[odf-discuss] Miguel on OXML

[Daniel Carrera]

On Thu, 2007-01-02 at 12:29 -0500, Lars D. Noodén wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Carlos Moffat wrote:
> > Geesh. You can say somebody is part of a "FUD Team", not provide any
> > proof, and then say proof is impossible to acquire.
> 
> No.  I have offered the grounds for my suspicion, accept it or not it, 
> ignore it or not:
> 
>   1) The content, structure, and timing of his post
>   2) in conjunction with the *general* knowledge one must have of
>      applications, dataformats, and interoperabiligy to participate in
>      projects like Gnumeric (he should have known better)
>   3) occasional past statements, on cue, in support of MS unpopular
>      decisions

Which can be summarized as: "I have no meaningful evidence, so please
accept my personal bias as evidence".

1) What's wrong with the content, structure and timing of his post?
2) His post scores high on technical accuracy.
3) So the guy said things you don't like. And what decisions are those
anyways?


> > He still contributes to Mono, ...
> 
> I have avoided mentioning mono because there are many strong opinions on 
> it.
> 
> Since you bring it up, I mention that it was a factored in as an element 
> weighted against him:

Does it count against me too? I contributed 12,000 lines of code to it.

> I see Mono as a high-risk, zero-yield time sink which *detracts* not only 
> from open source but also from computer-related activities in general. 

But of course, I disagree. I see little risk, and a fair yield. Besides,
who are you to tell a developer what project he should be interested in?
And just because you think his project is a waste of time, why should
that make him an MS shill?

> To over-generalize for the sake of brevity: .NET is not defined nor will 
> be usable, and a reverse engineering of it will be even less.

You don't understand Mono. Mono is:
1. A compiler for an Ecma specification of a computer language.
2. A set of class libraries.
3. Not a project to clone .NET.
4. Usable today. Several large applications already use it. Who cares
whether or not an application made for MS .NET runs on Mono? That's not
what Mono is for. Mono is a compiler, with its own (different) set of
class libraries. For example, MonoDevelop is written in Gtk# which is of
course a GUI library for Linux (Gtk!) and of course, not part of
Microsoft's .NET.

> Now that Java is open sourced, which was inevitable, 
> there is no reason even for C#.

C# is a nice language actually. I don't plan on coding on either C# or
Java, but if I did, I could well choose C#.

But of course, this has no relation to whether Miguel is a shill, and it
is a huge fallacy to allow this to factor into your opinion.

In addition, you keep talking about Miguel and the party line, and then
you mention Mono as a factor in your opinion. So, you feel that Miguel
wrote Mono to aid Microsoft? Do you feel you can debate that issue with
me? I guarantee that you'd lose that argument.

Daniel.
-- Canadian English is essentially British English without the funny
accent.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070201/2967e1ff/attachment-0001.pgp