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

06.29.09

Mono Proponents Do Not Address the Real Questions

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 6:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Scarecrows
Defence by beating up straw men

Summary: Supporters of Mono answer questions that are not even asked — a pattern which requires simple clarification

ACCORDING to a recent poll, 73% of GNU/Linux users at Tux Machines say “No” to Mono; the number may be greater after Stallman’s statement on this sensitive subject. But from those who defend Mono (a minority that includes the Microsoft and Novell crowd) we keep receiving the same misguided rebuttals that escape the real issues and typically divert the debate to straw men or false premises.

There are two key issues to discuss when it comes to Mono:

  1. Intimidation and software patents, which are related to one another because the latter enables the former and offers leverage
  2. Control of APIs, which again is a matter of leverage

It is not about performance, level of use, or even portability, which Java and C++, for example, already cater for. These are hardly the aspects being criticised.

“Our hostile critics wrongly insinuate that Mono skeptics want it abolished, but it could not be further from the truth.”Mono sympathisers are frequently Mono developers* and some suggest a compromise: “My personal final verdict? Mono should be treated by distribution makers as something that is “legally sticky” and should be included much in the sense that audio and video codecs, or flash are “included” in the distribution. For example, the mp3 codec is not distributed in large by most distributions, because its a legally sticky inclusion.

Our hostile critics wrongly insinuate that Mono skeptics want it abolished, but it could not be further from the truth. It is not an elimination of choice or freedom, thus no intolerance should be implied; it’s about prudence. The crux of the matter is inclusion by default, not inclusion in the repositories. The downside, however, is that the API issue remains. This was never solely a question of software patents. As this one person puts it, “Linux is being tamed.”

Assuming Mono gets shoved into Linux and gains acceptance, then Linux is “tamed.” Even without the patent threat, even if C# is some sort of “standard,” Microsoft still defines .NET and everything about it. From past behavior it’s quite evident that they know how to walk the fine line of bending “standards” to their will and marketplace benefit. Mono gives Microsoft power over a major Linux Desktop API, and the ability to make sure it’s always the “second platform”, always a day late and a dollar short.

The other interesting thing about Mono is that nobody is asking for it.

In a similar vein, Microsoft used Novell to push OOXML into OpenOffice.org. Mistakes need not be repeated. On the legal side, there is more of Stallman.

Stallman says “Don’t depend on Mono”

[...]

The debate over Mono has simmered ever since the Mono C# implementation was announced. The suspicion has been that Microsoft have patents that are relevant to C# and are just waiting for Linux developers to become comfortable with Mono so they can pull the rug out from under Linux. Mono’s defenders point out that Mono itself is an implementation of the ECMA standard for C# and that the patents that are usually referred to belong to the higher .Net layers which run on C# based systems, but aren’t implemented as a core part of Mono. Microsoft made a statement in 2003 saying the patents which are relevant to the ECMA/ISO standard are “royalty-free and otherwise RAND”; a somewhat confusing statement without saying which technology falls under the royalty free and which is under RAND terms (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory).

In some ways though, the worries about Mono are of the Mono project’s own making. By having the project implement both the ECMA/ISO covered elements and the more obviously patented ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms components, the lines have been blurred for many as to what is or is not patent safe. Stallman’s statement says that all C# implementations are potentially unsafe from a patent attack from Microsoft.

We wrote some more about this in:

This debate is not an easy one, but the sooner it is resolved, the better.
______
* This post is from David Siegel, now a Canonical employee who made GNOME-Do. In his rebuttal he is escaping all the real issues and pretending it’s a matter of supply and demand. To trivialise the issue like this is simply to deceive.

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

17 Comments

  1. contextfree said,

    June 29, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    Gravatar

    I don’t understand why you’re treating Siegel’s post as a “rebuttal” — it isn’t criticism of your objectives, or your reasons for having those objectives, it’s practical advice on how to achieve them, while improving the FOSS ecosystem. Presumably, if you don’t like the use of Mono (regardless of whether it’s for technical, ideological, strategic/tactical … reasons), you’d like developers to choose other alternatives? And presumably, if you’d like that, you’re interested in courses of action that will most effectively, in practice, lead to that happening?

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    No, I think he was addressing Stallman’s statement.

    twitter Reply:

    Roy has done a great job of reporting the dangers of mono, and M$’s motivation in M$’s own words. This is a great service. Mr. Stallman was not interested in anything but software freedom and avoiding M$’s obvious trap. This reason is sufficient to avoid mono and use any of the other free, well established and unencumbered languages out there. Roy raises some of those issues and it’s clear these are on the heated minds of mono developers. I wish they could relax and enjoy software freedom the way normal people do.

    Mr. Siegel should be happy that all five of his steps to vanquish mono have already been taken. This KDE developer thread addresses alternatives, their performance and many other practical issues. At this point, I think we can all agree that ideological and practical issues are aligned – you don’t have to pick one or the other. Perhaps he will find things he likes there. Perhaps not.

