Apache, Mono e GNOME…a micro$oft a atacar o Software Livre em três frentes…

Acabo de ler a entrada do blog do Alcides Fonseca sobre o Apache e a micro$oft, após isso aproveitei para ler o artigo que Bruce Perens, o criador da OSD e antigo manda-chuva da grande distro Debian, foi também ele que criou/incentivou o Debian Social Contract .

Aqui ficam os links para não nos esquecer-mos do que por aí vem, a micro$oft está em alta no seu ataque ao FLOSS, a sua política de sempre dos 3E está aí para ficar e em força.

Coloco aqui alguns links sobre estas temáticas, alguns são entradas minhas que contém elas links para outros artigos importantes:

http://boycottnovell.com/

http://boycottnovell.com/category/mono/

Alguns links que mostram a Armadilha que o m$-Mono é para o Software Livre

O Fan Boy da micro$oft, Miguel de Icaza, agora quer um GNOME 4.0 escrito em .NET….ai GNOME, GNOME…diz-me com quem andas…

Midori? não creio que a micro$oft possa vir a usar esse nome…e o Software Livre já tem o Ulteo…AGORA!

Site português da Expo2008 e mais um Imposto Micro$oft – Raios os Partam, estou farto destes vendidos!!!

Mais algumas aldrabices de Bill Gates e companhia

Richard Stallman Saw Microsoft’s Plans Against GNU/Linux Back in 2004

Free/Libre and Open Source Software:

Survey and Study

Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers!

Is Microsoft trying to kill Apache?

Perhaps the good folk at Apache know what they’re doing and can handle Microsoft. Perhaps not. The precautionary principle has damaged the practice of science in the area of public policy but for once I agree with its caution. The Recidivists of Microsoft should not be given the indefinite benefit of the doubt. Such misplaced generosity will simply invite it to pick off the Lamp stack one component at a time. Microsoft certainly “get it”. Do Apache?

Bruce Perens: Microsoft and Apache – What’s the Angle?

Now they just want to interoperate, right?

Wrong. You wouldn’t have to look too far to convince yourself that Microsoft still engages in hard-edged fighting against open source. The Office Open XML standard has recently been pushed through ISO with so many irregularities in process that four nations complained. There already was an ISO-accredited office document standard called OpenDocument, created by the OpenOffice team. It was one-tenth the size of Microsoft’s effort, and did the same work. But it would have put Microsoft and open source on an equal footing. Office Open XML, in contrast, is 6,000 pages long, so large that it’s not possible for a programmer to learn it in his or her useful lifetime. That’ll keep the open source folks from ever handling files quite the same way that Microsoft does.

Bruce Perens: Microsoft and Apache – What’s the Angle?

But Microsoft can still influence how things go from here on. If they have to live with open source, the Apache project is Microsoft’s preferred direction. Apache doesn’t use the dreaded GPL and its enforced sharing of source-code. Instead, the Apache license is practically a no-strings gift, with a weak provision against patent lawsuits as its most relevant term. Microsoft can take Apache software and embrace and enhance, providing their own versions of the project’s software with engineered incompatibility and no available source, just as they forced incompatibility into the Web by installing IE with every Windows upgrade.

Bruce Perens: Microsoft and Apache – What’s the Angle?

Microsoft’s proprietary software paradigm focuses on the sales of software instead of the much larger economic value of using software. Discarding rules of property was known to be inefficient, but nobody realized, until computer collaboration became possible, that relaxing some of the rules of property could make such a collaboration work very efficiently. Open source repairs the economic breakage of proprietary software by making the users into the developers and collectively the owners.

Pode a micro$oft abandonar o seu window$ e passar para Unix?

Pelo menos é o que Paul Venezia da Infoworld gostaria de ver acontecer.

Segundo ele a micro$oft teria toda a vantagem em abandonar os seus sistemas operativos cheios de código antigo e que comprometem a sua evolução e segurança.

Segundo ele, a m$ deveria pegar num núcleo Unix e criar a partir daí, tal como a Apple fez com o MacOsX, usaria uma sandbox virtualizada para manter a compatibilidade com software antigo,podendo mesmo vir a adquirir a Codeweavers para realizar semelhante façanha.

