-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Does Mono hurt Microsoft?
,----[ Quote ]
| Here are some ways Mono helps Microsoft:
|
| * Spreads Microsoft standards
| * Spreads Microsoft mindshare
| * Increases FLOSS dependency on Microsoft
| * Good PR value for Microsoft
| * Mono apologists are often obliged to defend Microsoft
| * Mono evangelists are often obliged to be Microsoft evangelists
| * Divides, distracts and delays the community
| * Makes it easier for FLOSS developers to develop on Windows
| * Provides some nice FLOSS applications for Windows
| * Provides developer tools
| * Helps in Microsoft’s fight against Flash
| * Helps in Microsoft’s fight against Java
| * Decreases effort in general for non-Microsoft tools
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/22/does-mono-hurt-microsoft/
Spitting in the wind – Mono 180?
,----[ Quote ]
| Which side is right? Again, we won’t until it’s put to the test. Will it be
| put to the test? I’m skeptical, why? Because I listened to the wonderful
| audio presentations from SELF, heard the tactics MS has used, listened to
| RMS, listened to the proponents of Mono, read the groklaw articles and
| thought some more for myself.
|
| The cost of waging a war on patents is more than any one company wants to
| bear. We have the open innovation network to help out there, but consider the
| TomTom case. Notice that out of the 7 or 9 patents at stake, only three
| related to Linux. Is TomTom going to go to bat for those 3 patents if the
| other 4 or 6 infringe? No, they are going to have to find a settling point.
| Since right off the bat a company is facing 8 to 10 million US dollars to
| fight a patent suite, it makes more sense financially to settle, especially
| when there is the possibility that you may be found guilty. This does not
| mean that the Linux patents were legitimate, but sprinkle a few illegitimate
| patents in with more genuinely infringing patents and you’d be a fool to step
| up to the plate. Even more, TomTom was facing an injunction, which they could
| not suffer for the length a trial would take.
`----
http://www.thelinuxlink.net/myblog/?p=238
Recent:
Novell Promotes Mono in GNOME?
,----[ Quote ]
| In a comment on another post, Chris Halse Rogers raised an interesting and
| challenging question: “What evidence is there that Novell, the company, is
| promoting adoption of Mono into GNOME?”
|
| Here’s where I attempt to answer that question!
| The easy part
|
| It’s always more effective to knock out the easy stuff first. So let’s
| establish that the premise is at least reasonable. Here are some facts. Facts
| are a nice way to start:
|
| 1. Mono is a Novell project.
| 2. Novell is on the GNOME Foundation’s Advisory Board.
| 3. Mono is lead at Novell by the founder of GNOME, Miguel de Icaza.
| 4. Mr. de Icaza has said in the past, “Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET“
| 5. Mr. de Icaza claims to be “in charge of Novell’s Linux Desktop
| Strategy” along with Nat Friedman.
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/15/novell-promotes-mono-in-gnome/
One thing nobody told you about Mono
,----[ Quote ]
| The first meme being directed to Richard Stallman for citing ‘eMacs virgins’
| in a speech and the other one only gods knows whom.
|
| While the latter is just is yet another generalist campaign (like the
| infamous “hey, even double click is patented!”) the first is a frontal attack
| to Richard Stallman as a person: knives coming out all of a sudden.
|
| Even the Canonical CTO blogged about it.
|
| While the video isn’t available yet, I have big doubts there is something
| even remotely offensive in such Stallman talk. It’s very easy to take
| feminism as an excuse, as many people (not just girls) will jump in
| no-matter-what without even knowing what it’s being talked about.
`----
http://www.stefanoforenza.com/one-thing-nobody-told-you-about-mono/
Mono: Why is Debian resorting to spin?
,----[ Quote ]
| Mouette, it may be recalled, is the developer who had posted what were
| considered sexist posts to the Debian project mailing list meant for
| important announcements for developers.
|
| (Mono is an open source implementation of parts of Microsoft's .NET
| development environment; many sections of the FOSS community fear that Mono
| may prove to be a patent trap down the line as .NET is totally Microsoft
| technology. Recent statements have done little to dispel this impression.)
|
| I asked the Debian leader Steve McIntyre a few queries about the Mono change
| and he, as always, sent back straightforward replies. McIntyre, I may add,
| has always been open and upfront in dealing with iTWire.
|
| But after Free Software Foundation chief Richard Stallman called the Debian
| move risky - he based the statement on the inference that a decision on
| including Mono in the Debian default install had already been taken - Debian
| spokesman Alexander Reichle-Schmehl decided that the project had to speak up
| and did so by trying to explain things through a post on his blog.
