This seems like a great time to subscribe my RSS !

World is beautiful, and everything is so peaceful right now. Still I have a weird sensation. May this be just the peace before the storm ?

Is something starting ? What ?! A war ?…


The Mono Crusade

What’s wrong with the Mono fans ? As summer gets near and temperature raises they’re getting annoying like mosquitoes. That’s something I really don’t like.

I’m a Mono user myself. Either for birth (Ubuntu includes Mono applications by default) and choice (I’m currently a Gnome Do Docky user and I’ve used Tomboy extensively in the past). I’m also the starter of the Rapache project, a Python application which actually includes (or used to, I don’t remember right now) a plugin to make it easier to configure Mono under Apache.

Still Novell secret and exclusionary exclusive deal with Microsoft gives me shivers, as does its GPL2 license which explicitly forbids it to be redistributed as GPL3 and the Microsoft promise not to sue over Mono, which covers Novell customers (?) directly.

That said, I can fully understand who doesn’t want Mono installed by default, and those who remove it altogether and look good replacements. What I don’t understand is all that fuss.

The Faith


It seems, though, that this is a problem for many people. Leaving the choice to have no mono or remove it without losing half of the functionality worries some mono supporters. Others have issues with people publicly saying they don’t like or trust Mono. Is that a war ? Is Mono a religion ? An holy war ?

  • I am the Lord your God : I’m god. And good. Regardless.
  • You shall have no other gods before me : I’m better than C++. Really. And even if Python is going to become a problem in the future, don’t loose your faith, we’ll deal with that.
  • You shall not make for yourself an idol:  No application is really good. It’s good because it uses Mono runtime. Press developers to port their stuff to Mono.
  • You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God: never cite the deals. never cite the patents. ever.
  • Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy: post about 1 random topic at least every six anti-mono-nono rants. Keep it credible.
  • Honor your father and mother: Microsoft is not that bad. Novell won’t be acquired. The (exclusive) IP properties don’t risk to be reached by bad hands
  • You shall not murder: never strip my run-time from the LiveCD.
  • You shall not commit adultery: Let’s iterate it again. My run-time is good for everything.
  • You shall not steal: Don’t port Tomboy. Ever.
  • You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor: as long he develops Mono applications. Canonical is not your neighbor, thou shalt not have the minimum respect for them.
  • You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife: Dropbox is not your neighbor’s wife.
  • You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor: replace it. Even with outdated software. Cry on a random planet and ask for someone to package an application with outdated dependencies. Also replace Rhythmbox.

The campaigns

Gnote, the great offense

Destiny was humorous enough to bring out the first Gnote release on April 1st. So many people, me included, believed it was an April fool. A Tomboy port, how cool ! Turned out the project was real, and a bunch of bugfix releases followed in the next days.

This port has been foreseen from a long time and a long list of “thank you !” formed in the comments of the developer web.

While the Tomboy development team feedback was thankfully pretty sober, declaring itself against duplication of feature and bugfixes, not everyone was happy.

Don’t forget to raise doubts about eventual copyright infringements. Also remember to rant about Gnote being GPL 3, while Tomboy GPL2 because features can’t be ported back. (switching Tomboy to GPL 3 would take probably less than 30 minutes, discussion and upload included). And it’s not that any open source fan may appreciate GPL 3 software, really.

Never mind  the fact Gnote would take a (big) dependency out of Gnome.

Python sucks BTW

Of course, porting is such a big crime. Never mind the number of requests on the Gnome Zeitgeist post asking for a Mono port. Sure enough, porting Tomboy is awful, still, porting Zeitgeist would be so nice. The Zeitgeist developer just replied it’s Python and that’s going to stay as it is, but after a bunch of days they eventually came out with a Dbus interface to let everyone develop their plugins the way they want (without annoying the upstream).

Drop that Box

Really. Don’t mess with DropBox. A year ago or so everyone were crying out of joy of having finally a commercial company to provide first class support for Linux, including Nautilus integration, open source client software, pre-made packages for popular distributions as Ubuntu, a well integrated wizard that let you create an user account without even opening a browser, support for symlinks and 2 gb of awesomeness for absolutely no money.

Dropbox popularity among Linux users got so high to (mis)lead many people to (wrongly) bash Canonical for releasing Ubuntu One as it was (wrongly) seen as a competitor of the beloved Dropbox.