    It is crazy how the often foul mouthed mono proponents cry out, “you are trying to destroy our work!” If low user numbers are “destruction” of free software, Gnome itself has never been anything but destroyed. Is my favorite desktop environment E16 destroyed because it’s not Ubuntu’s default? Is GCC destroyed because it’s not installed by default? I don’t think so. These projects are all great successes and can be used by anyone. More than bad tech has rubbed off on mono developers for them to be so angry at people for pointing out legal problems inherent in their software. They have picked up the “world domination or death” attitude of their friends in Redmond. M$ people often equate free choice with their own destruction, and they are correct. Outside of M$’s OEM and retail manipulation, Windows would have been relegated to edge case use a decade ago. Mono proponents should have more confidence in their software. If it is really free it will be around forever like every other free software project.

    contextfree Reply:

    “Mr. Siegel should be happy that all five of his steps to vanquish mono have already been taken. This KDE developer thread addresses alternatives, their performance and many other practical issues.”

    Not in any depth. Python/Ruby etc. are high-level languages but force you to sacrifice performance and static typing. Java has become hidebound and is lacking (and apparently will not be implementing) some important features (closures, local type inference …) that even C++ is coming around to these days.

    There are also other languages — such as Ocaml — that are very appealing on the language level but aren’t popular, possibly due to the tool/library/etc. ecosystem surrounding them not being mature from a mainstream developer perspective.

    So basically you could either enhance Python etc. to support the missing benefits, or work on moving Ocaml (or D or Scala) into the mainstream and bringing them to maturity. I’m sure if people got serious about it the problem could be solved, there’s a huge resource of language and tools people sympathetic to free software etc., in academia and elsewhere.

    But first you have to admit there IS a problem.

    aeshna23 Reply:

    I like what twitter had to say and at the risk of sounding ridiculous, I’d like to share the idea that came to my mind. The idea of “world domination or death” reminded me of invasive plant species like Japanese knotweed which are bad for the ecosystem. And then I started thinking that perhaps a software ecosystem really is an ecosystem and that diversity is valuable. I just can’t get a handle on why the diversity is valuable. Why not just have five plant species? Why not a Microsoft monopoly? Is there a better to the last two questions than just “lack of innovation”?

    G. Michaels Reply:

    I like what twitter had to say

    Do you really? After parsing out the clever third grade creative spelling and the semantic gyrations, here’s what I understand:

    I’m really not going to object to the existence of this evil, inferior technology created by a company that I hate in the repositories of Linux distros. No, really, hatred for this company consumes my life but I won’t really care. I promise I won’t say a word about it once it’s off the default install. Surely all my pet bogus, false arguments and the endless ad hominems I came up with before will cease to be valid once that happens. Even though I really, really hate it and the company that came up with it. Even if people start writing applications with it, and these become popular, like the ones I’ve been slagging for the last year. Really, please trust me. I’m totally trustworthy.

    After some embarrassing fawning, the comment kicks off midway with the idiotic fallacy that GNOME has “low user numbers”. The default desktop environment of the most widely used Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian) has “low user numbers”. Right? Then GCC is not installed by default? When was the last time you saw a Linux distro ship without a C compiler? Then it’s off to the usual “aw, I don’t know why these stupid people are angry, it’s not like I’ve been calling for them to be drawn and quartered” and “your anger towards me must mean your software sucks”. The “foul mouthed” bit is especially brilliant.

    saulgoode Reply:

    Then GCC is not installed by default? When was the last time you saw a Linux distro ship without a C compiler?

    My understanding is that Ubuntu ships the ‘build-essential’ package on the ISO, but it is indeed not installed.

  2. Charles Oliver said,

    June 29, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    Gravatar

    I like the “royalty-free and otherwise RAND” quote in the post. Both seem to have the potential to exclude FOSS. Royalty free doesn’t mean under terms that are FOSS complaint, especially GPL compliant (where no other restrictions may be added). RAND is well known for being highly discriminating towards FOSS (see http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Open_Standards/Annexure).

  3. lalala said,

    June 29, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    Gravatar

    Yet again you show what a hypocrite you are Roy. You complain that mono proponents answer questions that aren’t even asked, and you are guilty of the exact same thing. When someone asks you a question, you answer anything but the question asked and you change the subject because you are unable or unwilling to answer the actual question.

  4. David "Lefty" Schlesinger said,

    June 30, 2009 at 1:57 am

    Gravatar

    I’d strongly second that statement: Roy has absolutely no standing to be taking people to task for “failing to answer questions” when he so completely and consistently fails to answer any himself:

    Such as “When are you going to remove the material defaming Jimmi Hugh, which you know to be inaccurate?”

