gnome would be so much better without all that shit, including monoguy.
I think FOSS is today able to provide a very compelling package .. I just not sure Canonical or Intel or whoever are that compelling.
I will wait for Google .. they get the i word better than others.
But a completely white world MIGHT BE NOT DESIRABLE. Trying to impose the view that it just has to be white is what makes RMS such a laughable and obnoxious character. Who does he think he is to impose his ethic values to the rest of the world? And resorting to name calling against people who don't share his view... How sad. Apparently free software does not align with freedom of thought.
Not that I'm sure that Mono is a good thing, but if it is not, then we have to consider how bad are Samba or Wine, interpreters for .doc, .xls and .ppt files, libraries that interact with Exchange servers, VFAT readers for files in cameras and flash drives...
How about you do the following:
(a) learn to read
(b) grow a pair
(c) stop sucking Stallman's cock
Once you've done that you may continue posting. Until then, STFU and GTFO so that people who aren't retarded (read: not yourself) can post comments that others actually want to read.
Yes but isnt MS at the very pinnacle of the evil empire ?! No one can deny that ! MS serves MS, not people. Free GNU software serves freedom ! Do we want to be slaves of some technocratic MS abomination or free computer users ?
Not so simple.
MS has a goal to increase profits but at the same time they have to serve customers to get those profits.
"In the literal sense, fundamentalism is a belief that everyone else in the world needs to adopt your particular philosophy"
Er. No. No it isn't. It's not that at all. Go and buy a dictionary (a _good_ one, not dictionary.com).
That sentence quite nicely defines _evangelism_, not fundamentalism, which is a much better word for what FSF does, and something many people don't seem to have a problem with as long as it's done through persuasion rather than compulsion. Last I checked, this is exactly what FSF does. They genuinely believe the world would be a better place if all software were free software, and they try to convince people of that, but I haven't seen them trying to pass laws to compel it. Have you?
what about (from http://www.fsf.org/campaigns):
EndSoftPatents.org: FSF supported campaign to eliminate software from the scope of patentability through legal and legislative action.
Abolishing software patents would not compel software to be free. Plenty of people who aren't FSF supporters consider software patents a bad idea, as does most of the world outside of the United States.
they are indeed orthogonal, and you could reasonably describe RMS and the FSF's official position as fundamentalist (for instance, a 'fundamentalist' free software supporter might consider it intrinsically harmful to use non-free software - which is RMS's and the FSF's official position - while a 'moderate' free software supporter may consider it only temporarily regrettable). This is, however, not important in context. The post I was referring to unilaterally redefined evangelism as fundamentalism and then tried to use the emotional power of the word 'fundamentalism' to portray free software evangelism as a bad thing, which is just bad argumentation however you look at it.
Stephen's wording may have been a bit sloppy, as is normal for casual discussion. But fundamentalism and evangelist tactics are so commonly found together that I cannot help but feel that you are quibbling a bit in making the distinction.
kragil Member since:
RMS is just socially out of this world. If he had had a proper childhood free software would probably be much more advanced by now.
If he had been socially normal coming out of college he probably would have gone with the LISP machine startup companies and/or not worked in the AI lab for years. And he probably would have never quit his AI job and started GNU. And he definitely wouldn't have been able to stay working on GNU for so many years with so little income (how much can you make selling tapes with Emacs on them?). It takes money to feed a family.
"RMS is just socially out of this world. If he had had a proper childhood free software would probably be much more advanced by now.
RMS just has this fundamentalist view and acts 100% according to it. Problem is the real world is not that black and white. That is what Mr. GNU SLASH LINUX does not get."
Thought exercise: what if RMS had been much more 'reasonable' and 'compromising' in the 1970s / 1980s?
Er, we wouldn't have a free software desktop. Of any kind. Because perfectly good working proprietary alternatives to everything FSF developed already existed! We had proprietary operating systems, both proprietary Unixes and DOS/Windows. They did the job perfectly well.
The current fashionable objection to RMS / FSF is 'oh, saying proprietary drivers are always bad is just so fundamentalist' or whatever. It seems reasonable when you can have a 99% free desktop, and the 1% proprietary piece makes it work much better than the equivalent free software piece would. But from the perspective of the FSF's goals, it's _not_ reasonable. And, as I said, if you think what were to happen if you were to apply this way of thinking across the board...we'd all be stuck running proprietary operating systems (or, possibly, BSD - which I don't want to knock, it's a great OS, but a lot of people prefer Linux, for one reason or another), because the FSF would never have had a reason to develop all those GNU tools most open source operating systems still rely on.
I would describe Miguel as a tech fanboy.
They seem to be rare these days but they do exist.
This "Mono is just chasing taillights" crap is getting silly.
If you take Mono to mean "a project whose sole goal is to enable running Windows .NET apps on Linux" then yes, Mono will always be behind.
If you take Mono for what it actually is meant to be and what it is actually freaking used for, which is "a project that provides a clean, modern language on which to more efficiently develop and deliver Linux applications" then you realize that Mono isn't chasing anything, it's actually 20 steps _ahead_ of anything else on the Linux front.
If Microsoft came along and said, "we're going to assert some mythical patents and Mono can't be compatible with the ECMA CLR or class library anymore," Linux and Mono would not be devastated in the least by it. Mono would drop the offending bits and it would _still_ be a clean, modern language with a helluva-efficient runtime library providing a ton of brand-new non-Microsoft-derived Linux-focused APIs and libraries (from POSIX to dbus to GTK to OpenGL and so on) that real applications like Tomboy or Banshee or iFolder or MonoDevelop or Unity3D or SunUO or Landell and countless others can continue to be built on top of, taking full advantage of the features of C# (or even a "very similar to C#" language, if some change were forced on Mono by MS), the high quality Mono runtime implementation, and the quality APIs and tools developed by the Mono community.
There's no difference in theory behind a project like Mono and a project like Python, other than that Mono leisurely follows a language specification for the sake of being compatible __as a nice side benefit__ while Python just makes shit up as it goes. Oh, and Mono is way faster, has significantly better documentation, has better tools, and is already used in large-scale commercial apps (that have NO dependency on being Microsoft .NET compatible) despite having been around for a far shorter amount of time.
Honestly look around and see how many people try to use or even _care_ about using Mono as a way to run apps developed for Microsoft .NET. You just don't see it. Mainsoft makes a business out of making it easy to get ASP.NET apps running on Linux servers and that's about the end of it. All of the really cool users of Mono are people that are using it either because it provides a top-notch embeddable VM that blows away every other FOSS scripting engine (e.g., Unity3D) or because it provides some of the best APIs around for creating brand-new Linux-specific applications (e.g. Beagle).
The only people who are even remotely hung up on chasing Microsoft's taillights are the people who don't understand what the purpose of Mono is and use their misconception as a strawman argument against the Mono project.
Mono was conceived by the Ximian folks because of their experience with Evolution. They were writing big Linux desktop apps. Writing them in C sucked. Writing them in C++ sucked slightly less. Writing them in Python sucked far less in some ways and far more in other ways. Writing them in any FOSS-friendly language available was a nightmare. They saw C#. They saw it was like Java, except it fixed many of the things that sucked about Java. They thought, "it would be sweet if we had a language like that to develop in." They thought, "we could write a language like that to develop in." They thought, "we could write a totally new language, but then we have to solve a bunch of problems that have already been solved over and over and over" and they knew that good engineers don't waste time resolving old problems. They thought, "if we make a C# compiler and runtime for Linux, not only do we get what we want, but what the heck maybe it'll help bring more ex-Windows developers over to the Linux side and make the world a better place." And, instead of sitting around bitching about all the hard work other people are doing, they went ahead and made the project. Their lives got easier, the lives of quite a few Linux developers got easier, the lives of even a number of Windows developers got easier, and the regular users started seeing some cool software that none of the Linux developers were making pre-Mono because it was such a time-consuming pain in the ass to do it before, and Windows users even started seeing more cool software because now there was this awesome tool for embedding high-performance reliable easy-to-write scripts into larger applications which made the applications more awesome.
