# Developers cooling on Windows desktop, study finds



## praka123 (Jul 3, 2007)

> July 3, 2007 7:05 AM PDT
> *Developers cooling on Windows desktop, study finds*
> 
> Posted by          Martin LaMonica
> ...


 SO?Does OSS got some grip in developer's side too  
as with projects like mono that allows .net to be used in other platforms too.
A better trend 
Now i know why MSFT is woeing young developers stuck in the middle to their platform at any cost.(payments,contests,Mvp's etc)


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 3, 2007)

Cool, which applications are those? Desktop Level or Enterprise level ?

Hey, who made .net Prakash? How can u trust an application written in .net


----------



## praka123 (Jul 3, 2007)

ur propagating FUD against me in every thread.I never said that .net is bad.now that it can be done with *NIX too,I think you as a loyal M$ follower hates the facts.

Even I believe its upto users to choose windows or alternates.but i used it as an oppurtunity to let many knows how FOSS growing also Linux.that's all.I am having the right to let others know that Linux too is growing.

Nor does am against Windows Vista-but i pointed out one serious problem that OS bundles.so leave me kiddo!I dont have the time to mess with M$ fanboys.please not that-Now I am not into another flamebait.


----------



## vaithy (Jul 3, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Cool, which applications are those? Desktop Level or Enterprise level ?
> 
> Hey, who made .net Prakash? How can u trust an application written in .net




Why not ?
Linux want to bridge .. not divide the world.. while Linux developers are struggling to port windows applications in Linux, Microsoft is threatening them with patent suit...When I installed windows XP in my machine it never asked me, whether to preserve other OS entires in the BOOtLOADER or it.. it simply overwrite everything.. after installation.. it don't want to recognise any other OS in the other partition except FAT,

but when I installed Linux it always give me the choice and and help me to load the windows entry in the boot loader..Whenever my kids damaged the Windows system either by playing game or some other reasons, I simply boot in to Linux letting it check the windows partition and correct it. then restart into windows...Which will be smooth as ever.. so my kids called the Linux as ,'Windows Mechanic" ..Little they know the rivalry of two OS camps..
In many office Windows System Administrators are having readymade copies of Live Linux cds.. But they wouldn't admit to their Boss....

with regards,
vaithy


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 3, 2007)

vaithy said:
			
		

> While Linux developers are struggling to port windows applications in Linux



Wait wait, How? Maximum number of softwares on Windows is closed source. How are they porting to Linux?



> In many office Windows System Administrators are having readymade copies of Live Linux cds.. But they wouldn't admit to their Boss....



Just to add, here in Airtel Tower lucknow, my friend is in the IT department, & he is using a Windows XP live CD made by me to fix the computers as & when needed.


----------



## mediator (Jul 3, 2007)

> Maximum number of softwares on Windows is closed source.How are they porting to Linux?


 U surely dont expect them to just steal/copy the code of "closed source" and compile it on Linux do u? I hope u know what the FUDdy patent suit of 230+ patents was! Kpaint is a good replacement for windows paint!!


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 3, 2007)

praka123 said:
			
		

> ur propagating FUD against me in every thread.I never said that .net is bad.now that it can be done with *NIX too,I think you as a loyal M$ follower hates the facts.


* It can be done on *NIX because Microsoft wanted .NET to be supported on all platforms* and that is why *Microsoft released C# n .NET MSIL and CLR as an ECMA Standard* thus allowing developers *access to the whole specification of the .NET architecture* so that they can port it on their platform 

And for your information Microsoft is collaborating with Novell to develop Mono


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 3, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> hope u know what the FUDdy patent suit of 230+ patents was! Kpaint is a good replacement for windows paint!!



Thats what I m asking here, how are the the linux developers porting Windows apps on Linux then if the source code is closed? 

They are making there own apps, which is a different thing.

Lolz....zeeshan's eye opener will as usual be mislooked by DRM DRM DRM DRM DRM. We all know(ok some of us) that how easy it is to make apps in .net & C# alone runs on 45 platforms out there, now you tell me, could this be done without MS's consent? 

MS wants the developers to use there tools, cos this way one app can work everywhere, Windows Mac or Linux. No matter what OS you use, you can always inter operate between OS. Whats so FUDing about this Prakash? Or can't u take the fact that it is MS which is helping Linux grow using Mono.


----------



## vaithy (Jul 4, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> MS wants the developers to use there tools, cos this way one app can work everywhere, Windows Mac or Linux. No matter what OS you use, you can always inter operate between OS. Whats so FUDing about this Prakash? Or can't u take the fact that it is MS which is helping Linux grow using Mono.



This is the best joke   that I ever read ..!! Hats Off!! Saurav!!

'Linux is Cancer"

'Linux is evil for the society'

Their CEO is spreading the venom at every meeting.. Instead of that foulmouthed Ballmere , You are the best choice for CEO of MS, you may make a good PRO job for MS

with regards,
Vaithy


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 4, 2007)

vaithy said:
			
		

> This is the best joke   that I ever read ..!! Hats Off!! Saurav!!
> 
> 'Linux is Cancer"
> 
> ...



Would you mind writing something from your own experience instead of becoming prakash 2.0 ( copy pasting what others said)

I can has CEO Yes Microsoft


----------



## din (Jul 4, 2007)

> MS which is helping Linux grow



LOL, I agree with vaithy, it is a joke for sure.

First MS tried to ignore Linux, then they tried to attack and finally they agreed "Linux is a threat". 

Regarding C#, sure MS relaesed it just coz of the goodwill or to make it work anywhere ? Hmm ...

Lookin back, remember when MS started on C# ? They tried to avoid JAVA first (just like the linux story), then they tried to take JAVA in their control, making their own Java-Like things (sure, you heared of J++ which MS had to discountinue) by modifying Java. Sun sued MS many times and everytime Sun won. 

Finally MS had to give up modifications etc on Java and they tried 'imitating' JAVA by making C#. Yes, that is how C# is relased. You can compare the basic syntax of Java n C#.

For MS (and may be for all big Corp), the first thing is their profit. Helping the linux community may be the last thing for them.


----------



## cynosure (Jul 4, 2007)

Whatever you guys say. More apps on Linux means better life for users like me.

I dont hate Windows, neither I am a linux fan but seriously speaking for a guy like me, who likes to know how a comp works, linux is the best choice and it has the added feature of security.

I have used WinMe, 2K and XP, and all those tend to go slow in around 6 months, due to virii, adware and disk fragmentation. I used ubuntu 6.06 for around 1 year and it was never slow throughout its life. I used Ext2 then and now I am using XFS (with Zenwalk) which does not even do a "scandisk" if my comp is switched off the wrong way. 
I dont know about the latest NTFS version that M$ is using in Vista, but till XP there was chaos and given the fact that my PC is uber old, Disk Defragmentation with MS tool took a lifetime, so did Virus removal and ad-removal tools.
Yes the drivers of "new" h/w are hard to find in Linux, but my PC dates back to 2K2, so in my case, drivers were never a problem

I dont have any problem if Linus and Bill keeps on fighting. As long as there is the open source community to take care of users like me, I am well fed. Additional help from the main developers will always be a welcome move.

In a month or two, if everything goes right, I will be buying a new PC. In that too, I will use 2 Lin distros + Win Vista Ultimate . Vista for Gaming and Lin distros for knowlege.


----------



## praka123 (Jul 4, 2007)

at din:you are 100% correct in saying that C# is born of the bad will of MSFT,when Java satisfies perfectly.and fyi,sun GPLed Java


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 5, 2007)

din said:
			
		

> For MS (and may be for all big Corp), the first thing is their profit. Helping the linux community may be the last thing for them.


 and that is the same for ALL Companies , be it MS or Redhat or Novell or anyone .

ALso , even though MS made C# , they submitted it to ECMA for standardization and also the .NET framework's specifications , so that every developer could freely access it and develop for their platform ?

And why wouldn't MS make their own product , look at C# , it is far better than java in terms of performance .



			
				praka123 said:
			
		

> at din:you are 100% correct in saying that C# is born of the bad will of MSFT,when Java satisfies perfectly.and fyi,sun GPLed Java


  they had to do it ater seeing the succes of Mono , GTK# and other .NET based platforms .


----------



## mediator (Jul 5, 2007)

> ALso , even though MS made C# , they submitted it to ECMA for standardization and also the .NET framework's specifications , so that every developer could freely access it and develop for their platform ?


Ofcors we all have seen how "freely" u can develop ur code using MS-development tools. Even an MVP isn't spared!! May be u have to code and avail it underground??


----------



## rocket357 (Jul 6, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Thats what Im asking here, how are the the linux developers porting Windows apps on Linux then if the source code is closed?
> 
> They are making there own apps, which is a different thing.



gx makes a good point here.  Just because 2 apps provide similar functionality does not make either one a "porting" effort.  No matter how much anyone would want to, they couldn't claim that K3b is a port of Nero, or that Konqueror is a port of IE.

No, typically what you find is open source apps being ported to Windows (not the other way around).  There are quite a few (the GIMP, GAIM, Wireshark (formerly Ethereal), Apache, etc...to mention a few off the top of my head) with new ones popping up all the time.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 6, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> Ofcors we all have seen how "freely" u can develop ur code using MS-development tools. Even an MVP isn't spared!! May be u have to code and avail it underground??


Ahh , there you go without even looking at the real side of the story .

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=519562&postcount=17

That guy was *Selling* extensions for Visual Studio Express editions . he wasn't even giving it for free .

Also , MS people talked to him on phone and in personal for 2 years before filing the case .

*blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/

now if i go by your way , if i violate the rules of the GPL , then won't the original owner ask me to stop that ?


----------



## mediator (Jul 7, 2007)

> That guy was Selling extensions for Visual Studio Express editions . he wasn't even giving it for free .


 Selling it or availing it for public use for free! May be u wud like to read an excerpt from the article if u hate reading the stories!!



			
				msdn said:
			
		

> *What complicates this even further* is that this *isn’t a developer doing this for his or her personal use or experimenting with our product*, this is a business trying to sell a product.  We tried for close to two years to get Jamie to stop releasing the Express version of TestDriven.NET without success.


 How tragic that the people/developers can't share what they created with others using MS-development tools! They r reduced to experimentations and personal use....laughable indeed!!



> now if i go by your way , if i violate the rules of the GPL , then won't the original owner ask me to stop that ?


 I guess u really shud read the GPL before making me laugh!!


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 7, 2007)

mediator

Maybe you should try reading the Visual Studio EULA. I*t is not allowed to sale the extension he made*. If he would have given it for free, then all this would have never happened.


----------



## mediator (Jul 7, 2007)

> Maybe you should try reading the Visual Studio EULA. It is not allowed to sale the extension he made. If he would have given it for free, then all this would have never happened.


Sorry but I'm not interested to be restricted by some rules like those in EULA that I can't release my program or module for free or not free. Every developer has his honour and to have fame in devloper world! He makes his codes, but never copies some one else's, though he may copy the "idea"! May be its u who wud like to read my previous reply slowly n carefully again!!

Do u understand the meaning of "experimentation" and "personal use"? I just pray that MS doesn't treat atleast u like that unfortunate guy....ever!


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 7, 2007)

> Sorry but I'm not interested to be restricted by some rules like those in EULA that I can't release my program or module for free or not free.



Well, in that case it is your arrogance for not trying to read anything, in which we Windows users cannot explain anything to you.Plz don't expect us to read the GPL which you refer in your posts now.


> Every developer has his honour and to have fame in devloper world! He makes his codes, but never copies some one else's



There are 2 versions of Visual Studio 2005

1) *VS 2005 Express edition* which is free. *MS released it for students & those who want to learn VS.* It is for non commercial use. You can learn using this, make application but cannot sale it cos this is not the commercial edition.

2) Visual Studio 2005 Full Edition, this is the full fledged edition using which you can make & sale your applications. It costs some money to buy, but once you have a license, you can make & sale apps.

The MVP made an extension for Visual Studio 2005 using VS 2005 express edition. He got it for free, even you can get it for free. He made an extension using this which is fine, well.....whats not fine is that he was selling this extension which he should not according to the license agreement to which he agreed when getting VS 2005 Express edition. It is allowed to give it for free but not sale it.

If he would have made it using full VS 2005 edition for VS 2005 Full edition then this problem would have never appeared. 



> Do u understand the meaning of "experimentation" and "personal use"? I just pray that MS doesn't treat atleast u like that unfortunate guy....ever!



Well, I play by the rules.


----------



## mediator (Jul 7, 2007)

> The MVP made an extension for Visual Studio 2005 using VS 2005 express edition. He got it for free, even you can get it for free. He made an extension using this which is fine, well.....whats not fine is that he was selling this extension which he should not according to the license agreement to which he agreed when getting VS 2005 Express edition. *It is allowed to give it for free* but not sale it.


Here's the explanation!
*blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/

Now can u please point out where is it written that he can avail it for free?


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 7, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> Here's the explanation!
> *blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/
> 
> Now can u please point out where is it written that he can avail it for free?


Yups , the point is that you *Cannot make plugins for VS Express* and if you do(which is against MS EULA) then MS will have to take action .



			
				danielfe said:
			
		

> The TestDriven.NET product is implemented as a Visual Studio Add-In. * In the Visual Studio Standard, Professional, and Team System SKUs, TestDriven.NET is installed as an Add-In and gets loaded into the IDE through the Add-In Manager*.  In the Visual Studio Express SKUs, because we disabled extensibility (macros, Add-ins, and VS Packages), the Add-In Manager is removed and therefore Add-Ins are not detected or loaded.  *Jamie has created additional components specifically for the Express SKUs to work around this technical limitation.*  He takes advantage of an extensibility point that allows user controls (such as a button class) to customize entries in the Properties window.  *When his property extender gets called, he executes code that finds, loads and injects the TestDriven.Net assembly into the Express SKU’s running process*, thus replacing the functionality of the removed Add-In Manager.  This explains why he instructs Visual Studio Express users to open the Properties window in order to enable TestDriven.NET.  Once his code is injected into the Express SKU’s running process it can add menu items, enable features that were disabled, and in general take over that instance of Express. *These special loading mechanisms that Jamie has built exclusively for the Express SKUs are unauthorized workarounds to the SKUs’ technical limitations.*



and to give you an idea , Daniel aptly gives an example





			
				danielfe said:
			
		

> For an analogy, *this would be comparable to someone working around the technical limitations in the personal version of TestDriven.NET to unlock features in the professional or enterprise versions for free.*
> 
> What complicates this even further is that this isn’t a developer doing this for his or her personal use or experimenting with our product, _this is a business trying to sell a product_.  *We tried for close to two years to get Jamie to stop releasing the Express version of TestDriven.NET without success.*


----------



## mediator (Jul 8, 2007)

> Yups , the point is that you Cannot make plugins for VS Express and if you do(which is against MS EULA) then MS will have to take action .


 Thats what I said free or non-free is irrelevant here!!



> Well, in that case it is your arrogance for not trying to read anything, in which we Windows users cannot explain anything to you.Plz don't expect us to read the GPL which you refer in your posts now.


 Neways sorry to have missed out ur post. U were talking of EULA and I about restrictions!

May be u shud read the post again! WE all saw how MS treated the little MVP when he asked the "specific legal problems". What a pity!


Now it seems its u who shud read EULA!
Here's the EULA page!



> Visual Studio 2005 Professional (Gifted one)
> 
> In obtaining this software, you agree to the terms and conditions of the  End User License Agreement and its Amendment. Some of the relevant restrictions are summarized below:
> 
> ...


So here we have a professional edition that cannot be used for commercial purposes! May be there r variations in professional one too where u have to research before coding!







Lets look at EULA now



> General Grant of License. In general, *for each license you have acquired for the Product, one individual is authorized to use the Product according to the terms of this EULA.* Unless expressly stated otherwise, *the Product may not be separated for use by more than the one individual authorized to use the Product.* A single subscription through the MSDN Subscription Program may have multiple licenses to use the Product associated with that subscription; nonetheless, each license must be dedicated to use of the Product by one individual. Specifically:
> 
> 1. *If you are an individual, Microsoft grants to you as an individual a personal, nonexclusive license to make and use copies of the Product in accordance with the terms of this EULA, provided that you are the only individual using the Product.*
> 2. If you are an entity, Microsoft grants to you the right to designate one individual within your organization to have the sole right to make and use copies of the Product in accordance with the terms of this EULA.
> ...


* 
Are they mocking the developers and users? May be its time everyone shud read the EULA!!

Now read here further!




Surprises inside Microsoft Vista's EULA
Not a thing of beauty
Page: 1 2 3 Next >
By Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus → More by this author
Published Sunday 29th October 2006 23:32 GMT
Find your perfect job - click here from thousands of tech vacancies

Analysis It's Autumn in St. Louis, my favorite time of year in Missouri. Coats are getting progressively thicker as the temperature drops, trees are changing their leaves in a final show of brilliant color before their skeletons show, and darkness is starting to scare away the sun a bit earlier every day.

Every Thursday night this Autumn you'll find me teaching the latest iteration of a wonderful course at Washington University in St. Louis titled "Technology in Our Changing Society". Once a week my students and I examine a different issue about the point at which technology and social change intersect, and our discussions are as fulfilling as they are knotty. I can't tell you how many times this semester I've heard someone say, "This is a really complicated issue, and I'm not sure yet what I think.
Click here to find out more!

I respect and understand completely what they're saying. After all, when you're wrestling with issues around free speech, biotechnology, identity online, or virtual property, discussions tend to operate in shades of grey instead of black and white. Sometimes issues are a bit more cut and dried, and a student will utter a bon mot that perfectly encapsulates an issue.

A long time ago, a high school kid who wasn't that great of a student told the class, after a long discussion about governments and politics, "Well, here's what I've learned: socialism is fair but doesn't really work, while capitalism isn't fair but does work mostly." Not too bad for a 9th grader. More recently, I had the adults in "Technology in Our Changing Society" read both the Windows XP EULA and the GNU General Public License. When I asked them what they thought, one woman said, "The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do, and the GPL sounds like it was written by a human being who wants me to know what I can do." Nice

The next version of Windows is just around the corner, so the next time we discuss software licensing in my course, the EULA for Vista will be front and center. You can read the Microsoft Vista EULA yourself by going to the official Find License Terms for Software Licensed from Microsoft page and searching for Vista. I know many of you have never bothered to read the EULA - who really wants to, after all? - but take a few minutes and get yourself a copy and read it. I'll wait.

Back? It's bad, ain't it? Real bad. I mean, previous EULAs weren't anything great - either as reading material or in terms of rights granted to end users - but the Vista EULA is horrendous.
Benchmark censorship

Ed Foster has written - with his usual righteous eloquence - a piece on his Gripelog titled "A Vista of Licensed Censorship" that covers several new restrictions in the upcoming Vista EULA. Vista Home now contains this gem:

    9. MICROSOFT .NET BENCHMARK TESTING. The software includes one or more components of the .NET Framework 3.0 (".NET Components"). You may conduct internal benchmark testing of those components. You may disclose the results of any benchmark test of those components, provided that you comply with the conditions set forth at *go.microsoft/fwlink/?LinkID=66406.

Foster brings up good points about the inevitable problems that this clause will bring. Microsoft can - and undoubtedly will - change the terms on that web page at any time, thus complicating life for anyone wanting to disclose test results.

Worse, another requirement dictates that any benchmarks must "be performed using all performance tuning and best practice guidance set forth in the product documentation and/or on Microsoft's support Web sites," thus forcing testers to use settings that aren't found in the workaday world, potentially distorting results. Foster gives this example, one that should resonate among the readers of this column:

    Just by way of example, what about a security researcher who a year or so from now wants to compare the buffer overflow vulnerabilities of the original version of Vista with the inevitable SP1?

    Under Microsoft's rules, the researcher could not make public the results of the older version of the software. And if you think it highly unlikely Microsoft would actually object to the benchmarks in such circumstances, think again. In 2001 Microsoft came down on an independent lab that was about to go public with performance benchmarks comparing Windows NT and Windows 2000.

Beyond the fact that censorship is almost always a bad thing (I'll agree that it's permissible in a very few cases involving national security, but that's about it), software is of such critical importance to people's lives that I can see virtually no reason why any limitations on benchmarking and testing results should ever be allowed to stand.
....Please,please Read more

Click to expand...

Pure business!


Have u read the GPL or shud I quote that for u?


Now coming back to the topic from 1st post!



			Developers are choosing to write applications for Linux desktops in almost 12 percent of cases, which is a 34 percent increase from last year.
"It's clear that a shift away (from) Windows began about two yeas ago, and the data show that this migration is now accelerating. Linux has benefited, but we also see corresponding growth in niche operating systems for non-traditional client devices. The landscape is changing," said Evans Data CEO John Andrews in a statement.
		
Click to expand...

 Yes, we can see why!



It doesn't matter if MS provides support for Linux in development or not. Its the "freedom" to code/use that matters the most to the programmers and ofcors even if someone breaks the horryfying set of restrictions in EULA and that too if he is an MVP then he can be dealt with benevolently and not sending lawyers and making him sweat!*


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 8, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> So here we have a professional edition that cannot be used for commercial purposes! May be there r variations in professional one too where u have to research before coding!


 Mediator , the EULA you are referring to is the one specially for *College Students and Universities*

I guess you forgot to read This line at the end of the EULA you linked to 





> *IMPORTANT!!!
> 
> Please remember that this site is ONLY for members of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst Community.*



This is the Standard Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition EULA





			
				Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition EULA said:
			
		

> MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS
> MICROSOFT VISUAL STUDIO 2005 PROFESSIONAL EDITION
> 
> These license terms are an agreement between Microsoft Corporation (or based on where you live, one of its affiliates) and you.  Please read them.  They apply to the software named above, which includes the media on which you received it, if any.  The terms also apply to any Microsoft
> ...



*The EULA does not put any constratint on you on producing Commercial software using the Standard Edition Of Visual Studio 2005*

So please take a little time to verify your claims before making them . 

Also ,you didn't care to look at the *Ammendments* made to the standard EULA for College and Academic use .
*msdnaa.oit.umass.edu/Namendment.asp



> This amendment (the "Amendment") to the Master End-User License Agreement for the Microsoft Developer Network Subscription (the "EULA") is a *legal agreement between Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") and a Qualified Educational User approved by Microsoft for participation in the Microsoft Developer Network Academic Alliance Program* ("MSDN Academic Alliance Program").


----------



## Desi-Tek.com (Jul 8, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> And why wouldn't MS make their own product , look at C# , it is far better than java in terms of performance .
> .


how c# is better than java? can u pls explain?


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 8, 2007)

Just like JAVA Runtime, to run a C# application in an OS or platform, you need the .net runtime for that platform.

Now, when u install & execute a c# or any .net based application on that platform such as Windows, ngen.exe (in case of Windows) optimises the binary for that paritcular CPU & hardware.

JAVA does nothing like this.

This results in C# giving more performance on the same platform compared to JAVA


----------



## mediator (Jul 8, 2007)

zeeshan said:
			
		

> the EULA you are referring to is the one specially for College Students and Universities


 I already stated that. Thats what I'm wondering if their EULA(s) can bend and MS to have total control!!




			
				from_the_source said:
			
		

> This software is being provided through a gift from Microsoft Corporation.





> Visual Studio 2005 Professional (*Gifted one*)
> 
> In obtaining this software, you agree to the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement and its Amendment. Some of the relevant restrictions are summarized below:


Dont u like reading links?


Thats a pity actually that u have different EULA for each n every thing and in some EULAs they give u "links"!! No wonder the MVP was bullied!

Neways lets look at this EULA too



> a. General. *One user may install and use copies of the software to design, develop, test and demonstrate your programs. Testing does not include staging on a server in a production environment, such as loading content prior to production use.*
> .
> .
> .
> ...


 Almost the same!!




> The EULA does not put any constratint on you on producing Commercial software using the Standard Edition Of Visual Studio 2005
> 
> So please take a little time to verify your claims before making them


May be u didn't read my lines carefully! Do I have to explain what the "freedom" to code/use means? So please read the bolded parts carefully or read the full EULA slowly!! I hope I don't have to quote the bolded parts in separate paras one and only for u and then explain their meaning!!


