Hi,
after posting a couple of stupidities to the group today I thought I
should compensate with something useful :-)
Probably many of you have already seen this on Planet Lisp, but Michael
Goffioul has created a nice, little Windows pplication called "LISP
shell" that is an interactive lisp environment using ECL for the
language and .NET/RDNZL for the GUI.
You can see the news item here:
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=609573
It contains pointers to the package and a screenshot.
I have already asked Edi about this, but perhaps another possibility
for GUI would be using .NET not only on Windows, but also on other unix
platforms via Mono (*). One would have to think on a way to implement
the same functionality as its RDNZL library using this free
implementation, but it does not sound like a crazy idea and _all_ lisps
out there would benefit from that. Has anybody thought about it before?
Cheers,
Juanjo
(*) Note that Mono (http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page) has become a
standard component of GNOME 2.16 and is going to be thus part of many
linux distributions out there.
I saw that yesterday, and i'm really confused by it.
There's no docs or any explanation of what it is except one screenshot,
and contradicting explanations.
What do you mean GUI ? GUI as in a library or tool to create GUIs in
lisp ?
Or you mean IDE - development tool, that supports things like synthax
highliting and intellicense ?
If it is just another IDE, then there's nothing to be excited about.
Emacs+Slime is already very good IDE for lispers.
But if it is a visual tool to build GUIs for windows lisp programs,
then i'm very intrested.
Could you please elaborate.
Vagif Verdi schrieb:
> I saw that yesterday, and i'm really confused by it.
> If it is just another IDE, then there's nothing to be excited about.
> Emacs+Slime is already very good IDE for lispers.
> But if it is a visual tool to build GUIs for windows lisp programs,
> then i'm very intrested. Could you please elaborate.
It is an IDE, but it shows how RDNZL can be used to create graphical
interfaces in lisp. I haven't seen many such applications around.
Juanjo
Juanjo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after posting a couple of stupidities to the group today I thought I
> should compensate with something useful :-)
>
> Probably many of you have already seen this on Planet Lisp, but Michael
> Goffioul has created a nice, little Windows pplication called "LISP
> shell" that is an interactive lisp environment using ECL for the
> language and .NET/RDNZL for the GUI.
>
> You can see the news item here:
> http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=609573
> It contains pointers to the package and a screenshot.
>
> I have already asked Edi about this, but perhaps another possibility
> for GUI would be using .NET not only on Windows, but also on other unix
> platforms via Mono (*). One would have to think on a way to implement
> the same functionality as its RDNZL library using this free
> implementation, but it does not sound like a crazy idea and _all_ lisps
> out there would benefit from that. Has anybody thought about it before?
It would probably work at least reasonably.
Mono implements .NET by using a similar sort of VM. To do the Windows
GUI parts it uses a library to emulate the Windows GDI+ system on X.
It can only really emulate some of the Windows API calls since unix
like systems are fundamentally different. Still it gets quite a long
way.
So it would probably work, though you'd be working through a lot of
layers.
Using a cross platform GUI library like Tk or GTk seems less bother.
It's also likely to perform better since the GUI library authors can
tailor the internals of the widgets to suit the various OSes.
> (*) Note that Mono (http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page) has become a
> standard component of GNOME 2.16 and is going to be thus part of many
> linux distributions out there.
Oh, ick. If I wanted Windows I know where to get it.
Rob Thorpe wrote:
<snipped>
>
> Using a cross platform GUI library like Tk or GTk seems less bother.
They also have the advantage of not having a sword hanging
over their heads. Last I checked, Mono was under enough
suspicion of patent-encumberences that Microsoft could make a
reasonable lawsuit (they won't win, but that wouldn't be the
point) and bog down the effort and any software that had it as
a dependency in court for a few years.
When enough free software has Mono as a dependency, it
is possible that Microsoft stalls their effort by pointing
out patents it owns that Mono "might" be violating.
> > (*) Note that Mono (http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page) has become a
> > standard component of GNOME 2.16 and is going to be thus part of many
> > linux distributions out there.
>
Sadly; it looked like it was going that way for several
years now, so I stopped using gnome in 2000. Anyone who
is a free(libre) software advocate should disregard
Mono.
goose,
goose wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
> <snipped>
> >
> > Using a cross platform GUI library like Tk or GTk seems less bother.
>
> They also have the advantage of not having a sword hanging
> over their heads. Last I checked, Mono was under enough
> suspicion of patent-encumberences that Microsoft could make a
> reasonable lawsuit (they won't win, but that wouldn't be the
> point) and bog down the effort and any software that had it as
> a dependency in court for a few years.
