05.11.11
Gemini version available ♊︎Jack Schofield Accused of “Lack of Professionalism” for Daemonising Mono Sceptics
Summary: How the news about Mono gets distorted by Microsoft zealots, whereas some blogs are willing to acknowledge that the biggest loser in Monocalypse is actually Microsoft
TECHRIGHTS has published many short posts about the layoffs, e.g. this one. There is a lot of coverage out there [1, 2, 3, 4] and none celebrates this news. The Mono boosters lie about Techrights celebrating the layoffs, but it’s merely part of the attempt to daemonise Techrights and distance people from the site. We do not like the layoffs as they are sometimes harmful to everyone. We know the workers will have an opportunity to do well and some are going to find jobs elsewhere despite the “tough time”. Senior and former staff is doing well based on recent appointments in other companies, even in Diebold. Well, they no longer need to serve the Novell interest, which got mingled with Microsoft’s and stayed that way for almost 5 years. Novell used to be a great company. IDG’s Dave Kearns wrote about Novell’s Craig: ‘Craig was one of the first employees of Novell Systems in the early 1980s, being named VP of marketing in 1984. In his book “Surfing the High Tech Wave,” Roger White says of Burton: “Craig proved an exceptionally good planner and articulate spokesman for the open systems marketing and technology approach.” White credits Burton and his future wife, Judith Clarke, with creating the powerhouse that Novell was in the late 1980s.’
“White credits Burton and his future wife, Judith Clarke, with creating the powerhouse that Novell was in the late 1980s”
–Dave KearnsOur problem is Novell’s management, which did deserve to be fired. And there is no need to cry for it, either. These people are still paid massive benefits, even when their staff is laid off massively.
Those who misrepresent/misinterpret this site’s view often use the words of people who merely read or link to the site, pretending that it somehow constitutes the site’s stance. It does not. The Mono lobby is lying and distorting the truth. Microsoft Jack (SCOfield) has been using the same sort of tactics for a long while, and not just against Techrights, either. He uses his position to daemonise other Microsoft critics, too. We are going to show some of his latest deeds in just a moment because his disgusting, rude, filthy personal attacks on me (that link quite knowingly to libellous USENET posts with my name in them) deserve this response. Microsoft Jack is to journalism what Monckton is to climate science.
For those who wish to cut to the chase, watch this borderline PR (masquerading as objective news) from Microsoft Jack, a longtime pro-Microsoft zealot. He covers Linux issues only when he has something negative to say, just like Microsoft Florian (whom he speaks to). He also badmouths Android, obviously. It was only yesterday that we wrote about groups or people masquerading as rights group when in fact they are attack dogs looking for companies to hire them to attack competitors. They prey on corruptible reporters.
So anyway, what is it about Microsoft Jack’s latest? Well, for starters, he tries to describe people whom he disagrees with as “Microsoft haters” and this time too he does this by typing: “This effort, which should make Linux more attractive to businesses, has led to some hostility, particularly from the Microsoft-hating faction of the free software movement.” Jack’s boogeyman is “Microsoft haters”.
The first comment rebuts this as follows:
I have to find your lack of professionalism rather appalling.
Rather than take the technical reasons why Mono is not a good idea for free software, you choose to reduce it to a tabloid style ‘haters will hate’ blurb.
Laziness both physical and intellectual can ruin even the best of plans.
They also take away any credibility you might have.There are scores of very well known free software developers as well as activiists like Eben Moglen (who is called all kinds of names by mono proponents who you seem to emulate) who dont agree with including a non-free infrastructure from both technical and legal reasons, not too mention ethical ones as well.
Of course, Ive followed the attacks on people like Simon Phipps by Mono proponents who dare to even suggest that Mono isnt a good idea. Phipps who is extremely well respected compared it like talking about Scientology.
They too see ‘haters will hate’ as some kind of excuse.When it comes to the Novell/Mono group against people like Jeremy Allison, Phipps, Perens, Moglen and others who are all gentlemen who keep the discourse polite, I will go with the first group every single time.
You could take a lesson from writers like Glyn Moody and try to inform your readers rather than cheeky soundbytes.
Maybe then you could gain some respect like Moody has.
The Mono booster who created an account just to attack me in that site at one time (going by the name “TheKernel”, ironically enough) soon appears at the scene to do some PR for Mono (comment #2). How typical. For background see [1, 2]. Well, in the remainder of the comments it’s just amicable chat between Jack Schofield and the anonymous Mono booster who created a puppet account just to smear me and defend Mono when ZDNet wrote about me.
“I personally used to have ‘don’t worry, be happy’ approach to Mono, but since the recent patent litigation explosion, I’ve become a lot more cynical regarding the project.”
–Thom HolwerdaNow, one might say that Jack’s coverage is defensible. But then, how come he is the only one doing this? Compare that to Neil from IDG. He put it more professionally and he gives validity to Mono critics by writing: “Some will say good riddance. The specter of Microsoft has always haunted Mono, particularly among those zealots who consider any technology from Redmond to be anathema to the open source movement. They fear Microsoft will wait until the Mono platform is mature enough, then subvert it by asserting hitherto-undisclosed patent claims, leaving anyone who developed applications using Mono in a lurch (and presumably, beholden to Microsoft).”