And may be u didn't even look at VISTA's EULA-scan.  I'm not here to debate for that neways but talking straight to topic....we can all see where we have more *freedom* to code in!! Monopoly and business profits thats what MS EULA stands for!!



			
				eula-scan said:
			
		

> A long time ago, a high school kid who wasn't that great of a student told the class, after a long discussion about governments and politics, "Well, here's what I've learned: socialism is fair but doesn't really work, while capitalism isn't fair but does work mostly." Not too bad for a 9th grader. More recently, I had the adults in "Technology in Our Changing Society" read both the Windows XP EULA and the GNU General Public License. When I asked them what they thought, one woman said, "*The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do, and the GPL sounds like it was written by a human being who wants me to know what I can do.*" Nice


 May be its time they shud "reformat" their EULA(s), and "reinstall" a more nicely structured one, formatted with MS-word or OOO and tell in a straight forward manner what we can do!


----------



## Desi-Tek.com (Jul 8, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Just like JAVA Runtime, to run a C# application in an OS or platform, you need the .net runtime for that platform.
> 
> Now, when u install & execute a c# or any .net based application on that platform such as Windows, ngen.exe (in case of Windows) optimises the binary for that paritcular CPU & hardware.
> 
> ...


mate that is incorrect! u can make executable jar in java too and if u r using java 6 than you can run any executable jar by just doing double click on it not only on windows but on any plateform and with every release of j2re it is becoming more and more fast and check this out
*blogs.sun.com/dagastine/entry/sun_java_is_faster_than1


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 8, 2007)

Everyone knows that TheRegister is totally Anti-Microsoft . so please provide any other source .



			
				Desi-Tek.com said:
			
		

> mate that is incorrect! u can make executable jar in java too and if u r using java 6 than you can run any executable jar by just doing double click on it not only on windows but on any plateform and check this out
> *blogs.sun.com/dagastine/entry/sun_java_is_faster_than1


  It is not about making executables , .NET *Compiles* the whole C# app to native the first time you run it and stores it ni GAC(global assembly cache) and then uses it every time u run the app .

Whereas Java use JIT(Just in Time compilation) every time the app is run , it does no compile the app and store it for later use .


----------



## mediator (Jul 8, 2007)

Now thats called whining! They only did EULA-Scan. Does that annoy u? may be u shud read the full VISTA EULA then and paste it here "only" after u understand it......asking for some another source. Please dont make me laugh!!


----------



## Desi-Tek.com (Jul 8, 2007)

here is a good comparison of c# and java *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_C_Sharp_and_Java


----------



## vaithy (Jul 8, 2007)

I am not siding with any of the debate but simply want to clarify.. Under term of Law, ' a gift is one that presented without any monetary conditions, considerations, but purely love and affections, charity purpose to given away by the benefactor to the beneficiary" If any string is attached with the gift than it will not be considered 'gift'. So if the software is indeed gifted to the student than there is no constraints on the part of the beneficiary fully use it as he pleased,not withstanding the EULA attached with it.

Thanking you,


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 8, 2007)

Mediator, stop drawing your own conclusion by bending the EULA the way you want. Obviously you hate it cos it is not GPL.


----------



## mediator (Jul 8, 2007)

Okies cutie pie...if u want me to stop the discussion that is! 


> Obviously you hate it cos it is not GPL.


 Noooo.....ur wrong! Its like saying I hate windows becoz its not GNU/Linux!! Bad reasoning...no candy for u...try again!!


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 8, 2007)

Yo


----------



## rocket357 (Jul 9, 2007)

Wow...the security issue just fell through (finally) and now we've moved on to C# vs. Java and GPL vs. M$ EULA?  Nice!  I'm starting to like this place!!

As for C#/Java...I've used both.  Both are slow, though I have to admit that C# is not as noticeable.  Considering that Sun wrote Java, and initially it was intended to run on UltraSPARC systems, I can understand it being a touch slow on Intel systems.  That aside, I can also say that many Java devs make "mistakes" in their code that cost them dearly in performance.  If you've ever written something like this:

String myString = "Variable1: " + variable1 + "\nVariable2: " + variable2;

Then shame on you!  Use StringBuilder...not only is it faster, but it gives you more functionality.

As for the GPL and M$ EULA...it's kind of pointless to compare them, isn't it?  I mean, the GPL is intended to preserve the openness of the code base.  The M$ EULA (pick a product, they're all *pretty much* the same because they're protecting M$'s investment!) is designed to give the devs a bit of freedom, but not to the point of causing M$ any grief.


----------



## infra_red_dude (Jul 9, 2007)

vaithy said:
			
		

> "If any string is attached with the gift than it will not be considered 'gift'."


exactly, then that gift should be kept in its right place - Trash! what good is a such a kind of gift??!!


----------



## praka123 (Jul 9, 2007)

rocket357 said:
			
		

> As for the GPL and M$ EULA...it's kind of pointless to compare them, isn't it? I mean, the GPL is intended to preserve the openness of the code base. The M$ EULA (pick a product, they're all *pretty much* the same because they're protecting M$'s investment!) is designed to give the devs a bit of freedom, but not to the point of causing M$ any grief.


 And even MVPs may pay the price if they mess with it.  
i am pointing below  link:
Microsoft threatens its (MVP!)Most Valuable Professional
and that is a clear difference for developers reg GPL/OSS licenses with M$ EULA  and I'd say Openess is the superiority and security of Open Platforms.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 9, 2007)

@ Prakash

I think you are out of valid points again, you are posting what u posted 4 pages ago.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 9, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> Do I have to explain what the "freedom" to code/use means?


 can you tell me what "freedom" exactly are you being deprived off in the bolded part ?





			
				Visual Studio EULA said:
			
		

> 10. SCOPE OF LICENSE. *The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. For more information, see www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not
> • work around any technical limitations in the software;
> • reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
> • make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
> ...





			
				praka123 said:
			
		

> And even MVPs may pay the price if they mess with it.
> i am pointing below  link:
> Microsoft threatens its (MVP!)Most Valuable Professional
> and that is a clear difference for developers reg GPL/OSS licenses with M$ EULA  and I'd say Openess is the superiority and security of Open Platforms.


:Sigh:





			
				Zeeshan.Quireshi said:
			
		

> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Garbage (Jul 9, 2007)

@gx_saurav & @Zeeshan Quireshi

I'm NOT the geek in such licensing & programming. So I'll ask u a very simple question. Plz answer me in a sentence....

*Can u feel FREE ( u know what I mean free here )  while developing applications for Windows as Linux / OSS s/w developers feels ???
Don't u want to share ur knowledge??
Don't u want ur applications gonna used without begging to M$ ??*

& forgive me if I asked some wrong....


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 9, 2007)

Well, I m not a software developers, but rather then giving it for free, I will keep the source code & rights with me, sale the software, & give the interpreter/decoder API to everyone for free.

Now anyone can use my software with there software.

Like if I make a new video format say GXV D), i will charge for the encoder but give the decoder for free & make it open source so that anyone can incorporate the decoder in any OS/Platform.


----------



## Garbage (Jul 9, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Well, I m not a software developers, but rather then giving it for free, I will keep the source code & rights with me, sale the software, & give the interpreter/decoder API to everyone for free.
> 
> Now anyone can use my software with there software.
> 
> Like if I make a new video format say GXV D), i will charge for the encoder but give the decoder for free & make it open source so that anyone can incorporate the decoder in any OS/Platform.


*So, u r using M$'s tools to develop FREE S/w*. U mean this naa ???


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 9, 2007)

Sigh, pinnacle of ignorance.

*I never meant Open Source Encoder, i said free & Open source API/SDK for decoder *so that anyone can decode my application developed files using there app.

A good example : Windows Media Codecs. Just one codec, & any media player can use it in Windows.


----------



## praka123 (Jul 9, 2007)

so,when are u releasing decoder of .gxv(I know it may be some fork of .wma/v) 
will u GPL(viiral?) it


----------



## Garbage (Jul 9, 2007)

^^ ohh... I meant FREE. Not OSS. ( Sorry I'm NOT geek ) 

POST EDITED !!!


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 9, 2007)

@ Prakash, I rather prefer DivX, its teh sh!t

@sirish

Yup, free decoder but paid encoder. (Example)


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 9, 2007)

@shirish_nagar: Generally speaking, you can (a) program and license software for free in Windows using C++ (Dev C++ and many other free IDEs are available) or Java or (b) program and license commercial software with your own EULA in any language... The choice is available in Windows...

In the case of Visual Studio, recently MS came up with Express Edition of the package. Personally, it is a boon for people like me (casual programmers) who occasionally want to program with VB/VC++ etc but cannot afford to purchase the VS software... MS even allows you to sell software made with the Express Edition... However, it has a few limitations (lack of support for Macros, add-ons, etc.) For the casual programmer (and for students), this limitation is not so bad, considering the fact that you are getting the package for free...

Regarding the Microsoft Vs the MVP situation, IMHO, I feel MS is on the right side this time... Think about it - a software is provided in a free "light" edition. If someone where to create a piece of code and help convert the "light" edition work as the full edition (either partially or completely), that would be considered a hack. While this is not exactly the same situation, I think that it is along the same lines.

Finally, regarding GPL vs. EULA: it is a personal choice... GPL is a great achievement, and over the last decade or so, it has brought a lot of attention to the alternative to closed-source programs... However, IMHO, there is nothing wrong with closed-source programs... Sure, you dont know what all the program is doing (it could be monitoring your credit card usage or your browsing history for all you know), but for most people, that doesnt sound like a convincing argument... It is more like a paranoid point of view... For all I know (I am not a hardcore programmer, so I may not know that much), a brilliant coder may be able to hide away similar monitoring code in GPL through obscure and complex coding - and it may go undetected for years... There is no point in getting paranoid. If you like a software, use it. If you feel threatened by close-source software, dont use it... Personally, I use Windows XP, and pretty much most of the software I have are free or paid closed-source software though I do use a couple of open source software now and then...

Arun

PS: Just a thought. I am not very familiar with GPL, just vaguely have an idea of the gist... So correct me if I am wrong... Is it okay for someone (say A) to take code written by someone else (say B) under GPL and market it as their own? Would the author B be entitled to sue A if not? Also, GPL3 bans digital rights management, right? What if someone tries to provide his code under GPL, but provides for DRM support?


----------



## mediator (Jul 10, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> can you tell me what "freedom" exactly are you being deprived off in the bolded part ?
> :Sigh:


 Doesn't the grp of 3 musketeers (2 active here) do some planning before they line up to post one by one? On one hand, one of the musketeers comes up showing his inabilty to read the EULA or may be he's having a problem in acknowledging the meaning of the improperly formatted EULA which most of the time is telling what not to do and even giving links....how convenient!! And on other, another musketeers tells me to stop!



			
				eula-scan said:
			
		

> 9. MICROSOFT .NET BENCHMARK TESTING. The software includes one or more components of the .NET Framework 3.0 (".NET Components"). You may conduct internal benchmark testing of those components. You may disclose the results of any benchmark test of those components, provided that you comply with the conditions set forth at *go.microsoft/fwlink/?LinkID=66406.
> 
> Foster brings up good points about the inevitable problems that this clause will bring. Microsoft can - and undoubtedly will - change the terms on that web page at any time, thus complicating life for anyone wanting to disclose test results.


 And can u please post the contents of that link, its not even opening here giving me error

```
Firefox can't find the server at www.go.microsoft.
```

Its quite laughable on u that now u r quoting only some part of the bolded paras that I quoted. Is it too much for u?


After all such debate, u come and ask the meaning of "freedom"? How cute!...like a child who asks whats "A" after having a crash course of English alphabet!!

No go and read again the whole EULA line by line,word by word, letter by letter with ur eyes wide open. May be u like to work "only" for MS that u forgot whats freedom! And u call urself a programmer!

Lets make it simple for u!

AA.


> a. General. One user may install and use copies of the software to design, develop, test and demonstrate your programs. *Testing does not include staging on a server in a production environment*, such as loading content prior to production use.


 Ahem!!

BB.


> b. Included Microsoft Programs. These license terms apply to all Microsoft programs included with the software. If the license terms with any of those programs give you other rights that do not expressly conflict with these license terms, you also have those rights.


 May be an average developer has to do a Law degree to research and understand the license terms before coding! May be a dual degree will help programmers!

CC.


> i. Right to Use and Distribute. *The code and text files listed below are “Distributable Code.”*
> • *REDIST.TXT Files.* You may copy and distribute the object code form of code listed in REDIST.TXT files.
> • Sample Code. *You may modify, copy, and distribute* the source and object code form of *code marked as “sample.”*
> • Microsoft Merge Modules. You may copy and distribute the *unmodified output* of Microsoft Merge Modules.
> ...


 Read the bolded part! I see, we have to check out whether the code is under the "sample" first!!

DD.


> iii. Distribution Restrictions. *You may not*
> • alter any copyright, trademark or patent notice in the Distributable Code;
> • use Microsoft’s trademarks in your programs’ names or in a way that suggests your programs come from or are endorsed by Microsoft;
> • *distribute Distributable Code*, other than code listed in OTHER-DIST.TXT files, *to run on a platform other than the Windows platform;* shock: )
> ...


 Great! Can't we give additional functionality to the software? Atleast they cud have been more clear! Do u understand the bolded parts??....MS helping Linux??  


EE


> 4. INTERNET-BASED SERVICES. Microsoft provides Internet-based services with the software. It may change or cancel them at any time.


 MS apologises for 'serving malwares'....Internet based service?


FF


> a. Consent for Internet-Based Services. The software feature described below connects to Microsoft or service provider computer systems over the Internet. *In some cases, you will not receive a separate notice when they connect.* You may *switch off* this feature or not use it. *For more information about this feature, see the software documentation.* BY USING THIS FEATURE, YOU CONSENT TO THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS INFORMATION. Microsoft does not use the information to identify or contact you.


 Pretty good privacy(PGP)? Looks like we have to *learn* how to switch off this "feature" first before we start coding!!


GG


> b. Misuse of Internet-based Services. *You may not* use this service in any way that could harm it or impair anyone else’s use of it. *You may not* use the service to try to gain unauthorized access to any service, data, account or network by any means.



HH


> 5. TIME-SENSITIVE SOFTWARE. If the version of the software is *a trial version*, the software will stop running either ninety days or one hundred eighty days after you install it, depending on the trial version you have. You will receive notice before it stops running. You may not be able to access data used with the software when it stops running.


 Have u paid for ur edition? May be its time MS gets more serious with the piracy thing!

II


> 7. MICROSOFT WINDOWS SOFTWARE. The software contains the Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 and Microsoft Data Access Component 2.8 SP1 software. *These software are part of Windows.* The license terms for Windows apply to your use of the .NET Framework 2.0 and Microsoft Data Access Component software.


 

JJ


> 8. SQL SERVER BENCHMARK TESTING. *You must obtain Microsoft’s prior written approval to disclose to a third party the results of any benchmark test of the SQL Server software that accompanies this software.*


 Now get some approval too!


KK


> 9. MICROSOFT .NET FRAMEWORK BENCHMARK TESTING. The software includes the .NET Framework component of the Windows operating systems (“.NET Component”). You may conduct internal benchmark testing of the .NET Component. You may disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Component, provided that you comply with the following terms: (1) *you must disclose all the information necessary for replication of the tests,* including complete and accurate details of your benchmark testing methodology, the test scripts/cases, tuning parameters applied, hardware and software platforms tested, the name and version number of any third party testing tool used to conduct the testing, and complete source code for the benchmark suite/harness that is developed by or for you and used to test both the .NET Component and the competing implementation(s); (2) you must disclose the date (s) that you conducted the benchmark tests, along with specific version information for all Microsoft software products tested, including the .NET Component; (3) your benchmark testing was performed using all performance tuning and best practice guidance set forth in the product documentation and/or on Microsoft’s support web sites, and uses the latest updates, patches and fixes available for the .NET Component and the relevant Microsoft operating system; (4) it shall be sufficient if you make the disclosures provided for above at a publicly available location such as a website, so long as every public disclosure of the results of your benchmark test expressly identifies the public site containing all required disclosures; and (5) nothing in this provision shall be deemed to waive any other right that you may have to conduct benchmark testing. The foregoing obligations shall not apply to your disclosure of the results of any customized benchmark test of the .NET Component, whereby such *disclosure is made under confidentiality in conjunction with a bid request by a prospective customer, such customer’s application(s) are specifically tested* and the *results are only disclosed to such specific customer.* Notwithstanding any other agreement you may have with Microsoft, *if you disclose such benchmark test results, Microsoft shall have the right to disclose the results of benchmark tests it conducts of your products that compete with the .NET Component, provided it complies with the same conditions above.*


 Are we playing hide n seek?

LL


> 10. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. *This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software.* Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any *technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways.* For more information, see www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not
> • *work around any technical limitations in the software;*
> • reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
> • make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
> ...



MM


> 11. BACKUP COPY. You may make *one backup copy* of the software. You may use it only to reinstall the software


 Now they'll tell us about the number of backups too! Impressive!

NN


> 18. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS. The software is subject to United States export laws and regulations. You must comply with all domestic and international export laws and regulations that apply to the software. These laws include restrictions on destinations, end users and end use. For additional information, see www.microsoft.com/exporting.
> 
> 19. SUPPORT SERVICES. Microsoft provides support services for the software as described at *www.support.microsoft.com/com...rnational.aspx.


 Links blinks all around!


OO


> . United States. If you acquired the software in the United States, Washington state law governs the interpretation of this agreement and applies to claims for breach of it, regardless of conflict of laws principles. The laws of the state where you live govern all other claims, including claims under state consumer protection laws, unfair competition laws, and in tort.
> 
> b. Outside the United States. If you acquired the software in any other country, the laws of that country apply.


 Better research on US laws and patents too if u decide to move to US!! FUnny!



PP


> 21. APPLICABLE LAW.
> 
> a. United States. If you acquired the software in the United States, Washington state law governs the interpretation of this agreement and applies to claims for breach of it, regardless of conflict of laws principles. The laws of the state where you live govern all other claims, including claims under state consumer protection laws, unfair competition laws, and in tort.
> 
> ...


 Part of ur law degree!




Now just count how many times they said 'u may not', 'read the documentations', makes 'exceptions', links us to diff 'sites', stresses on the 'consequences' if not adhereing to rulezz or even by mistake etc etc!! So much freedom!

I guess our MS developers can be good lawyers if not good programmers! It seems an innocent developer has to spend most of the time reading EULA, 'links', don't, consequences even before typing a letter in the prestigious Visual studio!!


I hope u know what "brainstorming sessions" mean in "software development process". I guess here we have new meaning of it, where people argue to make sure if all the terms n conditions are met.

Typically software development life cycle model has five stages
1. Requirements and analaysis
2. Design
3. Implementation and unit testing
4. Integration and system testing
5. Operation and maintenance testing

I guess with EULA we have one more "agree terms and conditions"...telling u what not to do mostly!! How laughable!!


@Zeeshan are u ready to code? May be u shud make sure that u comply with "all' the terms and conditions. WE don't want our zeeshan bhai to be doing olympics around the court instead making a career in software firms! May be u shud really consult some lawyers to find even the meaning of simplest word in EULA before going out for the final battle i.e to code "freely" on Visual Studio? 


So @zeeshan I hope u still haven't understood the meaning of EULA or the freedom!! U may ask again what freedom is or consult the wiki this time or may be the American children dictionary!

@GX: I'm sorry, but I guess ur fellow musketeer forgot to consult u.....before asking me the meaning of english aplhabet!


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 10, 2007)

Well mediator , i was asking the "freedom" you were lacking specifically in the bolded part quoted , you *quoted all other parts except the one for which i asked explanation for*  



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> And can u please post the contents of that link, its not even opening here giving me error


 well here it is .
*msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973265.aspx



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Read the bolded part! I see, we have to check out whether the code is under the "sample" first!!


 well i fur head didn't get it then i can't do anything .

from what i can see is that , you can distribute the "compiled" binaries of Microsoft Components and Merge Modules , Also you can "only" distribute the "compiled" form of code in the samples folder and not the actual code .

*So in short it means that Code in the samples folder can ONLY be distributed in compiled(object) form and not the actual code .*



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Great! Can't we give additional functionality to the software? Atleast they cud have been more clear! Do u understand the bolded parts??....MS helping Linux??


 Well , this means that u CANNOT distribute the Components  provided along with VIsual Studio under a license that asks it to make the code OS , nor can you distribute the Components(Microsoft ones) so that they work on any other platform .

You can very well make a GPL app with Visual Studio , e.g. Sharpdevelop  

What mediator didn't get is that *you can't distribute Microsoft components and code for other platforms and under an OSS license* , *you can distribute your OWN app under any license you like* .



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> 10. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. *This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software*. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any *technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways*. For more information, see www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not
> • *work around any technical limitations in the software*;
> • reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
> • make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
> ...


What's so hard to get in that 

let me say it for you , 
1. You cannot word around any technical limitations(blocked features in short)
2.You cannot use it for *commercial* hosting, they have a different price for commercial hosting(i.e. .NET based hosting).

@Mediator , You obviously don't use visual studio and i suggest you don't use it if you do not want to comply under the VS EULA .

I will use it under the norms of the EULA .

It all boils down to this :
*"Use it under the conditions specified or leave it"* , no one's forcing you to only use VIsual Studio for development


----------



## Garbage (Jul 10, 2007)

@Zeeshan Quireshi

Bro, why u r NOT accepting that M$ have putted limits on "Developers(?)" ?

Still u have not answered my questions...


			
				shirish_nagar said:
			
		

> @gx_saurav & @Zeeshan Quireshi
> 
> I'm NOT the geek in such licensing & programming. So I'll ask u a very simple question. Plz answer me in a sentence....
> 
> ...


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 10, 2007)

@shirish - I thought I had answered your questions in my previous post... See *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=546329&postcount=50 - In Windows also, you can develop software and distribute it for free... Even with Visual Studio Express Edition, you can do it...

Arun


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 10, 2007)

@ sirish

I already gave answer


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 10, 2007)

mate , i think i have answered your question(indirectly though) in my previous post


----------



## rocket357 (Jul 10, 2007)

sakumar79 said:
			
		

> I am not very familiar with GPL, just vaguely have an idea of the gist... So correct me if I am wrong... Is it okay for someone (say A) to take code written by someone else (say B) under GPL and market it as their own? Would the author B be entitled to sue A if not? Also, GPL3 bans digital rights management, right? What if someone tries to provide his code under GPL, but provides for DRM support?



First, GPL code is copyrighted.  It's not public domain, so it's NOT ok for someone to take GPL code and market it as their own (unless of course they're the author of said named code!).  Please reference this page if you have any doubt:

*gpl-violations.org

Second, the entire point of DRM is to protect "sensitive" content from public disclosure.  The GPL is all about public disclosure and "open" licensing.  DRM and GPL don't seem to make much sense together, though ever so often a product comes along that defies natural law (for instance, the RSA encryption scheme...the algorithm is open for anyone to use, however, the algorithm is NOT the secret that makes it secure.  The public/private key pair is what makes it secure).  I've not had the chance to study closed-source encryption algorithms, so if anyone here has, please chime in...

One last thing:  the GPL is a bit restrictive when it comes to public disclosure (i.e. the developer is pretty much forced to make the code publicly available).  While NOT restrictive towards marketing your code (you can freely distribute or sell it), making the source public does seem to counter attempting to sell it.  A better alternative for developers who wish to sell open source material would be the BSD license...I hear it more friendly towards marketing.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 10, 2007)

From my Limited knowledge of BSD & GPL License

BSD license : You can have this. And you can do whatever you want.
GPL : You can't have this. You can only do what we tell you.


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 10, 2007)

Now, in the case of someone taking another persons GPL code and marketing/selling it as their own, there will obviously be a lawsuit possibility right? I dont see how it is different from the case of someone misusing a software against its EULA and getting sued over it... I get a feeling that people like praka123 (who I can see is anti-MS based on the posts) are ignoring the obvious and bashing MS just for the sakes of bashing it...

Arun


----------



## rocket357 (Jul 10, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> From my Limited knowledge of BSD & GPL License
> 
> BSD license : You can have this. And you can do whatever you want.
> GPL : You can't have this. You can only do what we tell you.


The GPL ensures that it holds from work to derived work.  If a developer releases code licensed with the GPL, he intends for it to REMAIN a freely available work.  It's intent is to combat people copyrighting the code and *stealing* it from public access.  It ensures four basic freedoms:

freedom 0: freedom to run the program for whatever purpose in whatever manner.
freedom 1: freedom to study the source code and modify it.
freedom 2: freedom to distribute copies to help your neighbors.
freedom 3: freedom to publish your modified version of the program.

