OSNews

Its an insurance policy; sure, you house might not burn down, but isn't it nice that if it were to occur, you've got something to provide you with the money to rebuild again.

Same goes for Novell; its better to pay a few million now or some technology swapping now, than further on down the track when the costs could be alot higher.

Same goes for Novell; its better to pay a few million now or some technology swapping now, than further on down the track when the costs could be alot higher.

Worked like a charm for these guys, doesn't anybody learn from history?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061015203855256

EV1 tried to protect its customers from SCO too. And as they said, they only lost them.

Lesson nr.1: History doesn't only show things that happened. It also shows how things will happen' again if conditions are the same.

Which has little to no relevancy to the issue at hand.

The IP which Mono could possible be violating, is actually owned by Microsoft; no one desputes it, neither Minguel, Novell or Microsoft; this is a mutual agreement over IP, simple as that.

EV1 on the other hand licenced technology that was in despute and that SCO couldn't provide sufficient evidence to back up their claim.

Which has little to no relevancy to the issue at hand.

The IP which Mono could possible be violating, is actually owned by Microsoft; no one desputes it, neither Minguel, Novell or Microsoft; this is a mutual agreement over IP, simple as that.

EV1 on the other hand licenced technology that was in despute and that SCO couldn't provide sufficient evidence to back up their claim.

Well, you're kinda right on this one, but effect will still be the same as EV1. But this just leads to "chicken or egg" problem. Novell is either knowing which IP is troublesome and doesn't want to be clear or taking precautions "just in case", but in both cases using the MS clause "to be used with Novell products only", which is probably THE most stupid thing OSS company could make. What EV1 did, was not even 1% bad (to be more clear I don't consider what EV1 as bad, this was public opinion as you might read in that article, No, I consider it as STUPID) as what Novell did.

Either one will not work in OSS community they want to fit in lately. OSS community is not the community you would call "forgiving".

On this point you could say Novell is here for money and what they did it is good for their business. Yes it is (about being here for the money part only), no disputing here, but only fools are pissing against the wind, and Novell just did what even fools don't do, take a shit while standing on their hands.

Edited 2006-11-05 02:28

//he believed it didn't infringe on any patents.

The actions of Novell and Microsoft say otherwise, unfortunately.//

I'm not so sure.

Microsoft say they will help Novell Suse with interoperability ... domain networking, OpenOffice & Mono.

This do not say that current SuSe Linux infringes on Microsoft patents. After the co-operative effort it might have, if it didn't have this license.

and you of cource know this better than Miguel?

This is a smart deal for all parties concerned. Microsoft's .NET has a lot of momentum right now. It doesn't cost Novell or Miguel much in order to guarantee that there are no patent infringement lawsuits flying back and forth over this technology. OSS zealots have long dredged up this threat over peoples' -- and I can understand how they would be upset that the threat has been completely blunted. It means that .NET/Mono may gain more of a foothold in the Linux space, without fear of litigation.

Not really, as kawai said, this is an insurance policy.

Companies don't like risk, so they tend to pay money to be 100% sure to be covered against patent infringement, not relying on 'as far as I know, we're safe'.

Not really, as kawai said, this is an insurance policy.

That's the line that many have been taking, but you read between the lines of this deal and it is not an insurance policy. Novell have effectively disowned the open source branch and said that you're only safe with something bought from Novell.

Nowhere anywhere does it state that various pieces of open source software that Novell uses (focus immediately falls right on Mono) are independently safe unless you buy from Novell, and get indemnification that way. The idiot Ron Hovsepian probably thinks that indemnification is the only selling point he can make at Novell, with no idea or regard whatsoever for the damage that it does to the open source software that his company uses. You can bet your life that Microsoft does know this.

If everything was OK then this would not be necessary:

"Sun signed a similar agreement with Microsoft in 2004, which at the time I realized enabled Sun to ship Mono on Solaris (which we already supported at that time)."

I found that statement bizarre, quite frankly. There's no mention at all of an insurance policy from Novell there. What he's saying is that Microsoft had to [indirectly] give permission for Sun to use Mono as part of a deal. That has pretty wide ramifications.

Sun or anyone should simply be able to take Mono as a piece of open source software, like they do with other software, and use it. He's saying that's not the case.

Miguel is trying to positively spin this, as you would expect, but it doesn't answer the important questions and a few bombshells have slipped out.

