EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

05.18.08

Mono Developers: From .NET Boosting to Java Bashing?

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, ISO, Java, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Open XML, OpenDocument at 11:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers.”

Steve Ballmer, Microsoft

Some weeks ago we noted that Alex Brown, coming to his own defense, would attempt to bash ODF. He soon did [1, 2], which put under great shadow his role at the defunct ISO. Perhaps he was just joining Microsoft’s anti-ODF smears [1, 2] and overseas crusades [1, 2] (among other obnoxious things [1, 2]).

But in any event, this post’s focus mustn’t be document formats; it’s really about programming languages and development frameworks. The common theme here is that people justify their own choices by attempting to convince themselves that some hypothesis is correct, using flawed benchmarks such as Brown’s.

“Mono isn’t free lunch. This isn’t a free desktop.”We previously explained just how Novell helps Microsoft fight the GPL-licensed Java [1, 2, 3] and promote XAML. Miguel de Icaza last did this yesterday in his blog where he raved about Silverlight 2.0.

We also wrote about and how GNOME was getting saturated with Mono, never mind the uncertainty that's looming (yet conveniently ignored). It has already sneaked into GNU/Linux distributions other than Novell's. Remember that Mono is a Novell project, which it hopes to exploit in order to gain advantage (potentially putting others at risk).

A reader has just buzzed us to say that Mono’s more prominent promoters have just proceeded to what seems like further demotion of Java. They apparently try to show that Java is slow in order to justify their preference for Microsoft technologies.

Here is a thought: What might we be seeing here? GNU/Linux (or plainly cross-platform) developers choosing a ‘catch-up mode’ clone from a fierce and aggressive rival over an established (and original) framework that is wholly licensed under the GNU GPL? With friends like these, who needs enemies? They seem to insist strongly enough on making the Free desktop just another Windows clone with tools that are merely a compromise residing in the shadow of Microsoft lawyers. Mono isn’t free lunch. This isn’t a free desktop.

Mono is all about the money

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

39 Comments

  1. AlexH said,

    May 19, 2008 at 2:21 am

    Gravatar

    “As you may have seen in my second comment, I started checking some of the other tests and the Mandelbrot test for example is still a clear victor over the C# implementation. I even tried rewriting the C# Mandelbrot test to be an exact port of the Java implementation in case that made a difference, and still Java was 2x faster.”

    I usually think “bashing” means “talking about the negative without acknowledging the positive”.

  2. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 19, 2008 at 3:58 am

    Gravatar

    Alex Brown too criticised MSO07 (not OOXML mind you) just before bashing ODF. Let’s wait and see.

  3. AlexH said,

    May 19, 2008 at 4:09 am

    Gravatar

    But the thing is, the criticisms he made of ODF weren’t wrong: he’s entirely right that basically no application outputs ISO standard ODF.

    It’s entirely enlightening that you class negative remarks about OOXML as “criticism”, but when they’re about ODF they’re “bashing”.

  4. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 19, 2008 at 5:07 am

    Gravatar

    No, that’s the disinformation. See Rob Weir’s response to this.

  5. AlexH said,

    May 19, 2008 at 5:32 am

    Gravatar

    Rob’s response is inadequate because he uses the oasis files, not the ISO ones.

    Leaving aside the purely technical aspects of whether or not there are issues with the ISO ODF standard, which is Alex Brown’s point, the inescapable fact is that apps like OpenOffice.org are using OASIS ODF 1.1 (which isn’t ISO standardised), and 3.0 is using 1.2 which isn’t even OASIS standardised yet.

    They all output stuff which isn’t in the ISO standard, although it looks like OOo 3.0 might be gaining an option to output ISO standard files.

    Does it matter? Not really. Is Alex Brown wrong? No.

  6. Dan O'Brian said,

    May 19, 2008 at 7:34 am

    Gravatar

    Roy: Do you have some sort of personal vendetta against the Mono developers or something?

    It seriously looks like you are desperate to prove how evil they are, you didn’t even read the article.

  7. Xanadu said,

    May 19, 2008 at 7:48 am

    Gravatar

    I don’t really get why would anyone jump to defend OOXML unless there were lame intentions behind. I specially would be skeptic if the same person that protects Mono because it is open source software made by innocent developers would also defend OOXML while attacking or echoing ODF attacks.

    It is sometimes too much of a coincidence, a person promoting Mono at the same time attacking ODF, defending OOXML and finally advocating Novell, and their deal. It looks like all those things come in the same package.