Basically, the ONLY way you can encounter legal problems with the GPL is by attempting to nullify the GPL (by releasing your modified software without it being GPL'd) or by not releasing source code for your modifications.  If this could occur, then the GPL would be a complete waste of time since anyone could drop the GPL copyright on software and then copyright the software under stricter terms.



			
				sakumar79 said:
			
		

> Now, in the case of someone taking another persons GPL code and marketing/selling it as their own, there will obviously be a lawsuit possibility right?



Indeed.  The GPL is a "credit where credit is due" license.  You won't get in trouble for redistribution, but you *can* get in trouble (if the author sees it necessary to pursue) if you claim to have written work that you did not write.


----------



## mediator (Jul 11, 2007)

> Well mediator , i was asking the "freedom" you were lacking specifically in the bolded part quoted , you quoted all other parts except the one for which i asked explanation for


 May be ur eyes rn't working properly these day! Neither did I missed the 'technical limitations' part or the "law" or "exceptions" etc etc. It seems u need to study the aplhabet right from the start i.e AA, then BB......u must shed ur bad habit of not reading the bolded part! Do I need to quote the AA alphabet again?  



> well here it is .
> *msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973265.aspx


 Yea, I appreciate ur effort! But u missed the point! How come the EULA u showed me is pointing me to the incorrect and erroneous site? Does the little programmer has to make more extra efforts to search now?




> from what i can see is that , you can distribute the "compiled" binaries of Microsoft Components and Merge Modules , Also you can "only" distribute the "compiled" form of code in the samples folder and not the actual code .
> 
> So in short it means that Code in the samples folder can ONLY be distributed in compiled(object) form and not the actual code .


 Damn, all my efforts wasted! After teaching u the alphabet, u cud only get such conclusions in ur mind and talk of "only' sample folders?? Techical restrictions, exceptions, unmodified output, not being able to add additional functionality etc. Do u even know the meaning of such things? A programmer really dont wanna work hindered by such limitations, do u?




> Well , this means that u *CANNOT distribute* the *Components provided along with VIsual Studio* *under a license that asks it to make the code OS *, nor can you distribute the Components(Microsoft ones) so that they work on any other platform .


 When did "adding additional functionality" started meaning as bolded? Really u shud work more on ur comprehension skills first and then may be a law degree before debating further!




> What mediator didn't get is that you can't distribute Microsoft components and code for other platforms and under an OSS license , you can distribute your OWN app under any license you like .


 What r u...preaching to the crowd? What u didn't get is that we can distribute but with 'restrictions'! Like MS-EULA says abt reading the documentation all the time in between randomly , u shud read my full post again above!!




> let me say it for you ,
> 1. You cannot word around any technical limitations(blocked features in short)
> 2.You cannot use it for commercial hosting, they have a different price for commercial hosting(i.e. .NET based hosting).


 1. Laughable! May be coding under 'technical limitations' is the thing u have done from the start that u r so ignorant of  what coding with full freedom means!
2. Different price! And may be different set of restrictions again! It seems there is no such product covered under MS-EULA where there is no such 'restrictions'!




> You obviously don't use visual studio and i suggest you don't use it if you do not want to comply under the VS EULA .


 Back to the topic of this thread!



> It all boils down to this :
> "Use it under the conditions specified or leave it" , no one's forcing you to only use VIsual Studio for development


 Same old tune! U shudn't whine in between and demoralise me  like that! 


Now please continue and reply to all the bolded parts/paras in my previous post and tell me what u undertood if u cud!


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 11, 2007)

Mediator, stop bending the EULA the way u want.

There are various editions of .net 2005 available.
*
Express edition is free, you can use it to study or make your own applications.* You cannot sale these applications. You can either provide the source code for free or the compiled application for free but you cannot sale the applications u made using Free Express edition.

You cannot make hacks for the express edition to extend its capability. Yes *there are limitations for developers, but deal with it cos u r getting it for free*. If u don't like it, well buy it. Express edition is not meant for production, due to which pro developers don't use it. Students usually won't miss the Macro parts unless they are pro level at which they can get the full version. I hope you know what Macros do.

Using the Full edition, you can make any application u want. Now once you have made the application, you can give the source code & app for free, or sale the app for some price. There are no limitations in this IDE.

Under both circumstances you can modify the sample program source code that MS gives, however you cannot redistribute this modified sample code in the form of Source code cos the original source code is not meant to be distributed. You did not make it, you just modified it. You can however, compile the modified source code & distribute it as u like.



> 1. Laughable! May be coding under 'technical limitations' is the thing u have done from the start that u r so ignorant of what coding with full freedom means!


Yup, technical limitations in Free Edition, not the Pro edition. Well, like I said, deal with it cos u r getting it for free. If this doesn't suits you there are so many other IDEs available. Make something in that & then work for 4 months to optimise it for Windows.


> 2. Different price! And may be different set of restrictions again! It seems there is no such product covered under MS-EULA where there is no such 'restrictions'!


Actually, you just don't want to read or know the truth. MS is not open source. It protects the innovation & intellectuals property of the developers who want to sale there apps. The IDE works according to what you pay. MS isn't stopping you from developing your own App & giving away the source code for free. They are only stopping u from giving away the MS sample code in source code form for free. You can however distribute the compiled binary.



> a. General. One user may install and use copies of the software to design, develop, test and demonstrate your programs. Testing does not include staging on a server *in a production environment*, such as loading content prior to production use.


Do students have production environment? Oh wait....pro level developers have production enviroment but then again, they are pro level so that can buy the full edition. Hmm...nope, still not simple enough for u


> • *distribute Distributable Code*, other than code listed in OTHER-DIST.TXT files, *to run on a platform other than the Windows platform;* shock: )


Yup, you cannot distribute the MS Sample code for any other platform other then Windows cos it is made for Windows.

Oh...no, wait. You don't want to understand anything what the others tell you. You & Eddie, you both don't get how things work in Windows World....so according to you Windows & MS sux.....gr8 logic.


----------



## mediator (Jul 11, 2007)

> Mediator, stop bending the EULA the way u want.


 Do some counselling with ur feloo musketeers now!



> Express edition is free, you can use it to study or make your own applications. You cannot sale these applications. You can either provide the source code for free or the compiled application for free but you cannot sale the applications u made using Free Express edition.


 Irrelevant, since we r talking about professional one now!



> Using the Full edition, you can make any application u want. Now once you have made the application, you can give the source code & app for free, or sale the app for some price. There are no limitations in this IDE.


 U r not even a programmer so please stay out, coz u've been jestful from the start!! Free? Hilarious!



			
				gx said:
			
		

> Maybe you should try reading the Visual Studio EULA. It is not allowed to sale the extension he made. *If he would have given it for free, then all this would have never happened.*





			
				zeeshan said:
			
		

> Yups , the point is that *you Cannot make plugins for VS Express and if you do(which is against MS EULA) then MS will have to take action .*


 U got pwned by ur feloo musketeer himself! No need for me to tell further! If u Still feel the need for enlightenment then do quote the alphabet and tell what u understood!




> Yup, technical limitations in Free Edition, not the Pro edition. Well, like I said, deal with it cos u r getting it for free. If this doesn't suits you there are so many other IDEs available. Make something in that & then work for 4 months to optimise it for Windows.


 U really shud research with ur partner in the same room before making me laugh! Ur speaking of "Technical limitations", I hope the EULA he showed me was for professional edition.


			
				zeeshan said:
			
		

> This is the Standard Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 *Professional Edition* EULA


From where he has been entertaining me!




> Actually, you just don't want to read or know the truth. MS is not open source. It protects the innovation & intellectuals property of the developers who want to sale there apps. The IDE works according to what you pay. MS isn't stopping you from developing your own App & giving away the source code for free. They are only stopping u from giving away the MS sample code in source code form for free. You can however distribute the compiled binary.


 Its quite hilarious that in all of ur posts u finally start whining about the reasons! Does the programmer care why he isn't being able to develop/test his product freely using MS-development tools? Like I said Ms-EULA is all about monopoly and business profits!




> Do students have production environment? Oh wait....pro level developers have production enviroment but then again, they are pro level so that can buy the full edition. Hmm...nope, still not simple enough for u


 Oh wait, we are *NOT* discussing about free edition cutie pie *but the professional one*! May be u need to read the 'AA' again!! Link for ur convenience!




> Yup, you cannot distribute the MS Sample code for any other platform other then Windows cos it is made for Windows.


 Ah, one statement correct in this post of urs! Now whine about the "becoz"/reason pointing to the MS agreements and EULA!



> Oh...no, wait. You don't want to understand anything what the others tell you. You & Eddie, you both don't get how things work in Windows World....so according to you Windows & MS sux.....gr8 logic.


 U 2 have already been mocked by Eddie, but still u 2 keep lining up like participants of great Indian laughter challenge! How funny, do u even understand what's the title of the topic and the meaning of the source of this thread? 

U 2 don't like to read anything, forget about understanding then! After every post of u 2, its getting more entertaining.......please continue!


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 11, 2007)

@ actually, you just have nothing to say. You just seem to like bashing MS.



> U got pwned by ur feloo musketeer himself! No need for me to tell further! If u Still feel the need for enlightenment then do quote the alphabet and tell what u understood!



We were both right. It is not allowed to sale an addon made with VS Express neither it is allowed to make a hack for VS Express edition. You just don't want to understand.



> Its quite hilarious that in all of ur posts u finally start whining about the reasons! Does the programmer care why he isn't being able to develop/test his product freely using MS-development tools? Like I said Ms-EULA is all about monopoly and business profits!



Well, Like I said, if you are developing in Express edition, you have to comply with the EULA cos you are getting the IDE for free. If you don't to comply by the rules then buy it. Simple language.



> Oh wait, we are *NOT* discussing about free edition cutie pie *but the professional one*! May be u need to read the 'AA' again!! Link for ur convenience!



What is the meaning of the word "Testing" mediator . You expect MS to let u test a software made in VS Pro edition as "Beta" in production enviroment to make money? Wow....hey guess what GMail was in Beta for more then 2 years


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 11, 2007)

@mediator, just like you cannot code in GPL using someone else's code and take credit for it (it goes against the licence agreement), in VS EULA, you cannot write a program that allows full version functionality in the VS Express Edition. If you cannot respect the working space of MS and its EULA, dont use it. The EULA is restrictive to protect MS just as the GPL is restrictive (though not to the same extent because GPL is for open source) to protect the author. The restrictions imposed by the EULA are trivial for most of the programmers. It is only when programmers start to mess around with tinkering with the program functionality itself that they should be careful... Like I mentioned earlier, if you try to provide full features to a limited free edition, you are doing something similar to providing a crack to a shareware demo...

@gx, one correction in your posts - EULA of VS Express Edition allows you to sell your product. But the IDE itself has some features like macros, etc cut off...

Arun


----------



## rocket357 (Jul 11, 2007)

I think the big arguement here is about the intent of the license, not how the companies/organizations go about enforcing them...

On one hand you have Microsoft, who has *typically* restricted rights and enforced anti-reverse engineering laws and the like.  On the other hand you have the Free Software Foundation, which has *typically* fought against such restrictions by enforcing restrictions in the opposite direction.

Microsoft has released an API (typical of Microsoft, as they give functionality  without releasing source code) that allows developers to create extensions to VS2005.  This is good news.  This means developers have a chance to create new functionality without having to re-invent the wheel.  EULA or not, this is good.

The free software foundation has encouraged developers to release the source code for their products and has upheld "credit where credit is due" mentality.  This also is good news.

Point I'm getting at is that Microsoft has intent, and the FSF has intent.  Both provide a variety of choice in operating systems (arguably moreso on the FSF side, but that's debatable), and both sets of operating systems are simply an end to a means.  Both allow you to accomplish work on your PC without having to bother with low level hardware crap constantly.  Same with the IDEs that run on either platform.  They're simply an end to a means.

Good news is that you have choice...you can go with the relative chaos that personifies the Open Source movement, or you can go with a more stringent ordering that personifies Microsoft.  No one is forcing you to choose one way or the other, *but by all means read and understand the licensing that you are entering in agreement with* when you utilize either side.  Was M$ wrong to attack an MVP that broke that agreement?  Certainly not.  Was the FSF wrong to attack a hardware distributor who illegally utilized code that was licensed under the GPL without giving credit or releasing their modifications?  Certainly not.

This issue deals more with law than with "right and wrong" intent.


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 11, 2007)

^^^ Well put, rocket357

Arun


----------



## mediator (Jul 11, 2007)

> @ actually, you just have nothing to say. You just seem to like bashing MS.


I'm not bashing ur religion, just showing th EULA to u, which it seems is too big for u to read that u can't quote the alphabet and tell me what u understood!



> We were both right. It is not allowed to sale an addon made with VS Express neither it is allowed to make a hack for VS Express edition. You just don't want to understand.


At that point only Zeeshan was right! Giving the extension for free or not free is against EULA of free edition! May be u wud like to read that EULA again!!



> Well, Like I said, if you are developing in Express edition, you have to comply with the EULA cos you are getting the IDE for free. If you don't to comply by the rules then buy it. Simple language


Laughable indeed! Why r u whining abt the express edition when the programmers here r discussing abt the professional one? Can't u understand what is going on here? And then u say, 'The MVp cud have given it for free'. Do some thorough reading of EULA now. Make it a part of ur course, one para daily in the morning and understand it before making me laugh!



> What is the meaning of the word "Testing" mediator . You expect MS to let u test a software made in VS Pro edition as "Beta" in production enviroment to make money? Wow....hey guess what GMail was in Beta for more then 2 years


Read the software engineering books and understand what it means. reading all the time from american children dictionary will only yield results at ur level! Grow up!!

BTW, I requested u to quote the formatted EULA i.e the aplhabet. Its so demoralising that ur quoting not even 20% of it! And yea, next time remember we were disucssing about the pro one not the express edition. 

Really, 'MVP cud have given it for free'. You r too much man!


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 11, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> May be coding under 'technical limitations' is the thing u have done from the start that u r so ignorant of  what coding with full freedom means


 mate , *Technical Limitations* here refers to the "limitations put into Visual Studio by Microsoft" like for example deactivating some advanced features in Standard Edition that are only available in Team System version .

The EULA prevents you to work around these technical limitatinos and use the disabled features , it does not put any "technical limitations" on your code .


----------



## mediator (Jul 11, 2007)

sakumar said:
			
		

> The *EULA is restrictive to protect MS* just as the *GPL is restrictive (though not to the same extent because GPL is for open source) to protect the author.* The restrictions imposed by the EULA are trivial for most of the programmers.


 Bingo!



			
				zeeshan said:
			
		

> mate , Technical Limitations here refers to the "limitations put into Visual Studio by Microsoft" like for example deactivating some advanced features in Standard Edition that are only available in Team System version .


 Why r u reverting back to the standard edition when we were talking of professional now? In that too u have "technical limitations", exceptions, use of 'unmodified content', restrictions, unablility to add additional functionality etc!

Its funny that the musketeers have started talking about the express edition when the debate has reached to the professional one!



> The EULA prevents you to work around these technical limitatinos and use the disabled features , it does not put any "technical limitations" on your code


 Why r u shying to quote the alphabet and explain what u understood by it? May be u'll understand better urself about the 'technical limitations' when u do ur homework!


And please talk bt the professional one! So dissapointing!!


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 11, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> Why r u reverting back to the standard edition when we were talking of professional now? In that too u have "technical limitations", exceptions, use of 'unmodified content', restrictions, unablility to add additional functionality etc!



Show us some link or proof that Professional Edition imposes limitations on u for extending its capability using Add ons. There is no such limitation in Professional edition.

Wow, you must be a free man to read the whole EULA


----------



## mediator (Jul 11, 2007)

^^ U really never cease to amuse me!


			
				gx said:
			
		

> Maybe you should try reading the Visual Studio EULA. It is not allowed to sale the extension he made. If he would have given it for free, then all this would have never happened.


 Guess ur request to read EULA has entertained me a lot!



			
				gx said:
			
		

> Show us some link or proof that Professional Edition imposes limitations on u for extending its capability using Add ons. There is no such limitation in Professional edition.


 Doesn't the grp of musketeers share information? Its beneficial u know!
U r asking for links? Laughable! Read the post of ur fellow musketeer! After where it says....


> This is the Standard Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition EULA





			
				gx said:
			
		

> Wow, you must be a free man to read the whole EULA


 Yea, Thanx to u! Now its ur turn to read it slowly and carefully!

.....which has been formatted and made convenient for the musketeers here!

Asking for links, u shud tell MS to provide correct links in EULA. I hope they listen to their little MVPs!



			
				gx said:
			
		

> Well, in that case it is your arrogance for not trying to read anything, in which we Windows users cannot explain anything to you.*Plz don't expect us to read the GPL which you refer in your posts now.*


Oh please read the GPL too now!


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 12, 2007)

@mediator, you have highlighted "The EULA is restrictive to protect MS just as the GPL is restrictive (though not to the same extent because GPL is for open source) to protect the author."

But dont forget the next line which is equally important: "The restrictions imposed by the EULA are trivial for most of the programmers."

Bingo!


----------



## mediator (Jul 12, 2007)

@sakumar : Please read the source of the thread and for what the debate has been going on and becoz of which I quoted what part of your post. And about the restrictions, we have had a long discussion on it. So BINGO!


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 12, 2007)

I have read the source of the thread, and I am aware of the discussions going on... I am saying that I am aware that MS EULA is more restrictive than GPL. But for most cases, it is equal and sometimes, it is better... You ask me how it is better? If a programmer develops his software with VS, he has two choices - he can provide the source code for the software he has made, or he can keep it closed source. Now, with GPL, your program code must be open source. The choice is not available. I will not enter into a debate of whether open source is better or closed source is better... Both have their strong points and their weak points and it should be left to the developper to decide which way he wants to go... In such a situation, having the choice is good...

When the developer wants to add functionality to an existing program, he has to take into account the restrictions inflicted by the licence, be it the EULA or the GPL... Just like it would be against the GPL for a programmer to take a Media Player Open Source code and add DRM functionality to it, it is against MS Visual Studio EULA that you add Extension functionality to Express Edition. Is this hard to understand?

Some comments on your comments AA to PP...

AA. Not sure why that is present -  it is not even present in VB Express Edition EULA... So, no comments here.

BB. May be if every Tom, Dick and Harry did not sue MS for the vaguest things, they wouldnt have to give complex EULAs... As it is, MS is a business corporation in the US, and if they did not cover their asses to the best of their knowledge, they will get sued... Its a case of Damned if they do, Damned if they dont.

CC. I am not 100% sure, but I think they are talking about programs you create where you modify the available samples.

DD. You may not provide additional functionality to a software especially if the license says that such functionality has been avoided to provide a version that is available cheaper. In other cases, you may want to contact MS for clearance before distributing it.

EE. So, one bad thing happens, and you discredit MS Net based services entirely?

FF. The point that in some cases, they may not notify you is bad practice... They should change that...

GG. to II. Whats your point?

JJ. Only if you are bencharking their software... Since I dont know details of benchmarking, etc, I will not try to defend or denounce this clause.

KK. No, just being thorough

LL. Yeah, that is the way it goes for pretty much most closed source licenses. Whats your point?

MM. Again, many other software (esp games) also provide restrictions on backing up.

NN. Oh, you dont like links? Perhaps the EULA should be larger to include all those points in this file itself?

OO. Once more, many commercial software have pretty much same comments...

PP. Considering the amount of lawsuits filed in the US (not just with respect to MS), you can bet your ass MS has put a lot of legal effort into tightening any legal loopholes they have...

If you even half-understand the Visual Studio EULA, you will know where the restrictions are and where they are not. In terms of general programming for non-illegal use, you can code without worries. In the recent case of MS vs MVP, MS notified the MVP what the problem was and asked him to set it right. As I see it, their concern is a legitimate one (because when the MVP enabled it in the Express Edition, he was providing functionality that was not allowed in the free edition). It was when he did not comply to the request from MS that they took action...

Arun


----------



## rocket357 (Jul 12, 2007)

sakumar79 said:
			
		

> you can bet your ass MS has put a lot of legal effort into tightening any legal loopholes they have...



Indeed...as would ANY major corporation, US or not.


----------



## praka123 (Jul 12, 2007)

as with GPL "doesnot" allow to keep ur source's closed,well dude-that license itself is  a part of a growing movement called Open Source.Its upto you to keep ur code secret and ask "ransom"(some call it price) for people who uses ur software  .yes-EULA ideology are the same too.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 12, 2007)

praka123 said:
			
		

> as with GPL "doesnot" allow to keep ur source's closed,well dude-that license itself is  a part of a growing movement called Open Source.Its upto you to keep ur code secret and ask "ransom"(some call it price) for people who uses ur software  .yes-EULA ideology are the same too.



Movement? is it some worldwide revolution to get out of teh clutches of evil ? 

I had no idea about this restriction of GPL. Means If I make GX Video in GPL, I must make it open source? What the hell....I want to sale my Encoder while I just want to give the decoder API for free. To be very frank EULA seems to prevent my innovation of GX Video format better.


P.S - GX Video format is an imaginary thing.


----------



## rocket357 (Jul 12, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> What the hell....I want to sale my Encoder while I just want to give the decoder API for free. To be very frank EULA seems to prevent my innovation of GX Video format better.


It's a trade off, honestly.  With closed source you don't get as much collaboration or community-driven patches or bugfixes (To quote ESR, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"), but with Open source it's harder to "control" the market for your software since someone can fork your project (giving proper credit, of course), and start their own...look at Compiz and Beryl (well, they seem to have re-merged, but that's besides the point!)


----------



## mediator (Jul 13, 2007)

@Arun : I appreciate that u atleast quoted my points! Neways....



			
				arun said:
			
		

> I have read the source of the thread, and I am aware of the discussions going on... I am saying that I am aware that MS EULA is more restrictive than GPL. But for most cases, it is equal and sometimes, it is better... You ask me how it is better? If a programmer develops his software with VS, he has two choices - he can provide the source code for the software he has made, or he can keep it closed source. Now, with GPL, your program code must be open source. *The choice is not available.* I will not enter into a debate of whether open source is better or closed source is better... Both have their strong points and their weak points and it should be left to the developper to decide which way he wants to go... In such a situation, having the choice is good...


 And why does the programmer/author makes source closed? The debate wud have headed to closed source Vs Open source, so u decided to stay out of it from the start? Why even speak it then?


			
				arun said:
			
		

> The EULA is restrictive to protect MS just as the *GPL is restrictive (though not to the same extent because GPL is for open source) to protect the author*. The restrictions imposed by the EULA are trivial for most of the programmers.





> When the developer wants to add functionality to an existing program, he has to take into account the restrictions inflicted by the licence, be it the EULA or the GPL... *Just like it would be against the GPL for a programmer to take a Media Player Open Source code and add DRM functionality to it, it is against MS Visual Studio EULA that you add Extension functionality to Express Edition. Is this hard to understand?*


 For DRM functionality, wud the "full source" be under GPL?


> Any DRM support you include will necessarily *have to provide full source under GPL*, which sort of defeats the purpose of DRM.


*lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2005-June/035309.html

Why wud anybody steal the Media player source code in the first place and make enemies with MS? Since u feel u can talk on this subject, let me ask...wud u steal MS source code and create trouble for urself? Have u even read the GPL? Is it hard to understand? Do u even understand why a user shud have the code+documentation of what he is using? Since this wud lead to Open source Vs closed source and u not willing to debate on it then forget it! U may read previous debates on Open source and closed source!




> AA. Not sure why that is present - it is not even present in VB Express Edition EULA... So, no comments here.


 May be the EULA is in some testing stage or corrupt? Wat say? Are u sure EULA of professional one is to be trusted?



> BB.
> May be if every Tom, Dick and Harry did not sue MS for the vaguest things, they wouldnt have to give complex EULAs... As it is, MS is a business corporation in the US, and if they did not cover their asses to the best of their knowledge, they will get sued... Its a case of Damned if they do, Damned if they dont.


 All a part of action-reaction. Don't blame Tom,Dick and Harry if u r not aware of MS's past!! BTW, it seems u have been brainwashed by our MS-fanboy to have started reasoning the "becoz" and then even stealing his quotes!!



> CC
> I am not 100% sure, but I think they are talking about programs you create where you modify the available samples.


 Debate when u r sure! Save my time and understand urself first! May be then u'll understand what freedom means!!



> DD
> You *may not provide additional functionality to a software especially if the license says that such functionality has been avoided to provide a version that is available cheaper.* In other cases, you may want to contact MS for clearance before distributing it.


 So much for the freedom! For the last line....u may want to read that again!


