Talk:Moonlight (runtime)

message: from the mono website:
 Install dependencies for module moon from your distro:
 
     * Gtk+ 2.0 development package
     * cairo 1.4.xx development package
           o If you need the source: cairo 1.4.10.tar.gz (http://www.cairographics.org/releases/cairo-1.4.10.tar.gz) 
     * ffmpeg from SVN
           o I use: svn co -r 9167 svn://svn.mplayerhq.hu/ffmpeg/trunk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GNUtoo (talk • contribs) 20:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ffmpeg and mono 

message: Updated the DRM section to accuriately reflect the content of the source sited. However, the source is a forum full of posts by the general public reposting blog posts from other sources. This source does not meet the Wikipedia standards and another source should be found for this issue. As Moonlight is under 4 separate licenses, binary closed-source blobs could be released for the project. So if Microsoft chooses to support DRM on Linux, there's no licensing reason why Moonlight couldn't release the tool to the public.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.232.43 (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRM 

message: The Controversy chapter hint that: At the PDC conference on October 13, 2008, Microsoft placed Silverlight under the OSP which states "The Silverlight XAML vocabulary specification, released under the Microsoft Open Specification Promise, will better enable third-party ISVs to create products that can read and write XAML for Silverlight." Since Moonlight is essentially a XAML reader, this news suggests that Moonlight should be safe to redistribute (sans Microsoft's binary codecs). I think that there's a difference between creating a product that reads XAML, and using Moonlight, because Moolight developers have access to exclusive Microsoft sources for their development, such as test cases, Silverlight specification details, and codecs. So I rewrote it as "may be safe", not "should be safe". Hervegirod (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy chapter 

message: There are svg logos of moonlight:
http://groups.google.com/group/mono-olive/browse_thread/thread/0e80da27cc6bafcc?pli=1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.95.55 (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG logo 

message: I see that the following sentence is not allowed in this article, labelled as 'trash' and 'activist' when removed.
:The website Boycott Novell has said that software including "Mono and Moonlight ... continues to fragment and separate the community of Free software users". 
Is this simply because people editing here work for Novell or Microsoft? Is there any other justification under any known Wikipedia policy, such as WP:V or WP:RS? The quote is accurate and is attributed correctly. It is a valid point of view that should be covered here, in a balanced article on one of the products specifically mentioned in the quote. --Nigelj (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See WP:Reliable sources. That particular website has a well known reputation of slander and negative spin. 62.58.36.58 (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns out that the user who was making these rather extreme edits and statements is a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:hAl, who was blocked indefinitely last November for similar edit warring on Microsoft-related articles. Can the rest of us please edit towards consensus, and not revert other people's reverts without ample discussion on the talk page first, to avoid such problems in the future. --Nigelj (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Uh, hAL (or one of your cronies), Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased. Also, Techrights/BoycottNovell and The Source both count as news sites (and they are trustworthy ones as well), so I had to revert your edit so that this page isn't biased again. Lets face it, the many eyes of the Wikipedia admins are watching to keep you from making edits against the rules, so remember not to break them, or you'll get banned. 99.154.2.99 (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:Verifiability (specifically the section on Reliable Sources), personal blogs such as the-source.com and boycottnovell.com are not reliable sources and therefor should not be used as reference material for Wikipedia. Your attempts at WP:OUTING are also inappropriate. You might also want to read WP:No_personal_attacks regarding your edit comment. 130.57.22.201 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For the user from Novell (your IP address gives it away), please stop mislabeling truthful information as "vandalism". From looking at both sites, both Techrights (new name of BoycottNovell) and The Source are more like news blogs that personal blogs, and thrus are reliable sources by the definition. Now, if you would just stop vandalizing pages like this... (Note to the Wikipedia admins: Ban that vandal for me.) 70.226.165.186 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That user (130.57.22.201) is at it again, reverting my edits as "vandalism". Just for the record, I never vandalize pages, and I usually assume good faith, but if an edit happens that disrupts a neutral point of view, I have no choice but to undo it. The removal of the references for Techrights/BoycottNovell and The Source count as unbalancing the point of view, and that counts as vandalism. If there is a WP admin reading this, block that malcious IP from editing any page related to Mono/Novell, and do it quickly! 70.226.165.186 (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that you are, in fact, vandalizing the article page. As was noted by the person who originally removed that text, it is just opinions taken from a couple of personal blogs which are not reliable sources (on top of being just opinion, they are also opinions by people who have personal grudges against the project). You claiming that they are valid sources just because you happen to dislike Mono is not a valid reason to revert and your insult someone here is a Mono apologist just goes to show you have a direct conflict of interest in editing this article yourself. In addition, the claim that Mono and Moonlight ... continues to fragment and separate the community of Free software users is unsubstantiated and therefore does not belong here anyway. BrianRandal (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are adding to a discussion that dates from January and resulted in sockpuppets being banned. Please discuss the current issues in the new section below. --Nigelj (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disallowed material? 