    Or, “When are you going to correct the articles inaccurately accusing various tech writers of ‘accepting bribes’?”

    Or, “Do you suppose you’ll ever admit that saying ‘I don’t know Mark Fink’ was deliberately evasive, misleading and untrue?”

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Perhaps this (/\) (slightly obvious) fake will inspire Roy to post in the thread instead of just voting you down?

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Don’t nym-hijack. It serves no purpose.

    The trolls are trying to ruin this site, so I pay no attention to them and using my name is just part of your trolling.

    Dylan McCall Reply:

    So what if I arbitrarily call _you_ a troll? Does that magically mean that this entire post of yours is irrelevant, hypocritical and ugly just because I said so, Mr. Free Speech?

    (Pro tip: An important part of free speech, at least an associated portion in every place it exists, is listening and responding. It may not be plainly obvious by the fact that I only ever comment with arguments to what you say, but I for one do read this site quite often and have some understanding of what you want).

    Chris Reply:

    Dear boy,

    please enlighten me how you can call “David “Lefty” Schlesinger” stating valid questions (even more so since you evading answering inconvenient questions a running gag in itself) trolling?

    Anyone not knowing what I’m talking about, please read http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html where boy & his zealots once again have been caught spreading lies.

    Also note the way boy “answers” questions (attention, irony ;D)

    lalala Reply:

    What I wrote is true. Why does that make me a troll?

  5. Blah said,

    June 30, 2009 at 9:09 am

    Gravatar

    The two questions that you claimed have not been answered by Mono people have been answered a billion times.

    You just choose to ignore answers that do not reach the same conclusion you already reached.

  6. Dylan McCall said,

    June 30, 2009 at 10:32 am

    Gravatar

    “Mono gives Microsoft power over a major Linux Desktop API, and the ability to make sure it’s always the “second platform”, always a day late and a dollar short.”

    This is not true. Mono, as we have it for Banshee, FSpot, Gnome-Do and Tomboy, is a unique platform with support for .Net. Microsoft could change .Net into a LISP clone and we wouldn’t need to care. The apps we care about would continue to work well because they were built for Mono using free components on Linux.

    On a tangential argument… Roy, do you realize this is as much an opportunity for us as it is for them? It isn’t just Microsoft who can gain control over a standard, and it kind of saddens me when people assume that an idea is doomed as soon as Microsoft steps in.
    Thinking that way won’t get anywhere. Mono is being widely adopted commercially, (for example used by The Sims 3 over MS .Net) because it is actually cross platform. Mono is a completely superior product to Microsoft’s in many ways, so all it needs to do is be strongly adopted (then we just hope Novell actually stands up to the chair throwing) and Mono can call the shots. Heck, I for one think that has already happened to the point that at least Microsoft can’t attack Mono, because in doing that they would be really pissing off EA Games – another very big company.

    You may be interested in the Mono position statement from Ubuntu’s technical board.
    https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-June/028469.html
    It also answers “the real questions,” and connects smoothly with the recent attempts hereabouts to tarnish Ubuntu’s pragmatic ways.

What Else is New


  1. UPC Roundup: War on the Appeal Boards, British Motion Against the UPC, Fröhlinger Recalled, and Fake News About Spain

    Taking stock of some of the latest attempts to shove the Unitary Patent (UPC) down Europe's throat, courtesy of Team Battistelli and Team UPC



  2. The Sickness of the EPO – Part III: Invalidity and Suicides

    An explanation of what drives a lot of EPO veterans to depression and sometimes even suicide



  3. The Appeal Board (PTAB) and Federal Circuit (CAFC) Maintain Good Pace of Patent Elimination Where Scope Was Exceeded

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues to accept about 4 out of 5 decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) refuses to intervene



  4. Software Patents Are Ebbing Away, But the “Swamp” Fights Back and Hijacks the Word “Fix”

    The club of patent maximalists, or those who profit from excess prosecution and legal chaos, isn't liking what has happened in the United States and it wants everything reversed



  5. Report From Yesterday's Debate About the European Patent Office (EPO) at the Bavarian Landtag

    A report of the EPO debate which took place at the Bavarian Landtag yesterday (21/2/2017)



  6. Links 22/2/2017: Wine-Staging 2.2, Nautilus 3.24

    Links for the day



  7. French Politician Richard Yung Tells the Government About Abuses at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The subject of EPO scandals has once again landed in French politics, just a couple of months since it last happened



  8. The Sickness of the EPO – Part II: Background Information and Insights

    With a privatised, in-house (sometimes outsourced and for-profit) force for surveillance, policing, justice, public relations and now medical assessment (mere vassals or marionettes of the management) the EPO serves to show that it has become indistinguishable from North Korea, where the Supreme Leader gets to control every single aspect (absolutely no separation of powers)



