Summary: Advice for Debian following extensive coverage about Ubuntu dropping Mono from its GNU/Linux CDs

NOW THAT we've achieved what we wanted from Ubuntu, it is time to look where Mono remains other than SUSE (which is inherently subverted because it’s financially dependent on Microsoft). Mono is partly developed by Microsoft under Microsoft licences. It is a patent risk that the FSF and Groklaw keep warning about. It’s about legalese, not ideology.

Microsoft is putting patent traps in GNU/Linux — traps that it can later use in subversive, anti-competitive ways (more on that in later posts about Android). “”Bansheegeddon” sees Banshee, Mono dropped from Ubuntu default,” says the headline from IDG. “Slashdot has picked up the story about Ubuntu dropping Mono,” told us a reader. “Unfortunately, it quotes a Mono booster.” Here is it and here is a more accurate bit of coverage from a longtime Mono critic. To quote:

I think Canonical has made the right decision to go back to Rhythmbox. My suggestion would be to now stick to Rhythmbox and polish it beyond perfections. I would expect Canonical to hire a full-time Rhytmbox developer and polish features like integration to Ubuntu Music and Amazon Music.

Ubuntu does need a ‘stable’ music player which can not only integrate well with the system but also offer users with all the much needed features.

Getting rid of Mono will also silent the camp which is worried about Mono on the Linux platform. Post Novell’s buy-out Mono’s future is uncertain given that there is no ‘true’ advantage of using Mono on the Linux platform other than forced implementations. The only area where Mono, due to Moonlight, could have been of any help was Netflix. Unfortunately, Netflix does’t work on Linux and owing to the recent changes more and more users are switching away from Netflix. So, Mono has become completely irrelevant on the Linux platform. I think, investing any resource on a technology developed by the arch-rival of Linux, Microsoft, is simply digging your own grave.

There is more coverage that says:

The situation for the default applications in less clear. The recently added Banshee media player is penciled in for removal to be replaced by Rhythmbox, the application it previously replaced. The issue for Banshee is that is uses GTK2 and the port to GTK3 is blocked due to missing features. The decision is not yet final though as the impact on Unity integration has not been established. Banshee’s removal would leave only Tomboy and Gbrainy as Mono-based applications and the removal of them, and Mono, was discussed but a final decision was not made. GNOME 3.4 is being released just a month before the release of Ubuntu 12.04, so the decision has been made to stick with GNOME 3.2 for the release but use GTK3.4 and some GNOME 3.4 components such as gedit and the GNOME Games.

“I’ve killed at least two Mac conferences. [...] by injecting Microsoft content into the conference,” bragged a Microsoft chief evangelist and “you want to infiltrate” is another memorable phrase from him. This ties nicely into the next bit of news, which reminds us of a famous incident in Romania. Microsoft “Tried to Sabotage DebConf 11″ as one blogger put it and to quote the original:

I could write a whole novel about this, but to keep it as short as possible, for last two years as a side project I was working on an idea of Government or some of its institutions migrating to Linux. At first I was somewhat loud about it, then after Microsoft heard about it and after they tried stopping the idea by trying to scare me by trying to interfere with my private life; as that didn’t work its lobbyist came even near of obstructing the whole conference within the Government. For the sake of the conference, I convinced the Government that by supporting DebConf it doesn’t mean they need to move to Linux and publicly stopped talking about it. I also convinced them that our only goal was to have successful conference and promote alternative options and open ideas. I wasn’t lying as I saw this as new opportunity of them concluding on their own why they should or shouldn’t not move, the better conference was the more chances of success we had.
That’s why I tried pushing as many representatives from various companies as in this case we would use reverse psychology where basically no one or few know what Linux or Debian for that matter is, but everybody knows who Google is, so if you have participants from i.e: Google or Austrian E-Health care system talking about how they are using your technology is better way to explain what’s it all about really. Eventually Microsoft even had their first ever conference in Bosnia/Herzegovina and you wanna take a wild guess where it was held? Smile
In the end we had a great conference, after the conference we were the ones that were approached by some big local companies interested in future co-operation and in the end a meeting with Mark Shuttleworth and President along with the core of Government was scheduled. Topic? Migration to Linux. For me personally this meeting went better then I could possibly even picture it, many topics were discussed and basically it was up to us/me to make a draft of the project plan and submit request for proposal to the Government. There was still some lobbying but it seemed as it all disappeared, runway was clear and open for the lift off.

The main loud voice who now opposes the removal of Mono from Ubuntu is one who pushed it into Debian an Ubuntu a few years back. This Mono booster is unhappy to see Mono going away from Ubuntu and he will mostly likely work to ensure that it stays inside Debian (my Debian Squeeze box came with Mono). Some people try to spread Mono, whereas some celebrate its riddance:

Flushing Mono down the toilet, where it belongs, will require removing Tomboy (no loss), and either replacing Banshee or modifying it to remove Mono dependency. Well worth the effort.

Sam Varghese writes:

The reason for this is that the Ubuntu development team has decided to drop the Mono-dependent Banshee music player and go back to RhythmBox which was used in earlier releases. Once Banshee is removed, the main reason for the inclusion of Mono goes with it.

The net effect is the same regardless of whether patents or technical limitations were the catalyst. Mono is now a niche/startup, so it is unlikely to ever return to Ubuntu. Mono is dying. █

Summary: The distributor which pays Microsoft $50 per copy (for patent assurance) seems to have gone silent

ONE distribution we only ever hear about in historical context is Xandros, which pays Microsoft for GNU/Linux (although SUSE is still Microsoft’s favourite child). It is usually mentioned in reference to Eee PC. Actually, we find a great deal of revisionism in this area. Rather than explain how Microsoft distorted the sub-notebooks market in anti-competitive ways, the newer pieces pretend that GNU/Linux should be blamed. But either way, how many people still use Xandros? It has virtually no existence in the news because the distribution, which is oddly enough still up for sale, is many years old. Xandros as a company seems to have gone missing and it even sold Scalix last month, making a bit of a wave at the time (more like a ripple though).

Is anybody aware of a business which still uses Xandros somewhere? If so, we would like to know. Using the latest Debian would be a lot better than using some ancient “Xandros”, which is a controversial ripoff job that many Debian GNU/Linux developers are not too happy with.

Summary: An affinity for the ripoff of the ripoff of Java is costing Debian and its descendent’s, Ubuntu, dearly

MONO is not software, it’s a doctrine. It’s the belief that Microsoft is the centre of all things and that all platforms — GNU/Linux included — should just become clients of Microsoft despite the known risks.

Banshee is the latest Mono addition to Ubuntu and as a notable blogger put it, “I wonder what is the next platform they’re going to take on now that both Windows and Mac are already supported.”

Banshee — like Mono in general — is about .NET, it's not about GNU/Linux. It never was. That says a lot. In fact, a lot of the people who promote Mono inside GNU/Linux are not even GNU/Linux users. They have an agenda, which is to increase the use of Microsoft APIs. It’s no wonder that the lead developer of Mono is a Microsoft MVP.

According to this, Banshee was added to Ubuntu prematurely. It’s buggy. We have heard the same thing in IRC and in E-mail. What was Canonical thinking??? All that Banshee has done for Ubuntu so far is harm its reputation (the Bansheegate).

According to this other new post, “Debian 6 [is] sluggish and slow due to Mono”.

It says: “To cut a long story short, I have no need for Mono and decided to erase it.

   apt-get purge cli-common libmono-*

“If you are a Ubuntu user reading this, please do not run this command.

“Now the interesting thing after performing this action was I noticed my desktop was more snappy and responsive, and more inline with Fedora 14.”