[edit]
I'm also not entirely sure about this:

Getting rid of patents completely would probably have to involve a few giants. Microsoft has a 282B market cap, so maybe a combination of IBM (138B), Google (143B), Oracle (92B) and even Sun (18B) would have to come together and enter a gigantic patent love-fest to make a better deal for everyone happen (By comparison Novell is at 2.2B).

I have no idea why he thinks that market caps have any bearing whatsoever on fighting patents.
[/edit]

Edited 2006-11-05 13:18

I remember!

This hole thing looks like pure EEE to me. But Linux will stand up to this challenge and will win one way or the other because freedom always wins in the long term.

"... because freedom always wins in the long term."

Err... It doesn't unless you have a load of freedom fighters of course.

"Err... It doesn't unless you have a load of freedom fighters of course."

I'm in.


(a la Oxfam)

No, you ain't, brutha, and thank goodness, too.

No, it's not the same old Microsoft. Once upon a time, some deluded mid-level Microsoft managers thought that they could crush Linux in the same manner as OS/2, DR-DOS, etc, but clearly, that wasn't possible using the old tactics. So, their next tactic was to blunt Linux's growth by threatening an IP minefield.

But this agreement clears a path through the IP minefield -- if you use SUSE, that is. Perhaps what we are seeing is Microsoft choosing sides in the Linux business in order to hurt all of SUSE's competitors (Red Hat, etc). This would permit MS to fight a single competitor rather than (potentially) hundreds -- which is a more manageable fight.

Interestingly, another important thing has happened: Microsoft's customers have been demanding greater interop with Linux/Unix, so it's in Microsoft's interest to do exactly that. So, it remains to be seen how much Microsoft can do (overtly) to harm Linux without seriously annoying some corporate customers.

You outline those tactics and yet you come to the conclusion that "this isn't the same old Microsoft"? Come on!

It isn't the same old Microsoft because it cannot employ the same old tactics -- and its customers are demanding that it become more interoperable with Linux. Get it? It may have some of those old tendencies in its DNA, but Microsoft cannot exert them. The market changed -- and so has Microsoft.

I would accept that the market has changed, but I don't think Microsoft has. I think it's simply that they can't get away with playing the same game to the same extent anymore.

When MS find other ways to compete, such as bringing out their own Linux that has full read/write compatibility with NTFS, a config tool that beats YasT, and stops bullying other Linux vendors, THEN I will accept that Microsoft has changed.

And remember, just because it releases something as GPL doesn't mean that thing cannot be a differentiator - how many distros have picked up YaST since it was GPL'ed, despite its vaunted superiority over other config tools? If you discount openSUSE, I believe the count to date is precisely zero.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Come on .. if you were really that much into the free software only mood then how about Debian which AFAIK is 100% free ? - as SuSE mixes proprietary & OSS .

Reminds me of a comment to the other article - companies have to think about profits & stock value etc - ideals arent worth anything directly .

BTW could we please have a spell checker integrated into the comment section ?

"BTW could we please have a spell checker integrated into the comment section ?"

Could we have a punctator checker integrated as well? :-)
(spaces infront of ellipsis, question mark and period)

That's punctuation. And ellipses. Plus, you forgot a couple of periods there yourself. Oh, and you really should capitalise the first word of each sentence. Smilies are out, too..

"That's punctuation."

Difference: the punctator (the sign), the interpunctuation (the use of the sign(s) in a sentence or something similar). Regarding "-uation", you're right, of course. As you see, english is not my native language and termini technici are often translated from german to english language with a little difference (it's "Interpunktion" in german).

"And ellipses."

Ellipsis is singular and derived from the greek "élleipsis". You surely mean the plural form, which I didn't mean.

"Plus, you forgot a couple of periods there yourself."

None in my post. The second line in braces is an itemization (or alliteration), if you're thinking of this.

"Oh, and you really should capitalise the first word of each sentence. "

Please have a look on the capital "C" at the beginning of the sentence - the only sentence I wrote in my post. Maybe, it's not capital enough.

"Smilies are out, too.."

What's in then, in your opinion?

BTW: There are two periods after "too", only one would be correct. Is the other one optional if the first one isn't working?

See? No smiley added. Recognize rhetorical means by yourself.

Edited 2006-11-05 13:51

BTW could we please have a spell checker integrated into the comment section ?

FFox2 and integrated spell checkers? Works decent for me.

BTW could we please have a spell checker integrated into the comment section ?