Everyone has won because of Mono, and because Miguel and the many other awesome contributors to Mono have done something FOSS never did before. The only thing the FOSS world has that even comes close to Mono is Java, and that was only just recently Open Sourced, and Sun's Java is actually already way behind Mono despite being far older.
So, seriously, quit with the taillight chasing crap. The Microsoft specification is largely irrelevant to just about all users of Mono, it's not even a priority for the Mono developers, and Mono has far surpassed anything else the FOSS community has in the same field.
C/C++ are a pain in the ass to work with and are light years behind modern languages in ease of use and features, and modern VM technology is already more or less on par with C/C++, and upcoming VM technology is quite likely to exceed the performance of C/C++. Python, Ruby, Perl, and so on are all great languages for some tasks but are total whores to work in for a great deal of other tasks, and they'll never be able to match Mono in speed (simple fact -- even if you implement the same VM technology in something like Parrot as you have in Mono, dynamic typing will always be slower; even if you use the same tracing optimizing JIT to compiler both C# and Python to machine code, the C# result will need far less type guards than the Python result would... which you can even prove by just using IronPython on Mono).
The point of Mono is NOT CLR compatibility. It's not even C# the language. The point of Mono is having a runtime and multiple languages that make developing real-world applications easy and making those applications more reliable, which frees up more developer time to work on actual features and performance rather than working on endless layers of complicated framework code or debugging stupid bugs that only exist because of poor language design.
Thank you for this beautifull post.
Maybe you should take a lesson in history. RMS isn't the first to call Icaze a traitor and he has sold out to Sun in the OpenOffice.org versus GNOME Office debat back in 2000. Yes he is a traitor as he sells his beliefs and principles for power. And for what? To be a corporate puppet? This is where difference is between free software and open source. This is where both Theo and Richard agree on. This is maybe why Debian is on of the bigger distro's as people get fed up with corporate interests (get as much money out of your pocket in as little time as possible).
But again, based on history I would say that Icaze is a traitor and hurted a lot of peoples/developers believes and pockets. More are down the road on his conquest to push Mono forward in a way it divides communities. The Tomboy/F-Spot incidents can learn us a lot and should be seen as a sign for the future. The Silverlight/Moonlight solution most likely will divide the community in a way as seen with BSD386 a long time ago.
If people want to see what is coming then pay attention to Novell. I'm not going to repeat how they tried to sell SLES to us, but I gave me a good insight what Microsoft is up to and how it is using puppets like Icaza and Novell to get to there goal.
sbergman27: i don't see where FSF / RMS have changed at all. They've always been very uncompromising when it comes to their definition of free software, and that's entirely their right. Describing it as McCarthyism is a bit silly because FSF has no practical power to persecute / compromise anyone. All RMS / FSF is doing - all they _can_ do - is saying 'in our opinion, these people / organizations / projects are not free software or are actively inhibiting the progress of free software'. It's not like they have the power to stop people developing software in any way they choose, is it? All they are doing is lobbying. RMS / FSF's belief is that the free software cause is not aided by compromise, and that's a perfectly legitimate and reasonably well-supported position. The reason this may seem 'extreme' to other people is they're working from a different perspective. if your goal is to have a working Linux desktop then rejecting things like proprietary drivers may seem 'extreme', but if your goal is to further the cause of free software, it isn't. It's just logical.
Yes.. but to call him a traitor? Them are fighting words.
IF RMS had made a principled opposition a decade ago when he was gushing over ActiveX/COM, then he wouldn't need to resort to petty insults later on.
De Icaza is pushing and pushing to get Mono woven into GNOME. This would be a big mistake.
I'd be interested to hear RMS's actual words, rather than this third-party summary, but if the meaning of "traitor" is "someone who pushes an outside, incompatible agenda by using the influence they gained in the free software community", then the glove fits.
then RMS should pull GNOME from the GNU Project and be done with it if mono becomes required.
Sorry, but he is speaking for free software developers and not for open source developers. Maybe you should looking into the difference between the two.
I actually do not like both of them, so as said before, I will watch this fight and have some fun!
But I kind of agree that Icasa is not this angel that is painted, he always defended microsoft, and for his words, it seems like NOT working on redmond is the worst thing in his life.
I'm with you on this. For me both gave their great contribution to open source on the past, but right now they could just retire..
Stallman could stop with that offensive speech and Icaza with that Microsoft worship
Stallman can't retire. There's no one else who's even coming close to doing his essential work of raising awareness of problems and inciting people to campaign against them. Software patents, DRM, non-free libraries, trusted computing, binary-only drivers/blobs - it's always RMS who's explaining the importance and pushing people to get active on these things.
The software industry would have rolled over this movement long ago if we didn't have RMS doing his best (and that's a lot!) to keep the focus on freedom.
His worship had given the go ahead. Grab your pitch forks. We are going to burn some people at the stake.
PS: CNN is reporting a lost SCREW. Edited 2009-09-24 14:12 UTC
RMS drank to much of his own coolaid and turned into a fanatical nut job. He lost all objectivity and sensibility long ago.
That you refer to software as "poison" demonstrates how completely and utterly deluded you are. Please, castrate yourself so that there's no chance of your worthless genes being propagated further than the end of your pathetic existence.
The world would be a better place without JIT languages.
People who have no idea what they are talking about need to keep the ridiculous statements to a minimum.
But what would I ever do, then?
Take up a hobby, maybe quilting, or wood polishing
At times like these, I just remember: RMS does not hold elected office, and does not own a gun. Edited 2009-09-24 14:45 UTC
It looks to me like he is the classic example of a 'liberator' figure.
He fought the good fight with firm belief his cause was just and right.
Then he got into power. At which point it was no longer enough to shout against the opposition saying how they were wrong but to define policy and lead by it.
Free software now has a foothold it never did, even a decade ago. Large companies and Govs are open to the idea. I feel he is still trying to 'fight the fight' instead of diplomatically pushing their (FSF) ideals forward in a manageable and acceptable manner to help make them a reality.
"When the fighting is over, the war begins"
You've made an astute observation. Revolutionary leaders throughout history have frequently gone on to try to destroy the movements they championed once they rose to power. The French Revolution is a great example of this. Once the monarchists were out, the Revolution turned on itself and spent years trying to purge itself of all impurity, and subsequently guillotined many of its most loyal and valuable supporters. Honestly, I can't think of very many revolutions that don't follow this template.
It's a good thing that RMS doesn't own a guillotine.
The sensibility of a revolutionary is anathema to good governance. Linux has been to the point for many years now that it needs politicians and diplomats, not firebrands. I wish there was a museum somewhere that we could stick RMS. Edited 2009-09-24 15:03 UTC
I wish politics were left aside, likewise with business stuff and all that shit that makes a PC (Personal Computer) less personal and more business oriented. I wish free software movement concentrated more on the people and not so much on companies, like it did in the past.
if my PC can't fulfil my buisness needs I will spend my money (earnt via the buisness) on one that does.
PC(Personal Computer refers to having one EACH ie one per worker.
Regarding politics, it is sadly naive to think you could avoid this. Politics of one sort or another permeates everything we do. Politics and money...
I'm not sure that's universally true. You could say that the American revolutionaries actually did a great job of transitioning to a reasonably-managed government. But perhaps you could say that the American revolution wasn't really a social revolution since it was just the upper-class Colonists throwing off the British yoke and more fully consolidating their power.
Yes, I said I couldn't think of very many, and while I was writing that, I was thinking that the American Revolution was somewhat of an exception, but partly I didn't want to come off sounding nationalistic, since I'm American, and partly I started thinking a bit about the abuses that did occur. During and in the aftermath of the revolution, many, many Americans that retained loyalty to the crown or failed to express enough revolutionary fervor were quite brutally persecuted. Many lost their property and livelihood.
Nevertheless, I think it's a testament to the personal character of George Washington in particular that kept that process from proceeding along to it's all too common conclusion. But even Washington was seemingly in favor of various acts of brutality and public humiliation of prominent loyalists in the run up to the war. And after the war, Washington's government violated the Treaty of Paris and did not restore many loyalists' seized property, and furthermore allowed additional loyalist property to be taken. Likewise, a McCarthyist inquisition was instituted in the 1780s to root out and imprison loyalists.