Fedora avoids Mono as a matter of principle. █

Summary: IDG/IDC do their trick again, selling false perceptions about GNU/Linux and about Microsoft, which keeps sliding down while finding new financial ways of hiding its weaknesses

YESTERDAY we wrote about Microsoft hiring liars to defame Free software more frequently than before. Some of those liars call themselves “academics” or “analysts”, but to them the business model is to find the criteria and data which allows them to come up with the required deception and then massively promote it using corporate media arms. IDG does this a lot with IDC as we have shown over the years, which is why Microsoft loves paying IDG/IDC a lot of money, sometimes quite explicitly in order to assist with Microsoft lobbying (we have given examples of that too). Earlier this week IDC released its periodic GNU/Linux FUD and this was covered not just by gullible sites that still take and accept the figures at face value (despite there being detailed rebuttals) and the IDG/IDC overlap, where IDG sites basically promote IDC lies (fake numbers that do not actually reflect on what they are said to represent), can also be seen here. Yes, IDG gives exposure to its own ‘studies’ but wraps all it together as ‘news’, as usual. They know that they deceive, they are told so, but they carry on (see our wiki for details). That’s just corrupt, unfair, and totally unprofessional. Yesterday we wrote about IDG's latest Microsoft whitewashing, which is basically an attempt to wed Microsoft and the “open source” community, using amazing spin and serious omissions. As the 451 Group helps show, Microsoft’s vision of “open source” is one of Microsoft licences and acceptance of software patents (no GPLv3 allowed). How noble, eh?

Over at Identica, Silner writes: “This PHP story got me wondering if Microsoft’s new strategy is divide and conquer: divide !OpenSource from !Linux?”

In reply he got: “That is their old strategy: divide “open source” from Linux, Linux from GNU, GNOME from GNU, stuff GNOME with Mono.”

Silner responds with a question: “What is their new strategy though? You know, I leaning towards the idea they’re hedging their bets”

The context can be seen in Identica along with more analysis. “I should have said the Gnu strategy. I missed that one,” Silner added.

It is correct to say that Microsoft is trying to fragment the community. The Mono and Moonlight boosters (Novell employees) are doing the same thing and they also try to incite Ubuntu members against us, using lies. Popey, for example, is under the misguided impression that we are against Ubuntu when in fact we’ve defended the project since it was conceived. Separately, wrote Popey, “Wow! Windows 8 will have multiple desktops! Welcome to 1985!”

You always know that Microsoft is having a tough time when it brings up Vista 8 promises, just as it was harping about WinFS for many years, promising to deliver Longhorn (successor of XP) by the end of 2003, along with WinFS. People who know Microsoft’s vapourware tactics will understand that it just shows how fragile the company really is. It is facing a situation where few rich billionaires take money out of Microsoft while Microsoft is borrowing money and sees its cash cows Office and Windows falling without signs of this fall stopping. The company has troubling times ahead, just like every company (they all stagnate eventually). Meanwhile, people like Bill Gates are getting even richer while avoiding tax (the Gates Foundation is essentially passing all taxation to the poor by also exempting Warren Buffett). See this new discussion in Twitter [1, 2] which speaks about tax avoider Gates who is still acting like the United States economist for Obama. It’s about this article which is titled “Bill Gates Addresses The ‘Completely Unsustainable’ Crisis In Public Pensions” (Gates is an quotable economist now?):

There are long-term problems with state budgets that a return to economic growth won’t solve. Health-care costs and pension obligations are projected to grow at rates that look to be completely unsustainable, unless something is done. But so far, many states aren’t doing much to deal with their fundamental problems. Instead they’re building budgets on tricks – selling off assets, creative accounting – and fictions, like assuming that pension fund investments will produce much higher gains than anyone should reasonably expect.

How about asking Gates to stop evading tax and actually contribute something other than lobbying, e.g. instructing governments (usually so that they give taxpayers’ money to companies he invests in)?

In summary, this whole corrupt nature of Microsoft is not the only sign of its demise. Microsoft has always been corrupt, it just happens to be very visible this month. █

(ODF | PDF | English/original)

Resumen: A pesar de algunas denuncias maliciosas, Microsoft sigue copiando la funciones de seguridad de Linux, no al revés.

Los sitios de noticias de tecnología han comenzado a empujar la historia “USB”, lo que sugiere que heredar el comportamiento en Windows hace a Linux menos seguro. Hay muchas réplicas presentadas por escrito al respecto y le haremos frente en una etapa posterior. Por el momento, recordemos la gran ventaja de GNU/Linux no sólo en lo que respecta a la centralización de software en los repositorios de confianza (lo que verifica la seguridad y la protege de descargas maliciosas desde sitios arbitrarios). Una de las grandes ventajas de este enfoque es que utilizando el mismo mecanismo GNU/Linux mantiene todo el software subyacente – no sólo el núcleo del sistema operativo – al día con los parches de seguridad. Windows no tiene esto (Apple emula esto y Microsoft sólo expresa las esperanzas de emular algún día, al igual que emula sudo) y, de hecho, un escritor dice ahora que “Microsoft tiene que abrir Windows Update para los desarrolladores de terceras partes[http://www.betanews.com/article/Why-Microsoft-has-to-open-Windows-Update-to-thirdparty-developers/1296852522]“:

Hay una gran confusión que hay acerca de cuándo los ataques contra los ordenadores se producen como consecuencia de las vulnerabilidades en el software y no de algún otro punto débil, por lo general de ingeniería social. hay considerables progresos logrados en la protección contra las vulnerabilidades en Windows, y podemos hacer aún más difícil su explotación, si Microsoft se puede convencer a sí mismo de mi plan: abrir Windows Update para las aplicaciones de terceros.

Mi propia opinión es que la ingeniería social es mucho más importante que las vulnerabilidades y ha ido aumentando en importancia. Una razón para esto es que las vulnerabilidades son un objetivo más difícil de lo que solía ser, y eso es en gran parte debido al trabajo que Microsoft ha hecho en los últimos 6 o 7 años.

Glyn Moody escribió sobre la confesión William Hague, que hemos mencionado, el otro día[http://techrights.org/2011/02/05/william-hague-got-pwn3d/], alegando con razón[http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2011/02/uk-cyberwar---or-uk-cyberwallies/index.htm] que los sistemas operativos desempeñar un papel importante aquí:

La clave es darse cuenta de que el vínculo peligroso que los idiotas gobierno del Reino Unido ha hecho clic en descargar a su PC el troyano Zeus – un keylogger que SOLO AFECTA A WINDOWS (no es como que alguna vez habías supuesto a partir de la cobertura de la corriente principal PATETICA de cualquier infección Zeus ). Así que si el gobierno del Reino Unido intercambia muchos de los sistemas Windows caros y vulnerables, con los de bajos costos y mucho más seguro de GNU/Linux con los que, estaríamos a salvo de la mayor parte de las pérdidas de los ciber-wallies, para casi ningún desembolso.

Pero eso sería demasiado fácil, eficiente e inteligente – especialmente cuando hay un paquete de aullido de las empresas de seguridad que tienen el olor de los 650 millones smackeroonies en sus fosas nasales dilatadas. Para evitar que la amenaza de reducir al mínimo la amenaza con medios tan sencillos, que sin duda va a crear un crescendo de FUD sobre el inminente “ciber-Armageddon” que todos nos enfrentamos si el gobierno del Reino Unido no lanza cubos de dinero en su dirección a “defender , la demora, el ataque y las maniobras en el ciberespacio “, como el General Sir David Richards, jefe del Estado Mayor de defensa, lo puso en el artículo citado anteriormente (¿cómo demonios haces maniobras en el “ciberespacio?)

El problema es que no importa mucho cómo las empresas de seguridad reclaman sus soluciones costosas son a prueba de idiotas, subestiman la inteligencia de los idiotas – o la falta de profundidad e intrínsecos de la seguridad ofrecida por un monocultivo de Microsoft, que es aún más resistente que el molesto “ciber “prefijo ….

En el mismo día, Moody también compartió un enlace a este curiosa [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/4-07022011-AP/EN/4-07022011-AP-EN.PDF] PDF, que sugiere que “Casi 1/3 de los usuarios de Internet en la Unión Europa -27 han capturado un virus informático” (Moody agregó: “aqui no se menciona Windows, sólo por un cambio”) .

Fue hace casi 3 años que escribimos acerca de las estadísticas que sugieren un 40% de las PC de Windows se había convertido en zombies[http://techrights.org/2008/05/14/windows-zombie-pc-40-pct/], si los usuarios saben esto o no. █

Many thanks to Eduardo Landaveri of the Spanish portal of Techrights.