BTW: could we please cut the crap with the spell checker; it has nothing to do with Novell, Microsoft and Miguel de Icaza.
If you feel that you can't read with a few "typos" made by foreign people that doesn't speak english natively, then code you own spell checker and STFU.

Thanks.

P.S.: this comment is not a personal attack to the original poster, this is just an open letter to everybody who complains about typos and english errors.
P.S.2: if you don't like it, learn a real language. English is soooo much like Visual Basic. It lacks a lot of features. Those out there who speak other languages (Spanish, French, Etc.) will know what I am talking about.

XGL doesn't infringe any patents, and neither does beagle or fspot or tomboy (although i really don't give a rats ass about the last 2). They're all open source projects, hence they don't belong to and aren't copyright of any specific company. XGL is dead, AIGLX killed it. As for Mono the only problem seems to be the Microsoft part of the .net implementation (keep in mind that mono embraces and extends .net with it's own set of class libraries).

As for the whole patent violation FUD, it started when some risk management company said that OSS violates up to 200 or so Microsoft patents, allegation that have yet to be proven in court. And even if they did had something patented that we use and can't replace, Microsoft won't sue. Why? Because that would create a precedent and allow them to be sued over they're own patent infringements (I bet IBM has lots of love from the OS/2 era).

I also think in this regard we should start enforcing our side of the whole patent deal, make the necessary changes (if needed) to the GNU GPL so we can claim IP over everything we came up with. We invented multiple desktops, we invented system wide skins (remember the old gtk1.x pixmap based themes?). We came up with tons of inovations that nobody ever considers to be worthy of patenting, but guess what, they would be patented by someone if they had the chance. They call it "inovoation". This sucks. I say it's time to make a stand and fight patent with patent.

As for Novel, be free or be dead. Either they keep up with the obligations of GPL, or use something else. Go bark at the BSD tree, god damn it! But thanks for all the eye candy

And as for Gnome, don't you guys think it would have been better to stick with Java/objective c/c++?

Just my over emotional 0.7€

You are almost right. Let's not mix copyright and patents. Something being opensource doesn't mean that it doesn't violate some patent. If MS patented "means of compositing a desktop combining windows through proxy which has an OpenGL backend" XGL is actually screwed

The problem of open source is that if you really want to share something, why the hell would you go through all the trouble of patenting it (although I think Red Hat started patenting some stuff, just to have some kind of answer when a patent war starts).

As for Gnome, the debate what to use was raging even before this deal. Some guys were for Mono, some for Java, some for good old C/C++, and some for Pyton and scripting languages. Who knows. But I kind of think that Mono won't be on top of the list after this. Or every distribution would have to sign simmilar deal with MS.

As for the whole patent violation FUD, it started when some risk management company said that OSS violates up to 200 or so Microsoft patents, allegation that have yet to be proven in court. And even if they did had something patented that we use and can't replace, Microsoft won't sue. Why? Because that would create a precedent and allow them to be sued over they're own patent infringements (I bet IBM has lots of love from the OS/2 era).

Most large companies will not exercise their patent rights unless there is a significant threat -- or they need to defend against someone else's hostile patent infringement suit. By significant threat, I mean any large potential loss of $$$ or opportunity cost. Microsoft and IBM have no interest in going to war, because both sides would get bloodied. That said, I don't think that IBM would go out on a limb for Red Hat or some other distro which submits code to the Linux source trees which happens to violate one of Microsoft's patents. I think that's the reason why IBM never introduced its own distro in the first place. I'm certain that its lawyers told the company to steer clear of this market because (a) it's not very big, and (b) there's too much liability risk.

xgl is not related to mono. David Reveman is a great guy and xgl is an interesting technology, unfortunately loosing steem because of aiglx.
I found the idea of Xegl very compelling to be honest, but as it seems atm, aiglx is gonna make the race because it is less disruptive.

Stemp. i find this kind of stupid. Software is a tool not a religion and please don't make it one.

People like you can never be productive in your life, not for yourself not for everyone else.

In fact we already have enough religions in the world, result of which you see today like 9/11 and Iraq etc and we surely don't need one among software.

Hope you learn.

uh, last i checked, he was merely making a choice about what to do. he doesn't evangelize any of us to destroy SUSE.

i hope you also learn the difference between making a reaction and preaching to the masses.

Sigh.