message: Something big is missing from this article. A website asked me to install this and I wanted to know what it was for, so I came looking here. There is a development history heavily spiced with techno-jargon and acronyms and breathless tales of 21-day hacking sprees, but the article fails completely at providing the most basic information of what exactly is Novell Moonlight and what is it used for?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.13.199 (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully this issue is now addressed at the top. 130.57.22.201 (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic info 

message: First, this edit war must stop. Both those who want to see the material deleted from the article, and those who want it kept must discuss the options here, giving their reasons with regard to Wikipedia policies. Second, the argument to delete it seems to be a continuation of the issues that started in January this year, involving WP:SOCKPUPPETeering by User:hAl, who was blocked indefinitely last November. Thirdly, IMHO, the material is valid as, although it expresses an opinion, is well sourced and the opinion is attributed to notable sources in the topic area. Please add your comments below as to why you think these opinions should not be reported in this article. --Nigelj (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2 individuals who run those blog sites are engaged in a smear campaign against Novell and Mono (and anything that uses Mono). This is extremely simple to figure out because they use phrases like Mono Apologists or Team Apologista when referring to anyone who has anything good to say about Mono or contributes to the project in some way. They both also use terms like poison or trojan to describe the project. All of these words/phrases are used to Appeal_to_emotion which is a classic tactic used in smear campaigns. They also employ many other logical fallacies including strawman arguments, appeal to fear, guilt by association, etc. This is what makes their opinions unreliable as sources for Wikipedia. 130.57.22.201 (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They might be biased against Mono, and some people are biased for Mono (I'm looking at you, 130.57.22.201 and Miguel!), but Wikipedia needs to have a netrual point of view, so the Techrights/The Source criticism should be on the page along with all of the other info. And it's been verified many times before that Techrights and The Source are valid sources and are news blogs rather than personal blogs. (but The Source is a mix between the two). So, can we just stop fighting over this and just let the edit be?! 70.226.165.186 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How is linking to smear campaigns "keeping it neutral"? Should FUD from Microsoft be stuffed into Linux or GNU articles? By your logic, that would be "keeping it neutral". Maybe you need to read the following articles as evidence of BoycottNovell (aka Techrights) waging smear campaigns against other people/companies: [When Zeal Becomes Zealotry: A Tawdry Tale] or [Hit Jobs Gone Wrong]. This, and more, suggests that BoycottNovell is not a valid source of "news". It is a hate site and nothing more. It is not "news". Personal opinion does not belong on Wikipedia, especially when it is designed to discredit someone or some project/company. 130.57.22.201 (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By my logic, this works if the source is reliable. Miguel's blog is not a very valid source (and refrences to it should be removed). Techrights and The Source are valid sources. What you (130.57.22.201) are doing is spreading Microsoft/Novell FUD all over Wikipedia, and that should not be allowed. And the articles you mentioned are not from valid sources, so you are just spreading FUD. All I want is for you to just LET THE FREAKING PAGE BE!!!! This is the last straw for you, revert again, and I'll get the admins to block you from editing pages releated to Novell or Microsoft, and I really mean it! 70.226.165.186 (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome the opinion of the admins. 130.57.22.201 (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