Summary: Contrary to some malicious allegations, Microsoft remains the one copying security features from Linux, not the other way around

THE technology news sites have begun pushing the “USB” story, suggesting that inheriting Windows-like behaviour makes Linux less secure. There are rebuttals written about it and we may address them at a later stage. For the time being, let us recall the advantage GNU/Linux has not only when it comes to software centralisation in trusted repositories (which verifies safety and protects from malicious downloads from arbitrary sites). One of the big advantages of this approach is that using the same mechanism GNU/Linux keeps all the underlying software — not just the core of the operating system — up to date with security patches. Windows does not have that (Apple emulates this and Microsoft only expresses hopes to emulate that, just like it emulates sudo) and in fact one writer is now saying that “Microsoft has to open Windows Update to third-party developers”:

There’s a lot of confusion out there about when attacks against computers occur as a result of vulnerabilities in software as opposed to some other weakness, usually social engineering. Considerable progress has been made in protection against vulnerabilities on Windows, and we can make exploitation even harder if Microsoft can be talked into my scheme: open up Windows Update to third-party applications.

My own opinion is that social engineering is far more important than vulnerabilities and has been increasing in importance. One reason for this is that vulnerabilities are a harder target than they used to be, and that’s in large part because of the work Microsoft has done over the last 6 or 7 years.

Glyn Moody wrote about the William Hague confession which we mentioned the other day, arguing quite rightly that operating systems play a role here:

The key thing to notice is that the dangerous link that the UK government idiots clicked on downloaded to their PCs the Zeus trojan horse – a keylogger that only affects Windows (not that you’d ever guess that from the pathetic mainstream coverage of any Zeus infection). So if the UK government swapped out lots of those expensive and vulnerable Windows systems with low-cost and rather more secure GNU/Linux ones, we’d be spared most of the losses from those cyber-wallies, for almost no outlay.

But that would be too easy, efficient and intelligent – especially when there’s a baying pack of security companies who have the scent of those 650 million smackeroonies in their dilated nostrils. To avoid that threat of minimising the threat with such simple means, they’ll doubtless create a crescendo of FUD about the imminent “cyber-Armageddon” we all face if the UK government doesn’t throw buckets of dosh in their direction to “defend, delay, attack and manoeuvre in cyberspace”, as General Sir David Richards, chief of the defence staff, put it in the article quoted above (how on earth do you “manoeuvre in cyberspace”?)

The trouble is, no matter how much security firms claim their costly solutions are idiot-proof, they underestimate the cleverness of idiots – or the deep and intrinsic lack of security offered by a Microsoft monoculture, which is even more durable than that pesky “cyber” prefix….

On the very same day, Moody also shared a link to this curious PDF, suggesting that “Nearly 1/3 of internet users in the EU27 caught a computer virus” (Moody added: “no mention of Windows, just for a change”).

It was almost 3 years ago that we wrote about statistics suggesting 40% of Windows PCs had become zombies, whether the users know this or not. █

Summary: GNU/Linux is patching flaws very quickly (almost immediately), whereas Microsoft hides flaws and patches them a long time after their discovery, sometime patching them secretly or only once attacks strike

Mr. Pogson has just found this news about a vulnerability that affects Vista 7 and all of its predecessors. It took Microsoft no less than about half a year to patch this vulnerability. Yes, check it out:

The software company on Tuesday released MS10-049 to kill the bug in Windows Server 2008, Windows 7 and 12 other versions of Windows that are still under support. The patch updates a part of the operating system known as SChannel, or Secure Channel, which is responsible for implementing SSL, which is also referred to as TLS, or transport layer security.

This patch Tuesday was the worst ever recorded (but Microsoft admits bluffing with the numbers, so it’s impossible to know for sure]).

Either way, compare that to the speed of Debian’s patch for the same issue:

I read that M$ has just patched SSL to comply with RFC5746, five months after Debian GNU/Linux did it… on 12 architectures and several versions. Who are you going to call when you need software for your IT system? Debian GNU/Linux!

Microsoft still promotes the mythology that half of Windows PCs are claimed to be zombies just because Windows is ubiquitous. Maybe it has a lot to do with Microsoft’s shoddy patching practices, not supposed “popularity” which Microsoft loves to rave about like a cheerleader. █

“The trouble with you, Andy [Hill, Microsoft developer], is you aren’t willing to listen to schedules. When I tell you what the schedule is, you try to twist my arm to sign up to a schedule that I don’t believe in. You learned that at the Steve Ballmer cheerleading school too, didn’t you? Well, he’s nuts, and so are you.”

–Microsoft manager

Summary: Teams of embedded Debian users/developers may want a shield from software patents; Europe does nothing to stop software patenting; patent lawyers and the patents they crave prove harmful to development of “best” mobile phones

Benjamin Henrion (FFII) says that “EmDebian [is] considering joining the Open Invention Network,” based on this new message:

OIN is the open innovation network, a patent defence group set up in 2005 by IBM, phillips, Red Hat, Novell, NEC and Sony to create a patent pool for defending Linux.

They are now keen to have proper free-software people and projects join up, especially in the Embedded space which is shaping up for a big fight over the next few years as the incumbents realise Linux has eaten their businesses. This could easily get dirty (i.e. have incumbent vendors resort to their patent portfolios to hang on past their natural time – (in the way that SCO did, although they tried to use copyright rather than patents).

Henrion is trying to tell them that “collective patent pools and shields do not work against trolls” (with special exceptions [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]).

Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) Decision Loved by Patent Lawyers

Wednesday’s disappointment from the EBoA is already being covered all around Europe, especially by the legal 'industry'.

Patent attorneys seem pleased with the outcome, which lets them carry on doing what they did before, including the patenting of software using known loopholes.

To be honest, the decision was pretty much expected: the European Patent Office (EPO) has been taking a fairly consistent approach to computer-implemented inventions and has a growing body of learning materials on the subject.

Another ‘IP’ attorney says that “Enlarged Board of Appeal confirms approach to controversial software patents.” More from patent lawyers:

As many in the ‘FOSS’/anti-patent world would undoubtedly say, perhaps it is now time for the legislator to take over. However, I would have very serious doubts about whether it will be possible to come to any sort of agreement among the member states of either the EU or the EPC that would stand any chance of resolving the issue once and for all.

[...]

6. T 424/03, Microsoft does deviate from a view expressed in T 1173/97, IBM, concerning whether a claim to a program on a computer-readable medium necessarily avoids exclusion from patentability under Article 52(2) EPC. However this is a legitimate development of the case law and there is no divergence which would make the referral of this point to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President admissible.

Henrion has just uploaded this English version of the video depicting the European Parliament as it rejects the Software Patent Directive (also available in French/original). Here is an Ogg Theora version of this historical video.

It would be nice to have another such high-profile decision annulling all patents on software. In the United States, In Re Bilski will resume very shortly.

Phones a Patent Mess

“Complex Smartphones Are the Latest Patent Battleground,” exclaims Business Week. It seems like nothing but lawsuits is what patents brought to this lucrative section of the industry (where Linux grows fastest and Microsoft diminishes).

The patent wars are raging in the mobile device market, and they could result in rising costs for handset makers and higher gadget prices for wireless carriers and consumers. So far this year, Apple and HTC—two of the most innovative smartphone makers—have become embroiled in more patent-related litigation than in all of 2007, and they are on track to beat their own 2008 and 2009 records, according to Bloomberg data.

Wired Magazine has the following new article:

Investigation: Apple vs Nokia vs Google vs HTC vs RIM

[...]

The struggle that’s broken out between the tech giants has a certain irony; after all, the prizes they’re disputing — patents — were invented to accelerate and encourage invention, not hinder it. The concept is fairly straightforward: a patent is granted if an invention meets a number of requirements, the most essential being “novelty” and “usefulness”. Once granted, a patent typically gives the inventor a limited monopoly of a minimum of 20 years in which he alone can market the invention or license others to take up his protected work.

[...]