Sinceramente não sei se eles precisariam da Codeweavers, uma vez que poderiam usar componentes do projecto Wine, o resto tem a micro$oft.

Creio que seria uma solução interessante, para todos, tal como afirma o jornalista.

Seria mais fácil escrever software para quase toda a gente, seria mais fácil portá-lo, seriam sistemas Posix, embora o m$-windows possa ter uma camada que o torne Posix compatível, os criadores de hardware teriam a vida facilitada na criação de drivers.
Eventualmente veriamos a micro$oft a usar verdadeiros padrões, embora eu creio que essa será a verdadeira e principal razão para a m$ nunca ter enveredado por este tipo de caminho, afinal é mantendo-se à parte que o monopólio se mantém.

Qual seria então o core que a m$ escolheria?
De certeza um que lhe permitisse não ter que dar muito à comunidade, ou seja,manter tudo o mais in house possível e com licença que a permitisse fazer isso,afinal vícios de anos não se perdem de um momento para o outro.
Acho que a escolha recairia sobre algo que estivesse sob licença BSD, o mais provável seria usar o FreeBSD tal como a Apple.

Será que iremos um dia assistir a tal?
Ou será que o seu m$-Singularity pode ser tudo isto e mais alguma coisa?
Ou poderá o m$-midori fazer algo pela m$, neste caso sinceramente não creio, problemas de segurança neste tipo de SO e networking devem dar cabo da ideia.

Quanto ao Singularity, tem pelo menos a virtude de ter um nome fabuloso, esperamos que o que está por trás seja bem melhor que o que conhecemos actualmente

Sinceramente uma empresa com tanto dinheiro disponível só não cria algo fabuloso porque quem manda no desenvolvimento e na investigação é o marketing e não os engenheiros e claro também devido à mania completamente estúpida de não seguir padrões, de colocar a comunidade informática sempre de lado e de tratar os utilizadores como idiotas.

Sigam padrões, abram o código, e continuarão a poder dar cartas, senão em menos de uma década deixam de ser considerados pela indústria, pelo menos assim o espero 😉

Alguns links que mostram a Armadilha que o m$-Mono é para o Software Livre

Porque o m$-mono é um risco inaceitável:

Seth Nickell – Design Fu : mono

Why Mono is Currently An Unacceptable Risk

Argument In Brief

1. Microsoft’s C#/CLI licensing people, at high levels, are aware of us.
2. Microsoft can choose to do damaging things in the current C#/CLI licensing ambiguity.
3. Microsoft considers the free software / Linux community to be a major competitive threat
4. Microsoft does not “compete” gently
5. A + B + C + D = ?

Miguel has repeatedly stated that the patents necessary to implement the standards ECMA-334 (C#) and ECMA-335 (CLI) are available from Microsoft “RAND + Royalty Free”. This seems like an effective open patent grant and encouraged me initially that we could do Mono. I really like Mono. Its terrific technically, and I’d love to be able to use it. But two problems upon further consideration the past couple months:

1. I’ve not seen an official statement by Microsoft that will let me trust the royalty free assertion. I think we are remiss if we do not assume Microsoft is looking for ways to, quite frankly, screw us. So unless there is a statement from Microsoft that they will have to stick to in a court, I feel (at the very least) uncomfortable.
2. “RAND + royalty free”, can still seriously screw Free Software. I think this is more important than the first point. Even with RAND + royalty free you still have to execute a license agreement with Microsoft, and license agreements can stipulate things that are RAND from a corporation perspective but still screw over Free Software. Also, there is evidence that key Microsoft people are already aware of (or planned?) incompatibilities between the licensing scheme for C#/CLI and, at least, the GPL. The eye of Sauron is upon us. RAND + royalty free is very different from a patent grant.

In short, we are in an adversarial situation. Microsoft does not want us to succeed. Thus we cannot trust Microsoft, even if we’d like to, and must consider Mono based upon the question “What is the worst thing MS can reasonably do?”. We can only trust Mono if we are convinced Microsoft doesn’t have weasel room. The current situation appears, to me, to have lots of weasel room. The technical merits of Mono are basically irrelevant if its a trojan horse in the long term.

Boycott Novell » Microsoft, Novell, Mono and the More Expensive GNU

Microsoft is likely to try subjugate GNU/Linux users. Novell was merely a first stop and plans for the Silverlight-powered desktop are just a trap, which seems very unwelcome based on Slashdot’s feedback and some of the comments here.