In order for drastic political change to occur without the kind of purging and retribution that humans are wired for, it takes strong moral leadership and a commitment to some kind of formal reconciliation and amnesty process.
The interesting thing to me about the American Revolution is that, for all the reverence we Americans have for the fomenters of the revolution, how much worse today is Canada, which remained loyal to Britain, than the United States? Was there really any point to it all? Or are Canada, France, and Britain itself better off today partially because of the American Rebellion and the ideological shockwave it sent through the Western world. Something to ponder.
While I have no love for Stallman's rhetoric (the GNU/Linux stuff is very silly) I'm amazed he hasn't done it long before now when de Icaza was gushing over Excel, then ActiveX/COM, then .Net and then Silverlight, which we can apparently refresh the Linux desktop with and pink ponies will run free through sunny meadows as a result.
I'm of the opinion that Linus was regarding Microsoft - the code will out as long as the license is nice and clear. However, you're not obligated to be nice to an organisation that has absolutely spat vitriol at the open source and free software movement and is actively trying to create their own version in your vague image.
I have the feeling that RMS is right on Icaza, though the use of words actually helps the later as he can play victim and civilized while ignoring/downplaying a lot of concerns that go hand in hand with his actions.
A month ago I would have defended Miguel and by proxy Novell, but they have an unholy and extremely tight grip on the licensing of Mono. It is basically very, very scary as to the licensing restrictions they put on to the Mono runtime and how they are willing to milk the iPhone developer community for 4 times the amount that Apple will require to use Xcode and Objective-C, just to use C#. They could easily add the "static linking exemption" to the LGPL license used to the Mono Runtime, as many project do, but they want to make money - plain and simple. Very sad. Monotouch is proprietry - I'm not claiming I should be allowed to have the source for that, but I can't create my own version, because they would force me to use a commercial license on the Mono Runtime? Sheah, right. No more mono for me on mobile platforms, and I'd think twice about using it on the Mac too - just because!
Seriously - they made a really big, big deal about the fact they can use AOT to pre JIT and make native code versions of .Net apps, but if I need a commercial license to link in the Mono runtime, what was the point? I don't think it was worth their time.. It benefits no one except those [willing/able/stupid enough] to pay for a commercial license. As they claim the $399 is "the cheapest" they have ever commercially licensed the engine for, I really can't imagine how much or under what terms any vernture would be forced to comply... Yes, I'm feeling a little bitter about it. Stupid corporations :-(
That is all.
So the GPL is now "a very tight grip on licensing"! And Apple is better! Wow, reality drifting ever further...
Look - it is like this: I can use Mono to compile .Net code for free, without making that code GPL or LGPL - in fact I can license however I like. I can package up a dynamically linked Mono runtime and include it on Linux or Mac and include it in my software, without any fear of breaking the LGPL. But God forbid if I need to statically link the Mono Runtime to my app - they don't allow me to do that - no, for that I need a commercial license? Um... okay, no.
If that part isn't clear now, please ask more questions. This isn't about the LGPL, it is about the fact that they have crippled Mono on purpose so as to not allow something, but then added features that are actually very interesting and exciting for .Net developers, dangling them like a carrot. That is where my problem is.
Why doesn't RMS deride the SAMBA guys in the same manner?
Because they've written a piece of software purely for compatibility reasons because there is demand. They're not actively recommending that everyone rewrites everything for it nor are they actively recommending and pushing new features and software that Microsoft has written that no one uses yet and doing it as a third-party proxy. The Samba guys aren't on the board of Codeplex, as de Icaza is, which is an organisation masquerading as the open source and free software community he claims to represent.
Relationships are two-way - you give something, they give something back. That's not happening there. The guy is a bona fide apologist now, probably always has been, which is sad considering how talented he is. I'm sure that Microsoft job that he's always seemed to want is not far away now.
Great answer except one more thing. Samba is an open implementation of MS's spec. They didn't ASK permission, they just did it. It was cleanly reverse engineered and "legal" until Novell (the company he works for, and listens to him) threw the Samba team leader under the "patent" bus the minute they bought SuSe. It should be blatantly obvious anybody that "loves" Free Software should get the heck away from this guy. He's taking devs away from building competing technologies like Ruby, Pyton, D-Bus, KHTML and spending the time copying whatever (mis)direction MS is printing this month.
He's probably not "evil" but he's a businessman trying to chase Microsoft's coattails because their might be money there... Open Source (not Free Software) is just an means to that goal. He keeps compromising OTHER people's project ideals (like Samba) and signing deals nobody in the community approves of (accepting that OTHER PEOPLE's Free Software is "cheating" on IP) on a regular basis. Guys like Shuttleworth shouldn't even be taking his calls at this point or using his products.
ACTIONS say he is an enemy of Free Software in favor of the more legally nebulous (and profitable) Open Source. It's WAR out there. What guys like Linus and ESR don't understand is that companies like Novell have promised to pay large corporations royalties for Linus's or Community's Free Software work... with the flick of a pen, somebody else "owns" their IP.
It's WAR out there.
Get help, a life or a wife, but get away from a computer, really.
I'm… speechless. Sorry to hear that. If we ever meet, drinks are on me.
The funny thing was that ActiveX itself was pretty much dead on Microsofts side when he started to clone it. Even when Microsoft was starting ActiveX those who knew how to deal with components only shook their head about what they were cooking (mainly the nextstep and star office guys)
It was absolutely pointless to clone it, when others already have shown how to do such a thing without breaking anyones head trying to apply it.
Microsoft now mostly has admitted that ActiveX is dead end, hence they push .Net and keep ActiveX mostly as legacy component binding intact.
The plans however were different, they wanted to bring out Windows component based, when NextStep hit the scene, how well that worked we already know.
He's also a nut. Many visionaries are nuts. It's his nuttiness that made him start the FSF. Nuttiness and passion. He was angry about being unable to make his printer work, and this blossomed into a movement that we've all benefitted from.
I admire Stallman for his contributions and his passion. I also admire de Icaza. And Raymond and Torvalds. I also admire Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Each has made positive contributions. And each has made some negative ones.
Stallman's like the nutty uncle. Like what they said about Obama and that weird preacher of his. We just need to pat RMS on the head, tell him he's right (just to placate him) so that he moves back onto something useful, which he will.
I love how in this country, telling the truth, makes you "weird."
In any case, you had some good points. And I could make a case that most of those names you mentioned are somewhat nuts too. Bill Gates suffers from Asperger's (autism), Steve Jobs is probably OCD, etc.
It's debatable whether Stallman's assertion that de Icaza is a traitor is "truth".
The fact is, Miguel has prevented Microsoft from maintaining a monopoly on being able to run C# apps. They wanted to feign openness and interoperability. Miguel called them on it by developing a Free implementation of their spec. They could hardly back down. Because of Miguel, things are slightly freer.
I don't disagree with Stallman's suggestion that C# should be avoided due to the iffyness regarding patents and such. However, taking a notch out of Microsoft's stranglehold was a good thing.
I question my earlier statement. On the surface, what I said may appear to be true. But encouraging NEW software development targeting the CLR (or its clone, Mono) leaves Microsoft opportunity to pull the plug out from under us for using "their" technology that they (claim they) have exclusive rights to.
It's one thing to use Mono as a means to transition some C# code to a Free platform. It wouldn't necessarily be bad to have a C# (just as a language, not necessarily the standard libraries) front end to GCC (not necessarily compatible with Windows). But to encourage NEW development for this platform that is dubious in how Free it is makes me uncomfortable.
I am not surprised nobody replied to your post refuting your claim. This is exactly what worries me about Mono/CLR/.Net/C# et al. Nobody wants to come clean about the patents behind them and seem 'eager' to trust Microsoft that they won't drag you to court for it.
At least that's not the case with SAMBA.
Its almost like we have an army of traitors within the free software community who are committed to the very cause the free software movement is against!
Your comprehension skills are debatable, where did I even imply I was referring to Stallman in the opening sentence of my post?
Since you didn't specify anyone else, I had to infer from context.