In their 2008 book Patent Failure, Bessen and fellow Boston University law professor Michael Meurer show that, since the late-90s, litigation costs for publicly traded companies (except in the case of pharmaceuticals) have consistently outweighed the profits that companies derived from patents. They show that in 1999 alone, $9.3 billion (£6bn) were made in profits from patents globally. Litigation costs alone, however, reached $16 billion (£10.5bn) for the US. In the last decade, this situation has deteriorated considerably: in 1999, there were 2,318 patent litigation lawsuits filed in the US. By 2008, that number had risen to 2,896.

Yesterday we mentioned the HTC vs Apple case. The New York Times has attempted to get a response from Apple but failed.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.

Why didn’t HTC join the OIN and retaliate against Microsoft and Apple this way? Instead, it sold out to Microsoft and harmed the whole of Android in the process.

HTC is using just 5 patents. Had it joined the OIN, it would possibly have hundreds of infringing examples for a more effective artillery in this M.A.D. situation (TechDirt says that a “Patent Nuclear Response [Was] Launched” because it’s the best analogy).

According to the press release, HTC believes Apple infringes upon five of their patents. As to what they are, we don’t quite know. More on this as it develops.

“HTC files patent complaint against Apple, asks for ban on iPhone, iPad, and iPod,” says Engadget. That’s the ITC loophole which often gets abused.

Apple has other problems because of Adobe and invocation of “antitrust”.

Adobe has launched its latest salvo in an ongoing dispute with Apple.

The co-founders of Adobe have published an open letter in which they say that Apple threatens to “undermine the next chapter of the web”.

Actually, it is Adobe which undermines the next chapter of the Web. The Web is about web standards, not proprietary plugins. More companies also need to support Theora, which both Apple and Adobe are a threat to (see the posts below). █

• Microsoft Brings MPEG-LA-LA Land to the Web and Threatens GNU/Linux With Software Patent Lawsuits
• Patents Roundup: Red Hat on Patent Trolls; Apple Antitrust; Microsoft Attacks Theora, Which is Needed to Save Our Video Culture
• Behind the Microsoft Puppetmaster: SCO-Type Libel, Acacia-Type Patent Trolls, and Novell-Type Patent Deals to Make GNU/Linux Not Free (Gratis)
• Apple’s and Microsoft’s New Motto: Do More Evil, Together
• Steve Jobs: “A Patent Pool is Being Assembled to Go After Theora and Other “Open Source” Codecs Now.”
• Apple and Microsoft a Threat to Culture (Data), Not Just Software (Tools)
• “The fight has been around a long time, now the target of Microsoft is Theora”
• Symptoms of the Sickness of the Patent System and Apple’s Infinite Greed

Summary: By means of entryism, Microsoft increases influence inside HP, thus reducing the chance of Slate and Windows Home Server joining the list of dead products from Microsoft

IN THE PREVIOUS post we showed how HP was preparing to dump Vista 7, apparently only to replace it with a newly-acquired Linux-based operating system. It’s all just a rumour at the moment.

Mary Jo Foley asks the question, is “Microsoft and HP['s] Love on the rocks?”

Well, hardly.

Microsoft and HP collaborate in many ways and we have given many examples to that effect.

Vista 7, which is a hyped-up Vista with few improvements here and there, does not fulfill HP’s needs for tablets. Vista 7 is just not competitive enough and HP really hated Vista, based on E-mails from its management (unsealed around the Steve Ballmer deposition).

We are saddened but not surprised that HP has announced in a press release [1, 2] that it takes Microsoft staff to lead “Software and Solutions Business” — whatever that practically means.

This news was mostly covered by enthusiastic Microsoft boosters (for obvious reasons) and we found:

• Former Microsoft exec Veghte headed to HP
• HP grabs former Microsoft executive to run software business
• Hewlett-Packard names Microsoft veteran Bill Veghte EVP for software and solutions
• H-P Hires Microsoft Veteran to Head Software
• Bill Veghte, former Microsoft Windows exec, will join HP
• HP: Is it spreading itself too thin in the IT wars?
• HP names Microsoft veteran to lead software
• HP names Microsoft veteran to lead software
• Veghte Turns up at HP

From the point of view of Free software and GNU/Linux, this is bad news. Microsoft’s Veghte very recently left the abusive company, right after meeting privately with Steve Ballmer. Amazon ought to serve as a cautionary lesson here. Amazon added Microsoft patent tax to Red Hat and Kindle’s implementation of Linux after hiring many executives from Microsoft, including one who joined the Kindle team just weeks before that notorious patent deal. Veghte could potentially put a Microsoft tax on WebOS just like in those predatory attempts against Android, which is also Linux based.

Veghte is not merely an innocent guy who spent a couple of years at Microsoft (like employees of companies that get acquired by Microsoft). He really grew up in this culture and in previous posts we gave examples of his role in antitrust violations:

Hewlett-Packard’s hiring of former Windows executive Bill Veghte, announced today, is another example of the computer maker’s potential to compete with its longtime partner, Microsoft, in the software business. The 20-year Microsoft veteran will lead HP’s software and services unit in his new role as an HP executive vice president.

Vice President, eh?

Speaking of seats being swapped, one reader told us that “[i]t’s time for the annual re-org to keep Nokia from getting competitive: Nokia has yet another corporate reorganization, this time they’ve put Anssi Vanjoki back in charge”

“It’s time for the annual re-org to keep Nokia from getting competitive…”
      –Anonymous readerSee this page about Mary T. McDowell and recall how Nokia got ‘poisoned’ by Microsoft influence, later to sign Microsoft deals and play ball for software patents in Europe. A leopard like Veghte won’t change his spots overnight and not within a month, either. He spent two decades working alongside people like Steve Ballmer.

Now, lo and behold; in the past 2 weeks’ news we found this press release, titled “AMD Works with Microsoft and HP to Raise the Bar for 2P Price/Performance with Windows Server® 2008 R2″

Okay…

Let’s look further at the news.

How about “HP and Microsoft on Sex and the City 2″?

In the upcoming “Sex and the City” sequel, Carrie Bradshaw and her friends will carry Hewlett-Packard (HP) laptops that run Microsoft Windows.

Classy.

HP’s Debian-based home servers will hopefully not be neglected. Over the past week or two Microsoft has generated many headlines about Windows “home servers” (here is just one example), which are a technical disaster that falls short of Linux [1, 2] and usually relies on bundling from HP. Will HP call this bad product off and concentrate on Debian now that its “Software and Solutions Business” VP is a hardcore Microsoft executive?

Microsoft has seen many of its products dying recently, Forefront being one of the latest. It was only days beforehand that Microsoft still recommended it, so just because Microsoft raves about a beta of Home Server doesn’t mean it won’t be cancelled like Windows Essential Business Server for example. But with Veghte in charge? Not likely. █

Summary: “It should be widely known by now. No matter why, when and where, join MS and you will be dead.” –Abe

Richard Hillesley has just published “The lost world of the Xandros desktop,” which is an article that looks at Xandros’ past and present. To quote some bits from this long article:

The latest release of the Xandros Linux desktop edition was in June 2006, which is several lifetimes in the history of Linux. Is this the end of the line for the Xandros desktop?

[...]

The ‘patent covenant’ with Microsoft has had a detrimental effect on Xandros’ ongoing relationships with the Linux user and developer communities. Ostensibly the purpose of the deal with Microsoft was to license protocols to enable Xandros’ BridgeWays and Scalix products to work with Microsoft networks.

Actually, Scalix came later. Xandros bought Scalix in July 2007 (July 9^th to be precise), whereas Xandros sold out to Microsoft on June 4^th.

We have found some new comments on the subject, including one in Tux Machines:

Xandros propaganda for smartphones ? giving up on netbooks ?

Netbooks were born for children. But had a future for enterprise applications because of HDTV(broadcasting news or training film) 16:9 video format(DVD player format). So, Asus sold more XP(sp3). But for individuals, dual boot with Ubuntu maybe a choice, until Firefox shot itself in the foot(not flash9 compatible).

In the comment titled “Join MS”, Abe from Linux Today writes:

Those who forget history are bound to repeat it.

It should be widely known by now. No matter why, when and where, join MS and you will be dead.

