Miguel de Icaza plays fast and loose with the facts and history
December 5th, 2006 by Nicholas Petreley
Miguel de Icaza, in this weblog entry says, "Facts barely matter when they get in the way of a good smear. The comments over at Groklaw are interesting, in that they explore new levels of ignorance." This comment rings especially true of his weblog entry. For example, Miguel states...
We have been working on OpenOffice.Org for longer than anyone else has. We were some of the earliest contributors to OpenOffice, and we are the largest external contributor to actual code to OpenOffice than anyone else.
Say what? Who created OpenOffice? Who bought it? Who opened it? Anyone ever hear of Star Division gmbh or Sun? Since when did Novell become the earliest contributor to OpenOffice.org? The earliest and largest external corporate contributor, maybe. I'd like to see some hard facts to back up an assertion like that (not that facts matter, as Miguel admitted), but his hyperbolic boasting of Novell's contribution is obviously overblown. And is a contribution that doesn't make it into the main code base really a contribution? After all, in the same blog entry, Miguel himself makes much of the fact that Novell's OpenOffice.org really isn't THE OpenOffice.org. It's Novell's unique version, patched and modified.
And of course, the code that we write to interop with Office XML is covered by the Microsoft Open Specification Promise (Update: this is a public patent agreement, this has nothing to do with the Microsoft/Novell agreement, and is available to anyone; If you still want to email me, read the previous link, and read it twice before hitting the send button).
I agree. Read that link twice or even several times, and then blast Miguel with an email. First, the fork isn't just about Office XML. It's about things like Excel VBA, which is not covered by the above Microsoft promise. Indeed, here is the only relevant technology covered by that promise:
Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas
Office Open XML 1.0 proposed Ecma standard
So the promise, worded in such twisted language that even a lawyer might not be able to decipher it, covers an old standard and a proposed standard. And this is supposed to reassure us, how?
Sorry, Miguel, but you seem to have been on an ongoing crusade to inject as much of what Microsoft produces into Linux, from Mono to Evolution and now things like Excel VBA. You say it is all in the name of providing interoperability, but at what cost? Add to that the exclusive patent agreement, and the once absurd notion that you're a Microsoft mole with a mission to infect Linux with IP that promotes Microsoft starts to become plausible. Not conclusive by any means, but plausible.
Regardless, I stand on my call for OpenOffice.org and other FOSS project leaders to refuse to adopt any contributions from Novell into the mainstream code base. Let Novell offer all the patches it wants, but keep them out of the projects. Let Novell fork OpenOffice.org if it wants. That's fine. Meanwhile, I urge contributors to the main branch to work on interoperability that does not include Microsoft patents, but includes means of translating things like VBA code into something native - and GPL - to OpenOffice.org.
__________________________
Special Magazine Offer -- Free Gift with Subscription
Receive a free digital copy of Linux Journal's System Administration Special Edition as well as instant online access to current and past issues. CLICK HERE for offer
Linux Journal: delivering readers the advice and inspiration they need to get the most out of their Linux systems since 1994.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Post to TwitterSubscribe now!
The Latest
Newsletter
Tech Tip Videos
Recently Popular
From the Magazine
December 2009, #188
If last month's Infrastrucuture issue was too "big" for you then try on this month's Embedded issue. Find out how to use Player for programming mobile robots, build a humidity controller for your root cellar, find out how to reduce the boot time of your embedded system, and if you're new to embedded systems find out the basics that go into one. You can also read about the Beagle Board, the Mesh Potato and a spate of other interestingly named items. And along with our regular columns don't miss our new monthly column: Economy Size Geek.
what gives?!
On September 25th, 2007 harvey gray (not verified) says:
just when a good free os is made as a users delight here comes novell with illusions that we're better off from the os we've ran from...twisted!
Novell and Microsoft
On December 22nd, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
Novell and its' officers have done themselves 'in' as far as I am concerned. I had Open Suse on one of my comps and thought it pretty good, but have removed it and my email address from their mail list, because the trust is gone. It will not be easy to get me back and I suspect that their are a huge number of other opensource users who feel the same. I am sorry that this has the effect on the Open Suse developers, but the association is there and it makes me wonder how much influence the Corp. has on the developers. Novell's retoric is just so much hot air now.