Thom, I think your comments missed the point a bit. Now I don't agree with RMS at all, but cataloging all the things that Miguel De Icaza has done for Free Software in the past is a big part of RMS's point. You usually aren't considered to be a traitor to a cause unless you were at one point a major player in that cause.
Here in the US, our most famous traitor was Benedict Arnold. Every schoolchild knows that Benedict Arnold betrayed his country and helped the British during the American Revolutionary War.
But generally only students of history are aware that Arnold's treason was so noteworthy only because he was one of America's finest generals, and a bona fide war hero. He distinguished himself in battle and was even gravely wounded at one point. It was only after he was passed over for promotion and recognition for years, and witnessed pervasive corruption in the fledgling American government that he decided to switch sides and accept a position in the British Army. If his plot hadn't been discovered in advance, America easily could have lost the war.
So RMS's claim is that Miguel De Icaza was once a great hero to the Free Software movement, but now is working against it. Hence, traitor. Again, I strongly disagree.
He is not a traitor. He just copies MS technologies. The problem with this is that the rest of the community play his game, and now .Net is all over Gnome, and in the future so will be Moonlight. Good job!
But Moonlight is better than Flash! It is free software, built on free specs. Why is there not the same crusade against Flash as there is against Mono?
Should it be because Flash is NOT coming from a company that has a very strong intention to crush or damage Linux as much as possible?
At least - I never heard people from Adobe say that Linux is a cancer and... well you know the drill...
The result is that I have more trust in Flash technology, than I have in silverlight/moonlight and mono. Not that strange I think...
The Mono debate is an example: I believe RMS's opinion was the following: Mono itself is a great open source tool to work with C#, but the language is controlled by Microsoft. So why use Mono for your FOSS-project?
The answer is very very simple: it's a matter of taste. Some people just happen to like coding in C# and they should be allowed to do that.
Fine. Use C#. But don't use Mono or .Net. It's one thing to use a language because you like it. It's another to become dependent on runtime libraries that Microsoft may claim control over at a later date.
There were similar problems with Java. The runtime wasn't free. That made "Free Software" written in Java kindof ambiguous (or just plain wrong, depending on who you ask).
As soon as Sun released Java as Free Software, this took away their potential to sue you for use of their technology in a way they didn't like. So then it became okay (and meaningful) to write Free Software in Java.
We don't have that with .Net. Microsoft WILL screw you at some point, when it is to their greatest advantage. They can't claim copyright over Mono, but they damn sure will try to abuse patent rights.
For those who REALLY want to use C#, we should have a GCC front-end for it. You could use the language (the basic syntax), but you'd have to use a different, incompatbile set of system libraries. So be it.
Fine. Use C#. But don't use Mono or .Net. It's one thing to use a language because you like it. It's another to become dependent on runtime libraries that Microsoft may claim control over at a later date.
AFAIK only a small portion of Mono is covered by patents and those portions are easy to leave out. So you could still code in C# using Mono and not be afraid of patents if I'm correct. It might be useful for the Mono developers to break it into two parts; the free part and the one with patent-covered parts.
Note, I don't code in C# myself and I dislike using Mono apps because of the additional CPU- and memoryoverhead of the virtual machine. But I still can understand why other people like coding in it; it's a lot simpler and faster to get something done since it's a managed language and you can leave memory management and all that to the virtual machine and concentrate on the functionality of your application.
Apparently, Miguel is also pushing proprietary extensions to Mono.
Apparently, Miguel is also pushing proprietary extensions to Mono.
Many of you opposers confuse the benefits of Mono with those negative sides which come with proprietary or patent-encumbered parts; Mono is not inherently an evil thing. It allows you to code things in a language endorsed by a many developer, and it allows you to do that efficiently and rapidly. The faster and easier it is to code for Linux (or any other F/OSS OS) the better, right? And there is nothing inherently wrong in it if the same software could be ported to closed platforms too with relative easy. The more users Free software has, regardless of platform, the better for all of us.
I don't like those patent-encumbered issues myself either and that's why I would like to see Mono being distributed in two versions; the Free one, and the one with patent-encumbered or proprietary ones. Or make it so that you can just throw those in some directory after installing Mono and you'll get their functionality, too. Just don't distribute those in the default package.
Like I've said before, I personally wouldn't mind a C# front-end to GCC, even if it wasn't totally windows-compatible. Lots of people like gcj for instance.
But my point wasn't about what's possible. It's about the fact that Miguel is condoning proprietary extensions to Mono. He's saying "go ahead and write some apps and libraries that are closed-source."
If all Miguel did was give us a free .Net and was careful about making sure as much as possible is Free, that would be one thing. But he's not. Linux Torvalds grudgingly tolerates some proprietary drivers developed for Linus (not included in the tree, obviously). Miguel actively encourages proprietary stuff to be written for Mono.
Depends om perspective I guess.
Actually, the USofA is a bunch of traitor who left England because of taxes ... You won the war of independence because the King was unsure of CANADIAN troops allegiances. Had CANADA engaged the US rebels, you would have capitulated in a New York minute. As you did everytime we fought back on your invasion and won everytime.
The USofA was a traitor to America , because they attacked CANADA , who did not attack or provoke them , we even helped the rebels , who BTW we exist today because evry single time you attacked we crushed you and took ground.
The USofA was traitor to it's own citizen until the 1960's , remember the civil war ? Where the American of african origins got the idea from Canadians that everyone should be free and equals. They won the war
The USofA are a Traitor and coward of WW1 , because they add treaty of defense with France who created and Founded the USofA , why do you call think it's called "independence day" and not "separation day". They joined in once CANADA and the Ally had the germans on the run.
The USoFA did the same thing in WW2 they cowardly stayed out at the beginning until the Japanese who BTW the USoFA was already attacking by embargoing petrol for there island because of Japan invasion of China ( back then elctricity and alternative where almost non existent and they burned woods on that island a long time ago.
So you see taking USofA traitor as an example is not a good thing. Please don't take this as an attack on the USofA or it's citizens , it's an accurate historical perspective , instead of hollywood US myths.
Actually RMS is right and on target as usual.
GNOME was created to compete directly with Microsoft as a Free Software option to KDE who at the time was only Open Source.
BTW Miguel de Icaza created Ximian too :
Who was supposed to be "THE" commercial backer of GNOME.
Who finnaly eneded up cooperating with Microsoft on Mono/dot.net and getting bought by Novell.
Funny how until now RMS had never called Miguel de Icaza a traittor, might it be that he now works exclusively on proprietary and closed technology as is main work and contribute to Open Source when he as the time to get around to it and don't contribute anymore to Free Software ...
The proof is probably in some technology/software that the FSF is aware of and asked Novell and Miguel de Icaza who is probably the author of it to Open Source it or offer a copy under Free Software and Novell and Miguel de Icaza responded on the negative.
The only thing everyone can be happy about is that GNOME is GPL , in other words Miguel can't close it too.
Free Software as always had a problem with the Open Source parasite who take the money they get paid to make Free Software end up making Open Source and finally decide to close it.
But they don't call everyone traitor.
Disagree all you want,
KHTML got taken over by webkit ...
Xfree is not on par with Nvidia and ATI.
GNOME and KDE have slowed down a lot.
Google used GNU/Linux and the GPL until they got money.
Mac OS X is based on BSD.
Mono is not even on par with Dot.net.
Didn't Quebec try to split itself from the rest of Canada? Does that make it a traitor to the rest of Canada?
Then there's the french language thing and having the entire country support both english and french to keep the pea soup eaters happy...
The province of Quebec is "THE" founder/creator of CANADA ...
Yes , to some in the rest of CANADA the separatist movement look and feel like traitor , it's a perspective. But they lost two democratic votes too ...
But their is independentist and sepratist movement in all of CANADA. There is even a movement for CANADA to become a US States.
Actually there is more people that speak and write in French in CANADA and pay there taxes , then English.
But the language thing is more racism then traitor.
While that is total population, it is safe to assume that more than 22% of English speakers pay their taxes...
It's an innacurate article for starter Quebec is bilingual by charter. I guess some racist had some fun with the Wikipdia article , BTW, there are French and English racist.