Those who ignore the warnings can’t blame but themselves.

We have a detailed list of companies that lost their GNU/Linux focus after signing Microsoft deals. Xandros of one of those companies. It’s "Microsoft's touch of death". █

“I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense — I deserve it.”

–Be’s CEO Jean-Louis Gassée

Summary: Yet another distribution makes the decision to put Mono in the wastebasket; Apple keeps Microsoft’s and Novell’s MonoTouch out

LAST NIGHT we wrote about Netrunner, which removes Mono from Ubuntu GNU/Linux (Mint actually). Someone who read about Netrunner has told us that SchoolOS is also removing Mono. “See part A , toberemove section,” he told us. Another Ubuntu derivative that removed Mono was gNewSense [1, 2] (it later moved to Debian).

“Another Ubuntu derivative that removed Mono was gNewSense…”Who is left to support Mono? Surely not Fedora and Red Hat (the GNU/Linux leader). Even Apple is virtually blocking MonoTouch right now (for background about MonoTouch, see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]).

In other news, Ryan Paul, who is a longtime promoter of Mono and Moonlight, seems like the latest person to promote Microsoft’s ‘embrace’ of “Open Source” (for Windows only). He writes about CoApp [via Slashdot], which has so far been promoted by Microsoft boosters [1, 2]. Paul is an excellent journalist (we usually agree with him) and he is attempting to promote “Open Source” as a whole (regardless of the underlying platform), but as pointed out in the comments section, he spreads the misconcpetion (in the headline) that it’s about “development” rather than just installation for Windows.

Here at Techrights we consider CoApp to be a misguided idea that only empowers Microsoft. █

Summary: More migrations to Free software are seen in Germany and setbacks are spotted elsewhere in Europe

OpenOffice.org continues to evolve under Oracle’s guard, which is good news. According to the following article, OpenOffice.org also continues to gain greater adoption in Germany. Here is Bull speaking about its migrations to OpenOffice.org. [English translation]

Insgesamt wurde weltweit auf mehr als 8.000 Arbeitsplätzen, davon 500 in Deutschland, das Lizenzkosten-freie Office-Paket installiert. Durch den konsequenten Einsatz von offenen Standards setzt Bull auf eine zukunftsfähige IT-Strategie, die die Abhängigkeit von kommerziellen Anwendungen und proprietären Standards verringert – getreu dem Firmen-Claim „Architect of an Open World™“.

That’s a lot more desktops running Free software and ODF. Bull has a customer base with more than 100,000 installations worldwide. There is also this new update about Munich’s migration to Debian GNU/Linux and ODF:

The consolidated IT of the city of Munich is reporting at CeBIT 2010 on converting their workstations to Linux and OpenOffice.

The migration to the free office package was finalized for Munich. All 15,000 office PCs of the city council will work on OpenOffice, under Linux or Windows. In the context of CeBIT Open Source, city experts and the DBI service will answer questions about the migration at booth F24. On display will be their Wollmux software tool for personalized templates and forms administration.

We wrote about Munich’s important migration (which Microsoft tried to derail) on numerous occasions before [1, 2].

The trickier part, as Holland shows us, is getting rid of proprietary lock-ins and never returning to them again. Here is what Glyn Moody wrote about “The Continuing Scandal of Vendor Lock-in“:

This is a strong argument for mandating open source/open standards solutions in the public sector: depending on “level playing fields” as Microsoft demands so vociferously is actually surrendering to the status quo because of the huge lock-in problem. The only way to get true equality of opportunity is to force people to move to open standards, and *then* let the market operate freely.

Moody has a new example of this Microsoft Office lock-in. He refers to the Microsoft-occupied Open University [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] which requests “application forms [for a CIO] only in .doc or .pdf…”

Speaking of lock-in, Pinguinpat has added to our Wiki this new page about how Microsoft is not only removing choice at the OEM level, but also goes further to rob taxpayers for increased lock-in:

Belgian tax money,

The Belgian national government is actually giving ‘less gifted’ people the opportunity to buy a computer to get access to the Internet.

Beautiful right? Well no: the minister in charge refuses to halt the cartel between Microsoft, computer manufacturers and vendors.

Getting a computer includes buying Microsoft software. So for every sold computer, Belgian tax money goes directly to Microsoft.

Minister Van Quickenborne minister ict – openVLD doesn’t seem to care. As usual Microsoft doesn’t need to take the law seriously.

It’s one thing when a private company decides to trade with an abusive monopoly but entirely another when government institutions do so at taxpayers’ expense and without their permission/approval. █

Summary: MEPIS is listing Novell’s Mono among non-Free software, as it probably ought to

MEPIS is a popular GNU/Linux distribution which is built on top of KDE. The KDE 3.5-based build of SimplyMEPIS 8.0.15 is said to include Mono, but this is not correct (Distrolove is inaccurate).

Warren Woodford has announced the release of SimplyMEPIS8.0.15, a new update of the beginner-friendly distribution based on Debian’s stable branch.

What’s New in SimplyMEPIS 8.0.15 :
> Devian 5
> 2.6.27 Linux kernel
> OpenOffice.org 3.1.1
> Firefox 3.5.6
> BIND 9.6.1-P2
> Skype 2.1.0.47
> Mono 2.4.2.3
> you can play any audio/video files.

Having taken a look at the official press release, Mono seems like just an addon, which is advertised alongside the proprietary Skype. █

Summary: gNewSense is shifting to Debian codebase, shafting Mono, and the debate about Mono and Moonlight reaches new levels

THE FSF has already taken a stance against the use of Mono and the SFLC has shown that Moonlight is not acceptable from a legal perspective (the latest “promise” from Microsoft has at least 10 holes in it).

gNewSense, the distribution which Richard Stallman is currently using, has already removed Mono [1, 2] and gNewSense developers are now “dropping Ubuntu” (not our words) and moving to Debian, just like MEPIS did. From the site’s updated FAQ (“modified on December 23, 2009, at 09:42 PM”):

13. Will gNewSense 3.0 be based on Debian instead of Ubuntu, and why?

Yes, because:

* Debian separates free and non-free software better, so it’s easier to make a fully free derivative out of it.
* Debian supports the architectures we want to support (e.g. MIPS).
* it suits our infrastructure better (easier development).

Since Gobuntu never materialised [1, 2], this means that there is no longer a truly free/libre variant of Ubuntu.

gNewSense’s reasons are known (see above). In the case of MEPIS, the reasons had to do with infrastructure too. One cannot help wondering if Ubuntu’s increasing reliance on Mono also had something to do with this decision, even subconsciously.

To quote a conversation that came up an hour ago in our IRC channel (the full log will be posted tomorrow):

Regarding the text of the new Moonlight covenant, Groklaw writes: “So Moonlight is being framed as a proprietary product, then, I gather.” Groklaw highlights what it calls an “interesting bit” from the covenant, namely: ““Moonlight Implementation” means only those specific portions of Moonlight 3 or Moonlight 4 that run only as Conforming Runtimes within a Conforming Host on a Personal Computer and are not licensed under GPLv3 or a Similar License.”

One of our readers, Brandon, has written a long post to explain Microsoft’s “Mono/Moonlight Agenda”. To quote just a portion (it is a very detailed analysis):

Many relevant points are brought up in this section. James Plamondon states (infamously) that “Every line of code that is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat.”

This would imply that by using the C# standard (ECMA 334 & 335), Microsoft receives a small victory. An example of defeat would be lines of code written in Java, C++ (Standardized, C++98 or C++03 for example), Python, etc.

The second paragraph explains that they want to use psychological, economic, and political weapons to convince people to adopt their standards. Often I hear a lot of business talk about wanting to use Microsoft because most of their customer base is Windows machines. Other excuses for sticking with Microsoft has been the FUD “Total Cost of Ownership” studies that falsely prove Microsoft is cheaper or that GNU/Linux is more expensive.

Some days ago we wrote about Novell’s removal of GPL-licensed code from MonoDevelop [1, 2]. Why is Novell still against the GNU GPL? Its ally Microsoft hates the GPL with passion, so this may not seem so absurd a move after all.