  8. AlexH said,

    May 19, 2008 at 8:10 am

    Gravatar

    @Xanadu:

    It’s just simply not so black and white. For example, Alex Brown criticised the ODF schema in its ISO 1.0 incarnation. What then did he do? He published a revision to the schema which he believes removes/fixes the problem.

    That’s constructive criticism that helps ODF grow stronger. Calling it ‘disinformation’ or ‘ODF bashing’ just highlights bias and misunderstanding.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 19, 2008 at 8:38 am

    Gravatar

    Alex, how much do you know about Brown’s business? Have you followed the links? The man needs to justify poor recommendations that he made. He told the British Library to shove its huge assets right into vendor lock-in. Many people are absolutely furious over this, and rightly so.

  10. Roy Bixler said,

    May 19, 2008 at 9:17 am

    Gravatar

    Brown did make the rather bold claim that “there are no valid ISO ODF documents in the world.” Rob Weir disproved that claim by coming up with a minimal valid ISO ODF (v. 1.0) document. Even if Weir’s post didn’t clear up all of the issues, such as that OpenOffice uses the Oasis version of ODF, his post did provide some needed clarification to Brown’s claims.

  11. AlexH said,

    May 19, 2008 at 10:12 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy B: indeed, that claim was wrong. He would have been better to say ‘no valid non-trivial document’ – it’s basically impossible to avoid the schema problem in those instances.

    @Roy S: How much do I know about his business? How much do you know?

    “Don’t believe everything you read on the Web, Karsten. As it happens I am not contracted to the British Library (there are some lies in circulation to the contrary for consumption by the credulous). Wish I was though – I believe they have a lot to gain from the expertise and technology my company offers!”
    – Alex Brown, http://adjb.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080409-221633

    So what recommendations, exactly, did he make to the British Library? What, exactly, does he need to justify?

  12. Maximus said,

    May 19, 2008 at 10:29 am

    Gravatar

    AlexH: So what’s this developer’s excuse for claiming that C# is faster than C?

    Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is C# wiping the floor with C.

    There’s no excuse for presenting falsified data like this.

  13. AlexH said,

    May 19, 2008 at 10:34 am

    Gravatar

    @Maximus:

    So, you did that test yourself and you know the data is falsified?

    I really don’t think so.

    I mean, good grief, it’s well known that in certain circumstances dynamically compiled languages can outperform statically compiled languages. It’s not just Mono/.net; Java is much faster than C in many well-known situations, see e.g. http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html

  14. Maximus said,

    May 19, 2008 at 10:44 am

    Gravatar

    I don’t trust anything those Mono guys do. They are known to spread lies and work against the Free Software community. It’s all well documented.

    I would test the results but I don’t have Mono installed and I will never install it.

  15. AlexH said,

    May 19, 2008 at 10:47 am

    Gravatar

    So, in short, you’re calling him a liar even though you have no idea whether or not the data presented is correct. Nice.

    If I repeat the test would you believe me?

  16. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 19, 2008 at 10:46 am

    Gravatar

    Benchmarks are easy to tweak. Just ask analysts… or even Microsoft. They can show anything and I doubt Jeff’s hypothesis is that Java beats Mono.

    In fact, Mono’s bad reputation is that it’s slow and heavy, so even if he shows parity, then he markets Mono.

  17. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 19, 2008 at 10:49 am

    Gravatar

    Alex, you’re biased too, IMHO, so replicating results won’t do.

  18. AlexH said,

    May 19, 2008 at 10:57 am

    Gravatar

    Roy:

    That’s a convenient excuse to ignore actual, repeatable, data.

    And actually, I imagine Jeff’s hypothesis was that Java was faster than Mono. He said specifically he was looking for the bug in Mono that made it slower than Java – it just turned out that the data disproved his hypothesis.

    Of course, benchmarks are pretty meaningless. However, these weren’t the Mono project’s benchmarks – they were someone else’s. So, what you’re complaining about is actually “Mono project members improve their software” – how terrible of them!

  19. Miles said,

    May 19, 2008 at 11:06 am

    Gravatar

    And here we see the crux of the issue.

    The BoycottNovell bigots are always quick to accuse the other side of being liars, but are never willing to review the other sides evidence.

    Afraid you’ll get proven wrong?

    How typical.

