Comments on: Mono, here we go again

By: LinuxCanuck

LinuxCanuck — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:53:17 +0000

I don’t hate Mono or Mono applications. I DO hate Mono inclusion in a distribution because it forces Mono on me and makes me responsible for removing it. It should be voluntary as with Ubuntu’s restricted extras.

My concern is for what this is doing to the community before litigation begins. It is fragmenting us and causing much infighting. Microosft has to be loving it.

My secondary concern is that we got along fine before Mono and are becoming increasingly dependent on something that is suspect in terms of its legality. If it is withdrawn suddenly then we have a void to fill and developers and projects will be scrambled, causing further disruption.

Next it may impact Canonical and any other corporation behind a distribution that uses Mono corporation and corporations can be sued, so Ubuntu’s status becomes an issue.

Finally I am concerned that we are concerned about doing somnething just because it is easier, instead of doing something that is right. Mono is easier. There is no doubt about it. It provides a ready base of developers and adds more resources. However, we that has never been our motive before. Our motive has always been focused on what is good for open source and we have often taken the long road of developing our own tools and resources, thanks to GNU. Mono is changing us and it isn’t for the better, I fear.

By: Sid

Sid — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:10:37 +0000

Really fail to understand people who cant see the risk posed by MONO. This is what I see. First there would be a few apps, the list will keep growing until it kills off most of the competition and becomes the default installs in most distros. What these guys are aiming for is to build a complete ecosystem….maybe with a good number of apps they might even get GNOME rewritten in MONO. What then? A complete ecosystem and users used to this ecosystem. Whats the problem? Its the same problem GNU/Linux is facing trying to convert users from MS Windows & Mac OSX. Once people are used to an ecosystem its very very difficult to get them to use anything else. Really wish the community and leaders see this and act before its too late.

By: Parry

Parry — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:45:49 +0000

@Stefano: Agreed with you about the Mono argument. So basically, you’re saying that its akin to a gamble. However, on the second argument, I say that any company wishing to sell their products in a market has to be business-centric…. however, to dominate in that market, that company has to be by consequence, user-centric. You can’t be business centric if you’re not user-centric.

By: Stefano Forenza

Stefano Forenza — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:11:58 +0000

Thanks all for your comments.

@Parry: how deep is the mono itch ? That’s doubtful, but many people feel that is deep enough to be scratched. Even RedHat is doubtful about it, and that’s a pragmatic stance, based on consulting their lawyers. They’re in business, they can’t afford to make choices based on FUD or ideologic stances.

You’re wrong on two things though: Mono doesn’t have to be behind. In fact, it’s likely (and guess it already did) to implement some C# standards before .Net itself. The real problem is that any change of mind (imagine they decide to not follow their own planned standards) in .Net is likely to backslash Mono a bit. Not much, though, since the ‘cross platform’ thing, is more about chatting than reality (how much did it take for Banshee/Tomboy to become cross-platform?)

You’re also wrong in saying that MS had success because they’re user-centric. Nope. They’re business centric. Don’t ask me for references here, I have no time to find them right now, but they made their way with trials and business agreements (not to say they corrupted journalists, we can’t have any proof of that, but keep in mind that tech journals were much more powerful when the web didn’t existed yet)

@Ken Jennings: I have no real experience of programming under windows, but I feel confident in saying that changing specifications fast is not something Microsoft would ever do. If you say they did I can believe you, but still I feel somewhat diffident. Retro compatibility has always been a war-horse for microsoft, and at the same time one of the reasons their software sometimes suck.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:49:55 +0000

“Well, mono, wine…. blah. Whatever the dispute. I see no point trying to replicate a technology years after it’s been released. Its always the same. Linux developers are always trying to match up with Microsoft’s products just because Microsoft has done it before them. If they use a little innovation they can actually come up with better stuff.”

The reason for wine, samba, FAT support, and its ilk are to enable interoperability, not because FLOSS can’t do better. If it weren’t for interacting with people on Windows computers, then we could probably throw FAT and samba out the window and be fine. There are plenty of better open solutions for network sharing and disk filesystems.