In defence of the GPL, Groklaw writes regarding Glyn Moody’s article and Google’s highly-cited document: “The GPL would mean there’d be no need to work hard to avoid fragmenting. If you choose a license that can fragment, you will get fragmenting, because proprietary desires are sure to come into the picture, as they did with UNIX. That’s exactly what is wrong with Apache. It’s open, until it isn’t.”

At this stage, Mono too is being closed. It’s not so surprising considering the fact that Novell calls itself a “mixed source” company. It’s false marketing [1, 2]. █

Summary: How F-spot would force Ubuntu, for example, to adopt more Mono applications with non-ECMA .NET components

LAST NIGHT we arrived at an interesting realisation. If F-spot will depend on Banshee, which according to the plan we have heard that it will [PDF], then Ubuntu, which already uses F-Spot, may have to swallow this other pill too — one which contain non-ECMA components (Banshee that is). So, the latest statement from the FSF aside and also API concessions aside (Mono gives Microsoft power and leverage over GNU/Linux APIs), there is an inherent legal problem here, which is difficult to stop. Another prospective concern is the increasing proximity between Moonlight and Banshee [1, 2, 3, 4], which might bring Microsoft codecs even further into GNU/Linux.

Check out this new mashup from Linux Today, as selected by its editor Carla.

[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.

GNU/Linux distributions like BLAG reject Mono for obvious reasons (not just the adherence to the FSF’s principles). On the other hand, Ubuntu’s suppression of discussion about Mono [1, 2, 3] is characteristic of a betrayal of democratic principles, or at least ones of an open community thriving in liberties. Humanity for others, unless they dislike Mono. It is indicative of a ruling minority taking decision-making powers from an opposing majority (most people reject Mono), which leads to unrest.

Speaking for myself, I am truly torn here. I have used Ubuntu since its very first release (4.10) and I still have Ubuntu installed on 3 separate boxes. To manually delete Mono is still to send out the message that a Mono-defending distribution is acceptable because subsequent removal of Mono is never accounted for; the message does not get across and users are assumed to have accepted Mono when choosing this one distribution among many hundreds. I remain optimistic that Ubuntu/Canonical will keep this debate alive and maybe resolve its differences. The facts about Mono are not hard to come by. █

–Miguel de Icaza

Summary: Another new roundup of Mono news

YESTERDAY we wrote about Moonlight and Mono-based applications getting more tightly integrated. We now see it confirmed by Novell employees Miguel de Icaza and Jonathan Pobst [1 2], so our suspicions were correct from the very start. This is all part of Microsoft’s ambition to fill the Web with Silver Lie content and the desktop with .NET/WPF, which in turn imposes a patent tax on GNU/Linux and makes a poorer experience for GNU/Linux users. From ITPro news:

The first version of Silverlight was launched in April 2007, while version 2 arrived in 2008. It runs on Windows and Mac – and even Linux. The latter is developed by Novell in conjunction with Microsoft, a project known as Moonlight.

“[I]n conjunction with Microsoft,” says this article, but the Microsoft/Novell Web site calls it “Microsoft Moonlight”. It serves Microsoft’s interests.

Microsoft’s Anti-Java

In the blog post where Mini Microsoft suggests laying off 15k employees we also find this comment which reminds us why it’s good that Bing is dying. Microsoft uses Bing to smear .NET’s (and Mono’s) main competitor, Java. From the commenter:

“Regarding Bing, I believe there are untrustworthy behaviours under the hood, specifically black list result filters. Try this searching for “transferhandler.export to clipboard swing”. Google finds about 100 results all related to Java. Bing finds exactly two results. One is my comment on this subject elsewhere and the other is in French. How can it be possible without deletion of “things Java” ?”

This is not surprising because Microsoft applies the same type of treatment to all major competitors of Microsoft, GNU/Linux included. See our previous posts on the subject, e.g.:

• “Decisions Engine” Means Microsoft Decides What You Should Think
• Does Microsoft Break the Law in Search of a Future?

Attacks on Stallman

For the past fortnight or so (shortly after Stallman’s official statement on Mono and C#), Stallman has come under attack from many directions, usually from defenders of Mono or users of Mono (including Canonical employees). He is still not impressed by Microsoft’s “Community Promise” (CP) [1, 2, 3] and this makes him no friends. Stefano Forenza wrote about these attacks on Stallman only to be called “misguided” by Caonical’s CTO.

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.

The new method in place seems to be that if you support Stallman and support his stance on Mono, then you’re also a chauvinist. It’s not said explicitly, but it is being implied that to be associated with Stallman is also to accept his sometimes-tactless humour/modest proposals.

Sam Varghese correctly points out that Mono’s most vocal defender inside Debian is himself quite chauvinistic. That person is Josselin Mouette.

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.

For those who have not been following the whole Mono kerkuffle (a lot has happened recently), here is an excellent summary, which concludes thusly:

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.

It is “exciting” for Microsoft, that’s for sure. Its APIs spread to the competitors’ platforms, which makes Microsoft more powerful. It does not bother Novell. █

“Our partnership with Microsoft continues to expand.”

–Ron Hovsepian, Novell CEO

“[The partnership with Microsoft is] going very well insofar as we originally agreed to co-operate on three distinct projects and now we’re working on nine projects and there’s a good list of 19 other projects that we plan to co-operate on.”

–Ron Hovsepian, Novell CEO

Summary: “Move over, Richard, we’ll take it from here” — that’s the sort of message embraced by parts of the Mono community

WE already know, based on pretty extensive evidence, that many Mono fans are also close to Microsoft. That is what makes this whole movement rather detrimental to Microsoft's most potent competitor, namely GNU/Linux.

In prior posts about Mono and Microsoft’s “Community Promise” (CP) [1, 2, 3] we showed that it had changed virtually nothing. If anything, it finally revealed that Mono has indeed patent traps in it, maybe just not at the core. One of the rudest pro-Mono people (from Debian) is being very blunt about it:

Q: Are there patent issues with Mono?

A: Just like any other software, Mono certainly infringes on thousands of stupid software patents. However the Debian policy with patents is to put them in a trash and pee on them, unless they are actively enforced with reasonable chances to win. The situation of Mono is much more comfortable than (for example) that of MP3 decoders, for which patents are actively enforced; it’s just that they are so lame that we choose to ignore them.

Q: Are there specific dangers coming from Microsoft regarding Mono?

A: Microsoft has claimed to possess patents on some Mono compatibility layers with non-standard Microsoft APIs. Not only this is completely irrelevant to GNOME, since nothing in Gtk# and related stuff uses these compatibility layers, but if you know how things work in the patent world, you already understand this is merely FUD. Microsoft has nothing, but claims to have something in order to scare consumers away from Mono. Actually, not enforcing the patents, while knowing they are violated, would make their case very weak in a patent suit. What their behavior shows is that they are very afraid of Mono. It is stealing customers from their best and most advanced product, their lead development framework. There is absolutely zero chance that they are sustaining Mono from behind, since its very existence is going to make them lose a large amount of money.

He even throws a fit at Stallman at the end. This is part of a pattern for him and other proponents of Mono have been doing the same thing ever since Stallman spoke out regarding Mono [1, 2]. One person even used the F word.

Ubuntu is apathetic towards Richard Stallman’s advice [1, 2], but Glyn Moody justifiably distrusts Microsoft on the whole matter. Regarding the CP, he writes:

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.

See the comments in GNU/Linux sites to get an impression of how many people reject Mono. It is only a vocal/aggressive minority that seems to be spreading Microsoft inside GNU/Linux, despite opposition from about 3 out of 4 GNU/Linux users (according to a recent poll).

Mono people understand that their attempts to marry Microsoft and Linux are backfiring now that the SFLC and FSF speak out, so Plan B is seemingly to discredit Stallman in person to make his technical assessments go away or be dishonoured. It has gone on for about two weeks. Sam Varghese addresses this issue in a new article where he writes:

Let’s remember that De Icaza has gone on the public record stating that he believes .NET is the “natural upgrade” for GNOME. Here’s a direct quote: “I’d like to see Gnome applications written in .NET in version 4.0 – no, version 3.0. But Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET. A lot of people just see .NET as a fantastic upgrade for the development platform from Microsoft.”

