Hey: no need to "concede."  I honestly think Miguel *does* bear watching
-- he strikes me as a bit of a loose cannon.  But the real point I was
trying to make (and one that Ben first mentioned, and you further point
out) is that one should listen to what Miguel has to say for himself --
and The Register probably is *not* the place to hear that.  ;-)  I'm not
sure what their agenda is (if, indeed, they are even organized enough to
have one), but I do know that *THEY* are knee-jerk to the extreme, and
have no issue, whatsoever, with painting things with any brush they so
feel like.  There's an on-line "magazine" in the fiber-optic community,
"Light Reading" (www.lightreading.com) that, while not quite as bad, is
fairly similar.  I guess it's a sign of the Internet's maturity as a
medium that we've now got honest-to-goodness tabloid journalism in the
vertical markets.

-Ken

On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 18:30, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
>   Okay, I concede...I've been caught with my biases down...up, uh, whatever.
> I should also mention that I did meet Miguel before GNOME or KDE ever existed,
> and I'ld have to agree that he is a bright guy.  I'm not looking for him to
> start publicly bashing M$, Larry Elison and Scott MacNealy do enough of that
> to keep any M$ hater happy.
>   I guess I'll just have to show up at some conference he speaks at to get
> a better first hand hearing of what he has to say.  It's just that this isn't
> the first time that he's said things publicly that have made me mildly
> supicious.  The switch of the Mono class library license is just one more
> thing that's tweaked my suspicions lately.  Not that I dislike that MIT/X
> license vehemently, it's just that I originally chose GNOME over KDE due
> to the licensing issues.  Now it appears the situation is kind of reversed
> (not quite, though, since the MIT/X license isn't nearly as bad as the QPL
> was for QT).
> 
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:45:08PM -0500, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> > > > Here's the link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23919.html
> > > 
> > >   You need to be more careful of how you read.  At no point does Miguel say
> > > that.  Those are The Register's words.
> > 
> > I have to agree 100% with Ben, here: The Register, bless their little
> > Linux-loving souls, are a bit on the "Tabloid Linux" side.  I enjoy
> > them... but I can't say that I respect their journalistic integrity.
> >  
> > >   Reading *just* the quotes attributed to Miguel, he basically comes off as
> > > being impressed with the technology of .NET, but mentioned the Microsoft
> > > issue very little.  He also appears to be interested in what has been
> > > submitted to ECMA as open standards, and not interested in the proprietary
> > > Windows stuff.
> > > 
> > >   Given that, and that alone, I would be cautiously optimistic.
> > 
> > Again, Ben's on the money.  I've followed Miguel/Gnome since very
> > shortly after Gnome's inception, and have found that:
> > 1) Miguel respects *some* of what MS does, from an architecture
> > standpoint.  For example, he's in favor of modular design, something he
> > says he really saw in action when he visited their site.  You'll note,
> > however, that not only did he turn down employment there, but went in
> > pretty much the exact opposite direction.
> > 2) Miguel isn't always reasonable -- eg., his stance against KDE. 
> > (Roughly summed up as "We rule, they don't.")  Nevertheless, he's an
> > amazingly intelligent guy, who can really do some pretty darn cool
> > things.  Being put in the context of a Register story, though, could
> > make anyone appear to be most anything.
> > 
> > $.02
> > 
> > -Ken
> 
> -- 
> -Paul Iadonisi
>  Senior System Administrator
>  Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
>  Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
>  GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
> 



*****************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body.
*****************************************************************

Reply via email to