I did not mean that all english speaking people did not pay there taxes , but there is 16 million submission to Ottawa in French for taxes each year , that come from all provinces. The Conservative tried to cut Radio-Canada budget outside Quebec, and there where hundred of thousand of people who stood up against it in many provinces outside Quebec.
French isn't a race, stop playing the race card.
I think most of Stallman's critics fail to understand the man.
Richard is a provocateur. You are not supposed to like him. Richard points out flaws in our world and his delivery is intentionally grating. Our specialty is software. Our field is dominated by corporations, fads, and taking the short view on everything. Richard, on the other hand, takes the long view. He knew it would take 20 years for GNU and other free software to become hugely popular, and he was right.
His model of software development has also proven to mesh well with the Internet, and free software is found on computers associated closely with Internet infrastructure. That to me is his greatest gift to society.
Remember, Stallman doesn't care about making friends. He is a brilliant man and he picks his issues. He is focused on software, his area of expertise. No matter how much his style may offend, we should listen. We'd be way worse off to ignore him.
Check out Stallman.org and look at all the other uninformed and provocative statements he makes on a variety of topics of which he has no specific knowledge or expertise. He is the archetypal computer hacker: abrupt, grating, socially awkward, supremely talented and supremely arrogant, utterly though unconsciously convinced that his professional expertise makes him an expert in a variety of unrelated topics.
Let's be honest, if he didn't have his abilities or the accomplishments under his belt, nobody would put up with his personality or braying attacks. I will always be grateful to him for his contribution to software and software freedom, but I feel no obligation to give him a free pass whenever he says something stupid or takes shots across the bow of people he feels personally threaten his political dominance in the world of Software. He is the embodiment of the FSF, borderlining on a cult of personality. Look at the people he attacks and the content of the attacks. I believe the personal and the political are not separate in his mind. I will not make excuses for his provocative attacks on people that infringe on the influence he thinks should be his, which is what I think is happening here.
Stallman has a problem, which is that when a field gets big enough, it starts attracting equally skilled people that don't actually have an abundance of negative personality traits. Years ago you needed people like Stallman and put up with it, but in the future people like him are going to get passed over for people like Iczasa (I am passing no judgment if he is a traitor or not) who can both accomplish a goal and work well with others. This applies equally for political and business goals. In what other field could you have a political advocacy group led by a personality like Richard Stallman?
If his software model is so great then why are we not running the hurd?
Some of us take offense when he demonizes people who do not adopt his model and yet his original goal of a gnu system with a microkernel is still unfinished.
If his volunteer programming model was truly effective then he wouldn't be running around demanding that reporters say GNU/Linux.
RMS has been historically right. I really think that open source should directly fight Ms on any ground.
If just mono was licensed under the gpl3 there would be noboby complaing, so I think De Icaza and Novell have something to hide.
He has also has been historically looney, and the "right" desitions he has made always have had side effects, for extremist MS haters his desitions will always be right, so when he tossed feminist remarks was he right?.
Is not hard to make the "desitions" he makes, everybody can, but most people are not as looney as him.
RMS = Looney with power.
Oh, silly me, I mean sexist remarks.
Don't underestimate the usefulness of stating the obvious from a pulpit.
Maybe RMS said things other people in similar positions knew, so maybe it was 'obvious'. What makes this not pointless is that people who *didn't* find it obvious were thereby informed.
If it's so easy to be right the way RMS has been right, why aren't you famous for being right? If you don't tell anybody else obvious things they remain obvious only to you.
In the real world we would be calling him an asshole.
Ups. A bad word. But so fitting.
RMS is a celebrity wannabe.
He says things to be provocative, controversial, and to get in the news.
As you know, any news is good news... his name is out there.
The real sad thing is that he probably believes what he is saying.
You start out admitting that RMS is giving an opinion, but then you get all pissed off because he had the nerve to talk down about Icaza? Its his opinion. And further more, like it or not, its not hard to make the argument that RMS is right. Maybe it was rude, or socially uncalled for, but hey, its HIS opinion. While RMS may be a bit loony, he usually has a pretty good argument behind his ideas.
For what it's worth, De Icaza has done a lot of good in the F/OSS world and working for/with Microsoft doesn't make him a traitor. A traitor would be someone who deliberately tries to undermine F/OSS projects and/or ideologies, but he isn't doing that. He is following his own interests and there is nothing wrong with that.
As for RMS... I really deeply dislike that man. He seems like a total nutcase with a 25-foot pole up in his behind, looks like an ass and act the same way. I sometimes just get the urge to drop using all F/OSS apps just so I could avoid having anything in common with him.
Ballmer isn't exactly an idiot or a lunatic, though he sometimes seems to play one when he wants to excite the crowds.
He just has a different perspective: he wants to make money for his company and shareholders by selling software. There doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with that.
So when De Icaza and pals pander to Microsoft's technological monopoly on, for example, the Obama inauguration coverage, he isn't undermining "F/OSS projects and/or ideologies"? Such acts provide the figleaf for Microsoft's otherwise unclothed arguments about not having a monopoly from the moment your PC leaves the production line.
So when de Icaza and pals pander to people who want things done instead of hanging on to black and white ideals and that is undermining F/OSS? The world is not black and white and most people want things that work, regardless who came up with those things first.
Right. So, in your mind the notion of Free Software is firmly associated with one figure and you'll gladly revoke those principles based on that figure's persona. Are you sure your computing choices are actually driven by such principles, or is this some kind of libertarian (or Life of Brian) one man per movement instinct in play? Sheesh!
No. I just dislike him.
So why does Silverlight even exist?
Why hasn't the FOSS community provided us with a decent alternative to flash? They've had plenty of time to provide one.
Remember how poorly Adobe used to support Flash? Maybe this will remind you:
There has always been demand within and outside the FOSS community for an alternative to flash. The FOSS community should have produced something like HTML5 a decade ago.
That's why the whole GPL ideology is silly. They can't meet the demands of users but expect the whole world to adopt the GPL.
The GPL software development model does not work for most software and never will. Calling proprietary software unethical when you can't provide an alternative is a joke. Software to some may be a religion but for the rest of the world it is a tool.
If you can't provide a better drill then go home and try to make a new one. Don't sit at the construction site berating the manager to use different tools when you can't provide an alternative.
Give me De Icaza over RMS any day. I use a ton of software related to him. Gnome, monodevelop a lot of mono apps. Come on. The OS fanaticism is one of the key things holding it back.
And being non-critical is the key to be destroyed...
If you close your eyes for everything you are too blind to see anything...
I think this issue needs to be considered in the context of power relationships.
You can imagine rich people sitting about sipping tea over polite conversation gathered to watch a battle, as they converse calmly and eloquently about the courage of the battle before them and the bravery of the soldiers dying in front of them. This is the perspective of Microsoft. Those under the umbrella of power can speak with politeness and patience even if they are generals issuing orders to lieutenants of either or both sides. They own the judicial systems and exploit the inefficiency of them.
Now if peons on the field recognize that they are mere puppets dying to see which individuals in power get a higher rank among their peers, they don't have the luxury of polite deliberation. They have to call attention to the real evil as loudly, immediately, and hyperbolically as possible. The time to bring attention is short as you could be snuffed out any minute. (Though in FOSS by patent lawsuits in an insanely inefficient legal system where inefficiency is the tactic itself.)
Interesting that Atlas Shrugged was already mentioned, Alan Greenspan was an ex-Randian similar sell out almost exactly like the Dr. Robert Stadler character in that book. I could accept Icaza's arguments about Mono and think he's mostly in the right on that...but joining this Microsoft open source foundation is far more dangerous and scary to me than Mono.
The peons always have the choise to go on strike instead of violence.
"De Icaza has done a lot of hard work to advance and promote the Free software community, and whether you like Mono or not, it is still a completely open source project, and enables cross-platform development for those who wish to code in C#. Why doesn't RMS deride the SAMBA guys in the same manner?"
Really? You really don't know the difference? You REALLY, REALLY, REALLY don't know the difference? If not, Microsoft has truly blinded you and there is probably nothing that will be able to help you, but here goes.
The SAMBA people are not helping a Monopolist company. There, I said it. If you still don't get it you have had your nose stuck up Bill Gates rear end for too long and you can't smell anything that isn't *** anymore.