GNOME 3.0 is around the corner so he probably won’t have time to realise his dream. What of version 4.0?

Not unrelated to this whole Mono debate may be the fact that some GNOME people have started a campaign to smear Stallman, to the extent of even releasing a private email exchange. But then is not new behaviour from people at the top of GNOME. Anyone who criticises Mono seems to come in for a rough time.

Jason at the Mono Nono Web site correctly predicted that Stallman would suffer the wrath of Microsoft fans for merely daring to reject Mono. By the way, this is not a reference to one particular person because many blogs independently find an opportunity to pile criticisms on Stallman, for whatever reason or statement that he ever made (there is more than one, but the timing and motive are unlikely to be coincidental).

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.

The Mono Nono Web site also offers this list of reasons to ignore Microsoft’s CP, a clever trick which the ‘mainstream’ press consistently fell for:

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.

Moreover:

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.

And lastly:

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.

Many more answers were delivered regarding Mono (even from Microsoft). Now more than ever it is clear that Mono is a trap and thus it must be avoided. █

“I saw that internally inside Microsoft many times when I was told to stay away from supporting Mono in public. They reserve the right to sue”

–Robert Scoble, former Microsoft evangelist

Summary: A further look at Mono, those supporting it, and where it is all likely to be heading

TO those looking for our response to the Mono CP from Microsoft, here is the short explanation and a longer analysis. Some people still inquire about this in the IRC channel.

It is saddening — albeit hardly surprising — that Microsoft is among the big advocates of Mono right now. The pro-Microsoft spinners hold the very same position; Microsoft’s ally and Mary Jo Foley’s friend Gavin Clarke promotes Mono and the Microsoft blog at the Seattle P-I claims in light of this CP that:

The move was another indication that Microsoft increasingly is embracing open-source technology.

Saying you will not sue something based on some conditions that must be fulfilled is hardly en embrace, it is a patronising insult. As Rene Levesque-Caline puts it (in reference to Sam Ramji and other Microsoft decoys [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]):

Does Carmona not realize that tHese are recyclable guys that Redmond sends out to smile and take guff and make us believe that things have changed?
ANYTHING they say is for PR benefits but in no way woyld they have authority to do what you want.
They are low level managers with no power that are sent for PR (Carmona believes that they arent).
Their job is to distract your attention from what Ballmer, Hector Gutierrez and others with REAL power in Microsoft say about free software and Linux.
Have you EVER listened to some low level serf when you want to know which way the company is going or do you listen to Jobs?
Same goes for every big company I can think off.
But because these guys smile and act nice, were supposed to forget that Linux they claim stole from them over 200 times.”Yeah guys, I dont believe what my bald boss claims. Im one of you. Pinky swear.”
Were supposed to forget that Ballmer said that Red Hat users (U-S-E-R-S) owe them money (he also reminds us that VP de ICaza’s company, Novell, has paid the extortion fee and are the ‘legal’ Linux) because Linux stole from them.
Anything the Rajmi’s of this world say has absolutely no meaning because their boss says this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=5B0GTYf PoMo
I am a Red Hat user and Microsoft says that I owe them money because Linux stole their IP.
Has this changed?
No?
Then Rajmi is meaningless as he ever was.
Comes vs Microsoft shows us well how Microsoft acts towards Linux and NOTHING weve heard from the heads of the company has shown this is to be different.
(I dare anyone to show me one quote from a MS head which says differently. I can wait…..)
Are there people in Microsoft who use/develop FLOSS on their own?
Sure, the odds are pretty good. But in a company of that size Im sure you can find also bedwetters, pedophile, addicts and insomniacs like in any large cross section of society. Heck, Im sure you’ll find a few Windows users working at Apple. This shouldnt be considered exceptional.
None of this matters because those ‘brave groups of Redmond FLOSS lovers’ arent the ones who run the company.
And if Rajmi does make a statement now, how much do you think that will mean when Ballmer comes out with his next statement on Linux?
You think you could win in court by claiming that some meaningless peon made certain claims while no one in charge at MS says a word?
I know that we have clients sometimes claim that such and such employee promised things that they had no power or authority doing which is why we always start every partnership by specifying which empployees here speak for the company. Anyone outside these select few does not represent or have the authority to make such claims.
A Rajmi promise would be equally meaningless except it could make for great PR for Microsoft.
At least his predecessor, Bill Hilf, had a little juice then and lots more now and the only thing I remember him during his lovefest was “”The Free Software movement is dead. Linux doesn’t exist in 2007. ”

Other people whom we consider to be Microsoft sympathisers hold a similar position to that of pro-Microsoft reporters, but they cannot ignore the caveats.

Neither parts of .NET not implemented in Mono, such as ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms, nor libraries developed by Mono specifically for GNU/Linux, have ever been affected by these or any other patents, according to Mono’s Licensing FAQ. However, the affected parts have been more than enough for sections of the free software community to reject Mono, or at least to treat it cautiously.

The same issue gets raised by longtime critics of Mono.

“In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions. One will be ECMA, the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Winforms and others.”

Watch this reaction from Novell’s PR team and pay attention to the fact that a Novell employee embarks on a joint .NET/Mono event (one among other such new events... like MonoSpace). Novell/Mono people are also in Gran Canaria and one reader at LinuxToday complained about “Mono Infiltration” (that’s the subject line of the message).

I run Kubuntu KDE 4.3 RC1 and I just wanted to install sysinfo to check my system specific hardware. When I tried installing it, I was surprised to see the Mono junk. I just couldn’t stand it and I immediately killed it.

Is it in Canonical’s KDE now?

Polls and reactions consistently suggest that the majority of GNU/Linux users doesn’t want Mono. People do not migrate to GNU/Linux (or escape Microsoft lock-in) just to find themselves immersed in a Microsoft movement that evolves and inflates itself from inside distributions like an illness inside GNU/Linux. And when Doctor Stallman warns about this illness [1, 2], then this doctor just gets vilified not for his expert opinion but for his personal life.

A prominent voice in Debian is meanwhile saying that Debian does not come with Mono because GNOME can be separated from Debian.

So, yes, I have overseen two issues when writing my previous blog. But I still think, that it’s wrong to say “Debian will install mono by default”. If you want to say anything at all, say “Debian might install mono with its GNOME install media, but that can still change”.

Some people are justifiably concerned:

Before You Congratulate Mono

[...]

My long held theory is that mono was never to be considered a legal threat, it is a tool to be used in a strategy of erosion … insert a compelling technology, then provide a migration path by adding on proprietary extensions. It erodes Linux and it erodes OSS… and advocacy for it, even in purely legal/ethical ways, using just the free bits, and so forth, help enhance that position and acceptability.

Dana Blankenhorn talks about the negative effect Mono has had on integrity of the Free software movement. According to Blankenhorn, Microsoft is imposing a sort of "mixed source" model on GNU/Linux. Novell, which describes itself as a “mixed source” company [1, 2, 3, 4], would probably like that. It holds the upper hand because it has special ‘protections’ from Microsoft. This includes Moonlight.

So is this just a PR stunt, or is it going to last? I suppose time will tell. If you’re looking for an answer to that question, the existing dependancy Banshee/F-Spot have on System.Data (which is not covered by the ECMA spec) is an interesting place to watch.

This debate is far from over and someone has just created a Web site called “Mono Nono”. But Moonlight is an even more complicated beast that Microsoft — through Novell — spreads in order for it to be slid into GNU/Linux distributions.

