Novell Does What 10 Years Of Advocacy Has Failed To Do
John Bailo
Novell is the company best poised to get Linux on the desktop. This is
the Holy Grail of Linux. Everyone knows you can replace an expensive
Unix with the trusty Linux in the server room. But running a basic
text interface to the kernel is a no-brainer.
Managing the multiplicity of applications, web standards and trends on
the desktop takes true genius. Just one wrongly implemented plugin can
keep the buyer away ("but it won't play _____.com")
The Linux Advocate has been doing everything except getting down into
the mud with Microsoft and fighting the battle mano a mano. No, says
he, sneering from atop a high hillside, dressed in his best Starfleet
costume, "superior windows managers will drive them to Linux".
Gee, and no wonder it's taken 10 years to get 2 percent.
Enter Novell...like Rocky Balboa, Novell has emerged from the knockdown
dragout fights of packaged software in the 80s, to take on his Apollo
Creed III, Microsoft plus web entrenchment.
Novell does things like making better installers, providing support,
indemnity...the basic security of business. See, in business, it's
never about some flashy new technology, it's about providing value.
And value to most people means doing work...taking out the garbage,
mowing the lawn...that's what people pay for, not spouting off about
some arcane license concept or /architecting/ the Web 2.0
The people say "make show, make show". And Novell performs down in the
marketplace, covered in dust, but with the People!
BearItAll
> Novell does things like making better installers, providing support,
> indemnity...the basic security of business. See, in business, it's
> never about some flashy new technology, it's about providing value.
> And value to most people means doing work...taking out the garbage,
> mowing the lawn...that's what people pay for, not spouting off about
> some arcane license concept or /architecting/ the Web 2.0
>
> The people say "make show, make show". And Novell performs down in the
> marketplace, covered in dust, but with the People!
Had the MS-Novell deal not happened, then I would have said that SLES was
fast becoming The major Linux server distro plus the most likely to win
over many company desktops with SLED.
Suse 9.3 was a major milestone in server/desktop. Many who use it wouldn't
change it if the other distros came with a free villa in the Bahamas, it is
just such a great distro that they had better be something Much Greater
comes along before they will budge.
Suse 10.0 first release was ok but lots of troubles (as you expect with a
new release, unfortunately these were serious troubles), no way would the
company servers be moving from 9.3 for it. But now, with the troubles gone
SLES10 could well have been the next milestone. I have changed most of my
company servers to SLES10 and it took a lot for me to shift the 9.3, it
took even more to shift my long standing RedHat servers, those are so
little trouble that basically I had no intention of changing them for
anything, including newer RH releases. I don't change company servers
unless I have to and it takes much more than a pretty splash screen to move
me from a trusted distro.
Novell->Suse is good, I still use it and still have Suse on my own main
client at home. But I can't help feeling that support for Novell will
deminish, probably long term. Remember that most IT choose themselves what
the next distro on the company servers will be, the angry mob that wanted
to hang the top ten bods at Novell are not likely to forget what has
happened. There are good choices available, I have a feeling that over a
couple of years when servers might have come up for grabs by the distros,
Novell will not be in the list as often as they would have been.
That is a great shame, because not only is SLES10 a great product, but the
direction of other developement areas in Novell (pre-MS agreement) was
right not only for Linux but also for the Internet. A lot has been lost
since that agreement was signed.
The withdrawing support for mono for example. Pre-agreement Novell were all
for it, putting in resources and programmers.
Why mono? Well we all know of MS's 'Keep Linux out of .NET' policy, but also
.NET2 is not that great an implementation of the interactive web site idea.
The GUI tools they give you for free are very good, but they blind you to
what you are actually doing. As mentioned today in this news group for
example, .NET2 gives you a nice simple drag-and-drop user login tool, no
coding necessary to make it work, but of cause that tool if linked to a
MSSQL puts user input directly into dynamically created SQL, no validation
what so ever, so your simple .NET2 login tool has made you very susceptible
to injection attacks. The same is true for all of the drag-n-drop database
links.