			
				EULA said:
			
		

> c. Additional Functionality. *Microsoft may provide additional functionality for the software. Other license terms and fees may apply.*


Since u have been talking about express edition in this post of urs, r u sure the person can distribute it? May be u wud like to read the MS side of story!



			
				MS-SIDE_VS-EXPRESS said:
			
		

> To respond, Visual Studio Express extensibility is limited in a number of ways. *One way it is limited is that it does not permit extensibility through Macros, Add-Ins, or Packages. It attempts to reserve these limitations by technical means. Some examples of these technical limitations are that there is no Macros IDE, there is no Add-In manager, and registered Add-In’s and Packages are not loaded at startup.* The only way to even extend Express is to work around these in-built technical limitations and *that is prohibited by the License.*





> EE. So, one bad thing happens, and you discredit MS Net based services entirely?


 Plenty of bad things happened and u still have such a fervent belief in MS?? Thats called fanboyism!



> FF. The point that in some cases, they may not notify you is bad practice... They should change that...


 I thought its a programmer who controls OS's actions and not vice versa! Yea MS shud really change that!



> GG. to II. Whats your point?


 Ease of use of: reading EULA, acquiring the software and then cross platform compatibilty! Cross platform is also an area required by developers extending his freedom to code, I hope u know that! Shud I care for the platform if I code in JAVA? I can develop the code and test it on my Linux machine and then take it to my department and show it to my boss on windows!



> JJ. Only if you are bencharking their software... Since I dont know details of benchmarking, etc, I will not try to defend or denounce this clause.


 Please dont debate further where u keep on sayin I'm not sure, I dunno the details etc! I appreciate and agree that its better instead of spreading FUDs like some people here saying 'the MVP cud have given the extensions for free'!



> KK. No, just being thorough


 Please quote the whole thing and then say if the programmer has the option of being completely closed and confidential!!



> LL. Yeah, that is the way it goes for pretty much most closed source licenses. Whats your point?


 Yeah thats the 'restricted' freedom the developer is getting under VS-EULA. Its obvious! Why even debate!!?? Please dont ask wats the point of debating!




> MM. Again, many other software (esp games) also provide restrictions on backing up.


 Its better if u stick to VS-EULA and developer's freedom! Its like debate is on 'Alqaeda spreading terrorism' and u telling that LeT/Jaish and veerappan also do the same!



> NN. Oh, you dont like links? Perhaps the EULA should be larger to include all those points in this file itself?


 Please conduct a survey to find out who and how many will like this! And how one will read an incorrect link in EULA? Do u think all r aces in searching for the approriate link or to work by intuition? Do find out how many developers even know how to install windows in a college or know about EULA! That was really silly of u! 
Perhaps they can be more clear in nicely formatted way telling as to what we can do and not to point towards incorrect links and tell us mostly what we can't do!!




> OO. Once more, many commercial software have pretty much same comments...


But I guess this is far more superior in making u a full fledged lawyer!



> PP. Considering the amount of lawsuits filed in the US (not just with respect to MS), you can bet your ass MS has put a lot of legal effort into tightening any legal loopholes they have...


 Please don't whine about lawsuits and being a fanboy all the time. We r concerned about developer's freedom and not about a company catching fire in its a**! Do u really think a developer wants to or wud think of shedding his freedom for company's profits and monopoly??



> If you even half-understand the Visual Studio EULA, you will know where the restrictions are and where they are not. In terms of general programming for non-illegal use, you can code without worries.


 Please don't crack jokes! U urself r whining 'I'm not sure','I dunno the details' and then u think u can judge if I'm half-literate about this??




> In the recent case of MS vs MVP, MS notified the MVP what the problem was and asked him to set it right. As I see it, their concern is a legitimate one (because when the MVP enabled it in the Express Edition, he was providing functionality that was not allowed in the free edition). It was when he did not comply to the request from MS that they took action...


 May be u shud really read the full story instead of quoting the MS-Side of story! I wud appreciate if u read the full story, but to make it in short here it is!



			
				fromMVP said:
			
		

> I'm quick, but not that quick. ;o)  I think you must have been caught
> out by the time zone. I released something earlier on that day.
> 
> *Is there any chance you could let me know which specific clause in the
> ...





			
				toMVP said:
			
		

> *Since I'm not a lawyer I shouldn't comment on the license.* However if
> you read the Express SKU EULA you'll see verbiage around reverse
> engineering, and if you read the VS SDK license (the license that covers
> all native API's that you're accessing when you QueryService from your
> ...





			
				fromMVP said:
			
		

> To be on the safe side, *I asked a friend who works as a lawyer in the
> UK to go through the Express licence with me. In his opinion I'm not
> in breach of anything as my technique didn't require any reverse
> engineering or decompilation.*





			
				toMVP said:
			
		

> *Jamie, it's unfortunate to hear that you feel this way. My objective has
> been to help you understand the technical, business and license
> implications to your Visual Studio Express hacks.* I hope that you feel
> my assistance has been productive. What would you recommend as next
> steps to resolving this situation?





			
				toMVP said:
			
		

> Jamie, for the reasons we discussed at great length, we believe your
> various extensions to the Visual Studio Express products necessarily
> violated the relevant license terms. We don't think it's productive to
> rehash those discussions. Instead, we encourage you to focus your
> ...





			
				toMVP said:
			
		

> This is extremely disappointing. We spent a lot of time last year
> *explaining to you,* over a period of many months, that our Express
> products are not designed or intended to be extensible. As we also
> explained to you many times, our license terms for the Express
> ...


 So @Arun, do u really think "all" the developers can understand what MS wants? If the lawyers themselves dont see any issue how will the developer understand that? The MVP just asked *WHICH* license terms he was contravening!

Here r the conversations that u may like to read and understand urself. Mail1 , Mail2.

The Little MVP asked all the time about specifications, license terms and in return he gets absurd answers telling him that he violated the license terms and suddenly a shock!!

Instead of being absurd and inhumane they cud have just told him what he asked!! So MS requested him something? He also requested something which was way simple!


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 13, 2007)

In GPL, you can only make open source software, whearas with VS (and any programming language, without invoking GPL), you can program open as well as closed source. Some people prefer open source, some prefer closed source. I pointed it out because the choice is available. And many programmers want to have the choice to make their software closed source.

If you add DRM functionality, you CANNOT distribute it under GPL. If you distribute it under GPL, you will be violating GPL which bans DRM. And why are you talking about Windows Media Player? I was talking about generic open source media player.

There is no doubt that EULAs are in general much more elaborate and complicated to understand than GPL. Most people dont read it however, and it doesnt affect them usually.

No, I am not brainwashed by MS fanboys. And you should know that it is not only MS that has complicated EULAs. Most large-scale commercial software are like this. Since you are picking on MS only, I am asking why pick on one company instead of ranting about closed-source in general? It appears more like you are Linux Fanboy...

You want freedom to do something illegal? Again, you are talking from open-source mind, so there is no sense in getting you to look at it from closed-source mentality. And yeah, you can develop and market software developed in Visual Studio Express Edition. I have already mentioned it in an earlier post...

Whos talking about fervent belief in MS? It seems you label someone a MS fanboy if someone appears to question you. I just asked a question. You stated just one point and I asked you to give some more examples...

Cross-platform compatibility is an important issue. While many programmers still code for just one platform, there is a considerable amount of developpers who create the software with cross-platform compatibility in mind. But you dont need it to be GPL or open-source to work in cross-platform. For those programmers who are just coding for Windows, they are not going to worry about cross-platform compatibility. For those who want to code in cross-platform, they can look to JAVA or C++... We all know this. What is the issue you are trying to raise?

Regarding bencharking of .NET component, they are talking about benchmarking their component, not your software. So, yeah, the developer can have his program fully closed...

Wow, you are comparing terrorism with closed-source software... Nice!!!

I told you there are a few things I dont understand it the EULA and still I am confident that I can work with it... You on the other hand have half-understood the EULA and are confident no one can work with it... Guess thats difference of perception...

Whats so hard to understand that providing Professional Edition level features to Express Edition user is wrong? Perhaps how it was handled by MS was wrong, I dont know... I will go through those links and post my comments on it later since I have to go to work now... 

Arun


----------



## mediator (Jul 13, 2007)

@Arun : Thats dissapointing that u aren't quoting me anymore! I hope in ur next post u'll continue to quote me from previous post of mine!



> In GPL, you can only make open source software, whearas with VS (and any programming language, without invoking GPL), you can program open as well as closed source. Some people prefer open source, some prefer closed source. I pointed it out because the choice is available. And many programmers want to have the choice to make their software closed source.


 And its the right of the user to have or atleast ackowledge the the code of what he is using. I dunno why u r even discussing abt closed source when u don't want to debate on it. Yea the choice is available but again its 'restricted'!! Read the EULA again! Is it hard to understand!



> If you add DRM functionality, you CANNOT distribute it under GPL. If you distribute it under GPL, you will be violating GPL which bans DRM. And why are you talking about Windows Media Player? I was talking about generic open source media player.


 Naturally thats how the GPL works! If everybody is providing the source code under GPL, then wud it be equal and justified if some start making closed source advocate for proprietary mix? How wud the author be protected under such circumstances if someone else makes a closed source product? How wud the source be verified? You urself posted that GLP stands to protect the author and now u r talking so silly? If everybody is getting the same freedom and equality then u cannot grant something special to someone so as to code some closed source and bring proprietary mix in it!! 
This is called ethics so that every body shud respect another's work and to have freedom. Thats how the community works! Its not the same as MS monopoly/business profits as we discussed in detail previously! 



> There is no doubt that EULAs are in general much more elaborate and complicated to understand than GPL. Most people dont read it however, and it doesnt affect them usually.


 Yes we have seen how it affects "only" the MVPs may be? YEs most people don't read it and the EULA points to incorrect sites. I guess its time everyone shud start reading the MS-EULA, not to forget about the VISTA EULA!!




> No, I am not brainwashed by MS fanboys. And you should know that it is not only MS that has complicated EULAs. Most large-scale commercial software are like this. Since you are picking on MS only, I am asking why pick on one company instead of ranting about closed-source in general? It appears more like you are Linux Fanboy...


 Oh please, people will laugh on u if u say I'm a Linux fanboy coz I have myself stated infinte times where Linux stands backwards contradicting to the definition of a fanboy!! Is it ur habit to keep posting wateva comes to ur mind randomly?

Its like I'm talking abt Alqaeda and u r continously requesting to talk abt more terrorist groups! If u think u can't keep up with the debate then please stop whining and telling me what to debate! Its pityful that u don't even have ur concepts cleared that u whined abt ur limited knowledge before!!




> You want freedom to do something illegal? Again, you are talking from open-source mind, so there is no sense in getting you to look at it from closed-source mentality.


@Arun.....Please chose whether u want to debate on closed source Vs open source or not first! Please dont whine that u dont want to debate on closed cource Vs open source and then keep talking about it where ever u feel like! Its so silly that u keep jumping the sides of fences as u like! Take ur pick and may be then u can entertain me!




> And yeah, you can develop and market software developed in Visual Studio *Express Edition.* I have already mentioned it in an earlier post...


 How about developing and marketing the extensions? And u say u have read the debate! How dissapointing!



> Whos talking about fervent belief in MS? It seems you label someone a MS fanboy if someone appears to question you. I just asked a question. You stated just one point and I asked you to give some more examples...


 Don't u read the hot debates in tech. section? I guess u r new!! I please request u to open another thread in FIGHT CLUB asking some examples where MS was wrong! Oh please do that! I guess ur in search of some enlightenment!!



> Cross-platform compatibility is an important issue. While many programmers still code for just one platform, there is a considerable amount of developpers who create the software with cross-platform compatibility in mind. But you dont need it to be GPL or open-source to work in cross-platform. For those programmers who are just coding for Windows, they are not going to worry about cross-platform compatibility. *For those who want to code in cross-platform, they can look to JAVA or C++... We all know this. What is the issue you are trying to raise?*


 Man do u even know what we r debating about that u keep asking randomly like a child whats 'the point I'm trying to raise'?? It seems u r sufferng from alzheimers! When did I say it needs to be under GPL? Crossplatform compatibilty is a big thing in the software industry! We r talking about freedom under VS-EULA and u ask to use Java,c++! I dunno why r u even debating with me when u urself are supporting what I'm trying to say!! Whats the issue, lets get settled and bring peace to this thread!  How cute!



> Regarding bencharking of .NET component, *they are talking about benchmarking their component, not your software.* So, yeah, the developer can have his program fully closed...


 Is this what the Ms-fanboy told u to post here whose quotes u stole? And when did I say something as bolded? Guess u really haven't read the EULA.




> you must disclose all the information necessary for replication of the tests, *including complete and accurate details of your benchmark testing methodology, the test scripts/cases, tuning parameters applied, hardware and software platforms tested, the name and version number of any third party testing tool used to conduct the testing, and complete source code for the benchmark suite/harness that is developed by or for you and used to test both the .NET Component and the competing implementation(s);*


 MS-monopoly!? Now tell me what u understood by it! Is that called ethics and equal freedom to all? Why shud an end-user shud also have the code (or shud have atleast seen it thoroughly) of what he is using? Ever pondered on that? Ah, I forgot u already stated EULA is to protect MS and GPL to protect the author! 



> Wow, you are comparing terrorism with closed-source software... Nice!!!


 And u whining to talk abt more companies....Nice! BTW, I'm not comparing terrorism with closed source. Just relating and showing what YOU ARE whining about!! 



> I told you there are a few things I dont understand it the EULA and still I am confident that I can work with it... You on the other hand have half-understood the EULA and are confident no one can work with it... Guess thats difference of perception...


 Few things? I guess u haven't even read it and just consulted ur priest i.e the MS fanboy and now whining all around! And I 'm talking about freedom to work, and not that anyone can work with it! It seems u entered here just to increase the strength of grp of musketeers! A new recruit! How cute!



> Whats so hard to understand that providing Professional Edition level features to Express Edition user is wrong? Perhaps how it was handled by MS was wrong, I dont know... I will go through those links and post my comments on it later since I have to go to work now..


 Whats so hard to understand that we were NOT debating on Express edition now, but professional edition! How it was  handled by MS was wrong. May be u shud know that and yea read the links wheneva u have the time!!

Whining to use c++, java instead...man u r amusing!


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 13, 2007)

Sorry for not quoting you in my last post, but as I mentioned at the end, I was in a bit of a hurry... 



> And its the right of the user to have or atleast ackowledge the the code of what he is using. I dunno why u r even discussing abt closed source when u don't want to debate on it. Yea the choice is available but again its 'restricted'!! Read the EULA again! Is it hard to understand!



I have read the EULA. But as I have mentioned in my last few posts, the "restrictions" imposed by the EULA are not applicable for most of the cases. Sure a few parts are hard to understand, but the grey area occurs only when you tinker with the functionality of the software or try to do something illegal...



> Naturally thats how the GPL works! If everybody is providing the source code under GPL, then wud it be equal and justified if some start making closed source advocate for proprietary mix? How wud the author be protected under such circumstances if someone else makes a closed source product? How wud the source be verified? You urself posted that GLP stands to protect the author and now u r talking so silly? If everybody is getting the same freedom and equality then u cannot grant something special to someone so as to code some closed source and bring proprietary mix in it!!
> This is called ethics so that every body shud respect another's work and to have freedom. Thats how the community works! Its not the same as MS monopoly/business profits as we discussed in detail previously!



So, you are saying that because GPL wants to protect the author from his code being misused, everybody should make their code open source? Dont you find that absurd? Sure it would be a wonderful world if everybody respects others works. But since that is not the reality, many people choose to protect the integrity of their work by keeping it closed source...



> Yes we have seen how it affects "only" the MVPs may be? YEs most people don't read it and the EULA points to incorrect sites. I guess its time everyone shud start reading the MS-EULA, not to forget about the VISTA EULA!!



No, you have seen how it affects "only" ONE MVP. (Sarcastic tone, for your clarification)



> Oh please, people will laugh on u if u say I'm a Linux fanboy coz I have myself stated infinte times where Linux stands backwards contradicting to the definition of a fanboy!! Is it ur habit to keep posting wateva comes to ur mind randomly?



Ah, so, now you know how I laughed when you called me a Windows fanboy... I thought it was YOUR habit to post whatever came to your mind... If you had looked at MY posts, you will know I am not your fanboy type either... I could have very well posted this first, but I wanted to judge your reaction... Sorry for pulling your leg, but you did it first...



> Its like I'm talking abt Alqaeda and u r continously requesting to talk abt more terrorist groups! If u think u can't keep up with the debate then please stop whining and telling me what to debate! Its pityful that u don't even have ur concepts cleared that u whined abt ur limited knowledge before!!


Its because you are talking about something in general but you are using only one particular example to illustrate... You are talking about problem with EULA in general (as against GPL), but you are sticking with MS EULA only... If you are either talking about the disadvantages of EULAs in general, or if you were indicating how MS EULA is bad in specific cases where other EULAs are okay, I am fine with it. If not, this appears to be MS bashing. You are talking about the disadvantages of EULAs of closed-source software, but bashing one particular company for it.



> @Arun.....Please chose whether u want to debate on closed source Vs open source or not first! Please dont whine that u dont want to debate on closed cource Vs open source and then keep talking about it where ever u feel like! Its so silly that u keep jumping the sides of fences as u like! Take ur pick and may be then u can entertain me!


My philosophy is that each developper or the company that he/she works for has the right to choose between closed source and open source. If you talk about making open source compulsory, you are basically depriving the developper of their freedom. If a developper is working for a company that prefers one method while he/she prefers the other, that person has the freedom to stop working for the company and choose another that suits their preference... I am not debating on which is better. Both have their strong points and their weak points... All I am saying is that the choice should be there... However, if YOU are interested in a debate, by all means take the first shot



> How about developing and marketing the extensions? And u say u have read the debate! How dissapointing!


You can market the extensions, even develop them with Express Editions, but you should not MARKET it for the Express Edition. You can make it available for the Standard and Professional editions, but not for the Express Edition. That is the point that I am trying to say... 



> Don't u read the hot debates in tech. section? I guess u r new!! I please request u to open another thread in FIGHT CLUB asking some examples where MS was wrong! Oh please do that! I guess ur in search of some enlightenment!!


You GUESS I am new? Have you seen the date I joined? Have you seen the number of posts I have made? And here you were, asking me if I was writing whatever occured to me!!! Nowhere am I making a statement that MS is always right... You were giving one instance of where you think MS is wrong, and I am answering for that one instance.... Earlier, I have done this a couple of times before - for example, where I clarified to Aryayush about how to drag-and-drop in Explorer with only one explrorer window, and also, when Praka123 was talking about DRM in a Vista thread. 



> Man do u even know what we r debating about that u keep asking randomly like a child whats 'the point I'm trying to raise'?? It seems u r sufferng from alzheimers! When did I say it needs to be under GPL? Crossplatform compatibilty is a big thing in the software industry! We r talking about freedom under VS-EULA and u ask to use Java,c++! I dunno why r u even debating with me when u urself are supporting what I'm trying to say!! Whats the issue, lets get settled and bring peace to this thread!  How cute!


No, it is more the case of you being unclear in your ramblings... Your ramblings seem to take YOU to cross-platform compatibility so, I talked about it... I said if you want to program in cross-platform, go for Java or C++... Why do you assume that everything I say is a debate? I am not always debating the point... Sometimes, it is just as important to expand on some statments..



> Is this what the Ms-fanboy told u to post here whose quotes u stole? And when did I say something as bolded? Guess u really haven't read the EULA.


Please enlighten me on the quotes I "stole"... To the best of my knowledge, I have tried to word my statements my own way, with my own thoughts... So, I would be highly obliged if you pointed out where I quoted something someone else said... Is it your policy that when you dont have something better to say that you throw slur on the opponent... I know this happens all the time in Indian politics, but could we keep the mudslinging out of this forum, or at least this thread?



> MS-monopoly!? Now tell me what u understood by it! Is that called ethics and equal freedom to all? Why shud an end-user shud also have the code (or shud have atleast seen it thoroughly) of what he is using? Ever pondered on that? Ah, I forgot u already stated EULA is to protect MS and GPL to protect the author!


Microsoft is a business. As a business corporation, it is in its best interests to wipe out its competition and to make as much profit as possible. In theory, this is achieved by cutting as close to business ethics as possible. In reality, since some of the business ethics lines are blurred in capitalism, there are cases where MS gets away with methods that may be against business ethics. Have I understood MS monopoly correctly? Sure I know all this.
Why should the end user have to see the source code? It is not his work... It is the intellectual property of the developper. Therefore, it is the developpers right to dictate whether the end user can see the source code or not... If you think end users have the right to see the source code of any software they obtain/purchase, by analogy, you will want to throw away copyrights/patents too...
The EULA protects MS while GPL protects the authors, correct. Oh wait, MS are the authors of the software for which they give the EULA!!! It is the philosophy of the EULA that is different from the GPL. That is because EULAs are created to protect capitalistic corporations, whereas GPL is created for a more generic audience.



> And u whining to talk abt more companies....Nice! BTW, I'm not comparing terrorism with closed source. Just relating and showing what YOU ARE whining about!!


Hmm, I guess the points I am trying to raise about being generic in your post instead of being particular has gone past you... I am not whining about anything... So, please keep your 'whining' comments to yourself... (Pun intended)



> Few things? I guess u haven't even read it and just consulted ur priest i.e the MS fanboy and now whining all around! And I 'm talking about freedom to work, and not that anyone can work with it! It seems u entered here just to increase the strength of grp of musketeers! A new recruit! How cute!


Like I said earlier, stop making accusations just because you have nothing better to say...



> Whats so hard to understand that we were NOT debating on Express edition now, but professional edition! How it was  handled by MS was wrong. May be u shud know that and yea read the links wheneva u have the time!!
> Whining to use c++, java instead...man u r amusing!


Oh, you are talking about professional edition? I thought we were discussing whether the MVP marketing extension for use in Express Edition was right or wrong... 
The handling by MS may have been wrong... I have gone through the emails posted, but since there are some missing gaps (phone conversations in between), it is hard to be completely conclusive. There are a few things about the MVPs conduct also that are not clear (for example, he said he removed Express Edition support on May 6th email and clarified later when asked specifically that there was a registry hack possible. Whatever the justification might be, he should have been clear in the first mail.)

As a final note, I think you are unable to get any of my sarcasms... Unfortunately, this is my style of writing. If you think I am whining or that I am a fanboy, I cannot change your mind... If you can throw away those incorrect thoughts and answer my posts without trying to sling mud, we can have a productive discussion. Otherwise, you will be repeating your words, and I will be repeating mine...

Arun

PS: Just so you know, it has taken me about an hour or so to compile this post... I had to read your post, read the two mail links you gave me and then word my thoughts... If you continue to insist on calling me a fanboy or a whiner or make allegations of stealing someone elses quote, I cant stop you... But I wont sling back mud... As Brutus said to Cassius (in the play Julius Caesar by Shakespeare), "There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats,/
For I am arm'd so strong in honesty/That they pass by me as the idle wind,/
Which I respect not". You are no Cassius, and you are merely slinging mud.


----------



## mediator (Jul 14, 2007)

> I have read the EULA. But as I have mentioned in my last few posts, the "restrictions" imposed by the EULA are not applicable for most of the cases. Sure a few parts are hard to understand, *but the grey area occurs only when you tinker with the functionality of the software* or try to do something illegal...


And u call that freedom? Is ur life so restrictive that u really don't know what fredom is?



> So, you are saying that because GPL wants to protect the author from his code being misused, everybody should make their code open source? Dont you find that absurd? Sure it would be a wonderful world if everybody respects others works. But since that is not the reality, many people choose to protect the integrity of their work by keeping it closed source...


Please don't make me laugh. Ur not finding that absurd seems absurd to me! How will u know that the back-end code of Norton and Mcafee isn't the same and same case for many closed source software? How do u know MS has not stolen the code from OSS and implemented it into its own code and spying on u by stealing ur personal info?

The code in OSS is there for everybody to see and verify, both for authenticity and reliabilty! If someone exceptional steals closed source and makes an open source software of it, then he is very well likely to get caught. But how will u catch someone who steals from OSS and makes closed source from it?

Why isn't MS continuing with it FUDs with its recent one that OSS infringes 230+ patents?



> No, you have seen how it affects "only" ONE MVP


Oh yes, we can see what MS can do to save its profits! May be u too shud become an MVP and code freely and then may be we'll see 'two'!