Regardless of who is the biggest contributor...
On December 18th, 2006 Zaphod (not verified) says:
I still don't trust Miguel and never will. He is too wrapped up in his Microsoft-worship to be relied upon to create unbiased, useful Linux applications. I run Linux specifically to avoid a lot of the problems that Windows used to bestow on me, and here is Miguel, trying to recreate that environment in Linux. Thanks, but no thanks.
Amusing
On December 18th, 2006 Nicholas Petreley says:
I do find it amusing that:
1. I have been accused of cherry picking a quote when the above blog entry contains (and always contained) the whole paragraph
2. Most of the criticism of the blog entry is about who is really the greatest contributor to OpenOffice.org. Almost everyone has missed the most important issue, which is what Miguel was addressing - whether or not OpenOffice.org is forked. Miguel's arguments with respect to this are flimsy at best, downright wrong at worst. Microsoft's promise amounts to practically nothing, and his reference to Microsoft's promise ignores issues like Excel VBA and the DRM card Microsoft can play. It also ignores the fact that Novell's verion IS different than the standard version. If that's not a fork, then what is?
Wow, Nicholas. You're way
On December 15th, 2006 Micah (not verified) says:
Wow, Nicholas. You're way out of line.
Go look it up... de Icaza's not from Novell, he's from Ximian. Novell recently bought Ximian, and got de Icaza at the same time. And Ximian has been maintaining a branch of OpenOffice for years.
De Icaza is telling the truth. Suse isn't forking OOo, they're continuing to add improvements to the branch they've been maintaining for years. They've always added those patches back to OOo, and will continue to do so.
And I don't even use SuSE anymore... I'm all-Ubuntu. But no need to bad-mouth the guy for stuff you don't even understant.
RE: Wow, Nicholas. You're way
On December 18th, 2006 Tony McNamara (not verified) says:
Come on, Micah, get real. ximian / Novell, same difference. Stay off the petty stuff, follow the money. It's Novell, not Suse/Ximian.
Patches are modifications to a release; patches are not a releases. Forks are when patches, which are not, nor will be incorporated into the official release become part of your release, ala Novell's OO.
There is nothing in what I read that badmouths De Icaza. Given the misrepresentation which Novell have engaged in, I though Petrely's offering showed admirable restraint.
The trouble is....
On December 15th, 2006 kmashraf (not verified) says:
that as I see it we are seeing a shift in way 'things' are done. Large monolith corporations where anonymous developers slave away at 'product' development is starting to die. Patents are dinosaurs of the 20th century. Look at the development of the 'Linux' kernel. It surely is not anonymous. We all know who did what and clearly give credit where it is due. Better method than patents. These days I see patents as actually extortion underwritten by law. Patents were created to protect the individual' s creations. The 15th/20th century saw the rise of the 'corporations' starting with the British East India Company (they conducted wars to satiate the greed of their shareholders, 'ruled India as it acquired auxiliary governmental and military functions' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company).
Is Microsoft/Novell/IBM or any like entity different? No I don' t think so.
But the times are a changing. The 21st century I think is the beginning of the rise of the individual. Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox and the many others are the signs.
But we tend to forget that history is made by individuals.
Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohamed, Mahatma Gandhi are some of them.
he is loosing it
On December 11th, 2006 linux dude (not verified) says:
I was using the c# runtime developed by Miguel de Icaza, I though the runtime was quite good, but since novel bought suse, lots of things changed.....
Two points
On December 7th, 2006 Michael Calabrese (not verified) says:
First, we need to remember it is really not about who contributes the most. Never has, and I hope never will, otherwise we will have lost our freedom. (Though it is important to point out when someone has misspoken.)