>
> When enough free software has Mono as a dependency, it
> is possible that Microsoft stalls their effort by pointing
> out patents it owns that Mono "might" be violating.
That whole thing has been playing out for a few years now. RedHat and
Sun (obviously) have always pushed Java, but Mono has gotten a lot of
interest because of Ximian(Novell) and that it's actually open source
and Java isn't. Yeah, you can worry about getting hit by a bus
everyday, but most (if not all) of the Gnome bits are under ECMA
anyway. MS has known about Mono for all these years and done nothing
(if not tacitly supported by MS .NET developers).
>
> > > (*) Note that Mono (http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page) has become a
> > > standard component of GNOME 2.16 and is going to be thus part of many
> > > linux distributions out there.
> >
>
> Sadly; it looked like it was going that way for several
> years now, so I stopped using gnome in 2000. Anyone who
> is a free(libre) software advocate should disregard
> Mono.
>
People already made up their minds on the issue, and your suggestion is
irrelevant to them. The holy rollers are a small minority in open
source.
> goose,
············@gmail.com wrote:
> goose wrote:
>
>>Rob Thorpe wrote:
>><snipped>
>>
>>>Using a cross platform GUI library like Tk or GTk seems less bother.
>>
>>They also have the advantage of not having a sword hanging
>>over their heads. Last I checked, Mono was under enough
>>suspicion of patent-encumberences that Microsoft could make a
>>reasonable lawsuit (they won't win, but that wouldn't be the
>>point) and bog down the effort and any software that had it as
>>a dependency in court for a few years.
>>
>>When enough free software has Mono as a dependency, it
>>is possible that Microsoft stalls their effort by pointing
>>out patents it owns that Mono "might" be violating.
>
>
> That whole thing has been playing out for a few years now. RedHat and
> Sun (obviously) have always pushed Java, but Mono has gotten a lot of
> interest because of Ximian(Novell) and that it's actually open source
> and Java isn't. Yeah, you can worry about getting hit by a bus
> everyday, but most (if not all) of the Gnome bits are under ECMA
> anyway.
Which does not keep mono safe from patent violations (not
that it actually has any, it only has the suspicion
of patent violations).
> MS has known about Mono for all these years and done nothing
> (if not tacitly supported by MS .NET developers).
Well, they knew about flash devices using fat filesystems
for years, but they waited until it was a defacto standard
before proceeding with patenting and attempting to collect
royalties on it.
If they've attempted this once, I do not see what is
stopping them from trying again.
Once again, I must say that although they may not win
any lawsuit, that would not be the point.
Really, MS is a corporate, you must assume that they
will do what is best for *them*, not for *you*.
goose,
goose wrote:
> ············@gmail.com wrote:
> > goose wrote:
> >
>
> Really, MS is a corporate, you must assume that they
> will do what is best for *them*, not for *you*.
>
> goose,
Yeah, because any "they" who is coding, is going to code for "their"
interests and not "yours". That's true in any project. By the way,
RMS is not a corporate and I'll have to assume that he's doing what's
best for himself, and not what is best for me.
Gnome has already made their decision, and any belly-aching on your
part is irrelevant.
············@gmail.com wrote:
<snipped>
> Gnome has already made their decision, and any belly-aching on your
> part is irrelevant.
>
"Pointing out that it /might/ be counter-productive"
is not "belly-aching". I'm not knocking those who use
.net nor did I knock the gnome people, I'm just pointing
out that it has a sword hanging over it's head.
No need to be defensive.
--
goose
Have I offended you? Send flames to ····@localhost
real email: lelanthran at gmail dot com
website : www.lelanthran.com
The better response Mark could have offered would have been, "if you
don't like it, you can just fork it and remove those Mono-using apps".
goose wrote:
> ············@gmail.com wrote:
> <snipped>
> > Gnome has already made their decision, and any belly-aching on your
> > part is irrelevant.
> >
>
> "Pointing out that it /might/ be counter-productive"
> is not "belly-aching". I'm not knocking those who use
> .net nor did I knock the gnome people, I'm just pointing
> out that it has a sword hanging over it's head.
>
> No need to be defensive.
>
> --
> goose
> Have I offended you? Send flames to ····@localhost
> real email: lelanthran at gmail dot com
> website : www.lelanthran.com
OMouse wrote:
> The better response Mark could have offered would have been, "if you
> don't like it, you can just fork it and remove those Mono-using apps".
Or not install a mono app... Of course that would be too obvious.