  20. Miles said,

    May 19, 2008 at 11:12 am

    Gravatar

    FWIW, I just ran the programs on my machine and got the following results (looks like my machine is slower than his, but the results more or less match up):

    [miles@localhost ~]$ time mono sumcol2.exe

  21. Miles said,

    May 19, 2008 at 11:13 am

    Gravatar

    FWIW, I just ran the programs on my machine and got the following results (looks like my machine is slower than his, but the results more or less match up):

    [miles@localhost ~]$ time mono sumcol2.exe < sumcol-input100000.txt
    50000000

    real 0m3.799s
    user 0m3.476s
    sys 0m0.316s
    [miles@localhost ~]$ time ./sumcol < sumcol-input100000.txt
    50000000

    real 0m18.303s
    user 0m18.001s
    sys 0m0.284s

    (sorry for the repost, had to html encode the less-than char)

  22. Dan O'Brian said,

    May 19, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    Gravatar

    hehe, I love the comment on that guy’s blog that quotes Princess Bride. Looks like it holds pretty true, too ;-)

    You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against fejj when parsers or I/O performance is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…

    I might have to add his blog to my rss feed.

  23. Dan O'Brian said,

    May 19, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    Gravatar

    So Roy and Maximus – you gonna admit you were wrong? Or are you gonna provide some evidence that this developer is falsifying data?

    I’ll be waiting.

  24. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 19, 2008 at 6:02 pm

    Gravatar

    Miles,

    All these things are implementation/program-dependent. One could prove almost everything that’s desirable, so benchmarks are a more complex things than that. I’m a technical researcher and I know that peer review would scrutinize for exactly this reason. One quote that also comes to mind:

    Microsoft did sponsor the benchmark testing and the NT server was better tuned than the Linux one.

    http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/enterprise/1999/9904221410.asp

  25. Dan O'Brian said,

    May 19, 2008 at 6:06 pm

    Gravatar

    This benchmark test wasn’t designed by the Mono guys.

    You are just trying to find excuses now, pretty pathetic.

  26. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 19, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    Gravatar

    Who ever claimed falsification of data?

  27. Dan O'Brian said,

    May 19, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    Gravatar

    Maximus claimed falsified data and you claimed the guy’s results couldn’t be trusted (which suggests the same thing).

    You refused to run the tests yourself and so AlexH offered, to which you claimed he was biased and so results from his reproduction couldn’t be trusted either.

    Are you now saying that you trust that the results are indeed accurate and that the guy’s C# implementation was 6-7x faster than the fastest C implementation on the Debian Language Shootout site?

  28. Dan O'Brian said,

    May 19, 2008 at 6:39 pm

    Gravatar

    FWIW, the developer’s blog you quoted never once draws the conclusion that this test conclusively proves that Mono is faster than Java or C, he simply concludes the following:

    1. that the brain-dead ReadLine() + Int32.Parse() implementation of THIS PARTICULAR TEST in C#/Mono can run as fast as the same brain-dead ReadLine() + Integer.Parse() implementation in Java. (as in, comparing apples to apples)

    2. that he can write a much more optimized C# implementation that can outperform the fgets_unlocked() + atoi() implementation in C (which he successfully proved he could).

    You also misrepresent the facts when you claim that he was bashing Java. Nowhere in his blog post did he bash Java. Nowhere.

    You are scum for suggesting otherwise.

  29. Masato Naru said,

    May 20, 2008 at 5:20 am

    Gravatar

    I don’t know what that Java-guy smoked before he performed his tests, but the results are false.

    Read here for: an failed attempt at reproducing his results, courtesy of Jeffrey Steadfast.: http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2008/05/debian-language-benchmarks-sumfile.html

    Before accusing Mr. Steadfast of an outright lie (which I espect of you anti-Mono extremists): The data is there, the source is there; compile it and reproduce before you make any such claims!

  30. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 20, 2008 at 7:23 am

    Gravatar

    What’s his hypothesis? Remember: we’re not talking about performance here. It’s a distraction, a decoy. See:

    http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx

    Care to explain what this means if one didn’t pay Novell (Microsoft’s software patent royalties)?

  31. Dan O'Brian said,

    May 20, 2008 at 9:05 am

    Gravatar

    What does Moonlight have to do with the tests?

    Nice try at changing the subject, Roy, but it was an epic fail.

    Even if Mono was the antichrist, it still wouldn’t change the results of the tests.

  32. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 20, 2008 at 9:10 am

    Gravatar

    The two are joined by the hip, to an extent licence-wise too. The eventual goal is to deliver applications, potentially over the NET and WPF seems to be inspiring the GNOME desktop these days.