Every .NET2 application out there that deals with database access of any
kind probably used these drag-n-drop database tools. So, it is very likely
that the Lion's share of all of those web applications that are currently
live are susceptible to Injection attacks.
Now, had this been a bug I could forgive them, but it isn't a bug it's a
design flaw, because you can actually validate. The person that programmed
these tools and wrote the tutorial that comes with the .NET2 kit, didn't
even think to mention that the finished login tool he created in moments
was in fact not finished at all. There is a place in the tool itself where
you can validate the user input. Where does this validation go in the final
product? It goes public, it can be seen by anyone who wants to have a look,
you can see what the validation checks for and of cause if it does any
checking at all. All of which is a nice time saver for anyone wanting to
hack-n-crack their way around the internet.
So sod that description of 'value', there is absolutely no 'value' to anyone
if MS comes out with clean looking screens and plug and play scanners if
they have also included plug-n-play holes in the system for hackers.
Plug-n-play access to all MSSQL, and I mean ALL, I didn't go as far in my
post in the thread 'IIS SQL Injection woes' as I could have done, I could
have told you how to collect all user names of almost any MSSQL database
and get the passwords provided you have found a way to run your own
queries, and the Injection attact system can give you that access. I say
'can', because if the database has been set up with minimum access
depending on function then the risk is reduced, still possible but less
likely. Unfortunately I know that a lot of MSSQL databases are not well set
up as far as user and access rights are concerned.
Jamie Hart
>
> Novell is the company best poised to get Linux on the desktop.
That's debatable.
> This is the Holy Grail of Linux.
Since when? Jeese, I wish you guys had told us, maybe we could have
worked on that instead of making a system that works for us.
<snip the rest of a windopes wet dream>
Tim Smith
Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > This is the Holy Grail of Linux.
>
> Since when? Jeese, I wish you guys had told us, maybe we could have
> worked on that instead of making a system that works for us.
Take a look at the "advocacy" posts in this group. Most are about the
desktop.
--
--Tim Smith
Miguel de Icaza
A few corrections:
> That is a great shame, because not only is SLES10 a great product, but the
> direction of other developement areas in Novell (pre-MS agreement) was
> right not only for Linux but also for the Internet. A lot has been lost
> since that agreement was signed.
>
> The withdrawing support for mono for example. Pre-agreement Novell were all
> for it, putting in resources and programmers.
>
> Why mono? Well we all know of MS's 'Keep Linux out of .NET' policy, but also
> .NET2 is not that great an implementation of the interactive web site idea.
There has not been any support withdrawn from Mono. The entire Mono
team continues to work on Mono. Not only that, but we have new
engineers working on new areas of Mono as well.
I know a thing or two, because I happen to be the Mono manager at
Novell.
> The GUI tools they give you for free are very good, but they blind you to
> what you are actually doing. As mentioned today in this news group for
> example, .NET2 gives you a nice simple drag-and-drop user login tool, no
> coding necessary to make it work, but of cause that tool if linked to a
> MSSQL puts user input directly into dynamically created SQL, no validation
> what so ever, so your simple .NET2 login tool has made you very susceptible
> to injection attacks. The same is true for all of the drag-n-drop database
> links.
Whoever said that has not used ASP.NET, has not tried it and has no
idea what he is talking about. And you are repeating the same false
statements.
The whole class of Login tools (creation wizard, remember login, login)
are compound controls that happen to use the Entry control. And every
single entry control (every parameter to query strings, every form
value passed back) is filtered through a validation routine that
prevents cross site scripting.
The actual exception thrown is:
[HttpRequestValidationException (0x80004005): A potentially dangerous
Request.Form value was detected from the client
(CreateUserWizard1$CreateUserStepContainer$UserName="<b>miguel</b>").]