For -you- software is just a tool. For -me- software is my livelihood.
While for you, moving from Linux to Windows (or back) may not mean much, for me it may mean years of experience and hard work going down the drain.
Oh, and for me, having to go back to badly-documented DDK interfaces is even worse...

Seems that it's much easier to criticize other people's reaction when you're job is not the on the line, isn't it?

- Gilboa

No single person has done more damage to Linux and open source software - ever.

What damage has he done? Seriously!?

I challenge anyone to name any SINGLE person who has done more to set back Linux and open source software in general.

If it wasn't for mono I would have likely never have used a linux distro. It was really mono that originally got my interest.

Patent wars and any other doom and gloom you can dream up were coming regardless of novell and mono. Any OS that starts getting use is a threat to MS and you can expect a confrontation at some point.

If it wasn't for mono I would have likely never have used a linux distro. It was really mono that originally got my interest.

Oh, really?
What does mono have to do with Linux?
And what did you find so special about mono?
Because it appears that all mono is, is clone of .Net.
And all .Net is, is a new load of bloat from Microsoft to help lazy developers being even lazier and write even more bloated and slower software.
And where are the great .Net apps? Only loser ATI and Matrox are using .Net for their control panels forcing people to install 100Mb of crap just to have a pretty control panel for their video card.
I guess it's meant to distract people from their otherwise crapp drivers.
And what did mono do for Linux so far? NOTHING!
A few bloated, half finished apps that are bitch to compile and have nothing but negative impact on system performance.
And so many resources have been diverted to mono that could have been used on much more important and practical projects.
I have never and will never run any mono app.
And Novel is dead to me.

Oh, really?
What does mono have to do with Linux?

Well, I might explain you better. Most little commercial developers don't like to code in C, if they want to survive they have to use RAD tools. But all of them are interested in linux at least a little bit. But always there is the same problem "where's my app? why doesn't my app work here?"

For example just take a long constant bitchin' point "where's photoshop?" It's just that coders don't need photoshop, but they need RAD instead. Hell, again look at photoshop, it's what 98% of people doesn't need, but look at them all whining.

At least a lot of my friends are like that.

And what did you find so special about mono?

It is RAD oriented. It is modern. It is simple. Coding is ultra fast.

Every single language or platform (except Java) has at least one missing point here.

Because it appears that all mono is, is clone of .Net.
And all .Net is, is a new load of bloat from Microsoft to help lazy developers being even lazier and write even more bloated and slower software.

You seem predetermined that everything coming from MS must be bad. No, it isn't.
Company policy and way of doing business is on the other hand.

And where are the great .Net apps? Only loser ATI and Matrox are using .Net for their control panels

You can find bigger apps on mono success list http://www.mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono#Who_uses_Mono.3F
And MS keeps his own list like that.

forcing people to install 100Mb of crap just to have a pretty control panel for their video card.
I guess it's meant to distract people from their otherwise crapp drivers.

If you take it like that, yes it is.

And what did mono do for Linux so far? NOTHING!
A few bloated, half finished apps that are bitch to compile and have nothing but negative impact on system performance.

Looking from that side, it would seem true.

Looking from my point of view. I needed 10 minutes to convince some of my friends how to make sure they code crossplatform (and it will ease up pushing linux on those locations). Which means their apps will run on all OSes, including linux. Java wasn't application coders choice in Windows world in my circles.

And so many resources have been diverted to mono that could have been used on much more important and practical projects.

You mean, you've got it right and all those developing mono are just fools. I mean, your logic says most of people are developing in C, C++, so minority are fools.

Well as much as I'm linux pusher I say bull to this logic. In this case all people using linux would be fools because 95% or so people is using windows.

Beside that you seem to forget the heart of OSS and linux. Freedom to choose and freedom to express. Mono is just one possible choice and you are trying to take away its rights, instead of simply taking your choice based on your opinion.

I have never and will never run any mono app.

I do, they work just fine.

And Novel is dead to me.

And so it is to a lot of people. Including me, unless they are very careful when they will be cleaning up this mess.

I might consider mono when i can easily use apps created on windows on linux,and i mean the GUI also.

like: mono app.exe ,and that's it.

But as you said mono isn't the only cross platform framework fortunately.

I challenge anyone to name any SINGLE person who has done more to set back Linux and open source software in general.

The cult has a new target!!!!

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-07.htm

"Splitters"

Is Miguel in the Judean Peoples Front or the Popular Front of Judea? (Assuming Microsoft are the Romans).

