Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Mar 2013 17:58 UTC
Google Andy Rubin, who created Android and has led its development both at Android Inc. and later at Google, has decided to step down as the big Android boss at Google. Having created the world's "most-used mobile operating system", as Google CEO Larry Page refers to it, I'd say his stint has been successful. Interestingly enough, he will be succeeded by Sundar Pichai - Chrome OS boss. Yes.
E-mail Print r 4   · Read More · 52 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 555432
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29


How do you prove "Microsoft" ever said that ? Did someone get the word of some people from Microsoft, what does this say about Microsoft management ? What does that say about Microsoft management in the future ?


http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/communit...

And I quote


the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable,it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies.



Did it only apply to Microsofts offering they had then or also all the newer C#/.Net stuff Microsoft created after that point in time ?



the CP covers each individual specification designated on the public list posted at the Community Promise page (some specifications include special terms; these are noted).


The terms of the community promise are very clear. Why I have to hold your hand for something which takes a second to look up is beyond me. Why I have to dispel this stupid myth every time Mono comes up is similarly perplexing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

I find it "intriguing" that you use such bold statements and in the last sentence use such low level tone.

It is also perplexing that you so strongly "dispel" any doubts related to immunity against litigation based on promises from MS and, at same time, raise uncertainty and deny such benefit to Google x Oracle case, where there were also a promise from the top executive (from Sun).

Reply Parent Score: 1

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I find it "intriguing" that you use such bold statements and in the last sentence use such low level tone.


Why? Am I supposed to be appreciative of the fact that the same people sling the same FUD every single time a discussion on Mono is brought up? Despite the fact that this rumor has been smashed, as in provable shown to be wrong, every single one of those times.

They'll say something next about how it still is a given that Mono is covered under this promise, despite the fact that such patent non aggression promises are made for other standards, including some incorporated by the W3C. That's usually where the discussion trails off.

This is so predictable that its annoying.




It is also perplexing that you so strongly "dispel" any doubts related to immunity against litigation based on promises from MS and, at same time, raise uncertainty and deny such benefit to Google x Oracle case, where there were also a promise from the top executive (from Sun).


No. You just have a false equivalency going on. The estoppel equitable defense that Google tried to use was a single statement from a CEO, not an official stance taken by the company.

He seems to be a loner in that sentiment, considering it wasn't the views held by many prominent people within the company either, and in fact, beyond his single blog post, there was no other mention of it from Sun.

Contrast this with a clear cut statement from Microsoft on a page with a bunch of other standards which are offered under that same promise. Press releases were also sent out the day they were announced.

Because I oppose an estoppel defense in one instance because of very peculiar circumstances, does not mean I oppose it in all instances. That doesn't make sense.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

At least it looks official.

I would personally never develop anything with Mono or C# for that matter.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

So this entire thing was just a concern troll? It is a shame that you slander the hard work of countless developers (as well as hold back potential discussion, and others who hold similar views have likely stopped progress in this area) because of your own irrational dislike of Mono and .NET .

Your argument that Microsoft, who regularly hosts the Mono team at various Microsoft events, has made two distinct promises, provides them with ahead of time documentation and testing suites, openly sponsors events that Mono hosts, and which has released large swathes of the .NET Framework as open source (new ASP.NET stacks) is somehow out to get Mono is absurd.

Microsoft, which facilitates the port of Unity middleware which uses Mono to power its C# scripting. Microsoft, who actively linked to Moonlight when users requested a Linux Silverlight download.

This, and all arguments like this, are so contrary to the truth that it borders on trolling to hold positions like yours.

Reply Parent Score: 3