I'm against any group (company or not) that restricts choice.
Want into a computer store and try to order a computer with Linux. I'm not talking about a Whitebox store. I'm talking about stores like BestBuy, Costco, etc. Try to buy a computer with Linux on it with no signs of any kind about Windows. Can't? There you go.
Why can't you buy a computer with Linux on it, pre-installed, instead of Windows? It's easy. It's not that people wouldn't buy them. It's because of marketing money. Dell, HP, etc., know where their bread is buttered. Microsoft "gives" them 10s of millions of dollars a year for advertising which INCLUDES making it hard for anyone to find computers with Linux on their websites and for shipping computers with Linux to BestBuy and other stores.
"But BestBuy isn't ordering them", you might say. Well, it would be rather hard to order something that isn't available to be ordered. And currently, no they are not available to be ordered by companies like BestBuy, or whatever company you like to buy your computer through, with Linux on them.
So, for people that don't want Linux compromised, he really, truly, completely, how else can I say it, the guy IS a traitor and the SAMBA people aren't.
Wow, are we aggressive right there! I guess you use SAMBA?
Both SAMBA and Mono allow people to use Microsoft technologies on non-Microsoft platforms. Please explain the difference to me. I'm sure Microsoft has a number of patents on aspects of the SMB protocol as well - whether the original spec came out of IBM or not.
Please explain to me how Mono is helping a monopolist company, but SAMBA is not. Oh, and please try to explain without expletives.
Let me reiterate that I don't care about Mono, and for all I care, it sinks to the bottom of the ocean. I haven't yet seen any Mono application worth using. Edited 2009-09-24 15:55 UTC
Mono, on the other hand, is a reimplementation of a MS technology.
Samba is just as well a reimplementation of MS technology.
It pushes MS own agenda with .Net.
Samba also pushes MS's agenda; it allows you to migrate your desktops and servers to Microsoft software while still allowing you to exchange files with non-MS ones. Using Samba helps Microsoft just as much as developing Linux apps with Mono.
Not really, with Samba you could theoretically get rid of all Microsoft products in your organization, if all you were doing was filesharing/domain control based on smb for whatever reason, etc.
The same can not be said of Mono.
Why not, why couldnt you make apps in Mono that work in Windows too? Oh wait, you can.
Because that is not what I was talking about, was it?
The difference between SAMBA and Mono is that people actually use SAMBA, so they conjure up all sorts of imaginary reasons as to why SAMBA is okay and Mono is bad, just to resolve their own state of cognitive dissonance.
So true, so true. Edited 2009-09-24 17:03 UTC
Samba also allows authentication based on Active Directory. This means you can continue using MS desktops, hell you can authenticate off of an AD Server with it.
Samba is an implementation of microsoft's SMB protocol, and with that comes the cohabitation of two platforms. Mono does the same thing. It's a reimplementation of Microsoft's .NET technology to the best of their current ability.
Not to mention stuff like Mono.cecil and their REPL. My day job is doing ASP.net, and I've got mono installed as well as .net for the REPL. There is just no substitute if you want to do some quick exploratory coding to try out an idea.
Because SMB is already established; it's not going anywhere. SAMBA doesn't exist as a replacement for other, proper, solutions. It exists to help people caught in a stranglehold. It's like methadone.
Mono would be fine too if it were used like this, but it's not, people are actually encouraged to use it.
In the first case you're simply adjusting to reality, in the second case you're helping bringing about one that isn't in your best interest.
Could we please not go off topic? You might just have to delete your own post... or mine. :-P
OEMs don't sell Linux on the desktop because people don't want it.
Most of the people I know could run Linux if they wanted to. But guess what? They have no reason to. Well all run Vista or Windows 7.
Linux as a desktop doesn't provide enough benefits to make up for the license savings against Windows. On the server however it can be cost effective which is why OEMs like Dell and HP sell it there.
I remember a conference in Turkey couple of years ago. Miguel de Icaza was talking about Mono, and one guy asked him about licensing and asked "do you think Richard Stallman will be angry on this?". And de Icaza replied: "He is always angry"
RMS is so focus on "Pure" Open Source Software that he has lost all aspects of proportion.
His latest rants on SaaS and Cloud Computing, and now Mono. Is just to show how stuck in the 80's and 90's he is. He wants to toss out any ways to improve the impression of open source software that he didn't come up with.
He is a purist, and his opinions are out there. However, I give the man his due... and to this day EMACS and GCC for example are pretty usable, and have a big deal of quality to them. I can not say the same for the convoluted mess that GNOME is, and don't get me started with mono. So maybe these projects would also benefit from their very own "purists" to at least give them some sort of direction.
A lot of people think that the main problem with FOSS is that they are copying other people's technologies. I beg to differ, the main problem with FOSS is their piss poor quality and lack of consistency/standardization, mainly due to the lack of actual strong leadership/vision.
This pretty much sums up out out of touch Stallman is: he does not really use the web. He has some crazy-ass wget-to-email method for reading web content. I learned this when I was corresponding with him on some open source related topic years ago. But he isn't really operating in the same technological reality that the rest of us are. I found this interesting article:
This pretty much sums up out out of touch Stallman is: he does not really use the web. He has some crazy-ass wget-to-email method for reading web content. I learned this when I was corresponding with him on some open source related topic years ago. But he isn't really operating in the same technological reality that the rest of us are. I found this interesting article:
I can't believe what i just saw, so nasty, eww.
Miguel has a good deal going with Microsoft. He's basically on their payroll via Novell. I've been out in Redmond and Bellevue lately: Mercedes, BMW's everywhere. At least 6 Bellevue towers with Microsoft's name on it. In this collapsing economy, there is no way Miguel will not stick to the MS gravy train.
If MS weren't in Redmond, this area would be a mess now.
If Miguel really cared about innovation and making something new, he'd help the Parrot VM and Perl 6 teams. Parrot just released version 1.0, and is the open-source version of the .NET CLR. It's very impressive. Perl 6 will have both static and dynamic types, and may have an alpha out next Spring.
Can you tell me what is supposed to be so great about parrot? I don't see how it is better than the CLR or JVM. They also have powerful features for dynamic lookup.
By the way, if there is such a thing as the open source CLR, it is LLVM, not parrot.
"...Intel demonstrated Microsoft’s Silverlight 3 running on an Atom-based Moblin device. That means Silverlight — and not Novell’s Moonlight version of it, but Microsoft’s own Silverlight — will run on mobile Linux netbooks, phones and more, as of early 2010.
Update: Microsoft isn’t offering a whole lot of particulars about how Silverlight is being moved onto Moblin, other than reconfirming the effort uses neither Moonlight nor Mono..."
"If you don't like personal, blog-style reporting, you might want to skip this item."
I've been a proponent of the open source software for a while but in all honesty the behavior exhibited by some of its leaders and members seem more like an angry mob with pitch forks against anyone who actually voices their opinion that doesn't abide by theirs... In recent years RMS has turned to a raging lunatic with nothing but giberish coming out of his lips with baseless arguments... Things like this truely turn people away from the community... Miguel has made a tremendous contribution to the community and whether you believe it or not is still making a greater one whether directly or underectly. Even if you don't belive in the actions of one individual as a professional you still show respect... It is that attitude and professionalism that separates you from the others... I my opinion the fsf is an important part of the Open source community and I am greatly thankfull for its and Mr rms contributions but it seems the true vision of open source is being overshadowed by individual whom had lost sight of it...
RMS has a chip on his shoulder from a time when somebody STOLE his Emacs code and built a better Emacs from it. Today, user's of XEmacs are essentially working off this other base. When RMS speaks, he usually tells of his sob story over this and how wrong it was that somebody took his code and modified it without his permission and distributed it.
Anyhow... I just wanted to add that so people have a better insight into RMS.
I've been reading OSNews for years, and this is the most stupid article I have ever read here. The only article that can compare in the sheer stupidity, cluelessness, uncivility, unfairness and rudeness is Thom's previous nonsensical rant about RMS - the one about Emacs virgins (where he completely missed the point, too, while being extremely rude as well).