Yet, here we go again with another non-sense campaign. Drop that box, go iFolder. It’s totally open source, right ? While Dropbox is proprietary (the binary codecs downloaded from the Microsoft website by Moonlight, instead, are free and perfectly fine. Keep in mind those are licensed to be run only inside a browser, whatever that means).

Let’s use that, even if it’s an headache to package, since it’s just a resuscitated outdated software which relies on Mono version 1.2.6. Not a problem, let’s cry out loud on the Ubuntu Planet and ask someone to step in and take the burden to package it. So we can have two versions of Mono installed at the same time (two is better than mono !). Add 5 points if you succeed in persuading your distro leaders to ship both versions of Mono on the LiveCd. Shall we lack space, we may strip OpenOffice. Or the Network manager. Or whatever. (update: or the Gimp)

Crank up and scream on your Banshee

Speaking of Banshee, now it’s 6 megabytes less than Rhythmbox. Ah, the bloated (?) Rhythmbox. Fuck the rhythmcrap, doesn’t matter if Banshee still crashes on some mp3s (as exhaile does, btw), let’s put that on the LiveCd, it’s Mono – it can’t be that bad !

We can save 6 megabytes (that’s right kids) to be used for OpenJDK (?!?), or maybe add some more localization language (what about Klingon ?).

If you really want to shave some hair from the LiveCd, remove Mono altogether. It will shave a whole 40+ mb of space. Tomboy can be replaced with Gnote (as Fedora will do from now on). F-Spot is more tricky – left as a (pretty difficult) exercise for the reader. ;-) (update: Solang could do)

Don’t forget to discuss this as well at the Karmic UDS.

The promised land

Why are Mono people so desperate of getting and their run-time to take roots everywhere ? It can be good, but shouldn’t it be left as a choice ? Sometimes I wonder if someone received any ‘succeed or die mission’.

Ubuntu makes up for such a nice place for Mono. It’s not a fundamentalist distribution to any extent. It even ships binary drivers and has specialized repositories for non-free stuff and commercial stuff. Mono is already there. Packaged in the main repository. That means it’s officially supported by Canonical. It’s already shipped on the live CD.

What could you desire more than that ?

Python sucks BTW (2!!)

Even if already otherwise stated a few times somewhere else, news has been spread that Canonical’s Ubuntu One service is based on iFolder.

Finally ! Acceptance, social recognition, moral revenge !  Rubén actually leaves beyond any consideration (of any kind), including caring to actually check the source code, and goes further stating:

So now, let’s wait and see how people start using the mono argument against UbuntuOne (even if it ends up being wrong)… People have too much time available for ranting.

Well, thank you, actually I didn’t have any ranting time slot available, but your post motivated me enough to find it. It’s not just incorrect, but also erroneusly links Canonical to Mono development and tries to ride the hype of Ubuntu One. That’s bloody crazy. Seems to me you actually have enough time for ranting, but no time to check the source.

Also, you didn’t even bother to correct your post. I normally would think that was just a mistake, but keeping the post as it is, and even stating in advance it could be wrong makes it seem just an attempt to start a big flame. And it did. You got me (at least).

To me, Canonical developing in Mono rather than Python, seems a big non sense. And not for ideological reasons, just for pratical ones. Not for a big product like this. Not now.

And yes I am making a controversial statement just in order to get this discussion rolling from a different perspective.

Wishing people to bash Canonical for Mono is not just plain stupid and coward, but doesn’t help Mono at all.

The Truth about Mono

Mono is here to stay

And it’s likely to stay for a while. That’s a well known truth, and one that get’s repeated over and over again by Mono supporters. And it’s likely to be a realistic one. Mono not just makes application migration easier towards linux (but not automatic at all, by the way, some big pieces of code are likely to need rewriting by the way), but it spreads many platforms. There’s some interest from game producers for example. Statically compiled Mono applications can run on the iPhone, also. And it runs on Windows. Sure, the developer base on XBox and iPhone is not probably big right now, but it increases the chances of long term adoption.