text: So, who is Jason Melton? A Google search turns up nothing, so I'm guessing he isn't anyone important. Is he an established expert? Seems unlikely. Has he been published elsewhere? Not that I can find. BrianRandal (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a blogger and occasional Free Software contributor. Previous blogs include [Me and U(buntu)] and anti-Mono/Moonlight site [mono-nono] (which turned into The Source). Previous contribution is an app called [Scalculator]. Other names you may find writing from him under are Jason and ushimitsudoki. 163.1.125.49 (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Nigelj, BoycottNovell is ONLY run by Roy Schestowitz these days. Shane Coyle quit 2 years ago with a comment along the lines of how he was embarrassed by the content that Schestowitz had been posting. On top of that, as the 2 links I provided above show, he has a history of smear campaigning, not only with Novell but anyone else he feels undermines him. Roy Schestowitz has also, on numerous occasions in his own comments, declared that BN/Techrights is "only a blog" as used as an excuse to brush off criticisms that he did not do any fact checking of the articles he writes. Further, if their opinions really were reflective of the community, then surely opinions by persons held in higher regard could be found and thus there would be no need to link to their personal opinions at all. 130.57.22.201 (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While I was googling above, I did a search on "Shane Coyle left BoycottNovell" and came across this [comment by Shane Coyle] which seems to confirm what User:130.57.. said about Shane Coyle leaving it. Especially noteworthy is how he referred to BoycottNovell as a crazy-train and how he had planned on trying to clean up BN's credibility. I'd say that's pretty damning evidence against the use of BoycottNovell as a credible source when even the founder of the site agrees it isn't. The other comments are quite revealing as well as Roy effectively admits that BN is a blog (he was making excuses for not doing research for the article). BrianRandal (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm a member of the Free Software Foundation, so that makes me part of the free software community. And here are my views: I read both Techrights and The Source a lot, and I find them good sites about free software news, Sure, they are biased towards getting rid of Mono/Moonlight, but removing the reference to these sites will unbalance the point of view. I will admit, I was reverting the other user's edits, but that user is from Novell (as you can see by his IP address), and he is censoring the truth. And you know corporate PR people can censor the truth (remember that EA incident? I certainly do.), and thrus, the other user involved should be blocked, not me. What do you guys think? 70.226.165.186 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are so concerned about balance, perhaps you'd accept linking to the 2 articles I linked to above in the main article to give a balanced view of the sources of the opinions? 130.57.22.201 (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your option is one option. Nigelj's and my option, well, that's another one. Personally, I'm thinking of locking the Moonlight page at the current state untill the admins decide. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we forget about getting each other banned or the article locked for the moment. There is nothing in where people work to stop them editing WP, provided they learn about WP policies and abide by them. Creating a user account is always good too (but if you do, tell us which IP you used to be in this discussion at least, so we can keep track of who's who). So, do either of you have better sources that are critical of Moonlight's licensing/patent status etc? (i.e. the MS covenant) Are Roy Schestowitz and Jason Melton "established expert(s) on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"? If so, published where? If not, who is better to use? There is no way that we are going to get away with whitewashing the article to give the impression that no one has ever criticised these aspects of Moonlight; the solution will be to find the best sources and use the points made in them in this section. Are there other notable points of view on the covenant re Moonlight? Are we covering all the bases with WP:DUE weight? Let's use your combined knowledge of the field to get this right. --Nigelj (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Bruce Byfield, an actual journalist that has been published, wrote an article for Linux.com entitled [Boycott Novell: Champion of freedom or den of paranoia?] where he noted Some are afraid to voice their criticisms [against BoycottNovell] publicly, worrying that the site will attack them if they do.. That is pretty damning. BrianRandal (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: There is still criticism there that I am fine with leaving in (e.g. the fact that Fedora is not including it because the covenant is not good enough for them to include it by default, etc). I don't see a reason to include personal opinions from a bunch of trolls who have an obsession with discrediting the Mono and Moonlight projects (take a look at the latest anti-Mono/anti-Banshee article on Techrights, for example, and tell me how it isn't a bunch of FUD). 130.57.22.201 (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Techrights/The Source has a point there about advocating people not to use Banshee: It's only safe to use by Novell consumers and Novell consumers only, and the convent is going to expire in a year, making the legal state of Banshee questionable. So listen, it isn't a bunch of FUD, it's truth. The lies that Microsoft and Novell are spreading about Mono being good and Linux being complicated, as well as de Icaza's blog postings, defiantly count as a bunch of FUD, not Techrights/The Source. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let the admins decide. How does one call them in? 130.57.22.201 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