System.Web.HttpRequest.ValidateString(String s, String valueName,
String collectionName) +388
System.Web.HttpRequest.ValidateNameValueCollection(NameValueCollection
nvc, String collectionName) +158
System.Web.HttpRequest.get_Form() +131
System.Web.HttpRequest.get_HasForm() +79
System.Web.UI.Page.GetCollectionBasedOnMethod(Boolean
dontReturnNull) +63
System.Web.UI.Page.DeterminePostBackMode() +134
System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean
includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint)
+5913
System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequest(Boolean
includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint)
+188
System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequest() +112
System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestWithNoAssert(HttpContext context)
+37
System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) +135
ASP.default_aspx.ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) in
c:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\Temporary ASP.NET
Files\website10\38b6d13a\fecb441b\App_Web_c7vmqs2i.0.cs:0
System.Web.CallHandlerExecutionStep.System.Web.HttpApplication.IExecutionStep.Execute()
+401
System.Web.HttpApplication.ExecuteStep(IExecutionStep step, Boolean&
completedSynchronously) +117
> Every .NET2 application out there that deals with database access of any
> kind probably used these drag-n-drop database tools. So, it is very likely
> that the Lion's share of all of those web applications that are currently
> live are susceptible to Injection attacks.
Had your wacky theories been remotely right, the above would make
sense. Luckily for everyone involved, you were wrong, and the above
paragraph is also wrong.
No point replying to the rest of the nonsense.
Roy Schestowitz
> Hello,
>
> A few corrections:
>
>> That is a great shame, because not only is SLES10 a great product, but the
>> direction of other developement areas in Novell (pre-MS agreement) was
>> right not only for Linux but also for the Internet. A lot has been lost
>> since that agreement was signed.
>>
>> The withdrawing support for mono for example. Pre-agreement Novell were
>> all for it, putting in resources and programmers.
>>
>> Why mono? Well we all know of MS's 'Keep Linux out of .NET' policy, but
>> also .NET2 is not that great an implementation of the interactive web site
>> idea.
>
> There has not been any support withdrawn from Mono. The entire Mono
> team continues to work on Mono. Not only that, but we have new
> engineers working on new areas of Mono as well.
>
> I know a thing or two, because I happen to be the Mono manager at
> Novell.
That said, the general consensus among those who are not Novell customers
(this may, as a matter of fact, include those who used to consider
themselves part of the Opensuse community, me included) do not seem to fancy
this legal minefield. In your deal, for example, the acknowledgement that
patent exchanges are justified, only give credence to prospective
allegations and demands. Also confer:
Red Hat Doesn't Want Mono
,----[ Quote ]
| There are a lot of great new programs and innovations expected
| in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. The Novell-led Mono project isn't
| one of them.
`----
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3644981
Additionally see these:
"With this agreement, you have turned your back on the rest of the
Linux community by deciding to stop giving back to it. This is visible
in the form of Mono, which now has more of a patent shadow over it then
ever before, and so is unusable by the rest of the community, and in
the form of the closed-source endeavors that you have chosen to pursue
with Microsoft in the future"
http://techp.org/petition/show/1
"Why Mono is Currently An Unacceptable Risk"
http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono
We have accumulated several more articles that speak of the risks over at
BoycottNovell.com. There is a Mono tag to isolate relevant posts. I don't
say this to anger you (in fact, notice that fact that I used to link to your
blog /before/ the deal), but I wish to make you guys aware of how the
'community' perceives Mono. To me, as well as to many others whose blogs I
read, Novell and Mono have become a 'grey/black area'.
Your attitude here is somewhat inappropriate, in my humble opinion.
Experience and facts on the surface suggest that many attempts to mimic
behaviour and technologies from Microsoft led to weaknesses. Look no further
than last Friday when WMF led to a vulnerability in OpenOffice. Will the
inclusion of C#/Mono in OpenOffice for macros, for instance, come with an
added 'bonus' such as compatibility for Office viruses? I will continue to
obtain from using this branch (you strictly insist it's not a "fork") of OOo
that comes from Novell---a company that is evidently in bed with a convicted
monopolist.
With kind regards,
Roy
--
~~ Best wishes for the new year!