> Ah, so, now you know how I laughed when you called me a Windows fanboy... I thought it was YOUR habit to post whatever came to your mind... If you had looked at MY posts, you will know I am not your fanboy type either... I could have very well posted this first, but I wanted to judge your reaction... Sorry for pulling your leg, but you did it first...


Yeah, I know ur daily routine of laughing at ur own ignorance! Calling MS as ethical even after seeing its practises and then defending it after that is nuthing but fanboyism! May be u can tell how the term fanboy is attached to me! And u pulling my leg?  Oh please! Have mercy!



> Its because you are talking about something in general but you are using only one particular example to illustrate... You are talking about problem with EULA in general (as against GPL), but you are sticking with MS EULA only... If you are either talking about the disadvantages of EULAs in general, or if you were indicating how MS EULA is bad in specific cases where other EULAs are okay, I am fine with it. If not, this appears to be MS bashing. You are talking about the disadvantages of EULAs of closed-source software, but bashing one particular company for it.


So u want me to give 10 examples to make u understand? Like a child it seems u like to 'learn by analogy' and have formed some habit of it! Neways, I thought we were talking about 'Visual studio' on which the whole debate is based! Now if MS-EULA isn't related to it and some other company is then I'm really sorry! Man get some grip, even participants of great Indian laughter challenge may fail in front of u!



> *My philosophy is that each developper or the company that he/she works for has the right to choose between closed source and open source.* If you talk about making open source compulsory, you are basically depriving the developper of their freedom. If a developper is working for a company that prefers one method while he/she prefers the other, that person has the freedom to stop working for the company and choose another that suits their preference... I am not debating on which is better. Both have their strong points and their weak points... All I am saying is that the choice should be there... However, if YOU are interested in a debate, by all means take the first shot


I appreciate ur philosphy. But ur philosophy is just theoretical! Like debated and which can clearly be seen both i.e distribution of software 'source' and coding for closed source in VS have their own restrictions! 
Its better to have something in which u can have much more freedom to code, where ur code is protected, can be verified and respected! So if a developer is just a beginner then I agree that ur philosophy may have a chance!
So u r finally interested in a debate on CSS VS OSS...change of mood! Please do me the favour of digging the old debates on such topics where I too debated and then quoting all such replies of mine there first...may be then ur wish to entertain me might get fulfilled!



> *You can market the extensions, even develop them with Express Editions, but you should not MARKET it for the Express Edition.* You can make it available for the Standard and Professional editions, but not for the Express Edition. That is the point that I am trying to say...


Does the bolded part even make any sense to u? May be ur concepts aren't still clear! Did u even read the MS side of story?
And please tell where the VS Pro-EULA states that YOU CAN avail it for professional one? Most of the times it is telling what u can't do, so please tell where it tells what u can do with extension conforming with ur statement! Since u think the source code can me made open source with VS-EULA freely as we r discussing, then please show where the MS-PRO-EULA allows open source code of extensions to be publicly available?

May be its time that u quote the alphabet completely and then tell what YOU understood by it! It seems u have some natural problem in getting enlightened and learning by analogy being the only way u gather knowledge! How tragic!



> You GUESS I am new? Have you seen the date I joined? Have you seen the number of posts I have made? And here you were, asking me if I was writing whatever occured to me!!! Nowhere am I making a statement that MS is always right... You were giving one instance of where you think MS is wrong, and I am answering for that one instance.... Earlier, I have done this a couple of times before - for example, where I clarified to Aryayush about how to drag-and-drop in Explorer with only one explrorer window, and also, when Praka123 was talking about DRM in a Vista thread.


Yes I bet u never read the hot debates in tech. section! Even a back bencher who skips classes in skools and uses proxy methods to get his attendence full can say that he attends classes regularly. But he doesn't know to the core of what others achieved in those classes! So showing me the date of ur join and ur post count doesn't mean anything here! We all know how flunkies spend their posts in chit-chat!

And please leave other members out of this thread and learn some ettiquetes! We all know that ur priest takes names too, but please don't be such a pityful follower by stealing his quotes and then showing the same traits as him of taking the names of other members!



> No, it is more the case of you being unclear in your ramblings... Your ramblings seem to take YOU to cross-platform compatibility so, I talked about it... *I said if you want to program in cross-platform, go for Java or C++*... Why do you assume that everything I say is a debate? I am not always debating the point... Sometimes, it is just as important to expand on some statments..


Yea we can see who is rambling and whining at his peak! Telling others to use c++ and java becoz the developer can't have the choice of OS to code on and then defending MS's-VS somehow/anyhow....is fanboyism at its best! 
Neways, yea u r not always debating the point, but like to reply from in between and randomly not reading the whole post from the start, not even the EULA, not even the both sides of stories and then u like to whine when ur being quoted and replied to continously!!



> Please enlighten me on the quotes I "stole"... To the best of my knowledge, *I have tried to word my statements my own way, with my own thoughts*... So, I would be highly obliged if you pointed out where I quoted something someone else said... Is it your policy that when you dont have something better to say that you throw slur on the opponent... I know this happens all the time in Indian politics, but could we keep the mudslinging out of this forum, or at least this thread?


Wow, ur priest and u posting the same quotes and the same style of quoting other members? Either u 2 r the same person or twins/ the long lost brothers!

Damned if I do, damned I don't!  Laughable indeed!




> Microsoft is a business.


No, ur wrong! Microsoft is a company not a business! Shud I make u understand by analogy?



> As a business corporation, it is in its best interests to wipe out its competition and to make as much profit as possible. In theory, this is achieved by cutting as close to business ethics as possible. In reality, since some of the business ethics lines are blurred in capitalism, there are cases where MS gets away with methods that may be against business ethics. Have I understood MS monopoly correctly? Sure I know all this.


Yea sure u know all of this, and sure ur talking about MS-EULA and developer's freedom in same context! Laughable indeed!
Yea its EULA, but u forgot its MS's EULA! Sure u know all this! U r just entertainimg me here, aren't u?  Well done, keep going!!



> The EULA protects MS while GPL protects the authors, correct. Oh wait, MS are the authors of the software for which they give the EULA!!! It is the philosophy of the EULA that is different from the GPL. That is because EULAs are created to protect capitalistic corporations, whereas GPL is created for a more generic audience.


Sure u know all of this! 
On one side the preference is given to the company and one side preference is given to the developer. U decide wat ur instinct says who will be given more freedom to develop and test the software : an OSS developer or a developer using VS i.e MS-VS?



> Like I said earlier, stop making accusations just because you have nothing better to say...


Funny indeed, u rn't even quoting me properly and asking to use java and c++ instead? 



> Oh, you are talking about professional edition? I thought we were discussing whether the MVP marketing extension for use in Express Edition was right or wrong...


Thats wat happens when u start posting randomly in between without even looking the source and then acknowledging what is being debated! Sure the debate matured from express to professional edition long ago! 
I'm finding it diffucult how to make u understand by ANALOGY here! Neways yes we were discussing about professional one! I suare, u can ask ur priest if u can't read n understand!! 



> The handling by MS may have been wrong... I have gone through the emails posted, but since there are some missing gaps (phone conversations in between), it is hard to be completely conclusive. There are a few things about the MVPs conduct also that are not clear (for example, he said he removed Express Edition support on May 6th email and clarified later when asked specifically that there was a registry hack possible. *Whatever the justification might be, he should have been clear in the first mail.*)


Haven't u still read the mails, that u r saying that MS "may" have been wrong? It was wrong in its behaviour!! 

And please learn to quote what he said! I didn't quote the little chats from the email for no reason! BTW, have u really read the mail that u r so keen to say "*watever* the justification might be" and then say "he shud have been clear in the first mail"? Ur too much! 
He just asked the specifications and terms he violated if any! But was told that he violated the terms! Damn, wat terms?



> As a final note, I think you are unable to get any of my sarcasms... Unfortunately, this is my style of writing. If you think I am whining or that I am a fanboy, I cannot change your mind... If you can throw away those incorrect thoughts and answer my posts without trying to sling mud, we can have a productive discussion. Otherwise, you will be repeating your words, and I will be repeating mine...
> 
> Arun
> 
> ...


Please keep ur preachings to urself and u cud have helped urself save 15 minutes from that 1+ long hour that u dedicated to entertain me. Neways u r contradicting ur own little preachings quite well here! Well done!

So quote and reply and thats how u entertain me!! OR do u need to understand that by analogy too?


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 14, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> Debate when u r sure! Save my time and understand urself first! May be then u'll understand what *freedom* means!!



Well Mediator i would just like to say tat the *GPL too does not give complete Freedom to the software developer as it makes it mandatory for him to make his code Open Source even if hey may not want to do so.*


----------



## mediator (Jul 14, 2007)

Have u even pondered what will happen if both closed and open source are supported? I gave the answer in my previous post itself! On one hand its the user who shud have the code of the product he uses or acknowledged it. Its his right! On the other, we have the developer who shud have the freedom to code. GPL isn't about monopoly, but giving proper credit to the original developer and verifying the authenticity and reliabilty of the code! Please ask MS to show us the code of their products and we may very well see how they stole the code from OSS and disrespecting the OSS developers work? May be thats why they r not continuing the path they took of FUDs telling that OSS infringed 230+ patents!! 

Please do use ur brains a little more from now on and read my previous post! Giving a developer freedom to code as in GPL for both open source and close source is just theoretical. How will u really know if the closed source code isn't a copy from the open source work? Its either closed or open. Getting the 'same' freedom, as discussed, to code in 'either', where u have the other as an option, is just a theory!!

And Please don't quote randomly from where u like!


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 14, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> Have u even pondered what will happen if both closed and open source are supported? I gave the answer in my previous post itself! On one hand its the user who shud have the code of the product he uses or acknowledged it. Its his right! On the other, we have the developer who shud have the freedom to code. GPL isn't about monopoly, but giving proper credit to the original developer and verifying the authenticity and reliabilty of the code! Please ask MS to show us the code of their products and we may very well see how they stole the code from OSS and disrespecting the OSS developers work? May be thats why they r not continuing the path they took of FUDs telling that OSS infringed 230+ patents!!
> 
> Please do use ur brains a little more from now on and read my previous post! Giving a developer freedom to code as in GPL for both open source and close source is just theoretical. How will u really know if the closed source code isn't a copy from the open source work? Its either closed or open. Getting the 'same' freedom, as discussed, to code in 'either', where u have the other as an option, is just a theory!!
> 
> And Please don't quote randomly from where u like!


Well there are many other ways to find out whether a software is a copy of a Code(decompilation,reverse engineering,etc) .

Also , that's what Sakumar meant , if code is open source scruplous people can copy it and use it(in OS as well as non OS soft without giving credit) and thus putting the developer's hard work in vain .

Also , if 'not being able to bypass technical limitations" is a limitation accoding to you in MS EULA, then 'always making your code Open source' is a limitation  according to me in GPL .

thus , u can use whatever license u like , but in acordance with the limitations put by that license.


----------



## mediator (Jul 14, 2007)

> Well there are many other ways to find out whether a software is a copy of a Code(decompilation,reverse engineering,etc) .


Sure, and thats prohibited by VS-EULA. BTW, man if life were to be so easy, then why wud crackers create cracks? They wud have decompiled the whole of windows source code and availed it on net to be compiled from source just like GNU/Linux!

The whole of windows source code wud then be available on the net and we wud have seen by now if OSS violated any of those 230+ patents! Please name me some decompiler for VB6 that gives accurate source code and not garbage code that is impossible to understand! Be practical and be real, don't get overjoyed by learning a few computer terms like decompiler and reverse engineering!

Since u think u know about decompilers, then please let me have the source code of yahoo messenger so that I can compile it on Linux!!



> Also , that's what Sakumar meant , if code is open source scruplous people can copy it and use it(in OS as well as non OS soft without giving credit) and thus putting the developer's hard work in vain .


Why wud scrupulous people copy it? 
Ah, what can anybody do if unscrupulous people are out there? They can even give cracks for closed source and ruin ur work and money! Likewise there can be unscrupulous people in MS centre too leaking out the source code for other closed source developers! How will u protect ur code in such cases? How will u verify the authenticity of the code? By decompiling the compiled software? Please dont make me laugh!

BTW, it seems by ur statements that MS is unscrupulous coz it might have stolen a lotta code in path past and in present too!! How'll u verify? By decompiling? 



> Also , if 'not being able to bypass technical limitations" is a limitation accoding to you in MS EULA, then 'always making your code Open source' is a limitation according to me in GPL .


And being both closed source and open source at the same time and getting the same freedom as in GPL is just too theoretical! May be kids and beginners may whine that they can code freely in MS-VS writing simple programs like "hello world"!!
U can whine about ur limitation, but its nice to be practical sometimes where both the end-user and developer feel satisfied and code be verified for authenticity and reliabilty!! Its much better to code under a license that gives u much more freedom to code i.e in open source instead of coding under a license where u have restrictions, exceptions, 'not to do' thing list and freedom snatched in coding for both open source and closed source!! Take ur pick which one wud be better!

And please learn to quote appropriately and not randomly!


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 14, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> And u call that freedom? Is ur life so restrictive that u really don't know what fredom is?


Yes. I call that freedom... Why, do you include the choice to do something wrong as freedom?



> Please don't make me laugh. Ur not finding that absurd seems absurd to me! How will u know that the back-end code of Norton and Mcafee isn't the same and same case for many closed source software? How do u know MS has not stolen the code from OSS and implemented it into its own code and spying on u by stealing ur personal info?


Hey, if you want to protect YOUR code, make it closed source. Just because you want to make yours open source, dont inflict your choice on me just so that you can be sure I dont copy from you... I dont know if MS has stolen OSS code or not, and I dont know if MS is spying on me... In both cases, I dont care... If you think MS is spying on you, use OSS... If you think MS has stolen the code from OSS, prove it... As per law, everybody is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And guilty of one thing does not imply guilty of another either. But just because YOU or the Open Source community want to make sure MS did not steal OSS code, and without any specific evidence, if you expect any court to force MS to show its code, youre dreaming...



> The code in OSS is there for everybody to see and verify, both for authenticity and reliabilty! If someone exceptional steals closed source and makes an open source software of it, then he is very well likely to get caught. But how will u catch someone who steals from OSS and makes closed source from it?


Ok, is it not possible for two developpers working independently to write similar code? Even if one did it 10 years after the other, there is every chance that he did not steal the code. How are you going to differentiate between that... Instead, if we forced everything into closed source, we will be more likely to have very little source code plagiarism... Even that would be a wrong concept because you are taking away the developpers freedom of choice...



> Why isn't MS continuing with it FUDs with its recent one that OSS infringes 230+ patents?


How do I know? You may think you know, but that would just be your biased opinion... Unless you are the decision maker in MS, you cannot be 100% sure you know the right reason.  



> Oh yes, we can see what MS can do to save its profits! May be u too shud become an MVP and code freely and then may be we'll see 'two'!


No, we are seeing what MS appears to believe a matter of principle... No, even if I were to become an MVP and code freely, I would not be a second, because I respect MS EULA... On the other hand, if by some chance YOU were to get to MVP status, there is a good possibility of seeing the second.



> Yeah, I know ur daily routine of laughing at ur own ignorance! Calling MS as ethical even after seeing its practises and then defending it after that is nuthing but fanboyism! May be u can tell how the term fanboy is attached to me! And u pulling my leg?  Oh please! Have mercy!


Who said I am defending all of MS's actions? All I said was that in this particular case, it appears that MS is on the right side... How on earth do you equate that to fanboyism? Well, may be calling you a Linux fanboy may not be right, but I guess "MS basher" would be more appropriate...



> So u want me to give 10 examples to make u understand? Like a child it seems u like to 'learn by analogy' and have formed some habit of it! Neways, I thought we were talking about 'Visual studio' on which the whole debate is based! Now if MS-EULA isn't related to it and some other company is then I'm really sorry! Man get some grip, even participants of great Indian laughter challenge may fail in front of u!


No, I am saying that most of the issues you are raising with Visual Studio's EULA is present in the EULAs of most big corporate closed-source software products... So, be clear when you are bashing an issue of the EULAs to indicate that you are bashing closed-source companies in general... I am asking you to be fair...



> I appreciate ur philosphy. But ur philosophy is just theoretical! Like debated and which can clearly be seen both i.e distribution of software 'source' and coding for closed source in VS have their own restrictions!
> Its better to have something in which u can have much more freedom to code, where ur code is protected, can be verified and respected! So if a developer is just a beginner then I agree that ur philosophy may have a chance!


And you think your ideology of an only-open source world is practical? I am laughing at you and pitying your naivity...



> So u r finally interested in a debate on CSS VS OSS...change of mood! Please do me the favour of digging the old debates on such topics where I too debated and then quoting all such replies of mine there first...may be then ur wish to entertain me might get fulfilled!


No, you are the one who seems to be interested in the debate... You kept digging it up in every response of yours...



> Does the bolded part even make any sense to u? May be ur concepts aren't still clear! Did u even read the MS side of story?
> And please tell where the VS Pro-EULA states that YOU CAN avail it for professional one? Most of the times it is telling what u can't do, so please tell where it tells what u can do with extension conforming with ur statement! Since u think the source code can me made open source with VS-EULA freely as we r discussing, then please show where the MS-PRO-EULA allows open source code of extensions to be publicly available?


Why, what part of it is hard to understand? The part where you can develop extensions using any version of Visual Studio, or the part where you should not market extensions in VS Express Edition?



> It seems u have some natural problem in getting enlightened and learning by analogy being the only way u gather knowledge! How tragic!


Why do you assume that learning by analogy is the only way I gather knowledge... Again with the mud slinging... 



> Yes I bet u never read the hot debates in tech. section! Even a back bencher who skips classes in skools and uses proxy methods to get his attendence full can say that he attends classes regularly. But he doesn't know to the core of what others achieved in those classes! So showing me the date of ur join and ur post count doesn't mean anything here! We all know how flunkies spend their posts in chit-chat!


I thought you being a veteran member of the forum would have some etiquette when talking with someone else... So, you are implying that I am a flunkie... How mature...



> And please leave other members out of this thread and learn some ettiquetes! We all know that ur priest takes names too, but please don't be such a pityful follower by stealing his quotes and then showing the same traits as him of taking the names of other members!


Look whos talking about etiquette... Without knowing anything about me, you call me a MS fanboy, call me a flunkie, etc... What is wrong in my referring to other discussions I have made and the people I have discussed it with? It was just a passing reference, and was neither meant to insult them or to praise them... Whats your problem?



> Yea we can see who is rambling and whining at his peak! Telling others to use c++ and java becoz the developer can't have the choice of OS to code on and then defending MS's-VS somehow/anyhow....is fanboyism at its best!
> Neways, yea u r not always debating the point, but like to reply from in between and randomly not reading the whole post from the start, not even the EULA, not even the both sides of stories and then u like to whine when ur being quoted and replied to continously!!


YOU rambled about cross-platform, I replied on the topic by mentioning C++ and Java... And if you really read my post, you would know that I did read both sides of the story... 



> Wow, ur priest and u posting the same quotes and the same style of quoting other members? Either u 2 r the same person or twins/ the long lost brothers!
> 
> Damned if I do, damned I don't!  Laughable indeed!


Dude, I seriously suggest you to take up reading more literature... "Damned if you do, damned if you dont" is an expression that has been in use for quite some time... Just because you havent heard it before, dont assume that I am quoting someone else in the forum... Is that the only quote that I "copied" from someone else in the forum? You make it sound like I continuously repeat others quotes... Stop making silly mud-slinging accusations...



> No, ur wrong! Microsoft is a company not a business! Shud I make u understand by analogy?


Well, actually the word business means 1. occupation, 2. a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern. and there are other related meanings as well... So, saying MS is a business is not wrong... However, I do think you made a honest mistake here, so I will let it slide...



> Yea sure u know all of this, and sure ur talking about MS-EULA and developer's freedom in same context! Laughable indeed!
> Yea its EULA, but u forgot its MS's EULA! Sure u know all this! U r just entertainimg me here, aren't u?  Well done, keep going!!


Yeah, I am talking of MS EULA and developpers freedom in the same context... Go and laugh about it... We will see who has the last laugh...



> Sure u know all of this!
> On one side the preference is given to the company and one side preference is given to the developer. U decide wat ur instinct says who will be given more freedom to develop and test the software : an OSS developer or a developer using VS i.e MS-VS?


In most cases, both... In some cases, OSS developper will have more freedom, and in a very few cases, VS developper will have more freedom (at least with respect to GPL)



> Funny indeed, u rn't even quoting me properly and asking to use java and c++ instead?


If I havent quoted you properly, please accept my apologies... Please point out where I have quoted you incorrectly, and I shall try to make corrections... But that doesnt change the fact that you are slinging mud and here, you are deviating from the point raised...



> Thats wat happens when u start posting randomly in between without even looking the source and then acknowledging what is being debated! Sure the debate matured from express to professional edition long ago!
> I'm finding it diffucult how to make u understand by ANALOGY here! Neways yes we were discussing about professional one! I suare, u can ask ur priest if u can't read n understand!!


Well, we are talking about both right? We are discussing both the MS vs MVP case (which involves the Express Edition), as well as the Professional Edition EULA... 



> Haven't u still read the mails, that u r saying that MS "may" have been wrong? It was wrong in its behaviour!!
> And please learn to quote what he said! I didn't quote the little chats from the email for no reason! BTW, have u really read the mail that u r so keen to say "*watever* the justification might be" and then say "he shud have been clear in the first mail"? Ur too much!
> He just asked the specifications and terms he violated if any! But was told that he violated the terms! Damn, wat terms?


How do you know for sure when you dont know the entire story? You have no records of the phone conversations and the conference discussions (at least the two links you gave me did not have them). Sure, MS did not handle the situation well at some parts, but his conduct itself was not above reproach... (bargaining with MS to reinstate his MVP status and then he would remove the Express Edition part, hiding a workaround in the release and telling MS that he has removed the "hack").



> Please keep ur preachings to urself and u cud have helped urself save 15 minutes from that 1+ long hour that u dedicated to entertain me. Neways u r contradicting ur own little preachings quite well here! Well done!
> 
> So quote and reply and thats how u entertain me!! OR do u need to understand that by analogy too?



What, it would take you 15 minutes to write those few words? That took me 5 minutes or less... I thought it would help in the long run if I pointed out a few issues I had with your posts, but apparently, it doesnt...

So, quote and reply and sling mud when you dont have a reply... Its seems thats how you entertain yourself...

Arun


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 14, 2007)

While Linux users are trying hard to integrate features in Linux which came on Windows & Mac long ago, & trying to make some money & posting useless cr*p in internet forums, Microsoft Windows is enjoying the maximum number of 3rd party, consumer, software, developer support.

Now, thats called business.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 14, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> Since u think u know about decompilers, then please let me have the source code of yahoo messenger so that I can compile it on Linux!!


 Well decompires can give you *exact* assembly language code , not the code of languages like c++ or the language in which the software was programmed .

but still the decompiled assembly language can be potentially used to identify the source .



			
				sakumar79 said:
			
		

> Hey, if you want to protect YOUR code, make it closed source. Just because you want to make yours open source, dont inflict your choice on me just so that you can be sure I dont copy from you... I dont know if MS has stolen OSS code or not, and I dont know if MS is spying on me... In both cases, I dont care... If you think MS is spying on you, use OSS... If you think MS has stolen the code from OSS, prove it... As per law, everybody is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And guilty of one thing does not imply guilty of another either. But just because YOU or the Open Source community want to make sure MS did not steal OSS code, and without any specific evidence, if you expect any court to force MS to show its code, youre dreaming...


 exactly .

@Mediator , the MS EULA prevents you to reverse Engineer the visual studio software.

It does not stop you from reverse engineering(or decompiling) software made using VS , that depends on the  license under which the created software is distributed .



			
				sakumar79 said:
			
		

> No, we are seeing what MS appears to believe a matter of principle... No, even if I were to become an MVP and code freely, I would not be a second, because I respect MS EULA... On the other hand, if by some chance YOU were to get to MVP status, there is a good possibility of seeing the second.


----------



## mediator (Jul 15, 2007)

arun said:
			
		

> Hey, if you want to protect YOUR code, make it closed source. Just because you want to make yours open source, dont inflict your choice on me just so that you can be sure I dont copy from you... I dont know if MS has stolen OSS code or not, and I dont know if MS is spying on me... In both cases, I dont care... If you think MS is spying on you, use OSS... If you think MS has stolen the code from OSS, prove it... As per law, everybody is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And guilty of one thing does not imply guilty of another either. But just because YOU or the Open Source community want to make sure MS did not steal OSS code, and without any specific evidence, if you expect any court to force MS to show its code, youre dreaming...