Wine is useful for running some of the programs that were developed for Windows and for which no Linux port is available. Heck, I run a Windows based text editor in wine daily because I haven’t found any other one that I like (and have been using a version of it since probably 1990). But I’m certainly not going to run Windows because of a single program. And it doesn’t mean there aren’t capable text editors under Linux; I just happen to like this specific one. (sorry… gotta plug it… http://www.boxersoftware.com)

But Mono is different because it is a programming language and associated libraries. If it has patent/IP problems then it doesn’t just affect itself, it affects every single application written in it. AFAIK, samba and wine aren’t installed by default in any of the main distros. You install them if you need compatibility with MS products. Mono should be the same. I don’t want to risk default apps in a distribution that are dependent on technologies that MS can shake up and cast doubt on. Not only would you have to replace any technology that was later threatened by patents/IP, but you’d have to replace mindshare as well. And it is mindshare that keep people on Windows moreso than technological reasons (i.e. “it doesn’t work like I’m used to.”)

MS isn’t just another company. It is actively hostile towards Linux and FLOSS. MS wants a world where you can’t run a computer without using some of their software, and that goes directly against my own personal goals. It has shown its true colors time and time again over the past decades, and I for one want as little to do with the company as possible.

I uninstalled Mono the other day after reading both sides of the discussion that have surfaced over the past week, and installed Mononono to prevent it from being installed back on my systems. I have no desire to further its cause directly or indirectly. There are plenty of other good development tools out there that don’t carry the risks that Mono does.

By: Parry

Parry — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:28:16 +0000

@Ken (Not Ken Jennings, if you are not the same). I read the article you linked to. Agreed, Microsoft didn’t “invent” the technologies it sells big time, but I’d still use the word “create”. I beleive the reason Microsoft is so successful is because they are user centric. All the technologies mentioned in the link you posted existed well before, until one smart guy finally sat down at thought about how to make the best use of them and make sell them to the layman so that he can use it comfortable. Ask any layman who has no clue about computer science about why his experience with Linux was sour and he’ll say this: “It’s too difficult”…. That’s it. Yes, technologies exist, but they’re useless unless they’re used, and that too used by people who don’t need to understand them in depth. A Linux user still has to compile many applications from source…. admit it, it does require technical know how to install and use Linux on a desktop. Microsoft perfected that technique. It bunched up a lot of components, streamlined them and created .NET. It made an operating system and marketed it not by saying that it “conforms to blah blah benchmarks when certain calculations are performed” or by saying that “The kernel is secure”. They explained the layman how they can use a computer for their day to day lives. Even now, the general message to the public is something that they can all understand. Only Microsoft has the brains of being a geek and at the same time not showing it off by spilling unnecessary technobabble at the end user. Apple and Macintosh are in the same area as Microsoft, but I think they’re fools to sell their OS bundled with their machine at really high prices. Everything has a price. Set it right and people will like your product. Neither too high, nor too low. So that’s what I mean by the technologies Microsoft has “created”, as in observed, adapted and marketed properly. I’m not bashing OSS or Linux. All I say is market your product right *keeping the quality base intact* and people will migrate to your product.

By: Ken Jennings

Ken Jennings — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:40:01 +0000

I like the article, but this one point I don’t fully understand.

>>Mono cannot be “disabled” via an incompatible change to Microsoft.NET, for two reasons. Firstly, such a change would also break every single existing app for Microsoft.NET (in fact, if it were to happen, then the best option for those users would be to run their apps with Mono instead). Secondly, support for Microsoft.NET is a secondary goal for Mono – if Microsoft change something in .NET 5.0, then so what? It doesn’t prevent Banshee or GNOME Do from compiling and running fine on non-legacy systems like Ubuntu.

>True. It would be crazy for Microsoft to change their specifications.