The Mono argument is here to stay, also

Sure as hell. At least until the license doesn’t get rid of the anti GPL 3 clause, the Novell-Microsoft deal get public and the patent policy gets explicit and public as well. And yes, Microsoft may have sued people for many other patents and never did (ops, they did). And yes, because it’s Microsoft stuff.

Do you realize what a patent is ? It’s like a nuclear weapon. If you have a patent on something but the guy you want to sue has a patent on your stuff, then you’d better stay calm. But in the same way governments and seasons change, companies also change leaders or get sold or fail. And those IP properties get sold or fail with them. And the equilibrium changes. That’s what the OIN is all about (declaratedly, a threat against threateners).

What follows is an accurate research to find some new fish to be trolled. It has to be big enough to get some money back to the house but not big enough to trigger a patent war. It’s far too easy to say Open Source every two words, market your self as an open source zealot and bash free-as-in-beer binary blobs and then say Mono is good because it’s open source. It’s patented and potentially litigable. Microsoft itself says so, when stating they won’t sue Novell customers (oh, by the way, any Novell customer amongst the readers ? Anyone ? … ok.). Novell also aknowledged that, legitimating their claim by signing the deal.

Is that what you call a competitive environment ? A free market environment ? Would call that free ? It’s just a good way to shut down successful start ups before they get big enough to defend.

Now, there’s not scientifical nor legally demonstrable proof that Mono is a real threat (patents are not disclosed, may be not valid, etc), but there are concerns. And heavy ones. Shuttleworth himself was concerned by the Novell deal (even if now he seems more comfortable with that). Red Hat has been concerned with Mono, and plans to replace Tomboy with Gnote as their default note application. Bruce Perens (creator or the Open Source definition) explicitly stated to be concerned about Mono. The Samba Team was deeply concerned.

Those are not your average Joes (otherwise feel free to invite me in your neighborhood). If those people are concerned, why wouldn’t an average open source supporter ?

Mind you: Open Source is about rejecting discrimination, now  – what does that have to do with a patent license for Novell customers ?

Let me iterate it again

Just before someone replies stating that a lot of ground is already patented, and cites – let’s say – Microsoft patents in COM that permeate the most popular pieces of software in Ubuntu, or stuff like that. Patent concerns are always there, and are there to stay. Still, what makes Mono different is the patent agreement itself.

Only a dumbass may think that violating a patent that you didn’t know even existed and deliberately violating a patent you know about are the same thing.

The agreement legitimates the patents existence and their validity concerns. Did I mention such agreement will also timeout in 2012 ? Will they renew it ? Or not ? Prepare yourself for a great suspense !

Here are the big questions

Why don’t you just work on Mono without needlessly bashing other software, companies, individuals ? Why don’t you refrain on trying to get your run-time included everywhere as a required dependency ?

Didn’t people gave you the chance (read: acceptance) to have mono included in the repositories and installed with a click ? Is that important to not let people make the choice to not use it ?

While the Banshee campaign is not totally meaningless, I’m pretty amazed by the Dropbox bashing campaign. I’m perhaps still too young and innocent to believe that’s a Novell comploct, or something that has anything to do with the Mono team itself. I’m more inclined to think it’s a random cry out coming out a scattered group of individuals that’s eager to show the world that one doesn’t really need to be that clever to talk. Mostly because that’s pretty much detrimental to Mono.

Let’s talk about FUD

What a cool word. Talking about FUD is so fashionable this days. Weird enough it’s common to see Mono supporters accusing Mono detractors to spread FUD (but you can eat that like a breakfast, right ?). They also spread the lie (because that’s what it’s called) that Mono is bashed just because it bases on Microsoft specifications (which would be true, if we widen the topic to eventual patents covering the specifications, but that’s not what they usually mean).

It also doesn’t take a genius to understand that if a company (Novell in our case) makes a secret patent agreement with a third party, and people get annoyed enough from that to criticize that regreetable choice, the ones to be blamed are not the people.

Let me help you with this one (it’s hard) :

  • Microsoft spread FUD and begins asking patent protection to Linux distributors
  • Microsoft made a deal with Novell, thereby accentuating the patent FUD and successfully FUDding all the average joes cited above.
  • Mono supporters lament FUD being spread to Mono by evil Mono bashers.

And you call those (legitimate) concerns FUD ?  Even if,  Microsoft FUD is a required dependency for the anti Mono FUD (*hint* *hint*)

Too hard ?