Goose has to tell others how they should feel about Mono.
OMouse wrote:
> The better response Mark could have offered would have been, "if you
> don't like it, you can just fork it and remove those Mono-using apps".
>
Or, I can just stop using it ... you know, like I said
I did?
<snipped>
--
goose
Have I offended you? Send flames to ····@localhost
real email: lelanthran at gmail dot com
website : www.lelanthran.com
goose wrote:
> ············@gmail.com wrote:
> <snipped>
> > Gnome has already made their decision, and any belly-aching on your
> > part is irrelevant.
> >
>
> "Pointing out that it /might/ be counter-productive"
> is not "belly-aching".
You "suggested" ,or rather was trying to tell people how they should
feel about Mono.
I'm not knocking those who use
> .net nor did I knock the gnome people, I'm just pointing
> out that it has a sword hanging over it's head.
>
The "sword hanging over it's head" is true for everybody because of
software patents. If you write a thousand lines of code and someone
with patents feels threatened by it, you might have a sword hanging
over your head. Most people would rather get out of bed in the morning
though, instead of hiding under the covers.
> No need to be defensive.
>
I have no interest in what happens to Gnome. You are the one that was
bitter enough about the whole thing to go on an offtopic rant with your
"suggestion" on how others should feel about it, which is odd, since
you have no influence.
> --
> goose
> Have I offended you? Send flames to ····@localhost
> real email: lelanthran at gmail dot com
> website : www.lelanthran.com
············@gmail.com wrote:
> goose wrote:
>
>>············@gmail.com wrote:
>><snipped>
>>
>>>Gnome has already made their decision, and any belly-aching on your
>>>part is irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>>"Pointing out that it /might/ be counter-productive"
>>is not "belly-aching".
>
>
> You "suggested" ,or rather was trying to tell people how they should
> feel about Mono.
Please show me where I told people how to feel about mono?
You are just being silly now, looking for an argument that
isn't there.
>
> I'm not knocking those who use
>
>>.net nor did I knock the gnome people, I'm just pointing
>>out that it has a sword hanging over it's head.
>>
>
>
> The "sword hanging over it's head" is true for everybody because of
> software patents. If you write a thousand lines of code and someone
> with patents feels threatened by it, you might have a sword hanging
> over your head.
True; However considering microsofts usual behaviour
(like, with FAT) there is no reason to believe that the
same thing won't happen with mono. C# may be ecma standardised,
but that didn't prevent microsoft from applying for
(and getting granted) extremely broad and vauge .net
specific patents in 2002.
> Most people would rather get out of bed in the morning
> though, instead of hiding under the covers.
>
>
>
>>No need to be defensive.
>>
>
>
> I have no interest in what happens to Gnome. You are the one that was
> bitter enough about the whole thing to go on an offtopic rant with your
> "suggestion" on how others should feel about it, which is odd, since
> you have no influence.
>
?
I made an observation[1] and you readily jumped in
to display your ignorance. How is that my fault?
My word! Grow up already. Stop being so overly sensitive.
[1] One that you would have to *really* twist to
see it as "bitter". Doubly so to view it as
"telling others how to feel". Don't read between the
lines, read what I wrote.
--
goose
Have I offended you? Send flames to ····@localhost
real email: lelanthran at gmail dot com
website : www.lelanthran.com
goose wrote:
> ············@gmail.com wrote:
> > The "sword hanging over it's head" is true for everybody because of
> > software patents. If you write a thousand lines of code and someone
> > with patents feels threatened by it, you might have a sword hanging
> > over your head.
>
> True; However considering microsofts usual behaviour
> (like, with FAT) there is no reason to believe that the
> same thing won't happen with mono. C# may be ecma standardised,
> but that didn't prevent microsoft from applying for
> (and getting granted) extremely broad and vauge .net
> specific patents in 2002.
>
ECMA standardization doesn't preclude anybody from getting patents.
>
> > Most people would rather get out of bed in the morning
> > though, instead of hiding under the covers.
> >
> >
> >
> >>No need to be defensive.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I have no interest in what happens to Gnome. You are the one that was
> > bitter enough about the whole thing to go on an offtopic rant with your
> > "suggestion" on how others should feel about it, which is odd, since
> > you have no influence.
> >
>
> ?
> I made an observation[1] and you readily jumped in
> to display your ignorance. How is that my fault?
>
Oh no, you completely went offtopic because there was an offhand remark
about .NET guis. You just couldn't wait to get your feeling about Mono
out, could you? So you went into your little speech, and then tried
to tell people how they should feel about Mono. Your ignorance is that
you have no influence and are in no position to tell people about how
they should feel about Mono.