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://othellomaster.com >> GPL-licensed 3-D Othello
http://iuron.com >> proposing an Open Source, non-profit search engine
Open Source journalism contributer @ http://newassignment.net
Joint Editor @ http://boycottnovell.com
Miguel de Icaza
> (this may, as a matter of fact, include those who used to consider
> themselves part of the Opensuse community, me included) do not seem to fancy
> this legal minefield. In your deal, for example, the acknowledgement that
> patent exchanges are justified, only give credence to prospective
> allegations and demands. Also confer:
The original post talks about Novell withdrawing support from Mono.
Not about the general public withdrawing support for Mono. My
corrections were precisely along those lines, Novell has not
discontinued any support of Mono.
So you are barking at the wrong tree. But since we are in that tree,
yes, it is unfortunate that the Novell/Microsoft has made some people
uncomfortable.
> We have accumulated several more articles that speak of the risks over at
> BoycottNovell.com. There is a Mono tag to isolate relevant posts. I don't
> say this to anger you (in fact, notice that fact that I used to link to your
> blog /before/ the deal), but I wish to make you guys aware of how the
> 'community' perceives Mono. To me, as well as to many others whose blogs I
> read, Novell and Mono have become a 'grey/black area'.
I have seen those articles, and I have replied to Seth's FUD article in
my blog in the past.
The debate over patents is like debating those that do not believe in
global warming. It is easy to point out problems or cast a doubt in
any arguments or quote a reputable source to turn common sense into a
disputed discussion. The global warmer deniers will quote their
selective opinions, you will quote your selective opinions.
But it is particularly telling that you are the co-editor of
"BoycottNovell" and that you claim that you have more anti-Mono
literature there, it lets me properly weight your comments. It is like
debating global warming with the PR agent for Exxon Mobil.
>> No point replying to the rest of the nonsense.
>
> Your attitude here is somewhat inappropriate, in my humble opinion.
Well, I proved emphatically that the guy made claims that were easily
proven as false.
I also happen to have written the equivalent validation code for Mono a
couple of years ago, so I know very well that the checks for cross site
scripting have existed in the core of the framework since version 1.0
(ie, way before the "insecure" login controls that he referred to
existed).
You are right in that a fact-based attitude probably is inappropriate
for an advocacy forum, where half-truths, half-facts, rumors, fear,
uncertainty and doubt are used to promote one's product, ideology or
team over another one.
Sacré bleu! What was I thinking! Posting facts! I broke the
fundamental rule of Usenet advocacy groups.
> Experience and facts on the surface suggest that many attempts to mimic
> behaviour and technologies from Microsoft led to weaknesses. Look no further
> than last Friday when WMF led to a vulnerability in OpenOffice. Will the
> inclusion of C#/Mono in OpenOffice for macros, for instance, come with an
> added 'bonus' such as compatibility for Office viruses? I will continue to
> obtain from using this branch (you strictly insist it's not a "fork") of OOo
> that comes from Novell---a company that is evidently in bed with a convicted
> monopolist.
Ah, so your argumentation over Mono's technical nature will be based in
"guilt-by-association", at least in Mexico we are taught a logic class
in high school where we study fallacies and fallacious constructions.
The above paragraph is not only a jewel because of all the bad
associations and conclusions it reaches, but has the intellectual
integrity that would make Michelle Malkin proud.
But addressing your particular issues: Mono's support for OpenOffice is
to script UNO from the *outside* (activating and driving OpenOffice as
a "host", very much like we drive Mozilla's Gecko engine or any other
API) it is not exposed or enabled as something that is used to
transport rogue code in a file.
Am not sure if you are technically capable of distinguishing what the
above means, so I will translate in advocacy terms for you: "Mono is
not included for office macros".
Does that mean that Mono is secure? No, it does not mean that, Mono
like every other piece of complex software has its share of security
problems waiting to be found, and I am not fool enough to make any
claims along those lines.
But what it does mean, is that your understanding of how Mono and
OpenOffice are integrated is almost NULL, and drawing conclusions on
NULL, as every C programmer will tell you leads to segmentation faults.