text: The best thing to do for now is to Google and pray that you don't get a biased source. Other than that I'm out of options. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling is good, but we don't mind a biassed source to give one side of the argument. The trick is to get a notable point of view from a reliable source and present it with due weight alongside all the other notable points of view. That way the article (or section) ends up with an overall neutral point of view, not over-stressing any viewpoint above the others. You are the guys who care passionately and know the background and the sources: come up with a few suggestions and we'll hammer the text together until it's verifiable and neutral overall. List potential sources and draft potential text here. --Nigelj (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, how is either relevant in the context of "Moonlight in other distributions"? Neither of 70.226.165.186's blog links has any even remote connection to packaging in any major or minor Linux distribution. Criticism of Moonlight is valid and should be discussed, but a section entitled "Moonlight in other distributions" is not a soapbox for use by committed anti-Mono and anti-Moonlight campaigners, nor proclamations from Novell employees or other Moonlight fans. It should be restricted to relevant information on the topic at hand. 78.105.105.80 (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, finding a reliable source that is not biased is very tricky stuff, but one thing that we could do for now is to shift the critism to a new section. How does that sound? 70.226.165.186 (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be my preferred route, although Wikipedia does not in general approve of "Criticism of" sections. So... I dunno. Perhaps criticism of this nature should be in the "Microsoft support" section, where it is clearly relevant - since really your links are a criticism of Microsoft's support? 78.105.105.80 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if everyone agrees, lets put the refrences in that section and also move the Fedora statement there too. Then we can put a end to this major edit war. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Fedora bit should stay put, it seems more relevant in my mind to a section about Moonlight in distros, than to a section about Microsoft. And, to clarify, I strongly disagree with using BoycottNovell as a citation for ANYTHING (most content is fabricated and unresearched, and it cannot be regarded as trustworthy), but if it has to go anywhere, it should go into the section on Microsoft support which is relevant to the topics discussed in the link. 78.105.105.80 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think that Techrights is fabricated, that's just more FUD. They research topics in depth, and for those people who think it's a blog, technically, they are right in that way (the site uses Wordpress, which is a blogging engine), but it's really a news site in a blog format. But I agree with moving the links to the "Microsoft Support" Section, so everyone can at least not remove it. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Boycott Novell makes up stories all the time. They've published lies about several people, including me personally. I'm sure you find them interesting to read, but you cannot escape from the trivially verifiable cast-iron truth that they fabricate stories and are not a trustworthy source. Any paper encyclopedia which cited them would belong in a dustbin. Opinion from a blog so ill-regarded and fact-free does not belong on Wikipedia. 163.1.125.49 (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so you want to smear Techrights again, Novell fanboy? They are full of facts, they research in depth, they never, ever, fabricate, and their statements against you are pretty correct, and the other thing is that you are just a PR member of Novell. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, THANK YOU, for proving my point about why you should not be eligible to edit this article. "you are just a PR member of Novell" is demonstrably false. I have never been employed by Novell for any purpose. This is fact. not opinion, fact. That you believe things which are clearly fantasy calls into question your entire premise. 163.1.125.49 (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh, really??? [Hit Jobs Gone Wrong] NovellGuy (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really just more FUD from a Microsoft shill. And now it's even more obvious that you're a PR person from Novell. WILL YOU PLEASE STOP SPREADING FUD AROUND?!?!??! 70.226.165.186 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am User:130.57.22.201, not User:163.1.125.49. If you weren't in such a hurry to make personal attacks, maybe you would have read the disclosure I posted at the bottom of the page. NovellGuy (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But you basically at the same. And I don't really trust you. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I'd like to point out that both BoycottNovell and The Source are self-published blogs. That is first and foremost. Secondly, neither one is an expert in law or in any other field that would make them reliable sources in this article. 130.57.22.201 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I think the section had other titles in the past, and this was someone's idea of toning it down. It can be changed again. "Criticism of..." is frowned upon round here as we want a balanced treatment of some aspect within the section. --Nigelj (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

