Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

William Kempf wkempf
  • Yet Another Linux Distro

    Chinmay007 wrote:
    
    cornelius wrote:
    Red Hat helping Novell? You can't be serious. That has to be the stupidest thing, bar none, I've ever heard on Channel 9.


    somehow i imaging the Linux community as singing and dancing together

    freedom, peace and love and all that hippy communist stuff


    Has humanity really degraded to a point where murder, rape, greed, etc are positive things and freedom, peace and love are negative things?


    While Cornelius's post was out of line, this response is lacking.  No one has claimed murder, rape and greed are positive things, and you have to stretch things a bit to come up with peace and love being considered negative.

  • Will Perl be in .NET?

    johnny.NET wrote:
    Does anyone know if there will be a Perl implementation of .NET, maybe IronPerl?


    <half-joking>Lord, I hope not! http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/blog/code/PeriodicTable.html</half-joking>

    In all honesty, I despise Perl, and would use it only if I absolutely had to, whether it were a .NET version or not.  But that's a personal preference thing.  From a wider view point, I think an IronPerl sounds like a good idea, even if I won't use it.

  • Which langauge next?

    Mono is very capable on Linux.  However, if you want to make a living coding with .NET on Linux, your options are very narrow.  In that case, Java would be your better bet, though if you get hired into a company, it's likely they'll be developing on Windows and deploying on Linux or some other Unix platform.

    C is certainly viable, though again you'll find your avenues for employment fairly narrow, especially with your Linux requirement.  C is used mostly for systems level work.  A job working on embedded systems that use Linux and C would be one fit.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    Chinmay007 wrote:
    
    YearOfTheLinuxDesktop wrote:
    
    Chinmay007 wrote:
    Didn't Steve Ballmer compare open source to a malignant cancer and communism just a few years back? Not saying this isn't a good idea for them, but quite out of character.


    He actually compared GPL (once you use GPL'ed code you're forced to license your code under the same license) to a cancer, not open source.


    Doesn't the Microsoft Community Licence have the same "viral" nature?


    Similar enough for my tastes.  I'd avoid that license for the same reasons I tend to avoid the GPL (I'll use GPLed applications, I won't touch GPLed code).  It did seem strange to me that Microsoft made this license.  It would be interesting to hear a discussion of how this differs from GPL, and more importantly, why Microsoft decided to invent such a license considering their very public stance against viral licenses.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    Chinmay007 wrote:
    First Microsoft launches an open source website, and now they one to submit licences to the OSI? Whaaa whaaa what?


    Not sure what you mean either.  The "Whaa whaaa what?" could mean anything.

    That said, it only makes sense for Microsoft to get into the Open Source game, at least in some areas.  Development tools and languages are an area where it makes perfect sense.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    Miguel de Icaza has a beautiful post on this subject.

    I'm frustrated as heck here.  The best thing "for the community" would be to drop the petty FUD and political maneuvering.  I dislike it when any side does it, but I dislike it more from the FSF folks because they wrap themselves in moral trappings claiming their goals to be best "for the community", but then turn around and pull crap like this.  They truly aren't interested in anybody's best interest, only in destroying Microsoft.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    GoddersUK wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    
    OK, sorry, I don't get what you're saying then .


    The article is dismissing these shared source liscences on the bases that they do not meet the required criteria for open source liscences. Whether or not they do not meet these criterea, my point was that this was an unfair comparision as shared source is not open source.


    Sorry, no, the comparison is fair, the conclusions aren't.  The comparison is fair because Microsoft submitted them to the OSI as Open Source Licenses.  Whether or not Microsoft called them "Shared Source" instead of "Open Source" is irrelevant, since Microsoft asked them to be considered as Open Source licences backed by the OSI.  So "dismissing these shared source licenses on the bases (sic) that they do not meet the required criteria for open source licenses" would be a valid, and proper, thing to do.  That is, if they didn't meet the required criteria, which is my beef here, because clearly they do.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    GoddersUK wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    
    I'll make this simple for you.  The article is wrong.  Microsoft only submitted two licenses, both of which fullfill the four requirements for an Open Source license, as defined by the OSI.  In fact, they are very similar to the BSD license already considered to be an Open Source license.

    Oh, that argument fell flat.  Well, let's try another!  Let's dismiss these because they are similar to other Open Source licenses then!

    I'm sorry, this is nothing but FUD.  Lame FUD at that, and the ironic thing is it's not conducive to what the aims of the OSI (and the FSF) are supposed to be, even if it makes the OS bigots happy as clams to stick it to Microsoft.


    I'm not denying any of that, I was just pointing out a specific flaw in their argument.


    OK, sorry, I don't get what you're saying then Smiley.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    GoddersUK wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    
    A) I didn't write that.  I quoted that with appropriate attibutions.  Sloppy reply here.


    Sorry I just hit quote. I'll edit my previous post.

    wkempf wrote:
    B) The quote with no remarks doesn't say a whole heck of a lot.  What's your point?


    Shared and open source are different... The article is complaining about MS shared source liscence because it doesn't fulfill open source requirments.


    I'll make this simple for you.  The article is wrong.  Microsoft only submitted two licenses, both of which fullfill the four requirements for an Open Source license, as defined by the OSI.  In fact, they are very similar to the BSD license already considered to be an Open Source license.

    Oh, that argument fell flat.  Well, let's try another!  Let's dismiss these because they are similar to other Open Source licenses then!

    I'm sorry, this is nothing but FUD.  Lame FUD at that, and the ironic thing is it's not conducive to what the aims of the OSI (and the FSF) are supposed to be, even if it makes the OS bigots happy as clams to stick it to Microsoft.

  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    GoddersUK wrote:
    
    wkempf wrote:
    ... shared-source licenses that restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source licenses ...


    A) I didn't write that.  I quoted that with appropriate attibutions.  Sloppy reply here.

    B) The quote with no remarks doesn't say a whole heck of a lot.  What's your point?

    C) As I said, the quote is not accurate, if not flat out purposefully incorrect.  The majority of the licenses don't restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system, and in fact, none of the ones submitted to the OSI do.  This is FUD and purposeful spinning.