Regarding the OpenOffice "fork", you might want to find out what
patches your Linux distribution is shipping for OpenOffice. Changes
are that 99% of them come from the repository I pointed to in my blog,
which happens to be Novell's set of patches to OpenOffice. Not
surprising, since we are the ones driving the external contributions to
OpenOffice and are the major external contributors to it.
Parroting miss information about the Novell "fork" of OpenOffice is
probably more fun and makes for more enjoyable gossip while washing
clothes in the laundromat but it is not the most constructive thing to
do, is not helping anyone, is not creating new software, and it will
only lower the level of discourse to a string of accusations.
You could try asking Simon Phipps, Michael Bemmer or Kay Ramme (all at
Sun, the later two heads of OpenOffice) what their opinion is about
Novell's patches and contributions, dont take my word, talk to them.
Simon has a public blog, go ask.
Miguel.
Tim Smith
"Miguel de Icaza" <miguel....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding the OpenOffice "fork", you might want to find out what
> patches your Linux distribution is shipping for OpenOffice. Changes
> are that 99% of them come from the repository I pointed to in my blog,
> which happens to be Novell's set of patches to OpenOffice. Not
> surprising, since we are the ones driving the external contributions to
> OpenOffice and are the major external contributors to it.
He doesn't need to find this out, as he already knows it. It's been
pointed out on this group to him before, in response to his FUD. He
has chosen to ignore it (he does that a lot when caught).
--
--Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz
Caught? Who are you to say anything about this? You and the rest of your ilk
are being 'compensated' by Microsoft to post your anti-Linux bashing in this
newsgroup, rob it from credibility and, more latterly, attempt to dispute my
credibility and carry on with your character assassination. That's it,
Timmy. Enjoy the cheques/gifts from your paymaster, but I'll no longer see
nor reply to any of your (PayPer)posts.
*Plonk*
BearItAll
> Hello,
>
> A few corrections:
>
>> That is a great shame, because not only is SLES10 a great product, but
>> the direction of other developement areas in Novell (pre-MS agreement)
>> was right not only for Linux but also for the Internet. A lot has been
>> lost since that agreement was signed.
>>
>> The withdrawing support for mono for example. Pre-agreement Novell were
>> all for it, putting in resources and programmers.
>>
>> Why mono? Well we all know of MS's 'Keep Linux out of .NET' policy, but
>> also .NET2 is not that great an implementation of the interactive web
>> site idea.
>
> There has not been any support withdrawn from Mono. The entire Mono
> team continues to work on Mono. Not only that, but we have new
> engineers working on new areas of Mono as well.
>
Good, I'm glad of that because I believe that mono is very important as one
of the tools for proper interactive web applications.
I did try to find where I had read that Novell were withdrawing support and
all I found were calls for programmers to withdraw their support for
anything Novell including mono. Maybe what I read was on simmilar lines.
I can't see too many doing that because just a brief look down the list of
capabilities and development areas of mono makes it obvious that it will
have a place in future development.
> I know a thing or two, because I happen to be the Mono manager at
> Novell.
>
>> The GUI tools they give you for free are very good, but they blind you to
>> what you are actually doing. As mentioned today in this news group for
>> example, .NET2 gives you a nice simple drag-and-drop user login tool, no
>> coding necessary to make it work, but of cause that tool if linked to a
>> MSSQL puts user input directly into dynamically created SQL, no
>> validation what so ever, so your simple .NET2 login tool has made you
>> very susceptible to injection attacks. The same is true for all of the
>> drag-n-drop database links.
>
> Whoever said that has not used ASP.NET, has not tried it and has no
> idea what he is talking about. And you are repeating the same false
> statements.
>
The problem is as I said really, the video tutorial, I did like the style of
those tutorials by the way, the man is clearly a programmer because he
works in the way programmers do and he let the video out warts and all, the
sorts of errors he made were typical of on-the-fly programming mistakes we
all have made.