It sounds like you’re being humorous, yes? (Please say yes). For all practical purposes let’s call .Net an API for coding for Windows. Outside of all of the viruses, quarterly reinstalls of WIndows, and other hassles of using Windows, one of the reasons I stopped developing on Windows (or for Windows) is that Microsoft is continually changing the API, languages, libraries, etc. requiring I buy more upgrades, tools, and books. Who writes MFC anymore? Does anyone remember what came before that? The continuous churn to catch up to the next new fad at Microsoft is just too expensive and time consuming for developers.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:42:54 +0000

@Parry
Can you name a technology that MS “created” that wasn’t first started somewhere else first and either extended, rebranded, or outright stolen?

You might want to start with David Wheeler’s notes on that:
http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/microsoft.html

There’s also a number of other sites you may want to check with that I don’t have links to at the moment.

By: Parry

Parry — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:45:10 +0000

Well, mono, wine…. blah. Whatever the dispute. I see no point trying to replicate a technology years after it’s been released. Its always the same. Linux developers are always trying to match up with Microsoft’s products just because Microsoft has done it before them. If they use a little innovation they can actually come up with better stuff. But here lies the problem, which most FS fans would disagree with: “There’s no free lunch”. It’s true. Don’t ask about facts, figures or anything else. ask the layman. Linux can never catch up in the desktop and the developer market with cutting edge technologies unleashed by Microsoft, which pays its developers to do it. No communist country has managed to sustain itself without using undue force on its people (which basically makes it an absolutist regime)…. so why (not how) would Linux be able to stay afloat in this torrent of computer technologies? By the time Mono does something that matches up with an old .NET version, Microsoft is ahead with something new. It’s not just Mono. Take distributions: Ubuntu developers try so hard to develop technologies that ape Mac and Windows. Look at the new Ubuntu notifications, the whole Compiz thingy (yeah, I know it’s not done by Ubuntu developers, so it should really be FS developers) and a lot of other stuff. In matters where software is bad in quality, Linux developers don’t do a thing about it and say “You don’t need it”, until the day when the ubuntu.brainstorm server is flooded with people begging for that improvement. Why the two facedness? Maybe this comment deviated from the topic here (Mono), but yeah, I feel it’s a suitable place to rant out. I have nothing against Linux or its developers. I just don’t like the attitude of some of its admirers who claim it to be “The only way” or those who sacrifice software quality just for the sake of NOT being Microsoft. So yeah, I ask the author here, is that the deep down reason for the mono itch?

By: Hoyce Hacie

Hoyce Hacie — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:55:14 +0000

Jonas, the Samba thing is a red herring that mono cheerleaders like to mention.
Bruce Perens, Glyn Moody, Jeremy Allison (the Samba guy) and the SFLC among others have explained very well why Samba is not at all like mono, I suggest you look them up.

I talked to my old faculty adviser and we talked about FLOSS and the new generation of students. While there was only a handful tha were aware per new class of free software about a dozen years ago among his new students, this year everyone knew coming into their first class what it was and almost 40% had actually participated or created an open souce project and app. They are also very well versed in the GPL.
The reason I mention this is that we have doing really well these past dozen years and the past 2-3 have seen the Linux desktop finally become usable and phenomenal and why do we need so much to bring Windows developers to switch?
Are we having a shortening of people interested in open source?
I travel to Brazil and Venezuela and it seems that the crowds are getting younger and youger at the conferences.
Why is is so important that we use infrastructures and standards and even mentalities as if the acceptance from Windows developers would somehow legitimize us more.
I have no problem working with people who develop for Windows, we all did at some point if youre are over a certain age. I work with IBM employees who were the evil empire company when my father was working in technology. Its not a hatred of technology and of people but rather the puzzlement why we would want mono as part of the infrastructure of any free software.
The technological reasons are opinions and I can find you java, perl, python and C programmers who would counter it with their own arguments.
Mono brings nothing new and worthwhile to the cause and ‘getting Windows developers’ aboard should be the last reason to do this.
No problem if you want to join but I dont see the reason why.