 Typical rants of an MS-Fanboy=> dont use it, use OSS! Like I said, ur life has been so restrictive that u dont really know what freedom is and now dont seem to bother if MS is spying on u!! And when did I say that MS really stole the code? I just stated the proababilty as MS seems to shy walking the road of FUDs that OSS infringed 230+ Linux patents. U seem to be more of a lawyer than a developer discussing about crime of copying than freedom of developing software!

And yes MS might never show its code and thats why an end user may never be aware if he is being spyed on or the world be acknowledged that MS is a thief to be copying from OSS!! Do u really think a typical average Joe has a frivolous attitude like u who does not seems to care? U need to snap out of ur fanboyism!



> *Ok, is it not possible for two developpers working independently to write similar code?* Even if one did it 10 years after the other, there is every chance that he did not steal the code. How are you going to differentiate between that... Instead, if we forced everything into closed source, we will be more likely to have very little source code plagiarism... Even that would be a wrong concept because you are taking away the developpers freedom of choice...


 May be u shud have told that to MS which said OSS infringed 230+ patents! Yes its quite possible for people to develop 'similar' code and rare to develop the 'same' yieling the same MD5. I say rare, becoz I haven't heard of any such case!! But even though its similar its still authentic. Anybody can see the style of coding, the structure etc. Its like in exams that a teacher can check if the 2 students have cheated or not just from seeing their answer sheets!! So be practical instead of giving ur expert opinions!



> *How do I know?* You may think you know, but that would just be your biased opinion... Unless you are the decision maker in MS, you cannot be 100% sure you know the right reason.


Oh yes, we have seen that u know nuthing, your concepts aren't cleared and ur not sure. You confessed that many times!!......and still showing ur fanboyism! 



> *No, we are seeing what MS appears to believe a matter of principle*... No, even if I were to become an MVP and code freely, *I would not be a second, because I respect MS EULA... On the other hand, if by some chance YOU were to get to MVP status, there is a good possibility of seeing the second.*


 Yea quite a matter of principle when they have spreading FUDs as their hobby!! Yea respect the EULA and make the 'hello world' programs!




> Who said I am defending all of MS's actions? All I said was that in this particular case, it appears that MS is on the right side... How on earth do you equate that to fanboyism? Well, may be calling you a Linux fanboy may not be right, but I guess "MS basher" would be more appropriate...


 Nooo, no body said that. But u r posts are giving a full fledged show of ur fanboyism. Yea MS is on the right side by spreading FUDs!! We all know that! Neways yea, calling me a Linux fanboy was indeed silly and amusing and may be the show of ur MS-fanboyism here is toooo!!

BTW, I'm not an MS-basher either! Ur priest and musketeers keep on taking sides with me when I talk FOR MS and bill gates and seem to entertain me and ask me to stop when I talk against it! That is called fanboyism getting joyed and calling someone sensible when somebody is speaking for ur beloved company and getting aggravated and then calling the same person as insensible when he crticises it. So there is no such reality that I always talk against MS!! May be u shud read my posts more often from now on!!



> No, I am saying that most of the issues you are raising with Visual Studio's EULA is present in the EULAs of most big corporate closed-source software products... So, be clear when you are bashing an issue of the EULAs to indicate that you are bashing closed-source companies in general... I am asking you to be fair...


 And I'm asking to u be specific to the debate! The issue with Alquaeda/Let/Jaish is also present with Maoists etc. So shud I link Maoists with 9/11 attack and talk of them when the news is all about America and Alqueda?? Please grow up!! BTW, 'Fair' is an unfair term to be used when we r dealing with a business minded and monopolistic company!!





> And you think your ideology of an only-open source world is practical? I am laughing at you and pitying your naivity...


 Yea keep laughing! This ideology that u 'think' is mine has been the source becoz of which the world is witnessing the rise of OSS community and Linux, and business on Linux!! Yes, u might be laughing, but it seems that ur used to laughing at ur own ignorance! U have my pity. U need to read the previous debates concerning OSS and windows where u'll know more about practicality of the ideology!!




> No, you are the one who seems to be interested in the debate... You kept digging it up in every response of yours...


 Not me! First u posted bt it, then kept talking about it and whining that udont wanna 'debate' on it and then came to ur sense to debate on it! So please dig out the old threads! Lets see what u have to say!!




> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Is it ur habit to reply to the stuff u can 'opine' about?? Can u please tell as bolded that I asked that u missed...deliberately?


> *You can market the extensions, even develop them with Express Editions*, but you should not MARKET it for the Express Edition. You can make it available for the Standard and Professional editions, but not for the Express Edition. That is the point that I am trying to say...


 Why can't I avail it for express edition, just becoz it will compete with that of pro one? There r so many restrictions even with pro one that I ELABORATED previously! May be its ur habit not to understand EULa, then writing absurdly and then asking others 'whats so hard to understand in it'!! If u shud code and develop then u shud do it freely respecting others work!! But MS doesn't wants u to be developing extensions and products that "compete" with its own!! It will shed its imaginary morale to such an extent that it will even start spreading FUDs. Its all business practises. Preference given to the company and not developer!!



> Why do you assume that learning by analogy is the only way I gather knowledge... Again with the mud slinging...


 Not any assumptions, but ur posts r clearly telling me that!!



> I thought you being a veteran member of the forum would have some etiquette when talking with someone else... So, you are implying that I am a flunkie... How mature...


 When did I say "Arun" is a flunky? Again I was giving only an analogy since I thought u seem to understand by analogies only!! But its a pity that u have a hard time understanding even the analogies! 
Neways, ur whining about the number of posts and date of ur join was immature indeed! And then u say I'm being unethical!! Grow up!!




> Look whos talking about etiquette... Without knowing anything about me, you call me a MS fanboy, call me a flunkie, etc... What is wrong in my referring to other discussions I have made and the people I have discussed it with? It was just a passing reference, and was neither meant to insult them or to praise them... Whats your problem?


 Man u r talking like a kid now! Why shud I have to know about u and ur personal details to brand u as MS-fanboy? Ur posts here are shouting and begging to brand u as an MS-fanboy!! The problem is that u aren't being specific and to the point to the debate. What do other members and ur chats with them have to do with this debate? Please learn not to troll around!!



> YOU rambled about cross-platform, I replied on the topic by mentioning C++ and Java... And if you really read my post, you would know that I did read both sides of the story...


 Oh yes, we have seen if u really read about both sides of stories! Whining to read it after u 'come back from work', stating about "watever" the MVP said and acknowledging us if how much u read about him was indeed mature of u! I wonder if its ur habit to jump into a debate having half knowledge and then reading the stuff afterwords!! BTW, u call cross platform compatibilty and its advocation as rambling?  You have the pity of all the developers of the world!!




> Dude, I seriously suggest you to take up reading more literature... "Damned if you do, damned if you dont" is an expression that has been in use for quite some time... Just because you havent heard it before, dont assume that I am quoting someone else in the forum... Is that the only quote that I "copied" from someone else in the forum? You make it sound like I continuously repeat others quotes... Stop making silly mud-slinging accusations...


 yes we all can see who needs to improve his comprehensionl,literate etc. U can't even learn by analogies now! Its a basic thing how a child  starts learning.



> Well, actually the word business means 1. occupation, 2. a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern. and there are other related meanings as well... So, saying MS is a business is not wrong... However, I do think you made a honest mistake here, so I will let it slide...


 When did u started being so practical? Were u just showing how immature u were?  Just like u googled for the term and read in what context the term business can be used, please read the full EULA and both the mails completely!! 



> In most cases, both... In some cases, OSS developper will have more freedom, and *in a very few cases*, VS developper will have more freedom (at least with respect to GPL)


 So now u r acknowledging it as 'very few cases'?  Please tell what those cases are! And please don't talk about the 'hello world' programs!




> If I havent quoted you properly, please accept my apologies... *Please point out where I have quoted you incorrectly, and I shall try to make corrections*... But that doesnt change the fact that you are slinging mud and here, you are deviating from the point raised...


 Now thats more kiddish asking me to tell as bolded. From the start I have been requesting u to quote me completely and now u r whining! Even in this post I have asked u reply to the unreplied parts!! How demoralising!!



> Well, we are talking about both right? We are discussing both the MS vs MVP case (which involves the Express Edition), as well as the Professional Edition EULA...


 NO, we were talking about professional and only professional one afterwards and how u get restrictions in developing with that too before u jumped in between and started whining about express edition. If u wanted to whine about that then u shud have quoted that post of mine where I was talking about express edition!! Since it seems trolling is natural with u, u need analogies to learn how not to troll!! So I request u to read the debate again and find out with ur eyes stuck into the monitor about what we were discussing!



> How do you know for sure when you dont know the entire story? You have no records of the phone conversations and the conference discussions (at least the two links you gave me did not have them). Sure, MS did not handle the situation well at some parts, but his conduct itself was not above reproach... (bargaining with MS to reinstate his MVP status and then he would remove the Express Edition part, hiding a workaround in the release and telling MS that he has removed the "hack").


 He called his creation a "hack"? Are u out of ur mind?



			
				toMVP said:
			
		

> Since I'm not a lawyer I shouldn't comment on the license. However if
> you read the Express SKU EULA you'll see verbiage around reverse
> engineering, and if you read the VS SDK license (the license that covers
> all native API's that you're accessing when you QueryService from your
> ...





> n the long sequence of emails that followed, *Weber treated Cansdale with immense condescension*:
> "Craig Symonds is a busy Microsoft executive. We're fortunate that we could get 30 minutes with him for a conference call"; *consistently evasive when asked to identify the specific legal problem, meanwhile trying to bully Cansdale to withdraw Visual Studio Express support and remove his "hack"*


 *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?p=519562#post519562




> What, it would take you 15 minutes to write those few words? That took me 5 minutes or less... I thought it would help in the long run if I pointed out a few issues I had with your posts, but apparently, it doesnt...
> 
> So, quote and reply and sling mud when you dont have a reply... Its seems thats how you entertain yourself...


 Ur posts are too entertaining to be mud slinging! Have ur concepts cleared, be sure, read the stories, source, EULA, learn to learn by analogies first correctly and then debate!






			
				zeeshan said:
			
		

> Well decompires can give you *exact* assembly language code , not the code of languages like c++ or the language in which the software was programmed .
> 
> but still the decompiled assembly language can be potentially used to identify the source .


 Ah, ur so predictable! So u finally googled around to be telling urself that its the 'assembly code' that gets generated and not the accurate source code of languages "like c++"? Seems to me like a change of ur tone when first u were telling something different!



> Well there are many other ways to find out whether a *software is a copy of a Code*(decompilation,reverse engineering,etc) .


 Assembly code? Please dont make laugh!! Did u forget again what we were discussing about i.e authenticity n reliabilty of the source code? Man I don't even feel like debating with u now!



> but still the decompiled assembly language can be potentially used to identify the source .


 Oh, so besides doing a law degree now u want the developers to learn assembly level programming too? U want them to do do a full fledge research just to identify the source? Man have mercy on the developers!!


----------



## rocket357 (Jul 15, 2007)

Just a few random thoughts:

Closed source does NOT protect the "integrity" of your code..."Hot patching", as Microsoft puts it, is a technique that has been in use for a while to modify binary code on the fly, and is the basis for quite a few rootkits today.  Even Windows NT (the entire line) uses it (to an extent) as I understand.

Assembly gathered from decompilation can lead to source code, yes.  But with "hot patching" available, why bother?  Find the functions you want to alter, hot patch the entry point with a jump to your code, and finish up by inserting the instructions that got overwritten.  You can alter quite a bit of the logic of a program this way (for instance, removing copy protection).


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 15, 2007)

Ok, there is no point in me continuing to post on this thread, at least in reply to mediator... Even if I try to be civil, all he can do is insult me... When someone clearly wont change their line of thinking or admit they are wrong, it is useless... 

For what its worth, my post in reply to a few points. I would have gone to the trouble of quoting and replying, but for someone unwilling to learn, I am not willing to take the additional trouble.
1. Typical Rants of a MS basher->MS is closed source - they MAY be spying on you, they may have taken OSS code, dont trust it. Do you think the average Joe has a skewed mentality like yours?
2. When I have an opinion, I state that it is my opinion. When I know something as a fact, I state it as a fact... You on the other hand, try often to pass off your opinion as a fact... You tell me to be practical and then talk about making all software open-source... Please explain how that is practical
3. If you consider the limitations of the VS EULA are so restrictive that you can write hello world programs only, you are either paranoid or an MS basher. Either way, I cant help you...
4. If you dont read my posts to see that I am not a MS fanboy, why should I take the time to see if you are not a MS basher? Besides, please point out where in any of my posts have I said that MS's FUDs against Linux is okay? Dont talk nonsense.
5. Just because we are talking about MS, if I ask you to be fair, you say dont ask me to be fair... Seems like a MS bashers POV to me...
6. Are you talking about the extensions you make or the extensions of MS? The built in extensions of VS are the Intellectual property of MS, and are therefore governed by MS EULA. The extensions you make are your IP, and therefore, you are free to distribute the source code... Distribution of your source code will not lead to problem. If the extensions you make violate EULA though, you will have legal problems. Since the MS VS EULA is clearly beyond your comprehension, I am putting the basic concept for you in a nutshell...
7. When I ask you to show what I have not quoted, you talk about the one point I missed in my previous post. I hope I have answered it in my above point 6. Now, will you stop acting like a kid and stop slinging mud just because you have nothing else to say?
8. No, I am not saying that talking about crossplatform is rambling... I just said that you wandered into crossplatform talk and I also talked about it...
9. He didnt call his creation a hack... The MS guy Jason Weber did... And my post does not indicate that he called his creation a "hack" either... And you are avoiding answering the main issues of the statement... At least this time, you did not sling mud. What happened? Lapse of concentration?
10. You wanted to know where VS gives more freedom to the developper than OSS/GPL - (a). VS allows the developper to keep his project closed source or open. OSS and GPL dont. (b). VS allows a developper to integrate DRM into their software. GPL doesnt.

Arun


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 15, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> Ah, ur so predictable! So u finally googled around to be telling urself that its the 'assembly code' that gets generated and not the accurate source code of languages "like c++"? Seems to me like a change of ur tone when first u were telling something different!
> 
> Assembly code? Please dont make laugh!! Did u forget again what we were discussing about i.e authenticity n reliabilty of the source code? Man I don't even feel like debating with u now!
> 
> Oh, so besides doing a law degree now u want the developers to learn assembly level programming too? U want them to do do a full fledge research just to identify the source? Man have mercy on the developers!!


 now when did i say that u get the Full source code in the language the soft was programmed , i only said decompiled and assumed that people would understand what i meant .



			
				sakumar79 said:
			
		

> Ok, there is no point in me continuing to post on this thread, at least in reply to mediator... Even if I try to be civil, all he can do is insult me... When someone clearly wont change their line of thinking or admit they are wrong, it is useless...


 Same here , i can't make this person understand and think in a logical way . Even if i try to be logical and explain to him every liitle thing bit by bit he's not ready to understand .


----------



## mediator (Jul 15, 2007)

> Ok, there is no point in me continuing to post on this thread, at least in reply to mediator... Even if I try to be civil, all he can do is insult me... When someone clearly wont change their line of thinking or admit they are wrong, it is useless..


 Still u didn't reply to what I asked in both of the last 2 posts of mine! Please don't make me repeat!



> 1. Typical Rants of a MS basher->MS is closed source - they MAY be spying on you, they may have taken OSS code, dont trust it. Do you think the average Joe has a skewed mentality like yours?


 U r talking about mentality when u have made lying,trolling,showing ignorance, not reading whats being debated as ur habit now? 



> 2. When I have an opinion, I state that it is my opinion. When I know something as a fact, I state it as a fact... You on the other hand, try often to pass off your opinion as a fact... You tell me to be practical and then talk about making all software open-source... Please explain how that is practical


 Man u don't cease to demoralise me further! Now I have to explaing how its practical too? :Shock: and then u say u have been here, showing kiddishly ur date of join and no. of ur posts! 
I see when u know something, u tell others to use something else like c++,java? Well done!



> 3. If you consider the limitations of the VS EULA are so restrictive that you can write hello world programs only, you are either paranoid or an MS basher. Either way, I cant help you...
> 4. If you dont read my posts to see that I am not a MS fanboy, why should I take the time to see if you are not a MS basher? Besides, please point out where in any of my posts have I said that MS's FUDs against Linux is okay? Dont talk nonsense.


 Just more of ur whinings! When did I say that u said its Okay? I just showed the practises of MS and where MS has been wrong often!!




> 5. Just because we are talking about MS, if I ask you to be fair, *you say dont ask me to be fair*... Seems like a MS bashers POV to me...


 Awwww, y r u crying? Don't let the discussion where u show ur ignorance all the time take a toll on ur mind that u start posting absurdly now!! Where did I say "dont ask me to be fair"? Please quote that line!! Amusing indeed! Line by line ur whinings r increasing! How demoralising!




> 6. Are you talking about the extensions you make or the extensions of MS? The built in extensions of VS are the Intellectual property of MS, and are therefore governed by MS EULA. The extensions you make are your IP, and therefore, you are free to distribute the source code... Distribution of your source code will not lead to problem. *If the extensions you make violate EULA though, you will have legal problems.* Since the MS VS EULA is clearly beyond your comprehension, I am putting the basic concept for you in a nutshell...


 U seem to be an MS lawyer talking about intellectual property!! Now where's ur whining where u said that the code can be similar. U r talking about 'restrictions' in MS-EULA where u "may not do that" and telling a programmer about freedom at the same time? How gullible do u think the crowd is? Don't think they r at ur level of gullibility!!

So keep ur nutshell with u coz it will help u understand where u flawed in pondering when u grow up!



> When I ask you to show what I have not quoted, you talk about the one point I missed in my previous post. I hope I have answered it in my above point 6. Now, will you stop acting like a kid and stop slinging mud just because you have nothing else to say?


 U showed? In ur dreams?


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Does the bolded part even make any sense to u? May be ur concepts aren't still clear! Did u even read the MS side of story?
> *d please tell where the VS Pro-EULA states that YOU CAN avail it for professional one? Most of the times it is telling what u can't do, so please tell where it tells what u can do with extension conforming with ur statement! Since u think the source code can me made open source with VS-EULA freely as we r discussing, then please show where the MS-PRO-EULA allows open source code of extensions to be publicly available?*


 So please show me! U made me repeat a lot! Please tell where the MVP called his build a 'hack' just like that or naturally? Do u only kow how to whine and tell other to use OSS,java,c++ instead? 



> 8. No, I am not saying that talking about crossplatform is rambling... I just said that you wandered into crossplatform talk and I also talked about it...


 Y shudn't I, when its also a part of freedom?
U talked? Its better to say that u whined to use Java,c++ instead!!




			
				arun said:
			
		

> He didnt call his creation a hack... The MS guy Jason Weber did... And my post does not indicate that he called his creation a "hack" either... And you are avoiding answering the main issues of the statement... At least this time, you did not sling mud. What happened? Lapse of concentration?





			
				arun said:
			
		

> How do you know for sure when you dont know the entire story? You have no records of the phone conversations and the conference discussions (at least the two links you gave me did not have them). Sure, MS did not handle the situation well at some parts, *but his conduct itself was not above reproach*... (*bargaining with MS to reinstate his MVP status* and then he would remove the Express Edition part, hiding a workaround in the release and *telling MS that he has removed the "hack"*).


 Why wud he call his build a 'hack' when from the very start he has been referring to it as somethng else? Read it!! Or is it u who want to call it as a hack like the MS guy and want me too to call it a "hack" instead of a build/extensions/extension project "to make u understand"??

And main issues in ur statment, u mean conversations? How come u and ur musketeers conclude then that the Guy was wrong initially just by reading the MS-side of story?
OR u mean his bargain as u "thought" or that "his conduct itself was not above reproach"? May be u can let me see by quoting where he bargained!
Neways instead it was the MS side that seemed to be missing his emails and not giving priority to form a solution in a humane way!


			
				fromMVP said:
			
		

> I think you may have missed my email. I remain totally committed to
> reaching an amicable solution. I'm sure we could move forward in a way
> that is constructive for everyone. Please can we start building
> bridges and move on!


 read the mails. I dunno why is it taking a toll on ur mind!

Let me post for ur convenience!


			
				toMVP said:
			
		

> Jamie,
> 
> I would much prefer that we reached an amicable solution, but I don't
> feel that we're trending in that direction. I had already replied to
> ...


 lease read it carefully!!


			
				fromMVP said:
			
		

> Hi Jason,
> 
> Thank you for spelling out Microsoft's position so clearly. I find
> this directness constructive and feel that we're moving forwards. In
> ...


 @Arun : and u say u have read the emails? Do u even feel any shame while lying?



> 10. You wanted to know where VS gives more freedom to the developper than OSS/GPL - (a). *VS allows the developper to keep his project closed source or open. OSS and GPL dont.* (b). VS allows a developper to integrate DRM into their software. GPL doesnt


 Haha I thought that was a topic that was being debated. How come u made it a point? VS allows developer to keep his project closed or open...yea u said that zillion times now...but is it hard to get it into ur brains that restriction is on both of them that both combined also can't give u much freedom like in GPL?....GPL alone offers much more freedom than that as already debated!! and then u say u quoted and replied my posts correctly! I asked that just to minimise the repeations. But I guess I shud have made u understand that by analogies again!  

Ur musketeer friend said something about decompilation when code authenticity and rekaibility was discussed! Did u read that or u feel like reading the replies "only" meant for u? This is a debate! Not personal chit-chat!!


This post of urs is filled with whinings, instead u cud have done better in quoting/replying correctly! So if u feel like debating further then please quote from my previous post and the posts that u missed, the ones that I have been continously requesting u to quote from the start and do read the emails from the start this time, the source of this thread, MS-side of the story, EULA, GPL etc instead of whining and asking others to use c++,java and lying that the MVP bargained!! 

I am sorry if u 'thought' that I was mud slinging, but I was just showing u the reality while u were lying and showing ur ignorance and inabilty to read things! 



			
				zeeshan said:
			
		

> now when did i say that u get the Full source code in the language the soft was programmed , i only said decompiled and assumed that people would understand what i meant .


 What else did u mean by verifying the code? Please don't tell u wanted the assembly code of both as it wud be quite laughable! Be real!!
Neways, java compiler also decompiles and u know what code we get!!



> Same here , i can't make this person understand and think in a logical way . Even if i try to be logical and explain to him every liitle thing bit by bit he's not ready to understand


 Nice to see liars forming up gangs here!


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 15, 2007)

mediator cannot be told what reality is. Just like Eddie, they both don't want to understand & accept the facts. You have your own opinion & u think it is the best which u don't want to change. 

Sorry, no matter how much we try to polish a Turd, it will still remain a turd.


----------



## rocket357 (Jul 15, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Sorry, no matter how much we try to polish a Turd, it will still remain a turd.



hahaha

Indeed.


----------



## praka123 (Jul 15, 2007)

reality is,people fail to acknowledge why GPL exists.GPL is relevent only when you believe in Open Source movement.so there is no question like GPL is not allowing me to release my s/w as closed source.but at any time EULA is a pain.M$ fanboys(not casual user) as usual are backing EULA.EULA is venomous even for a user-if he ever read EULA of window$ OS.
In 2007,VS is not the final answer.there are better free ones.even Windows platform is not the final answer for a PC user.
Now Qt4 is on to windows platform.wait and watch


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 15, 2007)

praka123 said:
			
		

> but at any time EULA is a pain.M$ fanboys(not casual user) as usual are backing EULA.EULA is venomous even for a user-if he ever read EULA of window$ OS.



Yeah, & we tried in the last 5 pages to tell you why it is not bad but still you do not understand. Prakash, I really doubt the understanding capability of you, mediator & eddie now in this forum.


> In 2007,VS is not the final answer.there are better free ones



You mean Eclipse IDE for Windows, yeah, i installed that Joke to compile KeypassX once . Lolz....you really don't know what an IDE is



> .even Windows platform is not the final answer for a PC user.



Nope, but it is the best answer.



> Now Qt4 is on to windows platform.wait and watch



Linux user in 1998 : Hey, Wait & watch, Linux will take over the world

Linux user in 2001: Hey, Wait & watch, Linux will take over the world

Linux user in 2003 : Hey, Wait & watch, Linux will take over the world

Linux user in 2007 : Hey, Wait & watch, Linux will take over the world

Linux user in 2012 : Hey, Wait & watch, Linux will take over the world

The world ends according to Maya calender.