  9. EPO Cartoon/Caricature by KrewinkelKrijst

    A new rendition by Dutch cartoonist and illustrator KrewinkelKrijst



  10. Inverting Narratives: IAM 'Magazine' Paints Massive Patent Bully Microsoft (Preying on the Weak) as a Defender of the Powerless

    Selective coverage and deliberate misinterpretation of Microsoft's tactics (patent settlement under threat, disguised as "pre-installation of some of the US company’s software products") as seen in IAM almost every week these days



  11. The Sickness of the EPO – Part I: Motivation for New Series of Articles

    An introduction or prelude to a long series of upcoming posts, whose purpose is to show governance by coercion, pressure, retribution and tribalism rather than professional relationship between human beings at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  12. Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part VII: EPO Hypocrisy on Cancer and Lack of Feedback to and From ECPC

    The European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), which calls itself "the largest European cancer patients' umbrella organisation," fails to fulfill its duties, says a source of ours, and the EPO makes things even worse



  13. Links 21/2/2017: KDE Plasma 5.9.2 in Chakra GNU/Linux, pfSense 2.3.3

    Links for the day



  14. EPO Caricature: Battistelli's Wall

    Battistelli's solution to everything at the EPO is exclusion and barriers



  15. The 'New' Microsoft is Still Acting Like a Dangerous Cult in an Effort to Hijack and/or Undermine All Free/Open Source Software

    In an effort to combat any large deployment of non-Microsoft software, the company goes personal and attempts to overthrow even management that is not receptive to Microsoft's agenda



  16. PTAB Petitioned to Help Against Patent Troll InfoGation Corp., Which Goes After Linux/Android OEMs in China

    A new example of software patents against Free software, or trolls against companies that are distributing freedom-respecting software from a country where these patents are not even potent (they don't exist there)



  17. Links 20/2/2017: Linux 4.10, LineageOS Milestone

    Links for the day



  18. No, Doing Mathematical Operations on a Processor Does Not Make Algorithms Patent-Eligible

    Old and familiar tricks -- a method for tricking examiners into the idea that algorithms are actual machines -- are being peddled by Watchtroll again



  19. Paid-for UPC Proponent, IAM 'Magazine', Debunked on UPC Again

    The impact of the corrupted (by EPO money) media goes further than one might expect and even 'borrows' out-of-date news in order to promote the UPC



  20. Lack of Justice in and Around the EPO Drawing Scrutiny

    The status of the EPO as an entity above the law (in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and so on) is becoming the subject of press reports and staff is leaving in large numbers



  21. Links 19/2/2017: GParted 0.28.1, LibreOffice Donations Record

    Links for the day



  22. The EPO is Becoming an Embarrassment to Europe and a Growing Threat to the European Union

    The increasingly pathetic moves by Battistelli and the ever-declining image/status of the EPO (only 0% of polled stakeholders approve Battistelli's management) is causing damage to the reputation of the European Union, even if the EPO is not a European Union organ but an international one



  23. Patent Misconceptions Promoted by the Patent Meta-Industry

    Cherry-picking one's way into the perception of patent eligibility for software and the misguided belief that without patents there will be no innovation



  24. As the United States Shuts Its Door on Low-Quality Patents the Patent Trolls Move to Asia

    Disintegration of Intellectual Ventures (further shrinkage after losing software patents at CAFC), China's massive patent bubble, and Singapore's implicit invitation/facilitation of patent trolls (bubble economy)



  25. Links 17/2/2017: Wine 2.2, New Ubuntu LTS

    Links for the day



  26. Bad Advice From Mintz Levin and Bejin Bieneman PLC Would Have People Believe That Software Patents Are Still Worth Pursuing

    The latest examples of misleading articles which, in spite of the avalanche of software patents in the United States, continue to promote these



  27. Patents Are Not Property, They Are a Monopoly, and They Are Not Owned But Temporarily Granted

    Patent maximalism and distortion of concepts associated with patents tackled again, for terminology is being hijacked by those who turned patents into their "milking cows"



  28. SoftBank Group, New Owner of ARM, Could Potentially Become (in Part) a Patent Troll or an Aggressor Like Qualcomm

    SoftBank grabbed headlines (in the West at least) when it bought ARM, but will it soon grab headlines for going after practicing companies using a bunch of patents that it got from Inventergy, ARM, and beyond?



  29. Technicolor, Having Turned Into a Patent Troll, Attacks Android/Tizen/Linux With Patents in Europe

    Technicolor, which a lot of the media portrayed as a patent troll in previous years (especially after it had sued Apple, HTC and Samsung), is now taking action against Samsung in Europe (Paris, Dusseldorf and Mannheim)



  30. Michelle Lee is Still “in Charge” of the US Patent System

    Contrary to a malicious whispering campaign against Lee (a coup attempt, courtesy of patent maximalists who make a living from mass litigation), she is still in charge of the USPTO


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