Edited 2006-11-04 23:31

Thanks for the tip, anonymous Internet hero!

1. Get funded to make a central piece of a popular DE
2. Do an Excel clone (and fullfill a need)
3. Help bring up an Outlook clone (and fullfill a need)
4. Make an open source .Net compliant stack
5. Profit!
6. Help destroy open source

[sarcasm]Makes total sense! I never had a doubt Miguel was evil.[/sarcasm]

PS: Shame on you ppl!

This patent armageddon bombshell from Microsoft/Novell will hopefully be a wakeup call to the entire open source world that the days of allowing enemies like miguel and Novell to operate freely need to end now.

I kinda feel sorry I can't mod you down (as OSNews rules say). While I agree that Novell move was the worst in Linux history ever, Miguel says he didn't knew about it. Try at least giving the benefit of the doubt to a guy.

As much as I love mono, I'm still not sure if mono was the best thing or the worst thing that happened to linux.

why best? Linux was in serious need to get some modern GPL licensed language or platform. Please don't say free Java stack. Mono predates its start when development on that one became serious.

why worst? Mono is based on MS technology. As far as I take it it would be more assuring if this was completely independent implementation which would learn from mistakes of other platforms.

Mono certainly does not predate the efforts to create free implementations of the JVM and class libraries. The "languages" in .NET are not "GPL," not that that makes a great deal of sense anyway.

Mono certainly does not predate the efforts to create free implementations of the JVM and class libraries. The "languages" in .NET are not "GPL," not that that makes a great deal of sense anyway.

Since your complete answer didn't made any sense at all, I feel the need to respond.
1. Mono development was serious from the start. Look at where it gotten in so short time. While Java stack predates Mono for a long time, development wasn't going anywhere. It only became serious in last year or two. Or how do you explain, mono got ahead of free Java so quickly? I was waiting for free Java to get usable for a long time.
2. I said "language or platform". Mono is a platform. And every language has to have compiler.

Please don't say free Java stack.

However, GNU Classpath is almost 100% complete now. Apache Harmony also gathered a fair portion of donated code. Most speculations point to the Java VM (Hotspot) to be the first pieces of the Sun Java stack to be open sourced. The free Java stack is already viable (there are several free Java VMs) and will be even better with Sun's upcoming OSS announcement.

Mono, on the other hand, still has trouble distributing a large portion of its stack. Besides, .Net doesn't even compare to Java when it comes to the number of alternative libraries. We are not just talking about J2EE here, J2SE has Swing, SWT, AWT, Thinlet, Swixml etc. just for GUI. Both NetBeans and Eclipse offer complete RCPs. There are numerous open source utility libraries for desktop development, such as Spin and Foxtrot.

I hope this recent development will push more people to take a hard look at solutions such as Qt Jambi and Java-Gnome for Linux desktop application development.

It is also interesting to note that developing in Java allows ISVs to minimize cross-distro compatibility problems.

But sadly .NET is far more advanced and it is improved faster then java. And at this moment the GNU guys can't show up any better programming environment then mono. The only useable general purpose programming environtment under linux is the mono and the java. The mono is based a commercial closed source .NET, and the java is a closed source commercial developent - and the gnu classpath is the clone of the java, similar the mono.

Well. Java is the mostly comercially viable developement platform bc sun has most partners and the it's commercial ecosystem is the most developed one of those accessible to linux.
However there is a lot of commerciall developement happening on linux using other technologies, mostly scripting languages. PHP has already preety established ecosystem. Ruby is the new darling of innovation.
Their popularity is starting to dispace java on both linux and windows and the talks about adding scripting support to Mustang only prove that.
Actually mono as a developenent platform on its own (not as a compatibility layer to run VS developed windows apps on linux) is far from gaining any traction on linux server despite Novell strongly pushing it.

But sadly .NET is far more advanced and it is improved faster then java

Sadly, much of Mono can't even be distributed due to IP problems (this deal just reinforces that idea). Besides, it's highly unlikely that MS will certify Mono to be .Net compatible (I don't think they even have a certification program)

The whole Java stack (VM, API, Compiler and various utilities), on the other hand, can be implemented as FOSS without legal repercussions. They can even be Certified by Sun (eg. JBoss, Apache Geronimo), which allows them to use the Java trademark.

And at this moment the GNU guys can't show up any better programming environment then mono.