> My word! Grow up already. Stop being so overly sensitive.
>
> [1] One that you would have to *really* twist to
> see it as "bitter". Doubly so to view it as
> "telling others how to feel". Don't read between the
> lines, read what I wrote.
>
> --
No need to start crying at this juncture. I know some of you people
think that there's a borg-like, hive-mind with regards to how people
that are open source users should think about certain things, and so
you have an obligation to 'suggest' to people about how they should
feel about various things. It's amusing to see that mentality, but
maybe you should get a deputy badge from RMS before you are delusional
enough to think that your opinion is relevant. We'll still laugh at
you, but at least you'll have a little bit of credence with the
weak-minded that need thought leaders.
············@gmail.com wrote:
> goose wrote:
<snipped>
> > ?
> > I made an observation[1] and you readily jumped in
> > to display your ignorance. How is that my fault?
> >
>
> Oh no, you completely went offtopic because there was an offhand remark
> about .NET guis. You just couldn't wait to get your feeling about Mono
> out, could you? So you went into your little speech, and then tried
> to tell people how they should feel about Mono.
Who's the one going off into their speech now? I expressed
an opinion and validated it. My validation could be wrong,
and you are, of course, free to point out that my validation
has errors of fact in it.
You did no such thing; instead you ignored my validation
and took *my opinion* as a personal stab at you. That is
why I asked you not to be so sensitive.
> Your ignorance is that
> you have no influence and are in no position to tell people about how
> they should feel about Mono.
>
> > My word! Grow up already. Stop being so overly sensitive.
> >
> > [1] One that you would have to *really* twist to
> > see it as "bitter". Doubly so to view it as
> > "telling others how to feel". Don't read between the
> > lines, read what I wrote.
> >
> > --
>
> No need to start crying at this juncture.
Stop it now. You've embarrassed yourself enough, I think.
> I know some of you people
> think that there's a borg-like, hive-mind with regards to how people
> that are open source users should think about certain things, and so
> you have an obligation to 'suggest' to people about how they should
> feel about various things. It's amusing to see that mentality, but
> maybe you should get a deputy badge from RMS before you are delusional
> enough to think that your opinion is relevant. We'll still laugh at
> you, but at least you'll have a little bit of credence with the
> weak-minded that need thought leaders.
Straw man. My position is none of the above, yet you attribute
it to me and beat it mercilessly. From the above it is clear
that you have a prepared speech to go with the mentality.
Lovely.
goose,
Go on, beat the straw man some more :-)
>Stop it now. You've embarrassed yourself enough, I think.
>Anyone who
>is a free(libre) software advocate should disregard
>Mono.
My mistake. It was not a suggestion you made, you said "should
disregard Mono". Yeah, I know your embarrassed by that one, and
thought that nobody would call you out on it. Oops. You probably
realize now that you are in no position to tell anybody what they
should disregard.
············@gmail.com wrote:
> >Stop it now. You've embarrassed yourself enough, I think.
>
> >Anyone who
> >is a free(libre) software advocate should disregard
> >Mono.
>
> My mistake. It was not a suggestion you made, you said "should
> disregard Mono". Yeah, I know your embarrassed by that one, and
"you're"
> thought that nobody would call you out on it. Oops. You probably
> realize now that you are in no position to tell anybody what they
> should disregard.
What? You were going on about how I told people
to feel, you digressed into something about RMS,
you even used the phrase "you people" when talking
about my position.
And now it's only my statement about disregarding
mono? How is that telling people how to feel? Hm?
You've changed your argument so many times, it's a wonder
that even *you* can keep up with what you're saying.
On the bright side, you at least stopped beating
the straw man.
goose,
Why are you so insistent that people should
be left in the dark wrt possible legal problems
with mono? You very stupidly mischaracterised
my position which made it difficult for you to
follow on with anything sensible.
goose wrote:
> ············@gmail.com wrote:
> > >Stop it now. You've embarrassed yourself enough, I think.
> >
> > >
> >
> > My mistake. It was not a suggestion you made, you said "should
> > disregard Mono". Yeah, I know your embarrassed by that one, and
>
> "you're"
>
> > thought that nobody would call you out on it. Oops. You probably
> > realize now that you are in no position to tell anybody what they
> > should disregard.
>
> What? You were going on about how I told people
> to feel, you digressed into something about RMS,
> you even used the phrase "you people" when talking
> about my position
Goose said: "Anyone who is a free(libre) software advocate should
disregard Mono."