Second, no I do not believe we can currently trust Novell. They have purchased protection ONLY for their customers. Which mean Novell can insert MS IP and their customers are ok. How is the rest of the community going to be able to short it out. Has Novell built Chinese walls around those team that will work on MS IP? Are their developers willing to be come tainted? (This may be off the deep end, but I bring it up as possible. Like looking at MS source code.) If they can be "tainted" then the community can not help them in this effort, or they will be "tainted". Then MS can easily bring suit for infringement on the patents.
If MS wants to play, other have clearly shown the way (e.g. IBM, Sun). Allow the patients that they want interoperability on put a permanent no sue agreement on them. (No I don't mean a standard (aka RAND and the like), I mean straight from MS an agreement not to sue for all eternity.) It is that simple.
Miguel needs to learn from history
On December 7th, 2006 Frank Daley (not verified) says:
I am prepared to waive Miguel's comments as an over-enthusiastic response to defend his position.
However, the writing is 'on the wall' that Miguel de Icaza does not understand Microsoft.
Microsoft is not one but two. One part is a company of hard-working well intentioned people, and they are the people that I am sure Miguel works with. However the other part of Microsoft, and the one that makes the final decisions, is the part run by people infested with an obsession and hatred to kill the GPL and kill Linux. (You know, the guys that think Linux is a cancer, although they are careful not to say so in public anymore.)
Unfortunately Miguel has been been deceived in a similar way to which Hitler deceived Stalin (not that there is any other similarity between Stalin and Miguel I might stress). Miguel probably thinks that Microsoft has changed. But his perceptions have been deceived and he is blind to the real motives of Microsoft senior management.
The Wikipedia article on Operation Barbarossa is one good place that Miguel could start to learn a little about the deception games that leaders can play. For example, the following paragraph is telling (and highly relevant I would say):
"In preparation for the attack, Hitler moved 3.2 million men to the Soviet border, launched many aerial surveillance missions over Soviet territory, and stockpiled vast amounts of material in the East. Despite these preparations, the Soviets were still taken by surprise, mostly due to Stalin's belief that the Third Reich was unlikely to attack only two years after signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin also believed that the Nazis would likely finish their war with Britain before opening a new front. Stalin refused to believe repeated warnings from his intelligence services on the Nazi buildup, fearing the reports to be British misinformation designed to spark a war between the Nazis and the USSR."
Re: Miguel needs to learn from history
On December 17th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
"Microsoft is not one but two" Actually it has three parts: those that as you say are "hard-working well intentioned people", those that are at the "top" and that as you say are rabidly against anything NOT Microsoft. There are also those at the "lower" levels (at the level of Miguel") that are brown-nosing every day in the hopes of making it to the "upper levels"
It is these types that help plan and implement the "real" microsoft agenda.
Overall I agree with your main argument but "dammit" why do you have to use the analogy of hitler, stalin, etc...why did you not also then use mao as an example?
But besides that, you do more harm than good in trying to use those analogies.
#1 At the very least people in general and those at the "lower" MS levels in particular will simply shrug you off as a fanatic because the analogy you use means nothing to anyone.
#2 If you really know how MS works and I don't say you don't, then please tell us explicitly (with examples) of the illegal, devious, and unethical things they do and say. I remember a few years ago Ballmer (and Gates ?) said Linux developers were Communists. The GPL was viral.
Compare that with what he says today. How can Miguel then be so "pro-microsoft"?
Lets show MS and its top echelon to be what they really are: greedy, unethical hypocrites! But lets do it with real examples and facts - not with analogies. Lets keep reminding people of those things that cannot be disputed, only swept under the carpet. Incidently, if we look at what has happened to Tibet, and how no one is in the least interested in the demise of an ancient culture, and murder of real peoples, we should realize that the world does not give two hoots for anyone else's problems. I mean we have been pouring buckets of money in to the pockets of just those that will never return Tibet to its rightful owners, its people.