But he does the drag-n-drop login and database parts exactly as I said, I
know that there is a place in the tool for validation, but do you really
think that VBA developers will dig any deaper than the surface? There don't
often do that in my experience. The proof of this is that they are
Injection attacks going on. If multi-levels of access were being carefully
used along with data validation, then these attacks could not happen.
Note that I also said that it wasn't a purely MSSQL problem, the only reason
that it is less likly on a MySQL though is still as I said, that many of
these will be on php or perl both of which are languages who's tutorials
almost universally teach their new programmers the importance of validation
in the very early stages, long before they have reached database
programming.
But still, I'm glad that you have confirmed Novells support for Mono.
Tim Smith
> Caught? Who are you to say anything about this? You and the rest of your ilk
> are being 'compensated' by Microsoft to post your anti-Linux bashing in this
> newsgroup, rob it from credibility and, more latterly, attempt to dispute my
> credibility and carry on with your character assassination. That's it,
> Timmy. Enjoy the cheques/gifts from your paymaster, but I'll no longer see
> nor reply to any of your (PayPer)posts.
>
> *Plonk*
You are the one with an anti-Linux, profit-making, website, not me. FUD
against any particular Linux distrubution harms Linux as a whole.
flatfish+++
I have a friend who is a VAR/Reseller and runs the business with her
husband.
They have been asked questions about Linux on occasion and one of the
tools that they use to inform clients about Linux is a PPP containing the
anti-Linux websites, like boycott Novel, the GPL3/4 and the various other
boycott this version or that version of Linux etc. All Linux zealot sites
BTW and run by Linux zealots.
These are NOT Windows users posting hate Linux sites.
What this does is solidify and drive home the unrest, bickering, power
struggles, immature behavior and lack of organization that is and will
lead to the fragmentation and disorganization of Linux.
It is a HIGHLY effective tool and the funniest part is that the Linux
zealots have no idea how much of a negative impact they are making on
their potential future clients.
I've already directed them to Roy Schestowitz's website as well as his
digg and Netscape posts which my acquaintances have incorporated into
their presentations as examples of Linux zealousness gone amok.
I'm sure it's good for at least a laugh or two.
Miguel de Icaza
> > Whoever said that has not used ASP.NET, has not tried it and has no
> > idea what he is talking about. And you are repeating the same false
> > statements.The problem is as I said really, the video tutorial, I did like the style of
> those tutorials by the way, the man is clearly a programmer because he
> works in the way programmers do and he let the video out warts and all, the
> sorts of errors he made were typical of on-the-fly programming mistakes we
> all have made.
>
> But he does the drag-n-drop login and database parts exactly as I said, I
> know that there is a place in the tool for validation, but do you really
> think that VBA developers will dig any deaper than the surface? There don't
> often do that in my experience. The proof of this is that they are
> Injection attacks going on. If multi-levels of access were being carefully
> used along with data validation, then these attacks could not happen.
All of the stock controls in ASP.NET (and any derivative you create)
will get validation by default. There is no need to dig deeper.
Security is on by default, you actually have to work quite hard to
disable it in a per-control basis.
My reproduced test case was exactly what you described, I went to
Visual Studio, dragged and dropped the controls, ran the web site, and
tried an XSS attack and got the exception you saw. If anything, you
can customize the page to render a user friendly message instead of an
exception.
Miguel.
Larry Qualig
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Tim Smith ] on Monday 08 January 2007 08:12 \__
>
> > In article <1168238367.6...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Regarding the OpenOffice "fork", you might want to find out what
> >> patches your Linux distribution is shipping for OpenOffice. Changes
> >> are that 99% of them come from the repository I pointed to in my blog,
> >> which happens to be Novell's set of patches to OpenOffice. Not
> >> surprising, since we are the ones driving the external contributions to
> >> OpenOffice and are the major external contributors to it.
> >
> > He doesn't need to find this out, as he already knows it. It's been
> > pointed out on this group to him before, in response to his FUD. He
> > has chosen to ignore it (he does that a lot when caught).
>
> Caught? Who are you to say anything about this?