Pressure Novell to clear up the issue, to publish the whole agreements with Microsoft, to expose the patents, and to work with them to widen the patent protection to everyone. Do that and the anti Mono FUD will fall immediately.

It’s that simple.

Zen Monk

I’ll leave you with a koan: “How to package iFolder?

Good work.

25 Responses

  1. Stefano Forenza

    Admit it: this for sure the best rant you ever read.

  2. Nope: But it’s a contender.

  3. jh

    I really like C#, but I don’t think having it in linux will bring anymore apps/users to linux. Mono is still years behind what Microsoft offers on their platform. That being said, I think mono provides one of the best environments for linux desktop to build on. Every other current solution is pretty poor. :( Qt isn’t too bad, but it’s mainly used in KDE, and I could not suggest KDE4 to anyone currently. Hopefully someone can get an answer from novell and MS about using mono, that way this can be put to rest and let the best apps win!

  4. I am no fan of Mono. I do not use any Mono applications and don’t plan to. I am very concerned with the increasing Mono dependencies in GNOME and am happy to see the Gnote rewrite. This is definitely a thorny issue on both sides.

    Thanks for the great write-up, Stefano.

  5. Stefano Forenza

    @Chess Griffin: thanks !

    @jh: the lack of good development environments is real problem. I guess that’s one of the main reasons to build on Mono for many people. That’s not really the win of a ‘better platform’, but rather the win over a bunch of nerds claiming that ‘real men use VI/Emacs’ (not that those programs are bad, but they’re not suited to anyone).
    As for clearing the issue with Novell/MS, I don’t have any hope that will happen, ever. Still I think that the energies of Mono supporters may be MUCH better spent in trying to obtain that, rather than whining about whiners.

  6. Wow.

    I thought Mono meant 1, but this is a bit more complex

  7. I am not a supporter of Mono, but I think Mono is there to support Linux development too.
    Whether people want to use Mono or not, it should be made as chooseable options. After all, Linux is about “freedom”, isn’t it? :)

  8. Jacob

    Actually, it was a Novell fan that triggered my interest in Mono. Every post mentioning OpenSuse automaticly turned into a Novell promo. Increasingly the promos consistently became Novell/Gnome promos. Then Novell fired Mr Binner, their core KDE guy.

    Already sceptical about Mono I started reading about Gnome 3.0, and it became clear to me (it had probably been obvious to others for a long time) that Novell’s influence on Gnome is horribly strong. It strikes me that Gnome 3.0 will become not a Linux DE, but a Mono frontend.

    Why Gnome?
    Might be several reasons for that. One is – as mentioned in my (now) favourite rant – Ubuntu is the most widespread distro and uses Gnome.

    Secondly, Gnome’s progress are measured in babysteps and they are lagging behind KDE. Therefore they need resources fast, thus they are a easier target.

    It is brilliantly tied together, and the greatest trojan horse of our time.

    Therefore I don’t use Novell, OpenSuse, Gnome or Ubuntu. No Mono, no Banshee, no Moonlight. No way.

  9. Stefano Forenza

    @Jacob: you raised good points, thanks.

  10. Jacob

    Went through all the links you included. Read quite a few previously but it’s nice to see them summed up and put into context. Thank YOU! ;)

    Missed out mentioning one point:
    Since the Microsoft deal there has been on/off speculations about Microsoft buying Novell (formally). I do not believe that will happen yet because if they did, Novell will become counterproductive and not serve Microsoft’s objective.

    The Linux community will simply close ranks and stick together. Hard. This is also the main reason for being very very cautious. To make sure that there is antidote available when that scenario materialises. Pretty sure it will.

    I do believe that Microsoft will purchase Novell, and 2012 (end of agreement) will be interesting in that respect. They will most likely need more time and 2014-2015 is probably more realistic. Meanwhile I am indeed sceptical to the increased activity of Novell in the Linux Foundation.

  11. rene levesque-caline


    Best thing I read this year. Even the parts I didnt agree where eloquently presented.

    I am a Red Hat user at work so as you know by Mr Ballmer’s remark I owe him money for the stolen IP in Linux and Novell users dont because they paid the extortion scheme.

