[News] Mono -- Like Microsoft -- Resorts to Gagging Critics
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
Why don’t you just shut up?
,----[ Quote ]
| A lot of times, mono critics are told we should just “shut up”. Everything
| that needs to be said has been said, no one is going to change their mind,
| and there is no point in going on about things.
|
| Let me tell you why I reject that.
|
| [...]
|
| Reason four: It is too important
|
| We aren’t talking about arguing over the One True Brace Style here. Team Mono
| wants to be on your desktop. They want more Mono and even Moonlight up in
| GNOME. If they get GNOME based on .NET, then you can bet your sweet object
| code they are coming for KDE.
|
| Reason five: It sets a bad precedent
|
| First was C#/CLI, then .NET, then Moonlight. Each iteration has been less
| Free and more risky to build on. Each one is ever closer to some exclusive
| Novell-Microsoft arrangement.
|
| What of the next Microsoft technology that Team Mono decides needs to be
| cloned? Microsoft can afford to have every component integrate tightly – in
| fact, it is to thier advantage to do so. But we who rely on standards and \
| promises to protect us can not be so cavalier.
|
| Reason six: That’s what Novell wants
|
| Listen, Novell management is not a bunch of idiots. There can be no question
| that they knew entering into a relationship with Microsoft would be taken as
| a betrayal of the community. There is no doubt in my military mind they sat
| down and tried to judge the cost as best they could, and you know what they
| came up with...
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/17/why-dont-you-just-shut-up/
Ubuntu Free Speech Zones
,----[ Quote ]
| Time to draw attention to the “Free Speech Zone” on the Ubuntu Forums.
|
| The target
|
| For perfectly understandable reasons, Team Mono is really targeting Ubuntu to
| get ever more mono applications in by default. Banshee is virtually a given
| at this point, and GNOME-Do is a likely follow up. There is a blizzard of
| pro-mono misinformation on the Ubuntu Forums – which it breaks my heart to
| say, doesn’t exactly have quite same level of intellectual rigor as the
| Dialogues of Plato.
`----
http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/18/ubuntu-free-speech-zones/
The truth about the Mono logo
http://www.stefanoforenza.com/the-truth-about-the-mono-logo/
disappointed
http://robertmh.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/disappointed/
Linux Today Readers Speak on Chrome, Mono, and Best Beginner Programming
Languages
,----[ Quote ]
| [phred14] [Who is asking for Mono?]
| Simple answer - nobody. Mono is being pushed into Linux, not pulled. So far
| the one application that's dragging it into "default" isn't even very
| important, and Mono/C# isn't even critical. A Mono-free C#-free clone of that
| application was built in practically no time.
|
| Simply put, Mono gives Microsoft control over a Linux desktop API, even
| without patent threats. The ECMA standard is irrelevant, if only because it's
| incomplete, and *always* needs extensions. In order to field a functional,
| complete Mono, you need to start cloning Microsoft stuff. You may as well
| base the Linux UI on WINE."
|
| [GreyGeek] [Re: Re: Re: Mono a solution looking for a problem?]
|
| [...]
|
| The lack of MONO apps IS glaring, isn't it!
|
| What's even MORE glaring is that De Icaza has been working on MONO since
| December of 2000, when he changed the name of his company, Helix Code, to
| Ximian in order to focus on developing MONO. Yet, NINE years later there is
| only a handful of MONO apps. IF MONO is the such a marvelous RAD tool, why
| has it taken so long to produce so few applications?
|
| Also, if .NET is such a marvelous CROSS PLATFORM tool where code written on
| one platform can be recompiled with few or no changes on another platform,
| WHY isn't Linux being FLOODED with .NET applications?
|
| The answer is simple. MONO is a patent trap and most Penguins realize it. So,
| just like it did with the ISO committees, Microsoft is flooding the Linux
| development groups with .NET moles and the Linux forums with astroturfers and
| TEs.
`----
http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009/07/linux-today-rea.html
"We could refresh the look and feel of the entire desktop with Moonlight"
--Miguel de Icaza
Recent:
Banshee and F-Spot to depend on Moonlight
,----[ Quote ]
| Planet Debian points to the news that Banshee and F-Spot is going to depend
| on Moonlight in the future. Moonlight is forbidden from Fedora. If this
| happens, Banshee and F-Spot have to be dropped from Fedora.