----------



## rocket357 (Jul 15, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Linux user in 1998 : Hey, Wait & watch, Linux will take over the world
> Linux user in 2001: Hey, Wait & watch, Linux will take over the world
> Linux user in 2003 : Hey, Wait & watch, Linux will take over the world
> Linux user in 2007 : Hey, Wait & watch, Linux will take over the world
> Linux user in 2012 : Hey, Wait & watch, Linux will take over the world



Sigh...there's certainly truth to this...Linux has been "poised to take over the world" for as long as I've been using it.

I'm not saying it will never happen, mind you...I'm just saying it's getting old waiting for it haha.


----------



## praka123 (Jul 15, 2007)

@gx_saurav:How can u say that in Indian context  Do u believe all those windows and VS users here in India purchased and uses this 
Windows Platform/Microsoft software are famous more due to piracy-right?
I dont think even a meagre 15% buys license for window$  
As with Linux-if u followed the development of GUI and user-friendliness with Linux distros-u can understand that from 2002 onwards atleast Linux is easy for novice user caveat he must not look for Window$ features.
Today's Linux distros are definitely ready for Desktop users and better than Vista too(personal opin here hehe).
but the problem is we are not dealing with a company for after sales(customer -client) 
I said Open SOurce is different?Did u ever listened?
U r mind locked(i know the reason too)
U r adamant and expecting the same customer-client relationship that Windows OS is based on.here in open source there are no 30-day time bomb,err trial-wares.neither we(OSS users) are getting stagnant waiting for cracks from warez/crackers(many window$ users does! ) 
we enjoy the freedom and many more Indians now understands Linux(ubuntu?fedora?  ) is better and free.while M$ aggressively market with sites like MW/MOffice which sure gonna bomb gee!


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 15, 2007)

@praka123, GPL is a wonderful license agreement... However, if someone was to argue that every code should be made open source compulsorily, I would disagree... It would deprive the developper right to choose. EULA is a pain in many cases (especially if you look at EULAs of big corporations such as MS), but it protects the right of the developper the way he wants it to be protected... If the developpers choice to code in closed-source is taken away, IMHO the quality of coding will decline over the years... After all, this is a capitalistic world, and one cannot argue the fact that in their current form, closed-source software is a better revenue maker than open source software and without the same monetary incentives, many people will choose an alternative career instead of developping software.

Linux has gained leaps and bounds over the past few years... I think about 10 years ago it started gaining momentum as a desktop alternative, but at that time, it was very difficult to use (driver issues, limited software, etc)... But in the last few years, it has gained leaps and bounds... I havent used it for the last 2 or 3 years, so I might be wrong, but I think the main drawback now for Linux at this current stage are only two things - 1. while it is almost as user friendly as Windows in general use, some troubleshooting and hardware/software installation requires a bit of geeky knowledge, and 2. It still doesnt have the range of software available that Windows does... This is especially true in business-specific tasks (engineering, medicine, etc). In the home side, we do have a reasonable variety of software in Linux, but we are yet to get good software for business-specific tasks... I feel that it will probably take a few years (perhaps a decade or so) for sufficient awareness to mature into viable products...

@mediator


> But u r posts are giving a full fledged show of ur fanboyism. Yea MS is on the right side by spreading FUDs!! We all know that!


Heres where you insinuate that I said that MS is on the right side by spreading FUDs...



> BTW, 'Fair' is an unfair term to be used when we r dealing with a business minded and monopolistic company!!


This is your reply when I asked you to be fair. Fair means impartial, in case you did not know, but I have learnt from your replies so far in this thread that it is not possible in this case for you.



> @Arun : and u say u have read the emails? Do u even feel any shame while lying?


Why dont you read the mails impartially. Oh wait, thats an impossible task. He was interested in getting the MVP status back, and to solve the dispute, so he was willing to remove the Express Edition support that he felt was legally okay? He was contradicting himself all over... May be he was confused, I dont know... I am just pointing it out...

Most of your other points are just whines, rants and insults, which I dont plan to reply to.

Arun


----------



## praka123 (Jul 15, 2007)

^thats what am saying-GPL is NOT for YOU,if u are not a OSS user and supporter.thats it.GPL(3) esp is to protect the  rights of both users and programmers of FOSS community(heard about Tivo,bitdefender etc for GPL violations).although GNUWIN etc exists,it is not very much valid in a windows os context.So select GPL,if ur rational and sync with OSS ideologies(which even big companies are doing now for eg:IBM).
at any point nobody can justify a EULA-because EULA is a protector for a private property(even leaseman rights? does not exists   ) of Proprietory softwares which obviously can not compete with a Open License Like GPL.
EULA's Language itself is threatening.
It is OK,that ur using Vstudio for years and thinks it gives nirvana.perfectly OK.but dont justify EULA.it is venom.
As reg Linux does not have softwares for business uses,i pity ?!
Just Open Debian or Ubuntu apt list to see what Linux offer.infact now Linux grown much beyond many hard core windows users expect!.I suggest you get Ubuntu-hook on!


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 15, 2007)

praka123 said:
			
		

> from 2002 onwards atleast Linux is easy for novice user caveat he must not look for Window$ features.



Yup, in 2007 he must not look to play HD Content, he must not look to record TV or DVR, he must not look to play games, he must not look to Confrence on his corporate network, then Linux is good for him 



> Today's Linux distros are definitely ready for Desktop users and better than Vista too(personal opin here hehe).



The day Linux distributions agree upon common drivers & package management system, Linux will start gaining acceptance in desktop market.



> Linux(ubuntu?fedora?  ) is better and free.while M$ aggressively market with sites like MW/MOffice which sure gonna bomb gee!



While Linux does that, We Windows users are already.......ah! forget it


----------



## praka123 (Jul 15, 2007)

SO @gxsourav expects Linux never plays HD;eh?  yeah,somebody predicted Linux never play DVD too haha!(with libdvdcss it plays irrespective of region locked ones too).so dont bring that here!
there is something which grows with maturity-Respect for Freedom.never Lock urself within Windows,open it .dont be like the saaz/bahu on that serials u may be watching always trying Linux to post some fake faults hmm


----------



## mediator (Jul 15, 2007)

> mediator cannot be told what reality is. Just like Eddie, they both don't want to understand & accept the facts. You have your own opinion & u think it is the best which u don't want to change.
> 
> Sorry, no matter how much we try to polish a Turd, it will still remain a turd.


 You cannot even debate here properly. So u decided trolling wud be the best way? Learn not to take the names of other members. Damn ur musketeer friend even put it in his siggy. How respectful!! 
Thanx for the personal comments neways.



> Yeah, & we tried in the last 5 pages to tell you why it is not bad but still you do not understand. Prakash, I really doubt the understanding capability of you, mediator & eddie now in this forum.


 Is that how u refresh ur MVP status year and year again? By showing ur fanboyism? Do the MS people spy on their MVPs too if they r spreading FUds in favour of MS or not? I told u to quote the alphabet, but u cudn't even do that! Understanding.....man u r sarcastic!!



> However, *if someone was to argue that every code should be made open source compulsorily,* I would disagree... It would deprive the developper right to choose


 Ofcors not, u can write hello world programs under VS-EULA




			
				arun said:
			
		

> Heres where you insinuate that I said that MS is on the right side by spreading FUDs...


 Man now u r down to defend urself instead of MS? Where did I say that u said 'MS is ont right side by spreading FUDs' ?
It was just general way of telling where MS has been wrong where u asked for more cases where MS has been wrong! It doesn't even know how to treat its little MVPs and here we see some MVPs having fervent blind faith in it like a religion!!



			
				arun said:
			
		

> Who said I am defending all of MS's actions? *All I said was that in this particular case, it appears that MS is on the right side*... How on earth do you equate that to fanboyism? Well, may be calling you a Linux fanboy may not be right, but I guess "MS basher" would be more appropriate...





> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 U r so predictable! Read the whole again carefully, read what company we r discussing for. And u think we shud use "fair" when discussing "monopolistic" and "business minded" MS. Do u even understand what the phrase "dealing with" means? Now shud I make u understand the english from the start may be by analogies again?
When the heck I said I want to be unfair in a debate "with u"? I guess u were being unfair to be requesting to talk about other companies when the debate centered around *MS-VS*-EULA.
So instead of telling me what to do, u shud do some meditation to understand how YOU can learn!!



> Why dont you read the mails impartially. Oh wait, thats an impossible task. *He was interested in getting the MVP status back*, and to solve the dispute, so he was willing to remove the Express Edition support that he felt was legally okay? He was contradicting himself all over... *May be he was confused, I dont know... I am just pointing it out...*


 Why don't u show me if I was "impartial"? 
May be u r confused, may be u r not sure, may be ur concepts aren't clear yet like u confessed before! U know nuthing!



			
				fromMVP said:
			
		

> Hi Jason,
> 
> Thank you for spelling out Microsoft's position so clearly. I find
> this directness constructive and feel that we're moving forwards. In
> ...


 May u wud like to read the part of the post u missed totally! REAd with ur eyes wide open or atleast the bolded part, u liar!!



> Most of your other points are just whines, rants and insults, which I dont plan to reply to.


 U need a glass juice now! U can't even reply properly and whining that others are like u now?? Please reply! This is the 4th time now...to...


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Does the bolded part even make any sense to u? May be ur concepts aren't still clear! Did u even read the MS side of story?
> *And please tell where the VS Pro-EULA states that YOU CAN avail it for professional one? Most of the times it is telling what u can't do, so please tell where it tells what u can do with extension conforming with ur statement! Since u think the source code can me made open source with VS-EULA freely as we r discussing, then please show where the MS-PRO-EULA allows open source code of extensions to be publicly available?*


 Also please tell where the MVP called his creation a "hack" just like that!!

Lying that MVP 'bargained' etc, whining to use c++, java. Don't u feel any shame?.....WTH.....I feel too demoralised to be even debating with u now!


----------



## rakeshishere (Jul 15, 2007)

Technology News has turned down to Fight Club Topic   

*img530.imageshack.us/img530/9069/stfu7qjaf8.gif


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jul 15, 2007)

@Praka , OSS and Windows can coexist but i don't think OSS can totally take over(in the near 5 years) .

i use KUbuntu for LAMP development and python development(both using eclipse) .

i Use Visual Studio do to Application development and as .Net 2.0 is supported by mono , my apps run both on Windows and *NIX without a hitch and .NET programming is much easier than Qt 

Also , firefox , thunderbird and many popular OSS software are available for windows too and With Microsof't Codeplex and port25 , they too are supporting OSS software is developers want to do do 

i suggest you take a look at the vast amount of Open Source(u can download code , edit it , compile it) Applications and Libraries avilable on Codeplex


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 15, 2007)

praka123 said:
			
		

> ^thats what am saying-GPL is NOT for YOU,if u are not a OSS user and supporter.thats it.GPL(3) esp is to protect the  rights of both users and programmers of FOSS community(heard about Tivo,bitdefender etc for GPL violations).although GNUWIN etc exists,it is not very much valid in a windows os context.So select GPL,if ur rational and sync with OSS ideologies(which even big companies are doing now for eg:IBM).
> at any point nobody can justify a EULA-because EULA is a protector for a private property(even leaseman rights? does not exists   ) of Proprietory softwares which obviously can not compete with a Open License Like GPL.
> EULA's Language itself is threatening.
> It is OK,that ur using Vstudio for years and thinks it gives nirvana.perfectly OK.but dont justify EULA.it is venom.


Actually, I am only a casual programmer, and most of my programs currently are in Java (I rarely only use VB, and I do occasional small non-GUI programs in C++)... I am currently programming only for use at my office, but if at a later stage, I get to release it, I will probably go the open source way (personal choice)... However, I do know quite a few friends and relatives who are work as programmers who still prefer closed sourcing their code.

However, I have to disagree on your opinions of the EULA (it is my personal opinion that EULAs are necessary in closed source software)... And while I would like to justify my standpoint, I dont want this to turn into another fight (already had one in this thread, which I quit because my opponent refused to acknowledge any of the points I made)... But just so we are clear, are you talking about EULAs in general or MS EULA specifically?



> As reg Linux does not have softwares for business uses,i pity ?!
> Just Open Debian or Ubuntu apt list to see what Linux offer.infact now Linux grown much beyond many hard core windows users expect!.I suggest you get Ubuntu-hook on!



I am not saying Linux doesnt have any software -  just that it is limited...And in many cases, functionality is under development... Let me explain with my personal example...
I am a structural design engineer. In my office, we work with two main software components - analysis/design, and drafting (there is also managerial work, but I will leave that out for now)... Analysis and design is done using spreadsheets and software like ETABS, STAAD, SCADDS, STRUDS etc. Drafting is done with CAD software (though most popular is AutoCAD, we use a less powerful lesser known software because AutoCAD is too costly to purchase). Spreadsheets - we use OpenOffice.org and Lotus 123 (MS Office is too costly. Mostly I prefer OOo, but it loads very slowly on older systems). There is no problem porting to Linux here... For CAD software, there are a handful of free, open source software... Unfortunately, most of them were in development stage last time I checked (that was about six months ago, so if you have more info, I would be glad to know). Also, many of them have limited functionality... One of the important features I want is scripting, which is not available in the various options I tried out... Slowly though, this department is developping and I am excited to try out alternatives in the near future. Finally, regarding the analysis/design software - there are very few analysis software that offer the power that Windows equivalents give... And there are even fewer design software in Linux that cater to Indian Standards Codes...
In addition, I have had requests from my friends to look at freeware alternatives to Electrical Engineering Circuit drawing software (or something like that, I think it was called Simulink), and some medical related tool (though this was about 3 years ago). Despite searching, I was unable to come up with an alternative for them...
So, what I am trying to say is that in these markets, it is a bit hard for Linux to make inroads until reasonable development is made... But the awareness has begun, and there are encouraging signs for progress... 

Arun


----------



## mediator (Jul 15, 2007)

arun said:
			
		

> already had one in this thread, which I quit because my opponent refused to acknowledge *any of the points* I made



After all such debate u have only to say that?
Seems to me like u r whispering to others! Please don't be sarcastic! I really wanted to have a nice  discussion but not partial and m still in a mood, but have to confess that am quite demoralised coz u started lying!!

First u didn't even quote me properly so as to save me from repeating! 2nd, U still didn't even tell where it is written in EULA that I asked 4 times! 3rd, lying that MVP bargained and conduct wasn't appropriate?, 4th didn't even tell what what u understood by the EULA, the alphabet that I asked u, 5th meaning of incorrect link in EULA etc etc!

So instead of lying, whining to use c++,java, preaching etc u cud have simply fulfilled my request to quote and reply from the start!

Thats not how a discussion is done by jumping in between not reading the source,EULA,GPL,stories from both sides, previous posts and not knowing what discussion was going on in between. You only make a joke of urself then!!


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 16, 2007)

I thought I explained to you in layman terms how the EULA was violated, but since you want to know the details from the EULA, look under LL of your original post *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=546391&postcount=51 and see one of the parts you have highlighted "You may not
• work around any technical limitations in the software;"
Not having extension capability was a technical limitation of the software imposed on the Express Edition, and giving it the same violated it...

Also, please learn to differentiate opinion and fact. Bargain implies an agreement between parties fixing obligations of each. Whatever the justification, he was bargaining. Thats a fact. Whether his justification of the bargain is reasonable is subject to ones opinion. Your opinion differs from mine.

Arun


----------



## mediator (Jul 16, 2007)

arun said:
			
		

> I thought I explained to you in layman terms how the EULA was violated, but since you want to know the details from the EULA, *look under LL* of your original post *www.thinkdigit.com/forum/show...1&postcount=51 and see one of the parts you have highlighted *u may not
> • work around any technical limitations in the software;"*
> Not having extension capability was a technical limitation of the software *imposed on the Express Edition,* giving it the same violated it...


 U still don't get it do u? *That 'under LL' is an excerpt from "PROFESSIONAL" not express edition and that professional one was what Zeeshan and I were discussing before u came and started whining about express!!*

And I told all the time during the debate how that was a severe restriction as a part of PROFESSIONAL edition!!

To make it clear for u in ofcors 'layman' terms Post #26 was where Zeeshan showed me the VS-professionl EULA which I formatted into alphabet for u guys only which u r quoting right now which u THOUGHT is EXPRESS edition since u trolled from in between and not adhering to my request to read from start and quote whats relevant and then continously making a joke of urself again n again!!




> Also, please learn to differentiate opinion and fact. Bargain implies an agreement between parties fixing obligations of each. *Whatever the justification,* he was bargaining. Thats a fact. Whether his justification of the bargain is reasonable is subject to ones opinion. *Your opinion differs from mine.*


 Still saying 'wateva the justification' when I showed u all the relevant conversations?? Are u mocking ur reading abilities? So m still telling u read with ur eyes on steroids stuck into the monitor!!



			
				fromMVP said:
			
		

> *Hi Jason*,
> 
> Thank you for spelling out Microsoft's position so clearly. I find
> this directness constructive and feel that we're moving forwards. In
> ...


 1. His lawyer was aware that he WASN'T in any breach of the license!
2. The "bargain" as u like to call it so dearly, that u "think" was his idea was suggested by someone else! Read in this excerpt only to who he was addressing.
3. He addressed his intentions clearly like any serious developer who was willing to develop endlessly!

IF u still THINK of calling it "WHATEVER BARGAIN", then read this excerpt slowly and carefully, letter by letter!  

And lastly that is not my "opinion" as gladly and ignorantly as u said. And then u say, "I didn't reply to ANY of ur points"???? Man have some self-respect! Lying will get u no where!! Wanna have some nice debate? Then show some debate ethics urself!!


----------



## Garbage (Jul 16, 2007)

@Prakash & @Mediator,

I was gone for OSS conference for 4-5 days. When I come back & read the whole story, the only conclusion I can draw is here are "some" M$ fanboys who think that they are very much FREE using EULA.

They really don't know, what the FREEDOM is & don't even WANT to know !! 

Lets keep silence for 2 min. for their *dead wishes of FREEDOM !!*


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 16, 2007)

:yawn:


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 17, 2007)

@mediator, 
1. The same clause exists in Express Edition EULA also...

2. "His lawyer was aware that he WASN'T in any breach of the license!" is incorrect... "as far as my lawyer is aware I am not in breach of the licence." implies that his lawyer was not aware of where he was in any breach of the licence... I hope you can appreciate the difference between the two.

3. The "bargain" was not suggested by someone else. If you read carefully (not just this mail, also look at earlier mails where it was already covered), you will understand that what was suggested was the part about removing Express Edition integration and working with MS under VSIP program. He was bargaining that MS give him back MVP status as a sign of good faith and he would agree to the earlier suggestions...

Arun


----------



## mediator (Jul 17, 2007)

> 1. The same clause exists in Express Edition EULA also..


 Hehe, So? May be the whole EULA is made to confuse the readers/developers where EULA of Express is almost the same as EULA of professional, as u say some clause is, so that MS can confuse the prey by giving the incorrect links first and then people like u saying its there in express one too. Did u really read atleast the bolded parts of my post or did u forgot what u were saying?
We were discussing for 'freedom under professional EULA' where someone here told me that u might have restriction under express EULA but u can do it under professional one!!



> 2. "His lawyer *was aware that he WASN'T in any breach* of the license!" is incorrect... "*as far as* my lawyer is aware I am not in breach of the licence." *implies* that his lawyer *was not aware of where he was in any breach of the licence*... I hope you can appreciate the difference between the two.


 If u r trying to say that the difference is of the phrase "*as far as to his knowledge*", then u must really be joking!! The EULA itself points to incorrect links and doesn't specifies what "technical limitations correctly and in a clear and straight forward manner". He himself asked a zillion times about the specifications and what license terms he was violating without any straight answer! May be u can tell correctly where in EULA it is wriiten in a straight forward manner what he violated!

To refresh u again here what it says!


			
				MS_VS_EULA said:
			
		

> c. Additional Functionality. *Microsoft may provide additional functionality for the software.* Other license terms and fees may apply.


 Can u tell where it is written that the "developer" MAY not provide additional functionality and its the MS and ONLY MS which is destined to do so? Do u even understand the meaning of this statement in bold? Asked about what license terms he was violating, he was continously and absurdly replied with "YOu r violating the license terms"! Heck, what license terms???? before he got a gang bang from MS?????? You can see that he even consulted his lawyer who cudn't find any violations yes ofcors to his knowledge. I pity the lawyer who must have seen and read all the correct and incorrect links in the EULA to be miserably and finally approving him to "His knowledge" or "as far he knows". Do u think lawyers in US or outside INDIA, where law is at its best and people fine u for even urinating on the road, i.e developed nations are that casual that you are telling about the difference???? Sorry I dunno the state of lawyers in INDIA becoz of high corruption!! Any lawyer wud be scared to say "Yes, I am 100% sure" when dealing with MS!!

U can very well see the restrictions in professional one too then!! If the EULA can be so casually written for telling what "not to do" most of the time and then not even specifying to the point and expects other to understand by intuition then I'm sorry to say that any body wud be scared to write even a hello world program under it if he/she has read the EULA and resides in US!!




> 3. The "bargain" was not suggested by someone else. If you read carefully (not just this mail, also look at earlier mails where it was already covered), you will understand that what was suggested was the part about removing Express Edition integration and working with MS under VSIP program. He was bargaining that MS give him back MVP status as a sign of good faith and he would agree to the earlier suggestions...


 May be u cud show me 'where'? Do u really think he just wrote "as u have suggested" in reply to jason and his intentions, just to show off his mails to the public? And u say u r not an MS-fanboy!!

And since u wud be telling me "where" for this, then please do tell "where" i.e the thing I have been asking u for more than 5 times now that u seem so shy to throw some ligth at!!

Man if u r finding it so hard to end the discussion from ur side becoz of some ego problem and making a continous joke of urself......then please!! I'm not getting entertained now in neway!! The topic was about freedom and debate matured to professional edition. But u on the other hand, seem to be so adamant to be sticking only to express edition. I'll be glad to stop here! Rest is upto u. If u wanna continue then no probss!


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 17, 2007)

1. The term "technical limitations" is meant to be generic allowing MS to use the same term for any license... 

2. With your attitude that you may not even safely use Visual Studio to write helloworld programs, I have no interest in explaining what freedom VS Pro Edition gives, and what limitations are there... You are going to stick to your convictions no matter what I say. I am sure other readers can draw their own conclusions, whatever they may be... 

BTW, he did get once info on what licenses were violated, but he asked for clarification which he did not receive... Refer Jan 23 2006 mail at *www.mutantdesign.co.uk/downloads/ExpressEmails1.html for details... In the absense of any other communication details in this regard (phone calls, conference meetings), it sure looks like MS never gave him a clear answer... 

3. Please show me where you find that MS suggested that if he withdrew the Extension, they would give back the MVP status. His statement was 





> I feel a constructive way forward would be if Microsoft
> were to make a gesture of good faith by renewing my MVP award for this
> season. *I would then be happy to remove Express SKU integration from
> my website and engage with Microsoft through the VSIP program* as you
> have suggested.


 You are reading the full quote as the suggestion, I am reading the bolded part as the suggestion... The way the sentences are structured, my interpretation makes sense to me, but it could have meant otherwise...

Arun


----------



## praka123 (Jul 18, 2007)

why do we bow to EULA when we can get freedom without pay?hey!think.
I think Qt4 toolkit from trolltech will be liked by ppl like you.they offer free toolkit if u release the code as GPL,for proprietory efforts,u need to pay trolltech.it even helps u free from the lock of MSFT and Windows to make cross platform softwares.
*trolltech.com/products/qt/indepth/vs-integration


----------



## mediator (Jul 18, 2007)

> 1. The term "technical limitations" is meant to be generic allowing MS to use the same term for any license...


 I see! 




> 2. With your attitude that you may not even safely use Visual Studio to write helloworld programs, I have *no interest in explaining what freedom VS Pro Edition gives, and what limitations are there*... You are going to stick to your convictions no matter what I say. I am sure other readers can draw their own conclusions, whatever they may be...


 Now thats sumthin amusing. You have been whining about "Express Edition" all along and u say u discussed about professional? I have been asking u to show me "where" for several things in different posts of mine, telling u to please speak to professional one and u say u explained? 
U can't even quote and reply properly and know only how to troll and whine and beg others to use Java and c++ instead!

Do u even understand the difference between express and professional?



