[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]MS .NET cmdline scripting environment

From: Timothy Rue
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]MS .NET cmdline scripting environment
Date: 1 Jan 2003 13:41:19 -0500

On 29-Dec-02 10:25:24 Christian Axelsson <address@hidden> wrote:
 CA> Take a look at
 CA> for a
 CA> quick resume.

 CA> How will this affect DotGNU? Will there be any attempts to
 CA> implement crossplatform compability?

 CA> --
 CA> Christan Axelsson
 CA> address@hidden

 CA> If it ain't broken, I cant fix it.

I think it is really rather interesting:

* MS is asking *nix admins how to make windows better than *nix

* the MS DOS shell has always been the worse and underveloped shell ever
  to exist. Prolly cause MS wants to make/keep people need(ing) them,
  rather than educate people how to do things for themselves.

* Now they are saying they want to make the best shell......????

The truth here is that MS plays competition (unfair) with war tactics.
they do use infilteration into the camps of competition, what you might
call spys and even pertend to be what they are not, honest and sincere.

The EMCA (335?) document describing what is under the tent of .net is
really a collection of programming concepts and datatypes integrated into
a non-conflicting sum total.... it is what anyone with enough resources
could have and should have done in the name of genuine computer science.
Like our public schools.....

The idea of a shell that integrates into .net underworkings, comming from
MS, is as well not a product of MS. But again one of genuine computer
science of which they have no exclusive rights on.

If there were exclusive rights to be had, Then I'd be the one with them
to "CONTROL" in a "no you cannot use" manner.

What MS has is deceptive marketing power to take something they are not
responsible for and market it to the public under the deception that they
own it and invented it. If they invented the underworkings of .net then
why can't they patent it? (way to much prior art!!!)

How do you deal with such deceptive marketing practices? Especially
when you apparently have a legal system that support the dishonesty of MS.

Where is the new GPL that takes into account changes in the way computing
is being developed and applied?

When is there going to be a clause forbidding use by such criminals as MS?
Or is it not needed? Being that such a criminal intent wouldn't be teaching
users how to do things for themselves, but rather hiding genuine computer
science for the advantages they can obtain from deceiving the
users/consumers? Keep reading...

There is no mystery as to what is needed in the way of a shell, upon
reflection of "genuine computer science". There however may be a problem
in understanding what the hell genuine computer science really is, as it
sure as hell hasn't been much of in the industry as it relates to user
accessible information.

Computer functionality, be it from the OS, applications, devices,
libraries, etc., really is nothing more than a block of callable

In what way(s) it is callable is what draws the line between honesty and
elitism snobery deception. Pay me if you want me to do it for you but I am
not going to tell you how to do it for yourself.... and for insurance I
make it so overly complex and complicated that .... well it'd be cheaper
for you to submit to my effort to entrap and extort you into paying me
than for you to figure it out so to do it for yourself..........

The limitlessness of what "functionality" has been, is being and may be
created, is without question, summable to "UNKNOWN" but that it will
always have a way to call it into action when new functionality becomes

In other words, you will always be able to speak to new functionality, as
it's callable "vocabulary" will be known, by at least it's functionality
creator. But you will not always be able to have such functionality able
to communicate to other functionality directly..... That's just way to
damn much required programming and knowledge of the unknown possibilities
of infinite vocabularies of other functionality to be concerned with in
programming the given functionality. This is where the shell comes in.

I've said this before. MS intends on cornering the auto-coding market.
This research on shell development is only a notable step in that

And what they are doing is simple trying to figure out how to allow the
users to automate, while maintaining ownership of whatever the users
automate, by owning the automation tools and controlling who is allowed to
use them. "tell us how you want us to improve 'our' product so we can sell
it back to you again and again".

Everyone has heard the phrase "lead, follow or get the hell out of the
way". But few have heard the phrase "follow or die".

Ultimately, father physics and mother nature are the leads to follow or
die, and even MS must submit to that, or else....

Father physics and mother nature don't put false constraints (ie. EULA)
on what or who can do or not do.

You want shell power? Then make all the functionality blocks, be they
applications, OS functionality, devices, libraries, etc.. accessible in
a common consistant manner and provide the documented and usable
vocabularies to these functionality blocks in a user friendly manner to
enable users/consumers to.... do things for themselves, to automate what
they will, of their use of computers, including coding if so be it. Quit
fu&in judging what user/consumer will or won't do.... instead get with
genuine computer science that enable freedom, if and when a user/consumer
so decides.

What has got to be the most recursive existance of "programming" is that
of putting things together in a way to automate their use, regardless what
those parts are, be they a complete application put together with another
application or simple standard code put together to print "hello world"...
... the degree of complexity of any of the parts being used is irrelavant
to this inheritly recursive nature of programming. And that IS NOT so
Complexicated compfuckacted to friggin just simply understand. So who
would want to make it difficult? Don't we all know? "if you can't bedazzel
them with brillance then baffel them with bullshit!" (don't know who first
said it but I first heard it from a Motorolla rep..... or was that a
"tools developer" at a Comdex power pannel on problems in software

Don't worry about the shell, I've got that covered, being developed and
under GPL (soon to be made available what code and functionality has been
done - a matter of dealing with a given process of paying a coder to
produce the code - which in this case is to be released under the GPL).
I'm lead to believe a successful GPL project requires something of a
working code base in order to inspire others to contribute improvements...
no matter how small... and I suppose I will begin to find out how accurate
this is, in a week or so.

Let me suggest DotGNU work to fully support python..... least until this
shell is ported to some language that is fully supported in dotGNU (if
and when). I've been to busy to keep up with the list and only now taking
this one day off to read back thr some of it.

If only there was a provision of criminal exception in the GPL to
constrain corporate criminals..... then deceptive marketing practices
could perhaps be better addressed. Certainly laws against consumer
deception are being greatly ignored by the legal system in regards to the
computer industry as apparently the babeling rethoric of the computer
industry is to much for the legal system to cut to the chase on.

In some industries, if you are found guilty of breaking the law and morals
of.... you are booted out of that industry, permanately. Why that is not
the case with the computer industry is prolly cause we wouldn't have much
of one, if such ostrisizing/blackballing was applied. Or who is to judge
the judges decission.... for the judge is not father physics or mother


Tim Rue

BTW, I'm not impressed with the FSF membership offer. Way to many things
left unanswered... like as to how GNU/GPL developers benefit..... As I'm
sure there are many GNU/GPL developers not formally associated with the
FSF and what of personel support for the products...... doesn't, for
example, Redhat include a reasonable level of support for the price of
.... well let's just say for the code many outside of redhat have
developed, redhat is making money off of what, that code or support of
that code?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]