`----
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26291/1090/
The Mono Firefight
,----[ Quote ]
| Well there are issues around Mono, including patents. This means that some
| people, myself included now refuse to use it. Those that are pro-mono don't
| seem to understand exactly why everyone isn't shouting hosannas over their
| projects. Indeed one of them classified Tomboy as 'An Exciting Program',
| which stunned me. Tomboy? Exciting? I didn't think so.
`----
http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/2009/07/mono-firefight.html
Microsoft Mono move means exactly nothing
,----[ Quote ]
| When Britain was the superpower of the world, there was one tactic which its
| officials used, with great success, to manage its colonies - divide and rule.
`----
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26224/1090/
Google vs. Microsoft – A study in contrasts
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/14/google-vs-microsoft-a-study-in-contrasts/
SFLC Podcast on Mono
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/14/sflc-podcast-on-mono/
Patented Languages
,----[ Quote ]
| Bradley and Karen discuss the community debate regarding C# and Mono, and its
| inclusion in GNU/Linux distributions.
`----
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2009/jul/07/0x11/
Monomania affecting Ubuntu users far and wide?
,----[ Quote ]
| How on earth could a 19th century detective know about the long running saga
| of a rather large and bloated software stack designed, it seems, simply to
| drive a wedge into the FOSS community and act as a trojan horse for our most
| [ahem] loved convicted monopolist?
`----
http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/07/14/monomania-affecting-ubuntu-users-far-and-wide/
Who’s that knocking at my door?
,----[ Quote ]
| Many mono apologists like to portray critics as fanatics, aggressively
| opposed to anything Microsoft-related
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/02/whos-that-knocking-at-my-door/
Some other sane views on RMS
,----[ Quote ]
| So now that we have Stallman painted with the “sexist” brush, I see some
| people casting glances to the “Death Threat Crazy” and “Nazi” brushes.
|
| Let me clear: I wasn’t at the conference, and I don’t know exactly what
| Stallman said. It is possible he made an inappropriate remark. Some
| reasonable people say it was a joke gone bad; stuff like that happens.But,
| even if it were an honest-to-good malicious sexist remark (unlikely
| considering Stallman has a long record of supporting women’s rights in his
| writings and interviews), the character assassination has been totally
| disproportionate to the event. He may indeed need a word of correction from a
| trusted friend or even a letter of concern from a respected group. What he
| doesn’t need or deserve is a pack of snarling jackals lumping him in with
| lunatics making death threats and freaking Nazis. (Assuming the death threat
| thing is legit, I haven’t looked it up. I know I got a lot of death threats
| from owning peeps in Quake, so that junk can be serious business.)
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/13/some-other-sane-views-on-rms/
There. Fixed that for you.
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/13/there-fixed-that-for-you/
In the Shadows of .Net
,----[ Quote ]
| Back in 2006, we put our trust in Mono because we refused, or perhaps
| disliked, to vilify a project solely because it emulated something created at
| Microsoft. While Open Source backers generally dislike Microsoft technology,
| with Mono they had another argument that being a clone it could be affected
| by a number of patents that Microsoft holds related to the .Net framework.
| This point often comes up in debates about the “safety” of the Mono project,
| the defense of Mono being that large parts of the .Net specification are an
| open, published ECMA standard. I sided with the Mono supporters then,
| downplaying the risk of patents from Microsoft. But then in November,
| Microsoft and Novell announced their Patent Agreement, which guarantees
| patent protection exclusively for users of Novell Linux. The Mono project is
| largely supported by Novell, and such an agreement is disastrous for a
| community project like Mono. At this point, the fence-sitters in the Open
| Source community largely crossed over to the anti-Mono camp. Perhaps, they
| were justified in doing so. I could no longer defend Mono, and my belief in
| the framework getting wider acceptance has diminished significantly since
| then.
|
| [...]
|
| It is entirely possible that Mono can suddenly gain acceptance if Microsoft
| decides to relinquish patent claims regarding the .Net framework. If it
| happens, .Net and Mono could well become an powerful challenger to the
| dominance of Java. This is very unlikely, Microsoft’s current strategy seems
| to be relying strongly on patents and IP to ward off the looming threat from
| Linux.
|
| For now, we decided to look beyond Mono and C#.