> BTW, *he did get once info on what licenses were violated*, but he asked for clarification which he did not receive... Refer Jan 23 2006 mail at *www.mutantdesign.co.uk/downlo...ssEmails1.html for details... In the absense of any other communication details in this regard (phone calls, conference meetings), it sure looks like MS never gave him a clear answer...


 So u finally started reading? But still u failed!! The point is what 'license terms' and specifications he violated!!




			
				fromMVP said:
			
		

> Jason,
> 
> In our last conference call *you mentioned* numerous *ways in which [size=+4]you
> believed[/size] I was in breach of the Visual Studio SDK licence agreement.
> ...


U surely didn't read the mail that I showed u where Jason confesses that he is just a developer and doesn't have much knowledge of license terms did u?? 




			
				arun said:
			
		

> 3. Please *show me where you find that MS suggested that if he withdrew the Extension, they would give back the MVP status.* His statement was
> 
> 
> > I feel a constructive way forward would be if Microsoft
> ...


 Are u missing the last three words on purpose or they taking a toll on ur mind?? You like to believe the story of the side of a monopolistic, business minded, FUD spreading company but u don't like to believe an MVP? U think that MVP who cud have got a job in MS and have good salary wud just do it on purpose? You like to believe the words of Jason, but not Jamie? You think he typed those 3 words becoz he had vision of future?? Please man.....have mercy on urself




> You are reading the full quote as the suggestion, *I am reading the bolded part as the suggestion*... The way the sentences are structured, my interpretation *makes sense to me*, but it could have meant otherwise...


 The way u have wrote this part of ur post is also laughable! The half quoted part makes sense to u? Missing the last three words makes weight of MS side of story heavier and filling those 3 words makes it completely opposite and in favour of MVP where the MVP cleared his intention in the most understandable form!!


			
				fromMVP said:
			
		

> To be clear I am not asking to be made a VSIP MVP as compensation for
> discontinuing my Express SKU extensions. I am simply asking not to be
> punished over an issue that everyone would like to move away from.
> Assuming we can agree upon this as an amicable way forward, I will
> publish the following installer on my website:


 So, if this is what u think sense and rational thinking is or have imagined to be in ur dreams, then I surrender!! 

U can now very well play with ur musketeer friends and ur priest and make mockery of the term 'sense' and 'rational approach'.....Yea baby, elephant flies...isn't it?? I feel embarassed now to be even debating with u!!  

There is chit chat section where u have been increasing ur "post count' from the 'date' u showed me. Post ur jokes and baby talks there!!


----------



## sakumar79 (Jul 18, 2007)

Dude, please gain a decent knowledge of English before you start hurling accusations... This is the third or fourth time you are accusing or insulting me because of your lack of depth of English... The phrase "I have no interest in explaining..." does not imply that I have already explained or not. Besides, even after being aware of the meaning of "technical limitations", you still whine that you are scared to even code helloworld programs in Visual Studio... Are you seriously expecting me to believe you are talking about programming with VS rationally?

Ive explained my opinion, youve explained your opinion (both on the matter, as well as on my opinion)... I am not going to justify my opinion...

By the way, I am sure you know that posts in chit chat section dont add to your post count... 

Arun


----------



## mediator (Jul 18, 2007)

Yea, u have no interest in EXPLAINING...like u really cud! How cute! You r just here to troll and like to get urself mocked don't u....ur lovely timepass? And about tech. limitations, we had a long long debate which u unfortunately cudn't even quote correctly and follow the general debate ethics of quoting and replying properly!



			
				Arun said:
			
		

> *Ive explained my opinion*, youve explained your opinion (both on the matter, as well as on my opinion)... *[size=+1]I am not going to justify my opinion[/size]*...





			
				Arun said:
			
		

> Also, *please learn to differentiate opinion and fact.* Bargain implies an agreement between parties fixing obligations of each. *Whatever the justification, he was bargaining. [size=+2]Thats a fact.[/size]* Whether his justification of the bargain is reasonable is subject to ones opinion. Your opinion differs from mine.


Huh, u cudn't even justify how the MVP was bargaining! Was that ur "opinion" again? Sire, we are not interested in ur expert opinions! Who needed courts if everybody started giving their opinions and the case cud be solved that easily?? I quoted the links, showed the incorrect link also, The EULAS, the mails, the facts etc thinking that may be u cud entertain me......dont u like to read them properly? Ah I forgot ur general common sense of missing the words like those last 3 words by Jamie! How amusing was that!!

So, if u r confusing ur "opinion" of MVP "bargain" that u call it so cutely with "fact", then u surely need mental help. And thats a well acknowledged "fact" now so clearly decipherable from ur posts! 



> By the way, I am sure you know that posts in chit chat section dont add to your post count...


Oh, so u can reply after all! How nice of u!! U cud have done better in quoting the relevant parts of my posts!!

Here too u didn't even quote the relevant part of my previous post! Damn no matter how hard I try, if I make it in bolds or increase the size to catch ur attention, still u fail to quote n reply to it!! Kids are much better learning that ways! And u say I insulted u? How dare u!!

So yes, u explained ur opinion!! U did that long back. But if u cudn't or didn't wanted to justify it, then u cud have just said so! Was that hard? Why even mock urself around by making others repeat all around, and that too in bolds with size increased so that u can see the things clearly, and then even lying? Were u testing my patience?

AFter all such time where I have been telling u that the debate matured to professional EULA long back and where u trolled and whined about express edition and the MVP, u come now and whine that u dont want to justify on the professional one? And now, when I entertained ur requests and whinings about MVP and express edition, u don't even want to quote and reply to that too or atleast pay some attention to the bolded parts? 
BAd BAd Arun....no cerelax for u!!


----------



## praka123 (Jul 19, 2007)

In a Nutshell,(without any humiliation to anyone expected) 
GPL and many Such S/w Licenses are meant to be in a FOSS atmosphere or it is best work with FOSS.GPL for Window$ is an extension-that depends upon the developers side.
GPL works perfect in FOSS like GNU/Linux.but may not be that good when it comes to closed source Operating Systems.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_
what M$ did to the MVP is still unjustifiable.Hope people/devels/programmers never do blind faith on a BIG corporation.It feels cool if u got a Harley here in India,but dont expect the tag given by any company is the ultimate.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 19, 2007)

mediator, 

u sure r an idiot not because u r uncapable of understanding but because u don't want to understand.

u have a thinking made that anything MS makes is bad. we gave u explanation why the MVP was sued but u r unable to understand it due to lack of understaning features in your head. Sorry, no matter how much we try to polish a turd... u will remain a turd. u don't debate, u whine due to lack of understanding capability.


----------



## mediator (Jul 19, 2007)

MS cudn't tell "what license terms" he was violating or reply to that poor MVP asking for clarification and now we have MS-fanboys saying that they gave the explanation and more amusingly a priest telling "we" gave the explanation?? 

From the beginning I have been asking "where" [SIZE=+1]where[/SIZE] [SIZE=+2]where[/SIZE]. All the time I quoted the EULA, the mails and what was relevant. What did the bunch of MS fanboys do? Gave their lovely "opinions" confusing them with facts? Shud I increase the size of the posts/emails and show it again? U cudn't even quote the EULA and u say "we"?  Man have some self-respect. MS-fanboyism and ur fanboyic flames wont take u newhere. Those flames just bounced off my head, but how pityful I guess the whole debate bounced off ur head!!


----------



## gxsaurav (Jul 19, 2007)

mediator said:
			
		

> MS cudn't tell "what license terms" he was violating or reply to that poor MVP asking for clarification



Clarification : You cannot make a hack to enable & use a disabled features in the free Visual Studio Express edition using some add on. This is what the MVP violated. However this is too much for you to understand.



> From the beginning I have been asking "where" [SIZE=+1]where[/SIZE] [SIZE=+2]where[/SIZE]. All the time I quoted the EULA, the mails and what was relevant. What did the bunch of MS fanboys do? Gave their lovely "opinions" confusing them with facts? Shud I increase the size of the posts/emails and show it again? U cudn't even quote the EULA and u say "we"?  Man have some self-respect. MS-fanboyism and ur fanboyic flames wont take u newhere. Those flames just bounced off my head, but how pityful I guess the whole debate bounced off ur head!!



Just your lack of Understanding. EULA has restriction so that no one can violate the MS Windows licensing agreement, however it also gives the developer a choice whether to make his application open source or closed source, unlike GPL in which the source code must be made open source, which paralyzes the Innovation factor.

This is the nutshell. What happened with that MVP, we don't know. We don't know what all terms he violated except for the one I told above, due to which all which we are saying is just our opinion & not facts. Facts are given on the basis of the mails & articles on the net, which for some reason is too hard for your to understand. So don't ask us & waste forum storage space.


----------



## mediator (Jul 19, 2007)

Why r u crying and moaning again n again like someone slapped u hard and put a hot rusted iron rod in ur underwear and ur rear? Besides, u r just repeating what others "opined" before much better than u. U r doing nuthing as compared to them. Reply to the "facts" that I quoted [SIZE=+1]DIRECTLY[/SIZE] from the mails, EULA etc instead of giving ur little "expert opinions" again n again thinking ur little whinings might shadow the reality. Keep an eye on the incorrect link in EULA toooo, coz u r an MVP too and I dont really want that u too to get a gang bang from MS!!

Do try to read this mail slowly in the morning or at any time when u aren't feeling disoriented. Understand what it means!


			
				fromMVP said:
			
		

> Jason,
> 
> In our last conference call you mentioned numerous ways in which you
> believed I was in breach of the Visual Studio SDK licence agreement.
> ...


 So @MS-priest, since u cant quote even 10% of my replies, so atleast take a look at this and reply to that MVP which ofcors MS didn't cared to do so. If u feel ur mood is ON at any time, then do try to quote/reply the rest of my replies as well. I hope MS-fanboys are better than MS itself in justifying their "opinions" atleast rarely!! 

MS: U violated, yes u violated, but u violated, we r telling that u violated!
GX: U wont understand, u r a <insert ur flame>, u wont understand, u lack understanding!

 Nice going dood! U r on the right path to surely get a job in MS!!


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 5, 2007)

lets wake this sleeping beauty up with a kiss of a post, shall we?

I think the main reason MS is loosing out developers is because:​*
1. The Wallet Factor*

because M$ OS Windows needs you to pay for using it, there will be lesser people who are able to access it. So say you are making a big app for an industry, that is free as a stripped down version for home use. If the program is linux compatible, more people will be able to use it, and the same may later start businesses to use the full version. hence you get more money.

*2. EULA Woes*

several M$ EULA statements are bottlenecks for developers. This has been discussed already for a long time in this topic, so I won't touch it.
*
3. JAVA JAR Files*

mainly concerning free software developers(atleast, those who made freeware in the begening), JAR files are a way one can make a program that runs on virtually ANY OS. You can have fully GUIed programs, that are just the same files for all operating systems. no need of special porting for indivudual OSes. Thus, JAVA based GUIed apps are the best for a starting developer. this gives expoture to hime more rapidly than anything else, as all users can review it. The question such people ask is this: if I have a way to make a program that runs on all platforms, why the **** should I make it windows only and be at a loss? even paid software makers are concidering this exiting feature of java, but ofcourse, with a wrapper around the JAR file for each OS.
*
4. QT4, GTK2+,wxWidgets  etc*

such platforms are senior to .net, and tested by time supporting good languages(C&C++) as well as being multiplatform. they are also similar solutions to programmers who atleast need to support major OSes. besides, C and C++ are industry standards and many learn them at school. So these free multiplatform developement kits are ideally prefered to paid stuff running only on M$ software.
*
5. The Y generation and Linux*

the new generation is more exposed to Linux and its benifits. It has gained knowledge and inspiration from linux whose use is ever increasing. This has caused even big companies to notice linux. So linux compatible apps are becoming more and more in demand
*
6. Improving performance of other OSes*

Lets face it. Windows 98 was the best home OS when released. Linux was still geekish, Macs had no popular support. BSD - bhool ja use agar thu admi hai tho. Solaris - was it even fully developed then?
 But now, The foes of M$ are emerging as powerful if not more powerful than windows. So its natural that more apps are being written for them
*
7. Viruses*

No developer wants his software to be attacked by viruses. In windows, thats exactly what happens. The best apps are not spares. So they go to other platforms which are more difficult to infect.


----------



## The_Devil_Himself (Dec 5, 2007)

^^nice,fully agreed about the limitation of 'certain' programming platforms.nicely written.


----------



## praka123 (Dec 5, 2007)

gtk2+ =nice!
Java=the solution for cross platform s/w.
GPL=freedom


----------



## gxsaurav (Dec 5, 2007)

MetalheadGautham said:
			
		

> *1. The Wallet Factor*
> 
> because M$ OS Windows *needs you to pay for using it, there will be lesser people who are able to access it*. So say you are making a big app for an industry, that is free as a stripped down version for home use. *If the program is linux compatible, more people will be able to use it*, and the same may later start businesses to use the full version. hence you get more money.


What...how...when...kaise? When did linux occupied 95% of the total OS market share out there? Last I heard Windows Rules the OS market which means if there is a program for Windows then more people will use it compared to Linux which only a small percentage of total OS user population uses.



> *2. EULA Woes*
> 
> several M$ EULA statements are bottlenecks for developers. This has been discussed already for a long time in this topic, so I won't touch it.


Lolz...


> * 3. JAVA JAR Files*
> 
> mainly concerning free software developers(atleast, those who made freeware in the begening), JAR files are a way one can make a program that runs on virtually ANY OS. You can have fully GUIed programs, that are just the same files for all operating systems. no need of special porting for indivudual OSes.


Hmm...contact Arya about why JAVA sux & why native apps are better 

Java is good, but not always the best solution. Java apps do not integrate in the OS compared to native apps, neither they have the Same speed & most important they don't have the OS like native look & feel.

Using JAVA to make an app makes sense where it is aplicable. but tell me...ever saw .net, C# & what not which runs fine on Symbian, OS X, & Linux platform by Mono Project. A developer can very well make a application in .net & port it to other platforms using a wrapper.





> Thus, JAVA based GUIed apps are the best for a starting developer.


I don't know much about programming but so far all those friends I have asked....JAVA apps are hard to create then .net apps. Hack, even I was able to make a WMP based audio player in VS 2008 here in my home with Expression Blend based UI in 2 hrs, it's another thing that I forgot to add a close button in it & I had to use task manager to end taks it (sorry, programming noob here )


> * 4. QT4, GTK2+,wxWidgets  etc*
> 
> such platforms are senior to .net, and tested by time supporting good languages(C&C++) as well as being multiplatform.


Even .net is cross platform now.



> they are also similar solutions to programmers who atleast need to support major OSes.


Major OS out there = Windows.



> C and C++ are industry standards and many learn them at school. So these free multiplatform developement kits are ideally prefered to paid stuff running only on M$ software.


 ever saw Picasa? It is made for Windows but also runs on Linux.



> This has caused even big companies to notice linux. So linux compatible apps are becoming more and more in demand


The only major reason for companies to go for linux is money.


> But now, The foes of M$ are emerging as powerful if not more powerful than windows. So its natural that more apps are being written for them


Hmm...u still didn't read the "Windows for dummies" book, did u?



> * 7. Viruses*
> 
> No developer wants his software to be attacked by viruses. In windows, thats exactly what happens. The best apps are not spares. So they go to other platforms which are more difficult to infect.


Tell me a single virus which affects a software like Winamp (3rd party) & not the OS...

gautam, seriously your reasons are as lame as Bush saying he didn't attack iraq for oil.


----------



## din (Dec 5, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> The only major reason for companies to go for linux is money.



LOL, just can't control laughter !!! Sorry.

I think you are posting this may be 100th time ?

People are moving to Linux and Opensource not just because of money (now I am telling this 101th time lol). Yes, money always matter (100 Windows = 100 * 5000 Rs, 100 Linux = 1 * 50 Rs - CD cost !) but that is not the only reason. Stability, reliability and a lot of other factors are there. Check the list of large companies (India and Aborad) who migrated to Lin / Opensource, and read the details of their study, implementation etc if you still believe - it is all about money.

Linux - It is *NOT* all about money Honey


----------



## a_k_s_h_a_y (Dec 5, 2007)

Well its true .. let me give the explanation that our Computer Science HOD gave us in college !!

Product based companies write applications for Linux and they love to do so because of More Power in developing applications !

but then Microsoft comes and tells product based software companies "You get full support from MS free MS software  Write software for MS only "
and they become partners ! and support each other !

also the wide use of windows convicnes PBSC to write them for windows
best example is Adobe !

but that's going to change with linux adoption !
Software service industry has to just follow the instructions of the client .. when clients choose to use linux platfrom .. MS can try to woo them giving discounts in WINDOWS os !

The rate at which CS Engineering students are being trained in Linux in IITs and NITs and Our College too is real bad news for windows !


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> What...how...when...kaise?


 lol 


> Hmm...contact Arya about why JAVA sux & why native apps are better


 better say google sucks and world sucks


> Java is good, but not always the best solution. Java apps do not integrate in the OS compared to native apps,


 Java apps do not integrate with OS cuz that posses a security risk to user computer, its like JAVA apps run in a sandbox.


> neither they have the Same speed


 speed was a factor in java 2 ut now its java 6.


> & most important they don't have the OS like native look & feel.


 thats cuz u dont want ur application to run on windows only, u can use native OS look but thats not protability, 


> Using JAVA to make an app makes sense where it is aplicable. but tell me...ever saw .net, C# & what not which runs fine on Symbian, OS X, & Linux platform by Mono Project. A developer can very well make a application in .net & port it to other platforms using a wrapper.


 most of the apps  are jar files in symbian os (sis is an exception). Ever wonder  why Games are easy to port to symnian OS, i have played POP series, NFS series and what say all were jar files.


> I don't know much about programming but so far all those friends I have asked....AVA apps are hard to create then .net apps.


 yeah cuz everyone needs readymade things, give a noob MSDN and he will make titanic


> JAVA apps are hard to create then .net apps.


 Nope, when u hav IDE for it as u hav Visual Studio for .NET apps.
Only change is that Visual Studio is not free (yeah u may say student editon or express edition is free), 
Eclipse and Netbeans are free to use(no enterprise or other different versions).
Ever heard JSF (Java Server Faces), total drag drop and much advanced than anything.


> Hack, even I was able to make a WMP based audio player in VS 2008 here in my home with Expression Blend based UI in 2 hrs, it's another thing that I forgot to add a close button in it & I had to use task manager to end taks it (sorry, programming noob here )


 lol..even i can make media player with MMC controls and common dialog box, but thats nothing different from the breed.

try to customize it then u will know.


----------



## a_k_s_h_a_y (Dec 5, 2007)

Apps written for Windows in C/C++ don't Run in Linux 
!!
Windows API and LINUX API are Different ! we will need to change CODE

Yes the Simple Calculator program Written in C runs in both windows and linux .. but not programs that make use of WIN API !!


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Dec 5, 2007)

T159 said:
			
		

> Ever heard JSF (Java Server Faces), total drag drop and much advanced than anything.


 I suppose i won't be wrong in saying that Windows Presentation Foundation(WPF, .NET 3.0) is much better than JSF .


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 5, 2007)

@saurav

1. about major os

only in homes is windows THE major os
u got solaris, freeBSD, linuxes, etc widely used in industries.
banking, insurance, real estate, other small use companies use them a lot

2. viruses

abhi likh ke du kya? ask anybody 

3. money

not the only reason, but still, MONEY IS IMPORTANT FOR LIVING A COMFORTABLE LIFE

PS: I kissed sleeping beauty really well


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> I suppose i won't be wrong in saying that Windows Presentation Foundation(WPF, .NET 3.0) is much better than JSF .


hard to say as still JSF is not much matured neither the WPF.

But its like  Sun, IBM, Novell, and Oracle, for instance, are all putting their collective might behind the platform. So its highly unlikely that it will be anything less than best.

I know .NET is pacing up fast, new features are added rapidly.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 5, 2007)

you can't deny the fact that most popular *nixes are rock solid. and add to that the fact that they are gaining fast paced acceptance. this itself attracts many programers. Take this forum for instance. we have several linux users/programmers here. If we go to companies with linux programming in our resume, and they see many like us, linux would definitely gain industry acceptance. As I said, linux is currently a teen enthusiast OS in India. In 10 years, these teens will be in their 20s, the job seeking time. Thats how something gets adopted.

OLPC is another major factor. With many in backward nations using OLPC and Linux, they will learn linux programming. thats why when they grow up and some of them become enterpruners, linux will obviously gain preference. Only US, UK, etc will be left back. then again, they are only a fraction of the world population


----------



## rocket357 (Dec 6, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> neither they have the Same speed


  Java isn't a slow language...it has that reputation because quite a few people aren't using it properly.  Take this code for instance:

String myString = 'The value of myVar is ' + myVar; // using apostrophes because of this silly editor =\

Looks harmless, right?  Well, if myString was being set to a long, repetitive concatenation of String variables with '+', of course it's going to be slow...each concatenation creates a new String object on the heap!  The better approach is to use StringBuilder, but most schools worldwide teach the '+' operator method.

I took the liberty of writing a few programs...all use the same algorithm for calculating the first 32768 prime numbers.  Here are the results (The first date output is the start time of the algorithm (after init of program variables, etc...) and the second date output is immediately after the algorithm finishes):


```
Java (Sun Java 1.6.0 JVM) 
jon@JonGentoo ~ $ java Main 
Total primes being calculated: 32768 
Thu Dec 06 00:58:30 CST 2007 
Thu Dec 06 00:58:40 CST 2007
```
10 Seconds...not too shabby
	
	



```
Java (GCJ-4.2.2) 
jon@JonGentoo ~ $ ./calcPrimeJava 
Total primes being calculated: 32768 
Thu Dec 06 01:54:28 EST 2007 
Thu Dec 06 01:54:34 EST 2007
```
6 seconds?  Better...much better 
	
	



```
C++ (G++-4.2.2) (Code ignores TimeZone information)
jon@JonGentoo ~ $ ./calcPrimeCPP
Total primes being calculated: 32768
Thu Dec 06 02:06:13 EST 2007
Thu Dec 06 02:06:19 EST 2007
```
6 seconds?  WTF?  This is *native* code!

The moral of the story is this:  When coding in a language, you must *know* that language to make the best use of it.  Any jerk coding in C can write a reasonably fast program, but as you start introducing concepts like OOP, late binding, dynamic typing, etc...  it's even more critical to know the in's and out's of the language.  I know Java programmers who swear C# is slow, but that's because they have coded C# to a *Java* spec (there are some things that run faster when coded a certain way in C#, and there are things that run faster when coded a certain way in Java(StringBuilder, for instance)).  But to make a blanket statement that 'Java is slow' only serves to reveal the lack of Java knowledge and skill of the coder making the statement.



			
				gx_saurav said:
			
		

> & most important they don't have the OS like native look & feel.




```
// More Java code...woohoo! 
// Get the native look and feel class name
String nativeLF = UIManager.getSystemLookAndFeelClassName();

UIManager.setLookAndFeel(nativeLF);
```
What's so terribly difficult about that?  Just curious...


----------



## sakumar79 (Dec 6, 2007)

I agree with rocket357 about java... Java code can be quite fast depending on the coder... Also, there is code facility for using OS based UI instead of the standard Java UI... Though many programmers choose to use the default UI simply because they neglect thought about it...

A couple of years back, I wrote a slightly complicated (for a single programmer) program... First in VB.NET, and then in Java... Java was faster... Of course, VB.NET is not really a good benchmark when it comes to speed, but it was a good benchmark for ease of coding... I used Sun ONE Studio IDE and the coding ease was more or less equal...

Arun


----------



## din (Dec 6, 2007)

Thats is correct. Writing java code by opening up notepad was yrs back. Java has got very nice IDEs now which has the drag n drop functions as well.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 7, 2007)

and the fact still remais: if I am given a choice between a free, super-effitient, fast Toolkit to make programs that run on multiple platforms reliably and efficiently, and a closed source, licence restricted, not so effitient as others M$ software that is still undergoing porting and works best only in a M$ Window$ Operating System, won't I be naturally be drawn towards the former?


----------



## Desi-Tek.com (Dec 7, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> I suppose i won't be wrong in saying that Windows Presentation Foundation(WPF, .NET 3.0) is much better than JSF .


 only thing i miss in core  jsf is a get method in form it only support POST method . Apart from that it is as good as asp.net and here also we have lots  of chooice.
adf faces , myfaces, seam framework and strut etc


----------