    I trust Miguel de Icaza even less than Ballmer. This Novell VP is both the de facto Gnome leader and the Mono leader so there is nothing from stopping Mono from being a core component in Gnome.

    With something as contentious, I think it is ludicrous to have it be more and more engrained into the desktop infrastructure. Not that I think it brings anything that other languages dont already.

    Your conclusion is excellent.

  12. paul

    Mono carries too much baggage to be practical in my opinion. MS will not sue Novell customers, but gives no such license to other users of other Linux distros (unless these distros enter a license agreement with MS).

    Simply stated, we do not need an MS version of Java for X. We have a Java that is truly XPlatform, more robust, has more options, can be compliled natively or in a runtime and/or JIT compiled, offers more than what MONO offers (you do not have to change the code to run on non MS platforms), is GPL, meaning that there is no liability in using it and working with it and no threats of a patent suit staring you in the face!

    You want Python on a MONO platform with the CLR? Then why not Jython, which is already there waiting to go? You want Ruby married to a really robust Enterprise ready solution (objects and middleware wise), then why not JRuby? You want C#? Then use Java.

    There is simply no reason for the Open Source world to play Russian Roulette with MS’ gun. Give the MS crowd no ammo; avoid MONO, seriously!

  13. Weirdo Bob

    Thanks for this post. Cleared up quite a few things for me.

  14. Oh, another witch hunt, whatever.
    a few points to consider:
    - Novell have made and continue to make a lot of very positive contributions to Linux and open-source in general (especially KDE)
    - openSUSE is one of the best KDE distros, and anyone using it can see it is committed to both KDE and Gnome.
    - Mono is yet another technology that helps improve interoperability between Linux and Windows – that is a good thing (I don’t see people complaining about Samba)
    - If you don’t like Mono or Mono apps, don’t use them. No one is forcing you (if you think they are – you are paranoid), there are plenty of alternatives.

    As individual users we have no need to worry about patent law-suits. By the time Microsoft gets as desperate as SCO was (a long time in the future), patent laws will probably be changed, and anyway – they’ll end up loosing!

  15. Phil

    Just passing through and found this to be an interesting article.

    I agree with paul…what is the problem with Java now? I simply do not understand why people have gone Mono crazy. Its basically the same thing as Java…you can get a first class implementation direct from the source instead of one thats 2 or 3 versions behind from a 3rd party with questions about IP. As paul stated its even more portable than Mono. It has more enterprise features than Mono or .Net. And if theres something not to like about it then fix it…its open source. Why keep chasing some other technology starting from scratch from a company that doesn’t seem to want to touch it in terms of assistance. It just doesn’t make sense.

  16. Robert Devi

    What you say is speculation with little actual evidence. Mono has existed for years, yet the only two Mono apps that have come close to being part of the platform are Tomboy and Beagle. Beagle has been replaced by Tracker on anything other than Novell SUSE and Tomboy will likely be replaced by Gnote on non-Novell distros. GNOME-do seems to be the new Mono kid on he block, but there are already calls to have it’s core be converted to C or C++ so that it can be part of the platform in a fundamental way. History seems to indicate that Mono is a fairly good prototyping language, like Python, but once the idea has been proven and you want deep integration with the rest of GNOME, a C/C++ port is definitely the way to go for purely technical reasons.

    As for catching up with KDE, it’s simply not in GNOME’s philosophy to make a dramatic platform switch. Even GNOME 3.0 will be backwards source compatible with any GNOME 2.28 app that doesn’t depend on depreciated libraries. This doesn’t mean that GNOME is stagnating, it simply means that changing the core from C with a smattering of C++ to any other language is just not the GNOME way. WRT GNOME Shell, it’s written with Clutter which is from my understanding a more advanced graphics framework than KDE 4.0 is built on. Yes, the KDE 4.0 GUI is more advanced, but it appears that the GNOME team now has the right platform to grow without breaking backwards compatibility, so they can “catch up” once KDE 4.0 “settles” as all platforms do as they mature. They’ll do it gradually with user input so that they’ll get it right. I’m not sure I’ll like GNOME Shell yet, but given current work:
    it’s clear that the GNOME team are look is looking at old problems a new way and might actually succeed in replacing the two panel staple of GNOME 2.0 with a more advanced desktop that makes panel shortcuts and virtual desktops and other valuable features more intuitive for non-techies (who seem to avoid them). If it succeeds, then GNOME will have little to fear from KDE since it’ll be hitting its target audience which cares more for getting things done simply than getting glitz done flexibly.

  17. Jacob


    I’m well aware of Novell contributions – after all I’ve been a customer purchasing the merchandise. You are absolutely right, I don’t like it and I don’t use it. That does not in any way limit my right to express my opinion and it does not invalidate any of my concerns.

    Just to make it clear:
    Comments in relation to blogs are expressed opinions and one objective is to provide more than one point of view which in turn may or may not provide a better base for forming opinions.

    I deeply resent your usage of the term “paranoia” in this context. Paranoia is a medical term used to define symptoms arising out of mental illness or mental distrubances. It is deeply offencive, not to me, but to those actually suffering from such symptoms – ie victims of torture/abuse and soliders with post-traumatic-syndrome.

    The only effect of such expressions is that it make whatever else you write less relevant.

    @ Robert Devi:
    It is not what’s going to happen. It my position on what’s the potential risk, what COULD happen and explains my reasons for being cautious.

    I do not view Mono (isolated) as a risk, but it appears to be the chosen tool of what I consider disturbing. Therefore I will not be a part of “the success story” as part of the user base/stats.

    Gnote/Tomboy is a kind of a general wakeup call, and some of the reactions to Gnote from Mono devotees just make me more resilient.

    The debate on Clutter Vs Qt and Gnome Vs KDE should probably be addressed somewhere else, but it’s not the make-up that makes KDE interesting, that’s just a perk. Gnome is indeed a valuable DE and my concerns are only related to Mono as a vehicle for Microsoft through Novell.

  18. Andrey

    I discovered a mini-test in the Net that compared different languages – Python, Ruby, etc. and ran the Ruby flavor on Windows and Linux both native and as JRuby and Iron Ruby.

    The results, ordered by decreasing performance, were as follows:

    1. JRuby on Linux or Windows
    2. MRI 1.9 on Windows (possibly that good due to VS9)
    3. MRI 1.9 on Linux
    4. 1.8 on Linux or Windows, Iron Ruby on Windows.
    5. Iron Ruby on Mono on Linux.

    1, 2, 3, and 4 demonstrated nearly linear performance degradation while 5 was exceptionally slow.

    Now I believe that Mono is either not ready for prime time yet or has been created in order to demonstrate how greener the Windows grass is.

  19. LinuxCanuck

    First, Mono. Then, Moonlight. It is a contagion. Do we need either? No. It is just laziness to suggest that it is simple to port things written using .Net when there are many other programming languages and many excellent applications written using them. Since when do we need short cuts?

    As for Silverlight, it is just another sorry attempt by Microsoft to set standards that they will break once everybody switches over to it. It is all about keeping the competition off balance to give them unfair advantage and Gnome and Novell are playing into their hands, like amateurs.

    Obviously I do NOT use Mono or Moonlight and will never use any application that relies on them no matter how good they may be. Gnome has introduced us to an unnecessary evil that came from the unholy alliance between Novell and Microsoft that has produced little benefit to Novell, but has done much damage to Linux.

    I used to run SUSE, but will never install it again and hope that Novell goes under. They caved in rather than standing up for Linux (as other distros did) and as such are a sell out and do not deserve any respect.

    This is mild compared to how I really feel.

  20. chris

    Rejecting a technology because of a patent agreement of some companty with another company is plain stupid.

    As you yourself wrote, Jacob, a crusade without any evidence.

    It is just sad that the continued dominance of Microsoft seems to have scarred the souls of some of Linuxers to bad that they get anxious, paranoid and all panicky so easily.

    Get a life, folks!

  21. Jacob

    Life IS good, REALLY good ;O))

    Crusades were rather nasty attempts to enforce own convicition upon groups with a different perspective. If you choose to use such terminology, at least include som logic. If you use “crusade” in the context of OpenSource/Gnu/Linux Vs Microsoft it’s rather obvious that you use the term wrongly.

    “Crusades” were historic events, and if you imply historic arguments you cannot do so without including the historic basis of this issue at question:

    The Embrace, Extend and Extinguish strategy of Microsoft, a part of their battleplan against OpenSource and Gnu/Linux.

    I do not have any difficulty at all getting my stuff done without .net and silverlight and do not foresake anything whatsoever.

    Your insinuate that anyone that are awake and critical are “insane/mad/stupid” and I do not give in to such obvious and unintelligent debate teqniques.

    Yo do not provide a single sensible argument, reference or source that makes it reasonable to reconsider my position.

  22. turtlewax

    Great article. I happen to like mono and still found it funny.

    >>I agree with paul…what is the problem with Java now?

    Paul and Phil:
    Someone needs to write jNote or some killer java apps for Linux. Problem is, for all the talk about java being open source, most java code is still running on proprietary JDKs.

    I have no idea what java’s problem was. Life would be a lot simpler if java had lived up to its promise (this thread wouldn’t exist). It enjoyed a 10 year head start, was taught at most universities, but for whatever reason, couldn’t gain traction. I know java was “supposed” to be faster than mono. But from from the perspective of both developer and end-user, it was just a pain. Maybe Oracle will do a better job than SUN.

    For me its C/C++, python, or C#. I’ve been doing a lot of SWIG stuff lately, which works really well in C#. There are a lot of useful jar files still floating around out there, which are easily exposed in C# via IKVM.

  23. You gave me a laugh!

    Honestly I didn’t know about the code availability when I wrote that post. I still believe is worthwhile though to make the point I made. I am as well happy that the Ubuntu technical board has endorsed my and others position.

    Mono is great for those that want to use it. Please port iFolder to whatever you want to use and I will be more than happy to endorse your project.

    On a side note: I have never used DropBox, but would love to do it since its functionality is great!

    I’m happy I tricked you into jumping on this discussion. Your arguments are convincing and I like people discussing things. And for that to happen you got to be a little bit more provocative than not.

    And, so… thanks for the laugh!


  24. [...] 23 min 30 s By robertmh 5 hours, 23 minutes and 30 seconds is the average time it takes for a Mono apologist to scrutinize a complex legal document, determine there are no tricks whatsoever in the text or in [...]

  25. Yaro

    I’ll never use Mono.

    Unlike the Monopologists in this Article who are incredibly shortsighted and apparently don’t have a mind for history, I readily see why Mono is a bomb and Microsoft is giddily waiting for 2012 to detonate it.

    There is nothing. NOTHING. Nothing is stopping Microsoft from shooting Mono and anything that uses it out of the sky. Not the ECMA, not the ISO. Not the community “promise” PR Microsoft pulled to lull gullible fools LIKE the Monopologists into thinking they won’t sue, ignoring the fact that: 1. Standardization is not indemnification. The ECMA can’t stop Microsoft should they choose to detonate the Monobomb. 2. Even if 1 is untrue, the sad, cold fact is that the ECMA standard covers scant little about the .NET CLI. 3. Because the ECMA standard covers very little, and that a great deal of the .NET CLI is indeed patented, there’s little safe in Mono. 4. Re-emphasize, there is nothing. Not one thing, that has the authority to stop Microsoft from abusing their own patents and their own “open” standard. 5. The community “promise” is a public relations stunt and anyoen with a brain stem could easily see that Microsoft has no intention of honoring it on the long term. There *will* be a lawsuit over something they “promised” they wouldn’t sue over. Whether it’s .NET related or not is irrelevant. 6. Mono is only legitimately used from a Novell platform in accordance with their agreement with Microsoft. 7 Mono *does* have patented code in it, which is one of the reasons why it is specifically covered by the agreement with Microsoft. That is why only Novell platforms can legitimately use Mono. 8. Even if the community “promise” is indeed a real binding contract (It isn’t. Totally unenforcible, even through class action.), Microsoft’s history is littered with parties they breached contract on AND GOT AWAY WITH IT. IBM, Apple, SpyGlass. Sound familiar? The “promise” isn’t stopping Microsoft from patent trolling at all.

    The Monopologists have no memory for history, either. Perhaps they’ve forgotten that Microsoft *has* pulled this crap in the past.

  26. Robert

    As far as I understood. C#, the Core API and the CLI are ECMA standardized and are not threatened by patents. So I don’t see a good reason not to use mono for gnome development, as long as you don’t use patented Microsoft frameworks.

Leave a comment