Actually, you were referring to you people - "Anyone who is a
free(libre) software advocate.." Or in other words, "Just a reminder
of what the hive mind party line is".
>
> goose,
> Why are you so insistent that people should
> be left in the dark wrt possible legal problems
> with mono? You very stupidly mischaracterised
> my position which made it difficult for you to
> follow on with anything sensible.
Oh of course, everybody is just left in the dark. Goose to the rescue
to remind everybody that's got religion, ("Anyone who is a free(libre)
software advocate"), they should disregard Mono.
Guuess I'll have to remind you of "Really, MS is a corporate, you must
assume that they
will do what is best for *them*, not for *you*. ". Ooops, it looks
like it's not just a legal problem any more.
On the flip side, Anyone who is a free software advocate should avoid
GNU software because we have no idea what mullah Stallman will cram
into GPL v3. RMS isn't a corporate, and I"m sure he's not looking out
for my best interests.
·············@gmail.com" <············@gmail.com> writes:
> goose wrote:
>> ············@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >Stop it now. You've embarrassed yourself enough, I think.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> > My mistake. It was not a suggestion you made, you said "should
>> > disregard Mono". Yeah, I know your embarrassed by that one, and
>>
>> "you're"
>>
>> > thought that nobody would call you out on it. Oops. You probably
>> > realize now that you are in no position to tell anybody what they
>> > should disregard.
>>
>> What? You were going on about how I told people
>> to feel, you digressed into something about RMS,
>> you even used the phrase "you people" when talking
>> about my position
>
> Goose said: "Anyone who is a free(libre) software advocate should
> disregard Mono."
>
> Actually, you were referring to you people - "Anyone who is a
> free(libre) software advocate.." Or in other words, "Just a reminder
> of what the hive mind party line is".
>
>>
>> goose,
>> Why are you so insistent that people should
>> be left in the dark wrt possible legal problems
>> with mono? You very stupidly mischaracterised
>> my position which made it difficult for you to
>> follow on with anything sensible.
>
> Oh of course, everybody is just left in the dark. Goose to the rescue
> to remind everybody that's got religion, ("Anyone who is a free(libre)
> software advocate"), they should disregard Mono.
>
> Guuess I'll have to remind you of "Really, MS is a corporate, you must
> assume that they
> will do what is best for *them*, not for *you*. ". Ooops, it looks
> like it's not just a legal problem any more.
>
> On the flip side, Anyone who is a free software advocate should avoid
> GNU software because we have no idea what mullah Stallman will cram
> into GPL v3. RMS isn't a corporate, and I"m sure he's not looking out
> for my best interests.
....Are you guys done yet?
············@gmail.com wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > ············@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >Stop it now. You've embarrassed yourself enough, I think.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > My mistake. It was not a suggestion you made, you said "should
> > > disregard Mono". Yeah, I know your embarrassed by that one, and
> >
> > "you're"
> >
> > > thought that nobody would call you out on it. Oops. You probably
> > > realize now that you are in no position to tell anybody what they
> > > should disregard.
> >
> > What? You were going on about how I told people
> > to feel, you digressed into something about RMS,
> > you even used the phrase "you people" when talking
> > about my position
>
> Goose said: "Anyone who is a free(libre) software advocate should
> disregard Mono."
>
Well, if you aren't advocating free software, then why the
hell are you so up in arms about it? If you aren't advocating
FOSS, then you are at best neutral to mono.
> Actually, you were referring to you people - "Anyone who is a
> free(libre) software advocate.." Or in other words, "Just a reminder
> of what the hive mind party line is".
>
That's ironic. Mono is blessed by the FSF themselves,
so the "hive mind" that you speak of so highly is actually
advocating *using* mono. I'm on the *other* side of this
particular fence, you fool.
> >
> > goose,
> > Why are you so insistent that people should
> > be left in the dark wrt possible legal problems
> > with mono? You very stupidly mischaracterised
> > my position which made it difficult for you to
> > follow on with anything sensible.
>
> Oh of course, everybody is just left in the dark. Goose to the rescue
> to remind everybody that's got religion, ("Anyone who is a free(libre)
> software advocate"), they should disregard Mono.
Seeing as you don't have religion, why are you so insecure?
You aren't a FOSS advocate, so why do you care whether or not
FOSS advocates know about mono's legality (or lack of it)?
>
> Guuess I'll have to remind you of "Really, MS is a corporate, you must
> assume that they
> will do what is best for *them*, not for *you*. ". Ooops, it looks
> like it's not just a legal problem any more.