  33. Dan O'Brian said,

    May 20, 2008 at 10:48 am

    Gravatar

    Once again you failed to provide the connection between how the results of the tests he performed are affected in any way shape or form by Moonlight (Moonlight is not Mono and licenses do not change performance results… just in case you didn’t realize that).

  34. Miles said,

    May 20, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Gravatar

    /bump – any updates on this?

    (actually, I’m just bumping to further humiliate Roy, but I can pretend that I’m actually interested, can’t I?)

  35. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 20, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    Gravatar

    Dan, the point to be made is that the issues we should deal with aren’t to do with performance. They never were. We never said that Mono being slow is the issue, but marketing it (with the legal implications) at the expense of other PLs seems foolish and dangerous.

  36. Sampa Mutoku said,

    May 21, 2008 at 6:13 am

    Gravatar

    Don’t try to wiggle yourself out of it. You arre just traying to bash Mono where ever your find it, using whatever means you think handy.

    This time you’ve chosen the ‘speed/performance’-comparison as a tool, and you have failed miserably.

    Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

  37. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 21, 2008 at 6:17 am

    Gravatar

    Hi, ‘eet’. Nice nymshift. Your IP gives it all away, never mind the obvious giveaways in your messages.

  38. Dan O'Brian said,

    May 21, 2008 at 9:26 am

    Gravatar

    I have to agree with the above poster – you are using this as an excuse to bash Mono while trying to play it off like the Mono guys are bashing Java.

    They aren’t the ones bashing anyone, you are bashing them.

  39. JK said,

    May 30, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Gravatar

    His numbers are inconsistent by what is reported by a third-neutral party. Mono is slower than Java, at least for now, by a wide margin, according to the ranking http://tinyurl.com/lf82f

What Else is New


  1. Criticism of Unitary Patent (UPC) Agreement Doomed the UPC and Patent Trolls' Plan -- Along With the Litigation Lobby -- for Unified 'Extortion Vector'

    The Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC) was the trolls' weapon against potentially millions of European businesses; but those businesses have woken up to the fact that it was against their interests and European member states such as Spain and Poland now oppose it while Germany halts ratification



  2. It Wasn't Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The EPO scandals deepen in light of a very major scandal which has occupied the French media for a couple of months



  3. Links 20/9/2018: 2018 Linux Audio Miniconference and Blackboard's Openwashing

    Links for the day



  4. Links 19/9/2018: Chromebooks Get More DEBs, LLVM 7.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  5. Links 18/9/2018: Qt 5.12 Alpha , MAAS 2.5.0 Beta, PostgreSQL CoC

    Links for the day



  6. Today's European Patent Office (EPO) Works for Large, Foreign Pharmaceutical Companies in Pursuit of Patents on Nature, Life, and Essential/Basic Drugs

    The never-ending insanity which is patents on DNA/genome/genetics and all sorts of basic things that are put together like a recipe in a restaurant; patents are no longer covering actual machinery that accomplishes unique tasks in complicated ways, typically assembled from scratch by humans; some supposed 'inventions' are merely born into existence by the natural splitting of organisms or conception (e.g. pregnancy)



  7. The EPO Has Quit Pretending That It Cares About Patent Quality, All It Cares About is Quantity of Lawsuits

    A new interview with Roberta Romano-Götsch, as well as the EPO's promotion of software patents alongside CIPA (Team UPC), is an indication that the EPO has ceased caring about quality and hardly even pretends to care anymore



  8. Qualcomm's Escalating Patent Wars Have Already Caused Massive Buybacks (Loss of Reserves) and Loss of Massive Clients

    Qualcomm's multi-continental patent battles are an effort to 'shock and awe' everyone into its protection racket; but the unintended effect seems to be a move further and further away from 'Qualcomm territories'



  9. Links 17/9/2018: Torvalds Takes a Break, SQLite 3.25.0 Released

    Links for the day



  10. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Helps Prevent Frivolous Software Patent Lawsuits

    PTAB with its quality-improving inter partes reviews (IPRs) is enraging patent maximalists; but by looking to work around it or weaken it they will simply reduce the confidence associated with US patents



  11. Abstract Patents (Things One Can Do With Pen and Paper, Sometimes an Abacus) Are a Waste of Money as Courts Disregard Them

    A quick roundup of patents and lawsuits at the heart of which there's little or no substance; 35 U.S.C. § 101 renders these moot



  12. “Blockchain” Hype and “FinTech”-Like Buzzwords Usher in Software Patents Everywhere, Even Where Such Patents Are Obviously Bunk