`----
http://blog.agilehead.com/content/from-c-on-mono-to-clojure-on-the-jvm/
C#, see submarine
,----[ Quote ]
| A similar kind of encumbrance would be if MIT (or Xorg) could retroactively
| re-license the X11 libraries to something proprietary (note: they cannot),
| thereby removing the platform upon which all Free Software X11 applications
| are built; it would be a risk, and given the importance of Free Software, a
| risk where the expected value of a manifestation is huge.
|
| This isn’t to say there’s not other submarines in the water. We don’t know.
| Maybe we should. The known submarine should be treated with caution. And the
| side of caution is to treat C# as a non-Free platform to be avoided.
`----
http://blogs.fsfe.org/adridg/?p=157
Are Microsoft's Promises For Ever?
,----[ Quote ]
| Now, is it just me, or does Microsoft conspicuously fail to answer its own
| question? The question was: does it apply to all versions *including* future
| revision? And Microsoft's answer is about *existing* versions: so doesn't
| that mean it could simply not apply the promise to a future version? Isn't
| this the same problem as with the Open Specification Promise? Just asking.
`----
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-microsofts-promises-for-ever.html
And the knives come out
,----[ Quote ]
| I told you the knives would come out for Stallman.
|
| [...]
|
| The sad thing is, much of the damage is already done. Stallman is facing a
| concerted attack on his character and competence and stands little chance of
| coming through it unscathed. Such is the penalty for daring to critize Mono.
| This garbage is already all over Planet Gnome, Planet Debian, Monologue and
| spreading.
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/12/and-the-knives-come-out/
Boycott Novell is Back!
,----[ Quote ]
| If I had to list my concerns around the Promise I would come up with a
| slightly different list:
|
| 1. Standard bits alone are not enough to deliver killer apps. We have
| several Microsoft emails about limiting the usefulness of what was
| standardized, so we know they at least discussed this internally.
| 2. The Community Promise has that restriction that the Open Specification
| Promise does not. By not extending the Promise to partial implementations,
| it could “lock out” alternative implementations of the standard. Limited
| sub-sets of languages are a common practice in the industry for
| specialized purposes.
| 3. The Community Promise will constantly be misrepresented as covering the
| whole of mono – giving a false veneer of security over the non-covered
| bits (which end up to be the “juicy parts”)
| 4. The Community Promise only applies to the current version. This could
| be used by Microsoft to “freeze out” competing implementations. Just
| update the standard, but not the promise.
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/09/boycott-novell-is-back/
Criticism where it is due
,----[ Quote ]
| Consider that we know for a fact that F-Spot and Banshee, at least, use
| non-ECMA covered parts of mono. Maybe they will be re-written soon. That’s
| great. But at the time of the announcement and currently, they were and are
| not covered by the standard, and so not covered by the agreement.
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/10/criticism-where-it-is-due/
Windows developers on mono
,----[ Quote ]
| There are many such internal documents that clearly show Microsoft
| understands exactly what standardizing parts of .NET means, and how to keep
| that offering in control and inferior to .NET. If Mono is not “chasing” .NET,
| then it fails to meet Windows developers expectations. If Mono
| is “chasing” .NET, then it both runs the risk of anti-competitive tactics on
| the non-standard parts, and is undertaking a task not likely to succeed.
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/11/windows-developers-on-mono/
Debian plans draw sharp warning from GNU guru
,----[ Quote ]
| As the Debian project releases a second update of its Debian GNU/Linux 5.0
| ("Lenny") distribution, a controversy has broken out over the next
| version, "Squeeze." GNU guru Richard Stallman has warned that by including a
| Mono-based note-taking application called Tomboy, Debian runs the risk of
| Microsoft litigation over C# patents.
`----
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4526886823.html
Is Mono Free Software?
,----[ Quote ]
| The question then becomes: Do you think that the licensing of the software,
| when combined with the patent assurances Microsoft has given are sufficient
| to meet all the requirements of the Four Freedoms? Of the Debian Free
| Software Guidelines?
|
| Think on that in great detail and see what answer you come up with – think on
| it first trusting Microsoft to do the “right” thing, and once again assuming
| Microsoft will do the “wrong” thing. Can software be conditionally Free,
| depending on the intention of Microsoft? It is a sort of Schrödinger’s
| Freedom – how Free the software is depends on how Microsoft decides to act!
|
| Perhaps you think that the assurances of the ECMA/ISO standard and the
| Community Promise are sufficient when combined with the licensing terms to
| consider Mono Free Software. I do not think that is an unreasonable
| conclusion. Now, read Microsoft’s Moonlight Covenant, and see if you get the
| same answer about Moonlight.
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/20/is-mono-free-software/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkpoCVMACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6HEwCfWcvxrJRvF4psPc+zqLUqa+ZI
EmoAn2+p2mm/LbAL+ygj/D3gM9mzATOP
=EAPM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