The same way you were caught and exposed as a liar in the "Still
looking for all the FUD" thread. I know that it must be difficult for a
liar like Roy Schestowitz to keep all of his lies straight but that's
the lie where you accused someone on digg of posting tons of pro-MS
stories... then you changed your lie^H^H^H story to someone posting
lots of pro-MS comments... which later you changed your story again and
accused them of posting lots of pro-MS comments in the tech-section...
which you later changed your story to....lie, lie, lie.
> You and the rest of your ilk are being 'compensated' by Microsoft to post
> your anti-Linux bashing in this newsgroup, rob it from credibility and,
Yet more paranoid lies from Roy Schestowitz. Somehow Microsoft is
behind everything that Roy Schestowitz disagrees with. Anyone who
doesn't have the same delusional thoughts as Roy is being secretly
'compensated' by Microsoft.
Get help. I hear they have drugs now that can help mental patients like
you.
> more latterly, attempt to dispute my credibility
You have no credibility. You lost any credibility you may have had when
you began posting inane delusions of "people being paid by Microsoft to
discredit you" and when you quit posting "News" and started posting
outright lies and false/misleading headlines disguised as "News." Fact
is that nearly everyone here, including several "Linux Advocates" have
openly stated that you are essentially a liar. They may have used
kinder words than liar, but you are a liar neverless.
> and carry on with your character assassination.
You do more to destroy your character and credibility than anyone else
here. The name Roy Schestowitz is basically a joke. You lost your
credibility when you became a serial liar.
> That's it, Timmy. Enjoy the cheques/gifts from your paymaster,
Oh yes... that's the way to gain credibility. (sarcasm in case you're
too stupid to realize it.)
> but I'll no longer see
> nor reply to any of your (PayPer)posts.
And here we have Roy Schestowitz once again making a complete ass of
himself... "PayPer posts" - what a loser. Since this is all being
archived in cyberspace forever I can only imagine what a future
employer (keywords: employer, job, research, background check) will
think of a lunatic like you when they do a background check.
> *Plonk*
What's *plonk* ??? Is that the sound your credibility made when it
fell into the toilet?
Mark Kent
Miguel de Icaza <miguel....@gmail.com> espoused:
> Hello,
>> (this may, as a matter of fact, include those who used to consider
>> themselves part of the Opensuse community, me included) do not seem to fancy
>> this legal minefield. In your deal, for example, the acknowledgement that
>> patent exchanges are justified, only give credence to prospective
>> allegations and demands. Also confer:
>
> The original post talks about Novell withdrawing support from Mono.
> Not about the general public withdrawing support for Mono. My
> corrections were precisely along those lines, Novell has not
> discontinued any support of Mono.
>
> So you are barking at the wrong tree. But since we are in that tree,
> yes, it is unfortunate that the Novell/Microsoft has made some people
> uncomfortable.
>
Signing up to a deal which supports software patents with Microsoft is
not merely "unfortunate", it shows a complete lack of respect for the
developer community which produced so much of the software which Novell
sells now. Fortunately, the pressure from Microsoft has not been so
successful in the EU as it has been on Novell, and the EU government
structures have not caved in the same way as the Novell board did.
I wonder how long your project will be supported in Novell, before
someone from Microsoft visits your seniors, hands over a bit more cash,
and you find yourself looking for a job? I hope your CV is up to date.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced -- even a proverb is no proverb
to you till your life has illustrated it. -- John Keats
Mark Kent
BearItAll <sp...@rassler.co.uk> espoused:
>
> But still, I'm glad that you have confirmed Novells support for Mono.
Until Microsoft turn up with more cash and demand that it's shut down.
Novell have shown themselves willing to do Microsoft's bidding for cash,
so they'll certainly do it again. Once you start down these roads,
there's never any going back.
Mark Kent
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> espoused:
It's a completely orthogonal point, Timmy, isn't it? The big risk I
would say is that Novell might consider deliberately polluting the code
at the behest of Microsoft, so that Microsoft can come back later to
"collect somehow", to quote Mr Bill Gates.
I don't thing Mr de Icaza is in control of such things.