>
> On the flip side, Anyone who is a free software advocate should avoid
> GNU software because we have no idea what mullah Stallman will cram
> into GPL v3. RMS isn't a corporate, and I"m sure he's not looking out
> for my best interests.
Sadly, the issue on both sides of the neverending FOSS
debate is clouded with room-temperature-IQ idiots. I've
just pointed out that I'm actually /against/ an official
FSF endeaver(sp?) (which is what mono is), but you still
insist on grouping me with them and beating a straw man.
Yeah, is "voice-of-reason" your middle name?
goose,
I tend to evaluate products on a case by case
basis and not blindly bash FOSS or proprietry.
In the case of mono, I was enthusiastic about it
*until* the cracks appeared.
It seems that you are the blind advocate here, not
me.
goose wrote:
>
> Well, if you aren't advocating free software, then why the
> hell are you so up in arms about it? If you aren't advocating
> FOSS, then you are at best neutral to mono.
>
Haha, Mono was mentioned as a passing reference to a GUI and you went
off on a complete, bitter tangent about it. You're all worked up about
it, telling "libre" advocates that they should disregard it. You are
the one that is up in arms about it, or you wouldn't have posted your
spastic rant on it. I'm laughing at your self-appointed, drone thought
leadership.
> > Actually, you were referring to you people - "Anyone who is a
> > free(libre) software advocate.." Or in other words, "Just a reminder
> > of what the hive mind party line is".
> >
>
> That's ironic. Mono is blessed by the FSF themselves,
Did RMS sprinkle some GNU holy water on it?
> so the "hive mind" that you speak of so highly is actually
> advocating *using* mono.
Haha, was that before or after RMS had to be reminded that Mono isn't
a GNU project. That incident was particularly hilarious. Maybe you
should query RMS again to see how the borg drones should think on this
matter.
I'm on the *other* side of this
> particular fence, you fool.
>
Ahh, yes, you're the self-appointed representive of some side of the
fence. We'll call that the Chicken Little/ABMers/holy roller side of
the fence. Who said there weren't denominations?
> > >
> > > goose,
> > > Why are you so insistent that people should
> > > be left in the dark wrt possible legal problems
> > > with mono? You very stupidly mischaracterised
> > > my position which made it difficult for you to
> > > follow on with anything sensible.
> >
> > Oh of course, everybody is just left in the dark. Goose to the rescue
> > to remind everybody that's got religion, ("Anyone who is a free(libre)
> > software advocate"), they should disregard Mono.
>
> Seeing as you don't have religion, why are you so insecure?
> You aren't a FOSS advocate, so why do you care whether or not
> FOSS advocates know about mono's legality (or lack of it)?
>
Poor goose, of course Mono's "legality" has been played to death more
than any other open source project in history. Everybody that would
possibly be interested is already aware of every issue, but Goose is
here to set the record straight. What would "FOSS advocates" do
without you? Thankfully, you're around to tell them what to regard and
disregard.
> >
> > Guuess I'll have to remind you of "Really, MS is a corporate, you must
> > assume that they
> > will do what is best for *them*, not for *you*. ". Ooops, it looks
> > like it's not just a legal problem any more.
> >
> > On the flip side, Anyone who is a free software advocate should avoid
> > GNU software because we have no idea what mullah Stallman will cram
> > into GPL v3. RMS isn't a corporate, and I"m sure he's not looking out
> > for my best interests.
>
> Sadly, the issue on both sides of the neverending FOSS
> debate is clouded with room-temperature-IQ idiots. I've
> just pointed out that I'm actually /against/ an official
> FSF endeaver(sp?) (which is what mono is), but you still
> insist on grouping me with them and beating a straw man.
>
Are you that brain dead to think that it's a "FSF endeaver(sp?) (which
is what mono is)"? You better get your facts in order before you start
telling "libre advocates" (gotta love that one), that they should
disregard Mono.
> goose,
> I tend to evaluate products on a case by case
> basis and not blindly bash FOSS or proprietry.
> In the case of mono, I was enthusiastic about it
> *until* the cracks appeared.
Oooh, cracks, better hide under the bed.
> It seems that you are the blind advocate here, not
> me.
You're the blind leading the blind.
············@gmail.com wrote:
> goose wrote:
>
>
>>Well, if you aren't advocating free software, then why the
>>hell are you so up in arms about it? If you aren't advocating
>>FOSS, then you are at best neutral to mono.
