Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Canonical's CTO Matt Zimmerman Speaks About the Problem With Mono

  • Subject: [News] Canonical's CTO Matt Zimmerman Speaks About the Problem With Mono
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:14:01 +0100
  • Followup-to: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • User-agent: KNode/4.3.1
Hash: SHA1

He says "free software" in general.

Ubuntu Turkey LoCo Team interviews Canonical CTO, Matt Zimmerman


Ubuntu Turkey LoCo Team Interviews Canonical CTO, Matt Zimmerman

,----[ Quote ]
| UT: What are the targets and the plans of 
| Ubuntu project in five years?
| MZ: Ubuntu is a vehicle for the expression 
| of free software in peopleâs lives, so to 
| some extent, the goals of Ubuntu are the 
| goals of free software.
| I think that free software must synthesize 
| peopleâs experience of the web and the 
| desktop. The divide between these two 
| technological realms is limiting free 
| software innovation by fragmenting the 
| ecosystem. Along the way, we will need to 
| resolve questions of freedom and autonomy 
| on the web, and enable the community to 
| embrace the web in ways which have not been 
| possible yet.


Matt Zimmerman on Mono

,----[ Quote ]
| There are risks in choosing the .NET 
| platform to develop free software. And I am 
| pleased that Mr. Zimmerman realizes that is 
| exactly what Mono is: the .NET platform 
| (albeit a gimped and tail-lights chasing 
| stepchild implementation).
| I also greatly appreciate Mr. Zimmermanâs 
| points :
|     * Microsoft is in âultimate controlâ 
|     (despite Team Apologistaâs desperate 
|     protestations)
|     * Microsoft has multiple ways to wield 
|     .NET offensively
|     * It would be logical for them to do so
|     * they have acted similarly in the past
|     * they have said they would act 
|     similarly the future.



Considerations on Patents that Read on Language Infrastructure

,----[ Quote ]
| In an essay last Friday entitled Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono
| or C#, RMS argued a key point that I agree with: the software freedom
| community should minimize its use of programming language infrastructure that
| comes primarily from anti-software-freedom companies, notwithstanding FaiF
| (Free as in Freedom) implementations. I've been thinking about an extension
| of that argument: that language infrastructure created in a community process
| is likely more resilient against attacks from proprietary software companies.


Discouraging FOSS

,----[ Quote ]
| I think it is interesting that he thinks that it is the ââbest technologyâ
| Linux campâ that is the camp that offers the greatest threat to Microsoft. I
| can understand why some may think that this is true since this camp is
| creating flashy and very useful products and features that increase the
| appeal of Linux. However, mono is not the only tool that the ââbest
| technologyâ Linux campâ has at its disposal. Many view the use of the Qt
| toolkit as a better alternative, and one that does not have the risk
| associated with mono. Furthermore, I do not agree with the thought
| that ââbest technologyâ Linux campâ is the one that Microsoft feels most
| threatened by. I think Microsoft is only threatened by the combination of
| both camps.
| I view mono as a distraction for FOSS developers. Yes, there are some
| practical advantages in its use, but there are a lot of questions surrounding
| it. It has the potential of dividing the two mayor camps of Linux
| contributors. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this
| controversy.


Should Qt and KDE apps written in C# be considered Free Software?


Stallman: open-source .NET "danger" for Debian

,----[ Quote ]
| Although Stallman frequently speaks about the dangers of software patents on
| open-source, trust for Microsoft has run particularly thin recently because
| of the company's legal attack on TomTom over a FAT patent dispute.
| Stallman urged the community to instead distribute and recommend non-C#
| applications whenever possible to avoid Redmond lawyers from being able to
| disable major OS functions on a whim.


How to Completely Remove Mono on Ubuntu


Will Microsoft threaten open source C# implementations?

,----[ Quote ]
| If Microsoft is threatening patents against .NET, it would seem to me that
| the Novell/Microsoft relationship didnât really work out all that well. And
| now Microsoft is back to their old tricks. And what should the Linux and open
| source community do about this? Should another deal with Microsoft be made?
| Is the seamless communication between Linux and Windows worth making a deal
| with a partner that is only going to turn around and stab you in the back
| again and again and again?


Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono or C#

,----[ Quote ]
| Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake
| of Tomboy which is an application written in C#, leads the community in a
| risky direction. It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage
| its use.
| The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise
| the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force
| all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See
| http://swpat.org and http://progfree.org.) This is a serious danger, and only
| fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take
| precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.
| This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C#
| implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms,
| which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called
| Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all
| languages that programmers have used.
| The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other
| applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too.
| That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using
| them is taking a gratuitous risk.
| We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as
| little as possible. In other words, we should discourage people from writing
| programs in C#. Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the
| default installation of GNU/Linux distributions, and we should distribute and
| recommend non-C# applications rather than comparable C# applications whenever
| possible.



Shuttleworthâs take on Ubuntu One trademark issue

,----[ Quote ]
| The very fact that Canonical supports Ubuntu brings credibility towards
| Ubuntu. Ubuntu One will also likely be a great vehicle of publicity toward
| Ubuntu. Have you noticed Windows Live and Mobile Me already exist ? Which
| other alternative has Ubuntu to offer ? (donât name DropBox, thatâs a whole
| different thing with a different purpouse).

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index