GNU Classpath is only an implementation of the J2SE API.

If you are talking about Java IDEs, we already have Eclipse and NetBeans. Both are open source and had been available for years.

Java soon will not be closed source anymore, it soon will become licensed under CDDL...

We've started the bandwagon about three years ago by making a serious push for a free Java stack through the FSF, and now we've got 'companies formerly known as proprietary Java vendors' competing who's going to open up their implementation first in various venues (ME/SE).

Sun is getting their runtime out under an open source license until 2007 Q1, IBM and Intel are hammering out their own open source VM and class libraries through Apache, now Motorola announced to do the same, etc. Never mind the existing dozens of free runtimes for all occasions around GNU Classpath that are getting better and better, as well.

Everyone now wants to join in the fun. We have changed the Java landscape for the better.And as an added bonus, everyone gets to be a winner: users, developers, distributors, runtime makers, ...

Yes, although a coincidence, Suns open sourcing of Java kind of comes at exactly brilliant time and it is a great victory for community, and a great donation to OS community (I'm actually really not so sure that this deal is good for MS either, this is a death kiss for Mono and probably for Novell too, I don't understand how they don't see this, but, whatever).

Btw, now I'm even kind of happy that Sun choose to keep Solaris. You obviously can't have enough competition, the more the merrier. MS cannot control them all. Once when (and hopefully if) a natural state, without so dominant monopoly is reached, they all can sign a deals day and night as far as I'm concerned.

If Sun lets Java go on a fair terms, it could really thrive as a connecting factor between opensource, halfopensource, and proprietary systems. And should help everyone grow.

The fact that this dimwitted foaming at the mouth Microsoft fanboy was able to devastate both Linux desktop and application development

Well steady on. No he hasn't. Fortunately there are a lot more alternatives than using Mono, but it has taken a fair bit of mind share away and wasted effort that could have been reasonably put into the Gnome destop itself and other things.

I didn't have a problem with anyone looking at .Net and asking themselves "OK, what can we learn from this?", and then looking at PHP, Java and then Ruby in the open source/Linux world and then perhaps improving Java with C# features, or looking at language neutrality in .Net and asking if it was actually worth anything. This would have been a very good direction to take, and I think Ximian could have even made some good money out of improving Java for people running Linux and Unix, and looking at upcoming stuff like Ruby. Look at JBoss. The market was, and is, there and they weren't doing anything special. Look at what Mainsoft have been doing with Java and .Net.

By all means do .Net, but there was no need to copy verbatim.

Sadly, Miguel never did that. He regurgitated everything that came out of Microsoft's sales brochures in the early days about 'people' finding that .Net made them 80% more productive, or something. Although that is obviously exaggerated Microsoft marketing, most of the productivity almost certainly comes from using Visual Studio - which Mono doesn't have an equivalent of. No, MonoDevelop is a long way off.

He even still believes that language neutrality, and different languages ported to .Net, is still worthwhile, even though Microsoft left that selling point behind long ago and Alan Cox pointed out on day one of his mailing list post about Mono that if you port Fortran as a .Net language then you lose the features of Fortran.

Miguel started telling us how bad Java was, even though there was a huge market for it in the Linux/Unix server world regardless, and even worse, he started bad mouthing other implementations of various .Net bits and pieces like DotGNU.

In short, I think the whole thing has taken a direction which it shouldn't have and Miguel is simply doing some heavy backwards running regarding things that should have been sorted out and explained years ago i.e. Microsoft's ownership and RAND agreements of their .Net ECMA standards.

"No single person has done more damage to Linux and open source software - ever."

Are you serious? He was one of the creators of GNOME. I think he has helped Linux and all of the other open source OSs considerably more than he has or ever will hurt them.

Are *you* serious?

How about a thought exercise. If Gnome did not exist, how would the open source world be different now?

However hard I think, I cannot think of any Gnomish thing so essential that we would miss if it weren't there.

If Gnome didn't exist, would TrollTech have ever released a GPL Qt library...

Mono's existence kickstarted free Java development. "Oh noes, everyone will be using MS technology, we had better clone up an alternative fast!"

Free Java is why Sun is even thinking about releasing real Java to open source.

If Gnome didn't exist, would TrollTech have ever released a GPL Qt library...

I thought the TrollTech's move has to do with KDE's Harmony project, which aims to produce a LGPL licensed Qt clone.