text: It's not time. What it's time for is for both NovellGuy and the IP belonging to him to be blocked. The article that you keep pointing me to is just more FUD from a MS shill, and MS shills are never right. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are so sure you are right, why not let a neutral third party/admin decide? NovellGuy (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: ... I really have nothing to say about that statement, but the author of Techrights is not a controversy junkie, even through is site is biased against Mono/Moonlight, he does make constructive articles (see for yourself), and the only reason it is being denounced is because pro-Mono proponents hate it, as it counters their statements, but those same people love biased sources, flawed arguments, and even outright lies that support their point of view, an example would be de Icaza's blog, which is full of pro-Mono stuff. Therefore, the only reason that Techrights and The Source are not valid sources is because the pro-Mono proponents say so, and who would trust them to decide? Definitely not me... 76.201.154.32 (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Techrights and The-Source aren't valid sources because they aren't credible. See Credibility for a definition. Neither of these authors are credible because they aren't experts on Mono, Moonlight, or software engineering of any kind. Nor are they lawyers or have done any research at all on patent law, so their opinions on patent law are worthless at best. They also haven't established any trustworthiness. Even you admit their bias. Then there's the personal attacks that each of these bloggers are constantly making which further reduces their already non-existent credibility. Miguel de Icaza, on the other hand, is credible because he's an acknowledged expert in the software industry, has earned trustworthiness through his enormous contributions to Free Software, and does not make constant personal attacks like the bloggers you mentioned. BrianRandal (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: de Icaza is not credible, as even through he might know a lot about software and Mono, he has incredibly biased views towards Mono, he loves Microsoft tecnoligoly like .Net and Silverlight, he is a traitor to the Free Software Foundation, and he's a Microsoft MVP, which just makes him more of a Microsoft lover. And he is only supported by clueless people and Mono aplogists, and for that, he is not credible. Techrights, and the Source, on the hand, they have done a good bit of research to back up what they say, they share the views of the Free Software Foundation, which is a credible source, and additionally, I've never seen them attack anybody. (they have been attacked by apologists like you) And Techrights is credible enough to earn a ranking of 951st in Netcraft, which is acually quite a lot compared to some other Linux sites. Therefore, the links can be added back in, and all links to de Icaza's blog should be removed immediately. 76.201.154.32 (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war over criticism of the Microsoft covenant 