I guess this is just my own two hoots :-)
From a former Microsoft employee
On December 7th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
Hi,
I would like to add the "Microsoftie" perspective to what you're describing. Yes, there are some good engineers there. The problem is that, like senior management, those engineers aren't on our side, either. I remember my days there well; they threw stock at us willy-nilly. Why? It's obvious--to turn us into salesmen for Microsoft. Those few who think independently tend to get severely sanctioned; remember what happened to the WordBasic Concept Virus author (he was a MS employee and was making a point to senior management). No developer would back him, not even his boss. Why? Stock options!
Tridge and Jeremy Allison have spoken about cooperative behaviour in the past with Microsoft *engineers* regarding Samba. When I read those words, I was in shock. I can also guarantee you that those engineers had at least one of two things happen to them:
1.) they got put on immediate notice, and/or
2.) they got more stock thrown at them.
I suspect both. "Hey, you wouldn't want to jepoardize your upcoming millionaire status by getting fired now, wouldja?" That's MS's way of turning independent thinkers into either MS salesmen or former employees; nearly always, they choose to turn into the former. That kind of thinking permeates the company, from the top all the way to the bottom. It's part of the corporate culture and is also the source of a lot of the "Microsoft arrogance" shown by the employees when they meet non-Microsoft people. I wouldn't want to work there again.
I hope you're right
On December 7th, 2006 Nicholas Petreley says:
I know it sounds strange to say I hope you're right, but the alternative is that Miguel knows what he's doing. I would rather think he's deceived than the alternative. So much of his focus has been to recreate Windows on Linux that I can't help but wonder if he's deceived, or if he's bent on sabotage.
Micrsoft/Miguel
On December 16th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
There was a rumour that he originally applied for a job with Microsoft before starting Ximian but lost out to a Visa issue. Hence his bias towards Microsoft
Miguel did apply to join Microsoft
On January 1st, 2009 JamesRegister (not verified) says:
It wasn't a rumour, he has written about it in his Blog and has referred to it in interviews. He applied for a job with Microsoft but could not get a visa because he had left university before finishing his degree.
Miguel likes writing code, admires Windows technology ( and has said as much on a number of occasions ) claims to like open source too, but ultimately, if his actions are anything to go by, likes the limelight and the rewards as much as the principles of the Free Software Foundation.
Bear in mind, that if you were a talented but unknown programmer, you too might be drawn to the open source movement, where your talents might bring you acclaim, and open doors for you. But if you were that programmer, once those doors were open, and the rewards were coming your way, you might not feel so obliged to champion the cause which gave you the opportunity in the first place.
Here's a thought
On December 6th, 2006 Joe Klemmer says:
What if the Microsoft/Novell deal was made by Microsoft for the sole purpose of causing decent, fear and mistrust in the community? They can't beat us fairly so they plant the seeds of discontent. They get us fighting with ourselves and make us look childish and unstable to the rest of the world. We're just doing their work for them.
I'm only posing this as a "what if" scenario. I have no insight into what Microsoft, Novell or anyone else in the universe is doing or planning to do.
__________________________--
Using Linux since November 1991
Nick petreley's comments on de Icaza blog
On December 6th, 2006 W. Anderson (not verified) says:
As Nick Petreley will attest to, users of StarOffice/OpenOffice
from OS/2 days like myself are amoung the most experienced and product knowledgeable users of this software.
Until Mr. de Icaza can provide proof that Novell is the "earliest,
largest commercial, largest non-Sun" or any other description
contributor to OpenOffice, I will not accept "his word", based on my
uninterrupted following and use of this product line.
Of one thing I am convinced, Mr. de Icaza is certainly awe-struck
by Microsoft from his "documented" early, totally un-supported (not technologically factual) comments and opinions about .Net vs Java,
KDE and other topics.
I agree that it would be very unwise for OpenOffice.org to continue
to accept contributions from Novell unless the Software Freedom Law center (or similar neutral entity) has reviewed and accepted a "required" declaration from Novell as to any (past and future) contribution "purity" from any category "IP" encumbrance of Microsoft.
Ignorance, prejudice and malice reign here...
On December 6th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
Novell (Ximian) IS the major non-SUN external contributor to OpenOffice; Ximian OpenOffice is the default OpenOffice installed by most distributions. Do you use Debian or a Debian derivative (including Ubuntu), Gentoo, Frugalware, Ark or some of many other distros? Then you're using Novell (formerly Ximian) OpenOffice, which, by the way, introduced a great numbers of features that went in OO 2.0, including GTK/KDE-like interface and native filechoosers and icons.
Default OpenOffice
On December 18th, 2006 Alan Jones (not verified) says:
Gentoo has no "default" OpenOffice - it has both versions available - personally I don't use the ximian one - though considering it's not installed when you emerge openoffice - I don't see how it could even remotely be considered the default.
Seems you're as guilty of ignorance as those you accuse.
Qualifications
On December 6th, 2006 Nicholas Petreley says:
Ah, so now you're going to add the extra qualification that Miguel conveniently left out. Novell is the major NON-SUN external contributor.
1. Sun is by far the greatest external contributor. That alone makes Miguel's boast just plain false. But, as he said, facts don't matter, so I guess it doesn't matter that he was wrong.
2. I do happen to have a version of OpenOffice.org that has some Novell patches in it. I'm using Ubuntu and Ubuntu has apparently adopted a Novell-patched version of OpenOffice.org. I plan to remove it asap and replace it with what's available from OpenOffice.org. If OpenOffice.org starts adopting suspect Novell code into the main code base, I'll just stop using OpenOffice.org altogether. There are plenty of good alternatives.
external == !Sun.
On December 18th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
By 'external' is meant non-Sun, those that think OpenOffice.org exists independently of Sun need to go do their homework.
Yes, you are just lame.
On December 17th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
Yes, you are just lame. Ximian was futzing around with OO.o before you came along. I know, I worked there.
Novell worked on the kernel as well. You going to remove that as well? Don't be a child.
Efforts at blindness
On December 6th, 2006 Troy Roberts (not verified) says:
1. Sun is not an external contributor, they hold the copyright to a majority of OOO.
2. It would be hard to comment on this, without sounding like I was attacking you..... So... I won't.
Nick's right — keep Microsoft/Novell at bay
On December 5th, 2006 Zaine Ridling (not verified) says:
Nick's right on several points, among them the exaggerated contribution to OOo's code by Novell. I'd definitely keep Novell away from the OOo projects from now on. They made their Faustian bargain; they have to live with it, not us.
You're wrong
On December 7th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
Ximian's (now part of Novell) contributions to OpenOffice.org are hardly exaggerated. According to this article, in 2005 there were 50 Sun developers, 10 Novell contributors, and only 4 active community developers. If you're using OpenOffice.org on a Linux platform, the odds are high you're using the Ximian version.
No, he's right
On December 7th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
He's correct; we need to keep Novell at bay now. Their contributions to OO.o might have been welcome before this patent agreement with Microsoft, but now, it's just too dangerous. It is indeed a Faustian agreement. When Novell ends this patent agreement with MS, then I will be among the first to welcome them back in. But until they do, any of their contributions are now just too dangerous to us. Damn shame, too.
Ximian
On December 5th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
Miguel is referring to Ximian, not Novell.
Try reading the article first next time.
Additionally...
On December 6th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
There's a difference in meaning of being 'the first contributor' and 'the creator'. Nicholas Petreley would be bad editor if he had missed this -- oh, wait! He did miss it, didn't he?
Also, he lost the difference of being "some of the earliest contributors to OpenOffice" -- which is was Miguel wrote --, and being "the earliest contributor" -- which is what he wanted to understand.
What part of this sentence did you not understand?
On December 6th, 2006 Nicholas Petreley says:
We have been working on OpenOffice.Org for longer than anyone else has.
Ximian / work on OO.o ...
On December 18th, 2006 Michael Meeks (not verified) says:
So - since I actually did some work here - I can vouch for Miguel's statement. We were in fact involved with OpenOffice.org before it was open-sourced, discussing merging component models (among other things such as Sun's switch to Gnome).
Miguel has the merit of not only intimately knowing the history he is talking about, but having helped made it happen.
Foolish man. Quote the whole
On December 17th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
Foolish man. Quote the whole thing!
You could have quoted the rest of the paragraph
On December 6th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
You could have quoted the rest of the paragraph, because the complete paragraph states:
"We have been working on OpenOffice.Org for longer than anyone else has. We were some of the earliest contributors to OpenOffice, and we are the largest external contributor to actual code to OpenOffice than anyone else."
I guess it kind of defeats your point, so cherry-picking would do just as well right Nick?
Thank you!
On December 16th, 2006 Devon (not verified) says:
I agree try to quote everything anything can be made to seem like something else when you fail to supply the entire quote. IMHO that makes you look bias as you are basing your arguments on fragmented text. Nice job for proving your point and rallying support Nick!
Foaming at the mouth
On December 5th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
Sorry, Nick but you are out of your tree. You and PJ really lost it on this one. Novell is probably starting to love you guys. Your paranoid rants make even monkey-dance boy looks sane.
You f*cking bastard
On December 6th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
You f*cking bastard anonymous.
Go f*ck yourself, bitchass!!!
Hmmmm
On December 6th, 2006 Troy Roberts (not verified) says:
Interesting that an Anonymous insults an Anonymous for being Anonymous..... weird.
Yea I agree but it was very
On February 21st, 2007 hinks (not verified) says:
Yea I agree but it was very amuzing
Anonymous, cowards, and anonymous cowards
On December 16th, 2006 Jeff Rollin (not verified) says:
Maybe he's having an argument with himself.
It's interesting that, people who post constructive arguments for or against Linux are the ones who post with identifiable names (probably not always their real names), whereas Anonymous Cowards are usually, to use another's phrase, argumentless "asshats".
Also interesting that though I may not be looking hard enough, it's a long time since I ever saw someone posting on a forum such as this or OSnews, in favour of Microsoft, Windows, Office, or closed-source, without using insults.
This is a shame, because Windows users who are not foulmouthed thickos do exist, (I've seen them) but indeed the "you should not use Linux because FOSS developers are evil communists who want you to provide software for free, work for nothing, and pirate software" insult is the only "argument" behind 99.9% of such posts.
A perfect example
On December 16th, 2006 Peter Yellman (not verified) says:
In today's news, pot meets kettle.
If your post isn't a blatant, wide-brush smearing insult, I don't know what is.
Peter Yellman
Miguel saying this to keep from being fired
On December 5th, 2006 Sum Yung Gai (not verified) says:
Folks,
We, sadly, can no longer trust Miguel de Icaza. This is a major loss for the F/OSS movement, as he was a major factor--some say THE major push--behind GNOME. He has now been bought by Microsoft/Novell and now, to keep his job, has to tow the company line.
I agree with you, Nick; we can no longer trust any further contributions from Novell until they get out of this patent agreement with Microsoft. That really sucks for me because Evolution and OO.o are what allow me to use GNU/Linux in a dyed-in-the-wool Microsoft shop. It is quite likely now that the Evolution Connector for MS Exchange--which Ximian started--will get "accidentally" contaminated by one or more of Microsoft's patents. But Novell doesn't own OO.o, either the project or the copyright on the code.
OO.o team, please refuse any contributions from Novell until they back out of the MS patent agreement. As much as I'd love to see so-called "increased interoperability" among office productivity suites, it's just too dangerous now if it comes from that company. Damned shame, too.
Trust?
On December 6th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
Who on earth "trusted" Miguel to begin with? I certainly haven't. He's been a continual voice of discord within the Linux movement since he first appeared. His "push" for GNOME only created a very buggy and broken "desktop" that only matured AFTER he moved on to other things.
Has Miguel stuck through ANY project he's started? He's jumped from half-baked idea to half-baked idea, leaving a long trail of broken and buggy projects. I'm surprised he's stayed with Mono for this long.
And his pro-Microsoft ideology has never been a secret. I'll never understand why he has such a large following.
"Has Miguel stuck through
On December 15th, 2006 pitheris (not verified) says:
"Has Miguel stuck through ANY project he's started? He's jumped from half-baked idea to half-baked idea, leaving a long trail of broken and buggy projects. I'm surprised he's stayed with Mono for this long."
Yup he started
Midnight Commander
Gnome Project
Gnumeric
etc.
These are some of his "half-baked" and buggy projects.
Midnight Commander An
On December 16th, 2006 Segedunum (not verified) says:
Midnight Commander
An inferior file manager to certainly Konqueror and Nautilus, and even Nautilus isn't a file manager anymore. The Gnome people like to convince us that file managing isn't important anymore, and we should all be searching or doing things spatially or something.
Gnome Project
Any desktop environment that doesn't have the ability to produce relatively complex user interfaces, and can't even produce an interface to give me a preview of what my desktop will look like if I change the theme, colours and look, simply can't be taken seriously.
Gnumeric
Miguel's mission to create an Excel wannabe rip-off on Linux. Yay.
that
On March 12th, 2008 Paruresis (not verified) says:
"Has Miguel stuck through ANY project he's started? He's jumped from half-baked idea to half-baked idea, leaving a long trail of broken and buggy projects. I'm surprised he's stayed with Mono for this long."
Yup he started
Midnight Commander
Gnome Project
Gnumeric
paruresis
etc.
These are some of his "half-baked" and buggy projects.
I believe the OP said "stuck
On December 17th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:
I believe the OP said "stuck with". He didn't "stick with" any of those projects, save Gnome, and only then "kinda".
too much pasion - attack the argument, not the person
On January 9th, 2007 Alejandro Amaro (not verified) says:
Excuse me, but I do not understand
why you are trying to destroy Miguel's reputation.
It is not necesary. Yes, I agree we should not trust
Novell since the M$ deal. I think Miguel is going
the wrong way along with Novell, but the good thing
is to expose the facts, not people bones.
The most important fact is that Novell is bypassing
the comunity spirit using legal tricks, without violating
"technically" the GPL, as Jeremy Allison said. Pretending
it doesn't matter the others, the non-Novell linux users,
the non-Novell developers, who can be sued. Trying to
gain and exhibit competitive advantage over Redhat,
over Ubuntu, or whatever other Linux distro based on
a patent deal with Microsoft. Obviously, it looks like a
not so ethical way to run bussiness and competition
while embedded in the linux community. Because there are
rules, legal rules like those included in the GPL and ethical,
not written, rules like the common principles of the
linux developers who created GNU/Linux, before the appearing
of Novell in this comunity. That is the point we (humble
Linux Journal subscriber, humble years old Linux users, non English
speakers like me or English speakers too, Linux system administrators and any kind of informed Linux users) easily understand, because
we don'n like to see a wonderful thing like Linux being cracked
by legal tricks.
Where Novell will go now, being comunity pariahs?
How much time they have now?
Open Office
On December 6th, 2006 Bugz (not verified) says:
Key word in the story is Open Office. It was called Star Office when Sun had it as theirs. It would appear he's making his statement regarding the time after it was made open source. You're letting emotions cloud your thinking and you're stretching to make your conclusion.
Is it just me or does it
On December 11th, 2006 Anonymous Tom (not verified) says:
Is it just me or does it look like M$/Novel have won hands down.
Never seen such petty infighting since I was at school.
Gotta go and write some code to make MS office and Open Office irrelevant.
"Petty infighting"
On December 16th, 2006 Jeff Rollin (not verified) says:
[i]Is it just me or does it look like M$/Novel have won hands down.
Never seen such petty infighting since I was at school.
Gotta go and write some code to make MS office and Open Office irrelevant. [/i]
Actually it's called "democracy", and involves people having different opinions. Posting informed opinions under recognisable names.
The US and UK governments, among others, are supposed to work by it. Yet amongst the MS-lovers, anyone who goes against Yuri Gatesgarin or Steve Brezhnev are the ones who are called commies.
Go figure.
Picking a nit....
On December 31st, 2006 Fest3er (not verified) says:
Actually, the US is most certainly not a democracy. The US is a constitutional republic.
Post new comment