>>
>
>
> Haha, Mono was mentioned as a passing reference to a GUI and you went
> off on a complete, bitter tangent about it. You're all worked up about
> it, telling "libre" advocates that they should disregard it. You are
> the one that is up in arms about it, or you wouldn't have posted your
> spastic rant on it. I'm laughing at your self-appointed, drone thought
> leadership.
>
>
>>>Actually, you were referring to you people - "Anyone who is a
>>>free(libre) software advocate.." Or in other words, "Just a reminder
>>>of what the hive mind party line is".
>>>
>>
>>That's ironic. Mono is blessed by the FSF themselves,
>
>
> Did RMS sprinkle some GNU holy water on it?
>
>
>
>>so the "hive mind" that you speak of so highly is actually
>>advocating *using* mono.
>
>
> Haha, was that before or after RMS had to be reminded that Mono isn't
> a GNU project. That incident was particularly hilarious. Maybe you
> should query RMS again to see how the borg drones should think on this
> matter.
>
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing
>
> I'm on the *other* side of this
>
>>particular fence, you fool.
>>
>
>
> Ahh, yes, you're the self-appointed representive of some side of the
> fence. We'll call that the Chicken Little/ABMers/holy roller side of
> the fence. Who said there weren't denominations?
>
>
>
>
>>>>goose,
>>>> Why are you so insistent that people should
>>>> be left in the dark wrt possible legal problems
>>>> with mono? You very stupidly mischaracterised
>>>> my position which made it difficult for you to
>>>> follow on with anything sensible.
>>>
>>>Oh of course, everybody is just left in the dark. Goose to the rescue
>>>to remind everybody that's got religion, ("Anyone who is a free(libre)
>>>software advocate"), they should disregard Mono.
>>
>>Seeing as you don't have religion, why are you so insecure?
>>You aren't a FOSS advocate, so why do you care whether or not
>>FOSS advocates know about mono's legality (or lack of it)?
>>
>
>
> Poor goose, of course Mono's "legality" has been played to death more
> than any other open source project in history. Everybody that would
> possibly be interested is already aware of every issue, but Goose is
> here to set the record straight. What would "FOSS advocates" do
> without you? Thankfully, you're around to tell them what to regard and
> disregard.
>
>
>
>>> Guuess I'll have to remind you of "Really, MS is a corporate, you must
>>>assume that they
>>>will do what is best for *them*, not for *you*. ". Ooops, it looks
>>>like it's not just a legal problem any more.
>>>
>>>On the flip side, Anyone who is a free software advocate should avoid
>>>GNU software because we have no idea what mullah Stallman will cram
>>>into GPL v3. RMS isn't a corporate, and I"m sure he's not looking out
>>>for my best interests.
>>
>>Sadly, the issue on both sides of the neverending FOSS
>>debate is clouded with room-temperature-IQ idiots. I've
>>just pointed out that I'm actually /against/ an official
>>FSF endeaver(sp?) (which is what mono is), but you still
>>insist on grouping me with them and beating a straw man.
>>
>
>
> Are you that brain dead to think that it's a "FSF endeaver(sp?) (which
> is what mono is)"? You better get your facts in order before you start
> telling "libre advocates" (gotta love that one), that they should
> disregard Mono.
>
Here are the facts, please read them and you'll see they support
my position totally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza
Who's brain-dead now? You've made an assertion,
I proved it wrong. Tough break.
>
>>goose,
>> I tend to evaluate products on a case by case
>> basis and not blindly bash FOSS or proprietry.
>> In the case of mono, I was enthusiastic about it
>> *until* the cracks appeared.
>
>
> Oooh, cracks, better hide under the bed.
>
>
>
>> It seems that you are the blind advocate here, not
>> me.
>
>
> You're the blind leading the blind.
>
Well, you've made your case (rather stridently); you've
ranted and you've attempted sarcasm, straw man arguments
and you've expressed idoltry.
You've displayed ignorance of the very thing you
are arguing about (hopefully those links will
help you be better informed) while pretending
I'm supporting a position that I am not, in this
case, actually supporting.
You've done more to break your own arguments (what were
they again?) than I could ever have hoped to have done.
You've shown (more than once) than you'd rather have
blind belief than rational judgement. You resist having
any original thoughts of your own so strenously that I
truly am flabbergasted.
Well done! I'm most thoroughly convinced now. I seriously
doubt that there is anything more you can post that
will further damage your credibility, but I'm certain
you'll attempt another unoriginal reply from what
seems to be the standard anti-FOSS playbook anyway.
Not that pro-FOSS was actually my stated position
thus far in this thread (my position was/is
anti-software-patents) but I'm sure you won't let that
stop you attributing pro-FOSS to me and then complaining
about hive-mind, borg-like, mullah-led cultists.