message: OK, guys. Let's get some facts straight. I have referenced a lot of Wikipedia policies in the precious section (probably too many for you to have read and internalised yet), but here are two more that are very relevant: WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I won't expand them, so you have to go and read them. These (and other) policies are enforced by blocks from admins. Second, I am not an admin, I'm just a passer-by trying to help. Third, you will never find an admin who will come here, tell you who's right in a content argument like this and then enforce the best text in the article for you. Content decisions always move forward by consensus, there is no one else here to decide on the wording apart from us. Edit warring won't work, and nor will trying to get your 'enemies' blocked. Arbitration comes way down the line after all else has failed, and then usually only hands out decisions on behaviour and attitude, not on a one-off content issue like this. We haven't really started solving the content issue here yet.
So, as an ordinary editor like you, I have an opinion: it is that we do need to cover criticism of the way the deals between MS and Novell over Mono and Moonlight were seen to disadvantage other distros, to place unusual requirements or dangers onto Linux users and FLOSS developers, and were seen by some to be an attempt to undermine the whole free-software edifice. These viewpoints may have been proven wrong already, or may be so in the future, or they may have been ill-founded in the first place, but I am certain that they existed and should be recorded here in this article. The next question is, which are the sources we are going to base this coverage on? One day someone may write a scholarly book outlining all the issues and we could use that, but in the interim, we will probably have to use the partisan primary sources on the web. Then we have to decide which ones are most notable, written by the most notable commentators, and which counter-arguments too, the most notable of the 'other side'. That's what we need here now: some URLs to the proposed sources, with discussion as to why they're the best, and what points we can use them to source. Everybody will have to be prepared to compromise and horse-trade: 'If you use X to say A, then I insist on quoting B from Y'. I have seen arguments get down to the number of refs from each side, the number of points made, even the number of words. Get your best ammunition ready, and let's get compromising and building something. (I have to go out for the evening, and I think (it was a long time ago) that I probably originally wrote the passage that you guys have been revert-warring, so you have my some-years-old input already - I hope you are more up-to-date and can do better) --Nigelj (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above, the Fedora policy statement of not including Moonlight should be criticism enough. I don't know of any other credible sources (i.e. anything other than personal opinions by non-experts on their personal blogs) that can be used. You'll also note that I did not remove (or even so much as attempt/suggest to remove) the Fedora criticism, so I am not trying to white-wash anything here. What other criticism is needed? It seems to me the point of the previous criticisms was that not everyone accepts that the Moonlight Covenant is "good enough", and the Fedora statement shows that. NovellGuy (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still thinking of putting the refrences to Techrights/The Source, but I'll move it to the "Microsoft Support" section, because that's where it belongs. What are your ideas? 70.226.165.186 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that if you are unable to find alternate sources, then it proves that their criticism is not "widely held" and therefor does not belong. Surely if it is as "widely held" as you proclaim, there would be statements saying as much from people like Linus Torvalds or something, no? NovellGuy (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything by http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ that might be useful? Who's that woman who runs a legalistic free software blog? Has she written anything? Do other distros, like Ubuntu, include Moonlight in their repositories? If not, have they published why not? What about magazines like Linux Format? (Sorry, as I said, I'm time-limited tonight) --Nigelj (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was preparing a list of distributions when the document went protected due to the edit war. openSUSE and Ubuntu provide the latest stable release of Moonlight. Debian, Mandriva and Gentoo include the older version but not the latest version (due to technical reasons in Debian, I don't know about the others). Arch's AUR repository used to contain the older version, but it has been flagged as obsolete so I don't think it's available anymore (if I understand Arch packaging correctly). Obviously, distributions based upon the above will inherit those packages. Overall, I'd say it's pretty widely circulated. 78.105.105.80 (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Ubuntu includes Moonlight in their repositories. [Moonlight shining on Ubuntu]. I'm not sure what other distros do. NovellGuy (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Is there anything by http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ that might be useful? [Google search on site:softwarefreedom.org moonlight] reveals that no articles exist on that site with any references to Moonlight. BrianRandal (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, here's a alterntive source if you insist (Techrights and The Source are reliable sources by the definition, as has been proven MANY times before): . Can we use that? 70.226.165.186 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll accept the LWN article. NovellGuy (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly can't use the comments added by others on LWN. Apart from those, they don't say much, "It is still quite narrow." and "Microsoft can also discontinue it at any time." --Nigelj (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ... And I think that's pretty representative of the actual Free Software community's feeling on the topic (btw, I'm *also* a member of the Free Software community) :-) NovellGuy (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.groklaw.net/ that was the website I was trying to think of at 16:36, 6 August 2010 above. Do they have anything about this? e.g. ? --Nigelj (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article on the first version of the covenant ([Shining Some Light on Microsoft's Moonlight Covenant]), but the latest version was never addressed by Groklaw. BrianRandal (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed treatment of criticism in the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Moonlight (runtime). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928001443/http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/01/expect-a-june-demo-of-silverlight-on-linux-sans-browser/ to http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/01/expect-a-june-demo-of-silverlight-on-linux-sans-browser/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20071114023302/http://squeedlyspooch.com/blog/2007/06/21/moonlight/ to http://squeedlyspooch.com/blog/2007/06/21/moonlight/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)