Again, Thom completely missed the point and misunderstood everything RMS said. Regardless of anyone's personal opinion on RMS's words, anyone who understands the meaning of the word "traitor" would never write this:
"calling De Icaza a traitor to the Free software community actually got me a little riled up. Are we really talking about the same De Icaza? The man who co-founded one of the most popular Free software projects, GNOME? Who created Gnumeric? Who set up a company which employed several GNOME developers, advancing the Free software desktop?"
Because it's logical nonsense. A traitor is a person who betrays something he was involved with in the past. In this case, De Icaza was involved with the things Thom listed there. That was many years ago. So Thom's argument is that he did not betray these things because he was involved with them many years ago. Anything that came after it doesn't count.
Brilliant. Really intelectually brilliant. Now, this intellectual deficiency leads Thom to calling RMS "a jerk", nonconstructive, uncivil, out of touch with reality and so on and so on.
This article does not say anything about RMS. But it says a lot about Thom Holwerda, his IQ, and his moral standards.
Thom Holwerda has, in my book, crossed a line that I thought he would never cross. Kudos to RMS for remaining civil and polite despite such a low blow from Thom and everyone else who's been attacking him in a similar, extremely stupid and grossly unfair manner for so many years. RMS has always been like that. Polite, and up-to-the point. He always explains everything he says, patiently, calmly, logically, and backs it up with arguments. Unlike his opponents. He never gets involved in personal discussions and stupid flamewars like this. When people call him a jerk, he just silently ignores it, like a true gentleman. This doesn't stop hypocrites like Thom from accusing him of doing things that they are actually doing. Rudeness, namecalling and so on. Edited 2009-09-24 19:15 UTC
Well - I have to agree here...
Strangely this stories always seems to pop up and increase dramatically in number when some new product from Microsoft is around the corner, ready to emerge...
Very, very strange....
1) Freedom fighter
So what he did (or usually does) is what you can expect from a frank freedom fighter.
He is absolutely free to think delcaza is a traitor and he says it. Thats it. You can ask him to retire when he makes official statements from FSF. He just said what he thinks, personally, and now you ask him to retire?
"but calling De Icaza a traitor to the Free software community actually got me a little riled up. Are we really talking about the same De Icaza? The man who co-founded one of the most popular Free software projects, GNOME? Who created Gnumeric? Who set up a company which employed several GNOME developers, advancing the Free software desktop?
De Icaza has done a lot of hard work to advance and promote the Free software community"
Well, that's sort of the point, really. It wouldn't make sense to call him a traitor unless he'd done good things for F/OSS to start with. For instance, no one would call Steve Ballmer a 'traitor' to F/OSS because he never supported it in the first place. It wouldn't make any sense. You could call him an 'enemy', but not a traitor.
Whether you agree with RMS's accusation or not depends on whether you agree that de Icaza's current actions are, in the long term, inimical to F/OSS (and whether he _intends_, or at least suspects, that they are). However, if you assume for the sake of argument that they are, his terminology is precise: someone who begins by supporting (both ideologically and practically) a cause and ends by working against it is indeed accurately described as a traitor (though you could choose to use nicer words, if you liked. RMS has never been renowned for _niceness_, though. :>) if RMS is wrong, it's not in his choice of terminology, just in his judgment that de Icaza is now intentionally or at least knowingly working in ways that will undermine F/OSS.
ok kids, this is just software not the Ultimate War Between GOOD AND EVIL!
You like GPL? Great! Promote it. Try to make your GPL apps the best stuff in the universe. But don't get bent out of shape if other people are in favor of other ideas including working better with (shudder...ohmigosh!) Microsoft.
If RMS keeps this up then everyone else *will* switch from GCC to the bsd licensed llvm/clang because they are sick and tired of all the politics and drama.
1. Microsoft's CEO thinks that Free Software is a cancer.
2. Microsoft is against Linux, Java and almost any open technology.
2. Miguel De Icaza works for Microsoft.
If you work for the enemy, you are a traitor. It's a fact.
PS: In my personal opinion, Miguel De Icaza is a genius and a very nice guy!! But that's because I'm not a Free Software advocate. From a FSF point of view, De Icaza is a complete traitor to the cause. Edited 2009-09-24 20:55 UTC
Are you sure? ;-)
Yeah, I knew that!! :-P But I thought He was working with the Microsoft's Open Source Lab or something like that.
BTW Miguel is always advocating in favor of Microsoft technologies... He even tries to put C#/Mono inside GNOME (which is very cool for me). But for FSF and GNU people, that's a really big threat!! It's like a Trojan horse for them!
The real world doesn't compute that easily or cleanly. It's all gray, combination of spectrums of widely varying orthogonalities.
RMS is a idealist and an extremist at that...I would compare him to greenpeace activist in way he prefers to do things, his ideals are good and intentions well but the way he goes about with these things only serves to alienate him from the moderates.
I believe RMS is a genius when it comes to code but he REALLY should leave public speeches to other people because it's very known fact that every time RMS opens his mouth, large WHOOM can be heard around the world with all PR people working for open source companies facepalming same time.
RMS has an ideology (Free Software) and He's mathematically coherent with that ideology.
You can't blame RMS for being RMS... It's like blame on Marx because he's too marxist. xD
The "traitors" behind DotGNU?
Are they more or less traitors than Miguel?
Am I missing something?
You're missing the actual points against Mono.
Nobody is against it because they hate .NET as you are implying.
I still fail to understand the fuss...
Both Mono and DotGNU developers aim to provide a re-implementation of the .NET runtime and core libraries, or so I think. Mono seems to have a little bit more ambitious scope and their developers try to implement and/or repackage Microsoft libraries; they also implement several own libraries... Am I right so far?
Or is the blessing and support from Microsoft the cause of such wrath? The "I don't trust legally binding promises" holier-than-thou attitude? The "Miguel is chasing taillights" thought that ignores the same chasing from the DotGNU project? Something different from plain zealotry?
Thom this is ridiculous.
First you're basing your whole rant on one quote totally taken out of context, so you don't even know what RMS exactly said in what way.
Second, calling De Icaza's response civil? Although he doesn't call names directly the whole "even Stallman" is not much more civil than calling De Icaza a traitor.
Third, if you actually read the blog post you linked to, and the comments you'll see that the whole traitor phrase was about De Icaza working for Microsofts CodePlex not about MONO at all.
If CodePlex is a Microsoft scheme to "lure" people away from established open source platforms/foundations, and unfortunately it seems at least like MS intentions with this are not entirely pure (see http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20090... ) , then you can consider him a traitor, because he is working for someone (MS) who is working against you (and btw it was MS who established all this war rhetoric).
Thom is not ridiculous. He is just a child, after all. We've all had our passionate years.
Actually he was considerate enough to begin with a friendly disclaimer "If you don't like personal, blog-style reporting, you might want to skip this item."
Have you ever heard of "personal opinion"?
I started being wary of De Icaza's tactical advice in 2002 when he changed the licence of Mono's class libraries from GPL to a do-what-you-want X11 licence.
RMS's article about that change seems to have disappeared off the web (now-broken URL: http://http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/01/27/2232231 - if anyone knows where I can find a copy, please reply) but third-party comments say that RMS wasn't against the change - possibly because the X11 licence is a still a free software licence and because the change might be tactically wise.
I thought at the time that the tactical mistake was obvious. The touted benefit was that Intel and HP would contribute to Mono, but I don't remember that happening. The downside is that MS (and Intel, HP, everyone) can use all the X11'd Mono code without contributing back and without evening mentioning that they're doing so. De Icaza basically turned the Mono work over to MS.
I'm not saying the guy's always wrong or that he's intentionally leading us into traps, but his tactical advice for the sustainability of software freedom, IMO, is much more often wrong than not. So if he's influential, that's dangerous.
I think the day RMS goes away people will be saying how great RMS was and how lucky we been to have him... and maybe it will be too late because corporate people will be all upon us and will start to take our freedom away if we don't do something.