Our reader Vexorian has just left a good comment in Slashdot (pointed out by Groklaw). Pamela Jones also points to this old page, adding: “Written in 2004. Anything changed since?”

One person has already published Mononono. What is Mononono? Here you have it.

Miguel De Icaza On Mono, Moonlight, and Gnome

by Vexorian (959249) on Monday August 04, @11:55AM (#24467851)

Miguel de Icaza: “We could refresh the look and feel of the entire desktop with Moonlight”

Translation: We’ll try to make the whole desktop dependent on a MS standard.

Interview: Mono leader criticizes double standards when it comes to the open web and talks about future developments and the increasing openness at Microsoft

The increasing openness of these guys? [slashdot.org]

The problem with 3.5 is, that it includes 3.0 where they basically dumped a bunch of libraries that are not really part .Net

You meant MS changed the whole definition of what is part of .net to include stuff not covered by OSP or that are not portable? Shocker.

Also one thing that is very unique: Microsoft is going to be distributing an add-on to Moonlight called the “media pack” And that add-on contains all the media codecs that Silverlight uses, so it contains the MP3 decoder, the VC1 decoder, WMV and all that stuff. We are going to provide Moonlight and they are adding the codec parts – and this is going to be totally legal, it’s something that they are actually encouraging – that’s pretty sweet

Moonlight is going to require a proprietary addon in order to actually interoperate with silverlight, pretty sweet.

For every distribution, also x86, x86_64 and PowerPC. In fact we are going to provide binaries for BSDs, for Solaris – both on SPARC and Intel.

Same old, you’ll have to download them from MS and only MS, and SLED will be the only distro one able to ship them. Oh, it looks like Icaza actually confirms so in page 2.

I hope so. It might end up that at some point Microsoft just open ups .NET

hahahahahha

you get C#, you get a DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime), you get a fantastic graphics engine with a fantastic animation framework, you get video, you get audio, multi-language compatibility and so on and so forth. And I get a JITted language also, and a static language with dynamic features that beats Javascript out of the water.

As a hacker you get Microsoft, Microsoft, compatibility to Microsoft languages, and Microsoft. And beating javascript with Microsoft.

As websites start using Silverlight we don’t want Linux to be in a position where you can’t access those websites. Also we thought Silverlight will be important enough and have enough market share just because it is Microsoft doing it

Specially after the free, false advert of ‘silverlight works in Linux’ thanks to moonlight.

I mean – how many people outside of the technology world really know about Linux at the moment.

Typical MS fanboyism from Icaza

And even the Mozilla guys – the keynote we had here was done on a mac, every single Mozilla developer uses a Mac.

Diverting attention are we?

And it’s funny, they constantly attack Silverlight, they constantly attack Flash and then all of them use proprietary operating systems, they don’t seem to have a problem doing it. And then they had the Guiness record thing for Firefox 3 and you went to the website and it had a flash map to show where people are downloading – so there definitely is a double standard here.

Icaza here’s the deal: AT least FLASH is NOT FREAKING MICROSOFT! Don’t you get it? call it a double standard if you want, just missing all the previous record of Microsoft’s anticompetitive actions and the clear intent to take over the world with .net and how Mono makes Linux threated by it… It is getting ridiculous.

And that’s after all their claiming that you can do everything in AJAX – so they definitely don’t “walk the walk”.

Mozilla is evil therefore we’ll help poisoning the web with Silverlight, fuck open standards.

The Open Sourcerer » How to remove Mono (M$) from Ubuntu Hardy Heron

How to remove Mono (M$) from Ubuntu Hardy Heron

I have had a long-time problem with Mono and the Mono-based applications that, for reasons I do not understand, come installed by default with Ubuntu.

For those who don’t know about it, Mono:

provides the necessary software to develop and run .NET client and server applications on Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X, Windows, and Unix.

That sounds pretty innocuous on the face of it. But Mono has a potentially fatal sting-in-the-tail for some, and leaves a rather nasty taste in the mouths of many others…

The potential sting is because Mono is developed and supported largely by Novell who are, as we all know so well, in a patent-protection deal with Microsoft.