    Not only the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) embraces the "blockchain" hype; business methods and algorithms are being granted patent 'protection' (exclusivity) which would likely be disputed by the courts (if that ever reaches the courts)



  13. Qualcomm's Patent Aggression Threatens Rationality of Patent Scope in Europe and Elsewhere

    Qualcomm's dependence on patent taxes (so-called 'royalties' associated with physical devices which it doesn't even make) highlights the dangers now known; the patent thicket has grown too "thick"



  14. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Are Still Desperate to Crush PTAB in the Courts, Not Just in Congress and the Office

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) improve patent quality and are therefore a threat to those who profit from spurious feuding and litigation; they try anything they can to turn things around



  15. IAM, Watchtroll and the EPO Still Spread the Mentality of Patent Maximalism

    The misguided idea that the objective (overall) should be to grant as many monopolies as possible (to spur a lot of litigation) isn't being challenged in echo chamber 'events', set up and sponsored by think tanks and pressure groups of the litigation 'industry'



  16. Watchtroll and Other Proponents of Patent Trolls Are Trying to Change the Law Outside the Courts in Order to Bypass Patent Justice

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) voids almost every software patent — a reality that even the most zealous patent professionals have come to grips with and their way of tackling this ‘problem’ is legislative, albeit nowhere near successful (so far)



  17. Links 16/9/2018: Windows Plays 'Nice' Again, Elisa Music Player 0.3 Beta and Latte Dock 0.8.1

    Links for the day



  18. Slamming Courts and Judges Won't Help the Patent Maximalists; It Can Only Make Things Worse

    Acorda Therapeutics sees its stock price dropping 25% after finding out that its patent portfolio isn't solid, as affirmed by the Federal Circuitn(CAFC); the only way out of this mess is a pursuit of a vastly improved patent quality, thorough patent examination which then offers legal certainty



  19. Patent Trolls Are Still Active and Microsoft is Closely Connected to Many of Them

    A roundup of patent trolls' actions in the United States; Microsoft is connected to a notably high number of these



  20. Advancements in Automobile Technology Won't be Possible With Patent Maximalism

    Advancements in the development of vehicles are being discouraged by a thicket of patents as dumb (and likely invalid) as claims on algorithms and mere shapes



  21. Battistelli “Has Deeply Hurt the Whole Patent Profession, Examiners as Well as Agents” and Also the Image of France

    A French perspective regarding Battistelli's reign at the EPO, which has not really ended but manifests itself or 'metastasises' through colleagues of Battistelli (whom he chose) and another French President (whom he also chose)



  22. António Campinos Needs to Listen to Doctors Without Borders (MSF) et al to Salvage What's Left of Public Consent for the EPO

    Groups including Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and Médecins du Monde (MdM) have attempted to explain to the EPO, with notoriously French-dominated leadership, that it’s a mistake to work for Gilead at the expense of the public; but António Campinos is just another patent maximalist



  23. The Max Planck Institute's Determination on UPC's (Unitary Patent) Demise is Only “Controversial” in the Eyes of Rabid Members of Team UPC

    Bristows keeps lying like Battistelli; that it calls a new paper "controversial" without providing any evidence of a controversy says a lot about Bristows LLP, both as a firm and the individuals who make up the firm (they would not be honest with their clients, either)



  24. Links 15/9/2018: Wine 3.16, Overwatch's GNU/Linux (Wine) 'Ban', New Fedora 28 Build, and Fedora 29 Beta Delay

    Links for the day



  25. Max Planck Institute Pours More Water on the Dying Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Max Planck Institute gives another sobering reality check for Team UPC to chew on; there's still no sign of any progress whatsoever for the UPC because even Team UPC appears to have given up and moved on



  26. EPO Seals Many Death Sentences With Acceptance of EP 2604620

    Very disappointing news as EP 2604620 withstands scrutiny, assuring that a lot of poor people will not receive much-needed, life-saving treatments



  27. Links 13/9/2018: Compiz Comeback, 'Life is Strange: Before the Storm'

    Links for the day



  28. Now We Have Patents on Rooms. Yes, Rooms!

    The shallow level of what nowadays constitutes "innovation" and merits getting a patent for a couple of decades



  29. EPO Granted a Controversial European Patent (Under Battistelli) Which May Literally Kill a Lot of People

    The EPO (together with CIPA) keeps promoting software patents; patents that are being granted by the EPO literally put lives at risk and have probably already cost a lot of lives



  30. Links 13/9/2018: Parrot 4.2.2, Sailfish OS Nurmonjoki, Eelo Beta

    Links for the day


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts