The H Open has a new article up, “Health Check: Moonlight“. Although it is a high-level overview/summary-style piece, let me point out a few things I found interesting.
de Icaza is an enthusiast and long term advocate of Microsoft technologies….
Say it ain’t so! Microsoft MVP Miguel de Icaza once took great exception to be called an “apologist”, I must wonder if he will take the same line over being called an “enthusiast and long term advocate.” They are quite different, I’m sure, in some way. (Perhaps the fact that the former came from RMS makes all the difference?)
Will we now hear The H’s author decried as a “zealot” or ”fearmongerer” for pointing out de Icaza’s obsession with emulating and promoting Microsoft technologies? Or, perhaps, a word of apology for painting RMS in such lights for his equivalent statement?
I suspect the latter shall not happen, though some may call me a cynic.
Moonlight can be used, at least in the short term, if you have obtained your software through Novell. Otherwise, you are cast adrift in a no man’s land where it is not always apparent what is permissible and what is not.
Even though I think the author is too kind here, I am also pleased that he is not merely parroting the (failed) attempt by Team Moonlight to pretend that the new “Covenant” is some sort of improvement over the old – which was downright offensive in the first place.
It’s always amusing to me how de Icaza can say things like “We worked with Microsoft to make sure that Moonlight was available to everyone on Linux” or that they are “thrilled to be working with Microsoft” in a “purely open source fashion”, when the reality is they have all sorts of exclusive arrangements and extra-license agreements, covenants, and promises going on.
[T]he Mono developers have appeared to gain strength and unity from adversity and see themselves as united against the rest of the world.
This is the most brilliant insight of the article, and it articulates something I have long found fascinating. Team Mono has a core of supporters that are simply not interested in the truth or discussion. They will adopt (and endlessly repeat) any argument that they think supports their cause, and they will immediately dismiss any argument with any means that they think supports their opposition.
There is a name for that kind of person. A label, in fact. I think I’ve even seen it applied by such people themselves in attempts to discredit criticism. If only I could remember what it was!
Recent Comments