Huh. Irony - who needs it ...
--
goose
Have I offended you? Send flames to ····@localhost
real email: lelanthran at gmail dot com
website : www.lelanthran.com
ps. what was the name of your cult, again?
> > goose wrote:
> > Are you that brain dead to think that it's a "FSF endeaver(sp?) (which
> > is what mono is)"? You better get your facts in order before you start
> > telling "libre advocates" (gotta love that one), that they should
> > disregard Mono.
> >
>
> Here are the facts, please read them and you'll see they support
> my position totally.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza
>
> Who's brain-dead now? You've made an assertion,
> I proved it wrong. Tough break.
>
Bahaha, did you even read your "random guy from somewhere who wrote
something" entry? Your all that is truthful and factual Wikipedia
doesn't even back up your claim that Mono is a FSF endeavor, because
it's not and never has been. Maybe you should have at least added,
"...oh by the way, Mono is a FSF endeavor. Goose"
We'll chalk up the rest of your scatter-brained, non-argument to a
feeble defense of:
"Really, MS is a corporate, you must assume that they
will do what is best for *them*, not for *you*. " therefore, "Anyone
who
is a free(libre) software advocate should disregard
Mono."
············@gmail.com wrote:
> > > goose wrote:
>
> > > Are you that brain dead to think that it's a "FSF endeaver(sp?) (which
> > > is what mono is)"? You better get your facts in order before you start
> > > telling "libre advocates" (gotta love that one), that they should
> > > disregard Mono.
> > >
> >
> > Here are the facts, please read them and you'll see they support
> > my position totally.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza
> >
> > Who's brain-dead now? You've made an assertion,
> > I proved it wrong. Tough break.
> >
>
> Bahaha,
The written laugh; a sure sign of a demented mind :-)
> did you even read your "random guy from somewhere who wrote
> something" entry? Your all that is truthful and factual Wikipedia
> doesn't even back up your claim that Mono is a FSF endeavor, because
> it's not and never has been. Maybe you should have at least added,
> "...oh by the way, Mono is a FSF endeavor. Goose"
It's fully GPL'ed. It's fully backed by the FSF. What more
can I say? Like I said, tough break. You're welcome to
post links that say otherwise. Because if you don't your
entire argument hinges on "Mono is not FOSS Because I Say So"
which might carry weight in your inner circle of friends,
but I see no reason to just believe you, espeecially when
there are plenty of other people saying otherwise.
>
> We'll chalk up the rest of your scatter-brained, non-argument to a
> feeble defense of:
>
> "Really, MS is a corporate, you must assume that they
> will do what is best for *them*, not for *you*. " therefore, "Anyone
> who
> is a free(libre) software advocate should disregard
> Mono."
You've plumbed new depths in non-sequitor flamage. Once
again you attribute items to me and then proceed to bash
them. Why do you persist in that? Is your argument so
weak that it won't stand on it's own?
No, I did not say "therefore". It's an important
distinction. The issue *I* raised was wrt privately
held patents on GPL'ed software. I'm not too sure
exactly what it is that you are ranting about - a
more coherent argument from you might help.
goose,
If you feel the need to justify yourself, please
contact me via email (address posted elsethread).
I think we've annoyed the group enough.
> On the flip side, Anyone who is a free software advocate should avoid
> GNU software because we have no idea what mullah Stallman will cram
> into GPL v3. RMS isn't a corporate, and I"m sure he's not looking out
> for my best interests.
It doesn't matter what is in GPLv3. If it's unacceptable to people
they are not compelled to use it, they can keep their software GPLv2.
The difference between the GPL changes and any Microsoft patents that
may cover .NET is that the former can't affect writers of software
using it if they don't want it to, wheras the later can.
············@gmail.com wrote:
> goose wrote:
> > ············@gmail.com wrote:
> > > goose wrote:
> > >
>
> >
> > Really, MS is a corporate, you must assume that they
> > will do what is best for *them*, not for *you*.
> >
> > goose,
>
> Yeah, because any "they" who is coding, is going to code for "their"
> interests and not "yours". That's true in any project. By the way,
> RMS is not a corporate and I'll have to assume that he's doing what's
> best for himself, and not what is best for me.
>
> Gnome has already made their decision, and any belly-aching on your
> part is irrelevant.
But it is interesting to those who haven't thought about the issue from
that angle. It is wise to avoid being tied to technologies where there
are IP issues. Highlighting when it is an issue is useful to others.