Moreover, due to the issues explained by the FSF, this is a popular opinion. And even a Microsoft apologist like Thom Holwerda, who among other things remarked on SUSE, had this to say about the Monocalypse: “Mono, of course, has always been a controversial project. It implements several technologies patented by Microsoft, and as such, has been shunned by many Linux distributions. I personally used to have ‘don’t worry, be happy’ approach to Mono, but since the recent patent litigation explosion, I’ve become a lot more cynical regarding the project. It would be understandable if Attachmate wanted to kill their involvement with Mono out of fear of possible patent litigation, but it would seem that isn’t the case at this point.”
Other Microsoft boosters covered the news without mocking Mono’s critics, either. It’s just Jack and his zeal. It’s nothing new. Here is yet another example among many that we have accumulated [1, 2, 3]. It is possible to be objective if one describes himself or herself as a real journalist and as this one site correctly put it, “Mono is now important to Microsoft as a way of ensuring that .NET is cross-platform at no cost to it.”
Yes, and this is why Mono is not liked by some people, understandably. There are other fake ‘reporters’ whom we know are being handed material to "plant" for Microsoft (and attack Linux). One of them, a notable member of he SCO/Microsoft fan club, covered the news with the headline “Attachmate Guts Novell”.
In other pro-Microsoft circles, apart from some Novell takeover coverage [1, 2] there is some fair coverage as Ravi Mandalia correctly states: “If the report is to be believed, it is indeed a major setback, if not devastating for Microsoft, as well as for the whole of the .NET community.”
Yes, Microsoft will suffer from the Monocalypse. GNU/Linux can triumph. GNU/Linux does not need cheap copies of Microsoft's patented APIs. It’s all about API domination, which is what Microsoft spent billions on yesterday (Skype).
Mono is not totally dead yet. Mono’s legacy includes Pinta, a pastime project of a Novell employee. Without Novell’s financial support the interest will hopefully be lost. Meanwhile, the Microsoft/Mono boosters are trying to poison Android and Ubuntu. There is news like this with others joining in to promote Mono in Android:
Resco is announcing the awaited release of Android edition for MobileForms Toolkit 2011, shortly after the official release of Novell’s MonoDroid.
Well, a site that promotes a lot of .NET weighs in by stating: “The third aspect of Mono is the mobile tools line, another commercial venture. Here we find the most angst amongst the general community. Developers are increasing turning to MonoTouch and Mono for Android as an alternative to completely rewriting their applications for each type of mobile device. Unlike enterprise developers who can continue to use the free/open source version of Mono or move back to .NET, mobile device developers are betting heavily on this technology and if the platform is abandoned they face a major rewrite.”
It is premature to celebrate the end of Mono, but this will probably happen unless Microsoft or one of its partners rescues the project (which might in fact happen). Mono is about spreading .NET, not about Open Source. The “Open Source” part is just a marketing proposition. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Needs Sunlight said,
May 11, 2011 at 4:34 am
In the Ubuntu distro, mono has been only spreading M$.NET. If it were about bringing .NET users over to FOSS, then they would only about spreading .nd not be writing *new* applications in it, especially not ones that do tasks already done by other apps.
twitter Reply:
May 11th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Mono is more about “injecting microsoft content” in order to create strife and destroy distributions. They can’t think they will convince any but the most naive developers to use mono. If the London Stock Exchange is a reasonable example, it is cheaper to start from scratch than it is to try to port a bunch of defective .NET code. Instead of trying to find developers who have migrated to gnu/linux because of mono, look at how Microsoft operatives used “cross platform development” in the past against Apple:
The formula above should be dreadfully familiar. Microsoft recruited a person who was well respected in the Apple community to create all of the above heartache, slander and destruction. We can imagine that heated insults were encouraged and thrown around on mailing lists and so on and so forth. The mono case is even more insidious because people writing software to Microsoft specifications on Microsoft’s payroll claim to be free software developers as they rudely tell people off and pretend to be victims of “hatred”. With mono, Microsoft innovated their infiltration efforts by pretending to be the people they wanted to reach, confuse and disable.
It is too late to salvage Novell but not too late to avoid similar problems for Canonical and Google. Microsoft killed Novell with mono and other foolish projects and agreements. It is convenient now for Microsoft people to blame “zealots” and loyal users who politely pointed out the problems, but we know this is how they operate and what they tell each other behind closed doors.
It’s a good idea to avoid Microsoft people and tech. These days, they don’t have more to offer than trouble and they never could be trusted. As Microsoft fails, the incentives and rewards for selling out are short term. The company can hardly afford it’s own developers, they are not going to be sponsoring anyone else for longer than it takes to disrupt a competitor. The market for Microsoft skills is shrinking with the market for .NET and Windows which continue to be disasters for those who deploy them.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
May 11th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I don’t think .NET is managing to stay relevant in a world of IBM, Google, and Apple. Expect more subversive .NET incursions.