I'm with RMS on this one... Edited 2009-09-25 03:15 UTC
Still, as many posters already made clear, Icaza was a hard worker. Which must mean two things:
1. He can't be a traitor. Not now, not ever. No matter what he does. No matter how many enemy Gates and rings he kisses.
2. Any "politician" or people that use other people's hard work for either some political agenda or personal credit should STFU. (Torvalds is an exception, as he was a hard worker in the past.)
Does Mr. De Icaza or any of the other volunteers on the mono project receive any financial compensation from Microsoft for their work on mono? Does anyone really know?
Regarding RMS: For such a freedom advocate, he sure has a tendancy towards oppressing & attacking people who don't think exactly the way he does.
De Icaza's doing something a little braver than advocating FOSS at linux cons and Free Software Days, where almost everyone agrees with him out of the gate. He's trying to improve Microsoft's relationship with Open Source. "Traitor to FOSS" would be if he went to work on the Win7 team or something. De Icaza is a patriot to a country whose king has gone mad.
"Regarding RMS: For such a freedom advocate, he sure has a tendancy towards oppressing & attacking people who don't think exactly the way he does."
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!
Sigh. This is, as I pointed out above, absurd. RMS does not have the power to 'oppress' anyone. Stating that he thinks what they're doing is wrong does not equate to oppression.
It's almost as funny as claiming that Adobe oppresses you by not letting you have access to the source of Photoshop, or that Coke oppresses you by not allowing you access to the secret recipe.
I fully agree with RMS and I've always thought that about the traitor De Icaza. I read interviews where De Icaza praised ActiveX as an inspiration on some of his designs. Gnome 2.x's Sawfish looked just like Explorer.
He loves Microsoft technology. A lot of Linux users are previous users of Microsoft products. Some of us hate microsoft with a passion because we actually used some of their older products and we're unforgiving because of their attitude (Why do you market and make a more stable NT based product for business and shaft consumers with 9x). Then with Vista they side with PC manufacturers to make it use more hardware resources.
As soon as Linux was good enough for 90% of the hardware out there I jumped ship. I don't have Stolkholme Syndrome and plan never to touch any of their technology.
Funny I went from 98 to Linux and then later to XP.
Sorry but I have better things to do then compile a driver to get a wireless card working. I would be ok with it if I felt it was a temporary situation but not when the people behind Linux intentionally make the system difficult for binary driver developers.
Linuxland reeks too much of ideology. I'd rather use a corporate desktop that works than some hacked up mess that a dirty hippie says is better for my "Freedoms" (that he carefully defined around his goals).
Linux also isn't as fun as it used to be. It was ruined by zealots years ago. There's too much infighting and hostility towards proprietary companies.
Solaris/BSDs are where it's at for serving and Win/OSX on the desktop. Watch as more talented developers like Miguel jump off the GPL ship leaving angry fanatics like Stallman who no longer produce anything of value.
RMS is well known for being nut case. He is one of those people that should be locked up forever since he continues to do harm to others.
And yet it takes him being mouthy and unpleasant about someone else in the F/OSS world for it to be out of line?
...Because your blog-style reporting have always been a poor attempt to promote your opinion into a section that doesn't belong. Its ineffective. It should be separated from actual news, and categorised as your opinion.
I think we officially hit a new low here. I have no opinion on the whole Mono thing, and I don't really care much about it either, but calling De Icaza a traitor to the Free software community actually got me a little riled up.
Then you've completely failed to understand De Icaza's intentions through his recent actions.
I've always noticed you tend to deliberately set aside things that contradict your opinion.
Mono isn't trivial. It says something. And deep down, EVERYONE knows what it really means in context of Free and Open Source Software. Even you.
Are we really talking about the same De Icaza? The man who co-founded one of the most popular Free software projects, GNOME? Who created Gnumeric? Who set up a company which employed several GNOME developers, advancing the Free software desktop?
If you're gonna bring back someone's history, you might as well include De Icaza's interview with Microsoft for their Unix team. This happened in the summer of 1997. He wasn't accepted because didn't qualify for the necessary work visa to come to the USA. (He didn't have a university degree).
Secondly, he is a vocal supporter of Microsoft's Office Open XML (OOXML). EVERYONE knows what OOXML's intention is: To maintain document standards control (in MS's favour), in order to protect one of their cash cows...MS's own Office suite.
Thirdly, he deliberately sort out to re-implement .Net technology (at least a form of it), outside of Windows. It wasn't a "need" to begin with. No one specifically asked for it.
Forthly, he works for Novell. Novell is the Lando Calrissian of the FOSS world. Willing to do what is necessary in order to compete with Red Hat...Even to jump in bed with Microsoft on that Patent Agreement.
5thly, De Icaza now chairs on the CodePlex foundation. CodePlex is MS's poor attempt to emulate and encourage developers into THEIR version of open source.
Isn't more blindingly obvious?
De Icaza has done a lot of hard work to advance and promote the Free software community, and whether you like Mono or not, it is still a completely open source project, and enables cross-platform development for those who wish to code in C#. Why doesn't RMS deride the SAMBA guys in the same manner?
Because you're deliberately setting aside a person's intention.
The SAMBA guys have created something from scratch; so they can interoperate with MS networks. The intention here is to allow a non-Windows system to operate in a Windows networking environment. There is a need for it, as this is a Windows-oriented world.
Even when they paid MS to open up their protocol specs (which we'll see in SAMBA v4), they did it by creating a third-party proxy. They've remained arms length from MS as much as possible.
SAMBA folks have made things clear about their intentions. Even when questioned, they have nothing to hide. This builds trust.
Mono is a different story in the sense that when someone questions or challenges the potential patent problems one might encounter, its brushed off as inconsequential. Would you trust someone or something that wasn't clear and honest about itself?
Even when MS made that "Community Promise", people are skeptical. Microsoft isn't trusted. Without trust, their is no relationship. This is why MS's olive branching (a facade at best), with the open community is a futile attempt...Their actions against TomTom earlier this year have made their motivations pretty clear. They're in it for themselves, and not the community.
To openly support and associate yourself with an untrustworthy entity as Microsoft is saying a lot in the FOSS world: We're merely tolerating you. You aren't to be trusted. We're keeping our distance where possible...If I don't really need to talk to you, I won't.
Kudos to De Icaza for remaining civil and polite despite such a low blow from RMS. While I respect RMS for his contributions to the Free software community, I think it's pretty clear by now that he has completely lost touch with reality. The FSF would do good to silently but resolutely move him off stage, and install a new figurehead who comes across a little more... Constructive and civil. At this rate, RMS is doing more harm than good to the Free software world.
"Civil and polite" only demonstrates restraint. Its no different to animals who lure their prey via their body part, while waiting to strike at an appropriate moment.
RMS is saying what most of us in FOSS are thinking in this politically correct world. Nowadays, people are afraid of voicing their own opinion in fear of the repurcussions. He isn't, and I respect him for it.
Frankly, I rather trust a rude person who has clear intentions with his values, than one who is a bit wishy-washy on what they intend to achieve in the long term.
Except that a community promise published by the company would hold up in court should they decide to use their patents after saying they wouldn't. It's called oh I don't know maybe bait and switch. Last I checked that wasn't a legal tactic.
I guess we won't acknowledge that though so you can keep ranting about things that don't matter.
Go on now.
It just confirms what I already was thinking: that Stallman is a loony old douche.
[ducks] Now I'll go grab some popcorn as I watch myself get modded down to hell.
There's room for Mono for simply that niche of people that want .NET platforms on Linux. If you're talking the future of Linux applications, though, I don't know why folks are scrapping about Mono.
The glib/GTK/Gnome crowd has the C#-like http://live.gnome.org/Vala">Vala Genie" rel="nofollow">http://live.gnome.org/Genie">Genie. These are amazing developments for the platform. It might be a humble pre-1.0 package that some might call a glorified preprocessor for C and glib, but it's got gdb support, is ABI-compatible with C, and generates bindings for other languages easily. The end product has no VM overhead and is nearly as fast and efficient as hand-coded C. Come now, let's quit fighting, finish these tools, and take off running. When you've made programming beautiful and fun like that, what's to squabble about?
Open-source innovation like this makes these catfights moot.
You mean people did not pass out from the stink radiating from Richard Stallman, seeing how he has not taken a bath in years!