`----
http://mether.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/banshee-and-f-spot-to-depend-on-moonlight/
On Patents, Promises and 'Ugly' Patches
,----[ Quote ]
| "If you honestly think this will lead to cross-platform development, then you
| need your head checked," wrote Josh in the comments on TuxRadar, for
| example. "Since when has Microsoft had any sincere interest in cross-platform
| anything?
|
| "It looks to me like a classic Trojan horse," Josh concluded, "and Miguel de
| Icaza is a tool."
|
| Similarly: "This Mono thing looks a bit like a Trojan horse," agreed kt on
| LXer, where the topic was covered in not just one but two separate threads
`----.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/On-Patents-Promises-and-Ugly-Patches-67607.html?wlc=1247803503
FSF says Microsoft Mono move full of loopholes
,----[ Quote ]
| The statement conclude by saying that if Microsoft wanted to genuinely
| reassure free software users that it had no intention of suing them for using
| Mono, "it should grant the public an irrevocable patent license for all of
| its patents that Mono actually exercises."
`----
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26363/1090/
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkpjHYcACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5zhQCcDDXS/HtBLihrJU0SJcO+Hejh
XSwAn3/wm4QnUXq9cGVOwTarjOGEaEKm
=s9HT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Why don?t you just shut up?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | A lot of times, mono critics are told we should just ?shut up?.
> | Everything that needs to be said has been said, no one is going to
> | change their mind, and there is no point in going on about things.
> |
> | Let me tell you why I reject that.
For starters, Micoshaft can GPL its version of mono i.e. .nit
The arguments will then be over.
Otherwise micoshaft marketing plops will seek to take
advantage with blessing from fraudsters in higher management.
> | Reason four: It is too important
> |
> | We aren?t talking about arguing over the One True Brace Style here. Team
> | Mono wants to be on your desktop. They want more Mono and even Moonlight
> | up in GNOME. If they get GNOME based on .NET, then you can bet your
> | sweet object code they are coming for KDE.
> |
> | Reason five: It sets a bad precedent
> |
> | First was C#/CLI, then .NET, then Moonlight. Each iteration has been
> | less Free and more risky to build on. Each one is ever closer to some
> | exclusive Novell-Microsoft arrangement.
> |
> | What of the next Microsoft technology that Team Mono decides needs to be
> | cloned? Microsoft can afford to have every component integrate tightly ?
> | in fact, it is to thier advantage to do so. But we who rely on standards
> | and \ promises to protect us can not be so cavalier.
> |
> | Reason six: That?s what Novell wants
> |
> | Listen, Novell management is not a bunch of idiots. There can be no
> | question that they knew entering into a relationship with Microsoft
> | would be taken as a betrayal of the community. There is no doubt in my
> | military mind they sat down and tried to judge the cost as best they
> | could, and you know what they came up with...
> `----
>
> http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/17/why-dont-you-just-shut-up/
>
> Ubuntu Free Speech Zones
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Time to draw attention to the ?Free Speech Zone? on the Ubuntu Forums.
> |
> | The target
> |
> | For perfectly understandable reasons, Team Mono is really targeting
> | Ubuntu to get ever more mono applications in by default. Banshee is
> | virtually a given at this point, and GNOME-Do is a likely follow up.
> | There is a blizzard of pro-mono misinformation on the Ubuntu Forums ?
> | which it breaks my heart to say, doesn?t exactly have quite same level
banshee-and-f-spot-to-depend-on-moonlight/
>
>
> On Patents, Promises and 'Ugly' Patches
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "If you honestly think this will lead to cross-platform development,
> | then you need your head checked," wrote Josh in the comments on
> | TuxRadar, for example. "Since when has Microsoft had any sincere
> | interest in cross-platform anything?
> |
> | "It looks to me like a classic Trojan horse," Josh concluded, "and
> | Miguel de Icaza is a tool."
> |
> | Similarly: "This Mono thing looks a bit like a Trojan horse," agreed kt
> | on LXer, where the topic was covered in not just one but two separate
> | threads
> `----.
>
> http://www.linuxinsider.com/story
On-Patents-Promises-and-Ugly-Patches-67607.html?wlc=1247803503
>
>
> FSF says Microsoft Mono move full of loopholes
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The statement conclude by saying that if Microsoft wanted to genuinely
> | reassure free software users that it had no intention of suing them for
> | using Mono, "it should grant the public an irrevocable patent license
> | for all of its patents that Mono actually exercises."
> `----
>
> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26363/1090/
>
>
> 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.
> 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