Further to this previous discussion about Mono/Moonlight in immutable systems, one person looking for an explanation for “the mischievous wording in their [Moonlight] license” learned that Debian replaces Microsoft codecs with ffmpeg. Further, it was added that:

1. Debian is not an immutable system (do they ship Moonlight on a LiveCD?)
2. Distributing ffmpeg is a patent risk (MP3 and others)

If we hypothetically assume, for one moment, that the core of Moonlight is not, itself, patent encumbered, but that reliance on these codecs pulls-in patent risks, then that would leave a choice of one of the following, equally unacceptable scenarios:

1. The vendor ships Moonlight prebuilt against ffmpeg, which is a patent risk, since ffmpeg has not licensed any of the patent encumbered codecs it uses (most notably MP3). End users won’t really care about this though … until the vendor goes to court. Fedora bans such software for this very reason: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems

2. The vendor ships Moonlight prebuilt against a sanitised version of ffmpeg (essentially nothing left except vorbis and theora), thus leaving the end users with software that, in practical terms, is nearly useless

3. The vendor complies with patent law (no ffmpeg), but can/will not distribute proprietary software (Microsoft codecs), and therefore chooses to ship Moonlight “naked”. End users must then either accept Microsoft’s proprietary and patent encumbered “codec pack” as a “pushed” download, or somehow figure out how to rebuild Moonlight against ffmpeg themselves, by downloading the source from patent safe-harbours (I tried and failed to rebuild Moonlight, as seen in the link I provided). Note that unlike modular media players, such as Xine, ffmpeg does not utilise loadable plugins, therefore users must either obtain binaries that already support the required codecs, or rebuild it themselves. Rebuilding ffmpeg is not particularly difficult (for someone like me), but rebuilding Moonlight has proved to be rather less easy. Most users (noobs in particular) will just give up at the first hurdle, and default to accepting Microsoft’s proprietary blobs

4. The vendor ships Moonlight with Microsoft’s codec pack under license (e.g. Novell), and thus both the vendor and users are protected by both copyright and patent law (explicit grant). However, the vendor is now distributing proprietary software, and so end users have lost their Freedom as a de facto condition. They also have the technical disadvantages of Microsoft’s blobs (bugs, privacy, security, etc.)

Now consider that Moonlight is in fact patent encumbered, and that Microsoft only provided indemnity for direct “downstream recipients” from Novell to use this software.

Conclusion: The only practical and legal way to obtain and use this software, is to be a Novell customer running SUSE, and use their distribution of Moonlight in conjunction with Microsoft’s proprietary codec pack.

This hurts GNU/Linux, Open Standards, Free Software, developers, and users, whilst greatly benefiting Microsoft’s agenda of software and standards dominance.

Can you see why this might be a problem?

[...]

The LGPLv2.1 does not prohibit distribution under immutable systems.

The license for Moonlight does prohibit LGPL distribution under immutable systems.

Therefore Moonlight is not licensed under LGPLv2.1.

At best, it could be described as “LGPLv2.1 with modifications”, but given that the LGPL explicitly prohibits “further restrictions”, and Moonlight’s license stipulates such a “further restriction” (the “immutable” clause), then I don’t really see how it can be truthfully described as LGPL software at all. Novell would be more honest if they described it as a “Microsoft EULA”, since that’s only one small step away from what it really is.

What role (if any) does Moonlight play in Microsoft’s infamous “extend” phase? Thoughts welcome. █

Summary: Nothing of practical use has really changed for Mono, but its connection to Microsoft was made a lot clearer

DURING many people’s summer absence, the news came out about Microsoft’s “community promise” (CP), to which we responded only succinctly [1, 2]. Here is a longer analysis, which comprises events preceding this promise as well.

Debian

eWeek (Ziff Davis) adds to the many reports about Debian’s disagreement with Richard Stallman regarding Mono. The Inquirer covered this as well.

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.

Nothing has changed since Microsoft and Mono came out all jubilant. Stallman does not like Microsoft’s CP, either.

Debian is meanwhile getting Gnote, a replacement for Tomboy.

Well, it seems that since last saturday, Gnote is now the default option in Debian for those platforms where Mono unportability prevents Tomboy from being used, namely: alpha, hppa, m68k, mipsel, mips, hurd-i386 and kopensolaris-i386.

Gnote 0.5.2 is out.

I just released gnote 0.5.2. It is a bug fix release.

Ubuntu

62% of the surveyed people did not trust Microsoft on Mono prior to the CP. We wrote about this over a week ago and also explained where Canonical stood on the subject. Heise later chimed in to say that “Ubuntu [is] to continue using Mono.”

On behalf of the Ubuntu Technical Board, Ubuntu Development Manager and board member Scott James Remnant has clarified that the use of C#, specifically the Mono implementation, is not considered to be a problem and that it, and applications based on it, will continue to be included with the Ubuntu default installation set.

One reader wrote to remind us that “Solang, a photo manager, is now part of Ubuntu.”

Microsoft

It is true that some people are in favour of Mono, but as we shall show in a moment, a lot of Mono proponents are also Microsoft proponents, but Microsoft is no proponent of GNU/Linux.

“Notice the fact that Microsoft and its friends in the IT industry absolutely love Mono and hate GNU/Linux.”First, look at this. Nice attitude there from a Microsoft intern (also noted last week, but this intern regrets his remarks and wanted to remove them from other people’s Web sites too). Notice the fact that Microsoft and its friends in the IT industry absolutely love Mono and hate GNU/Linux. Is it not telling? There is no contradiction here.

The SFLC’s Kuhn replies to these remark from the Microsoft intern with: “we should forgive him for statements (but not for still working at MSFT) Sometimes early-20s == saying stupid stuff.” For those who did not follow this, the intern cursed me, linked to libel about me, and told Richard Stallman to “F*ck off” due to a technical/legal stance on Mono.

One reader suggested that we take a look what what this guy is up to. His profile says:

* Name Nikhil Kothari
* Location Sammamish, WA
* Web http://www.nikhil…
* Bio Software Architect at Microsoft, working on .NET, ASP.NET and Silverlight…

Watch some of the older Tweets in there. He corresponds with C.J. Adams-Collier, who works on Mono and also worked for Microsoft. How about this:

“@cjadamscollier Thanks for the pointers – will keep them in mind as I look into things.”

According to the Mono Web site, he is a Mono developer or generally a contributor. He was paid by Microsoft too, by his own admission. He tried to discredit Boycott Novell and he lurks in our IRC channel. One suspicion is that Microsoft is spreading (or simply exploiting) “Linux developers” whose role is to spread Moonlight and Mono, making Silver Lie and .NET a lot more prevalent.

Here is Microsoft’s Nikhil Kothari chatting quite a lot with Miguel de Icaza:

“What is the recommended IDE/setup to use for Mono development on the mac? @migueldeicaza any suggestions?”

Here is another Twit which once again shows Microsoft’s involvement in MonoDevelop, which ultimately strengthens Windows [1, 2, 3]:

“@migueldeicaza If things pan out with MonoDevelop and I get a few cycles, I will have something interesting to share … fingers crossed.”

It is worth remembering that Miguel de Icaza literally spends time at Microsoft. He goes on campus, too, having gone there for a job interview 10+ years ago. Nat Friedman was working for Microsoft.

Watch how the pro-Microsoft Gavin Clarke is giving de Icaza exposure, as usual. Together they defend the spreading of Mono, using The Register. They are working to spread .NET everywhere (Mary Jo Foley too, as always). Oh, how Microsoft loves Mono! If Microsoft likes it, then it’s usually bad for its #1 competitor, GNU/Linux.

Why Mono is Still Dangerous

One visitor has just raised the following important point:

“By the way, what nobody here seems to be mentioning, I guess because they’re pretty ignorant about .NET in general, is that the ECMA specs only cover versions 1 and 2 of the C# language, and neither version 3 which Mono already implements or version 4 of which MSFT’s implementation is currently in beta have been submitted to any standards body. I think this is a bigger issue than support for some Windows libraries.”

More holes/loopholes are identified:

Carlo Daffara, an open-source consultant, rightly notes that Microsoft’s patent promise is not directly on Mono, but rather on these ECMA standards, which leaves “most of Mono…encumbered as before (WinForms, ADO.NET, …).”

What are the CPs good for then? Even the use of language is laughable and reminiscent of surrogate terms. “Community promise” is a case of pretending that Microsoft is pro-”community”. It’s as Orwellian as the “Community” patent, which is a loophole for bringing software patents into Europe and thus harming the Free software community — the real community.

So what it is with CPs then? Were they even tested in any court? It is a rhetorical question.

“Promises, promises,” calls them Alan Lord. They are not legally binding.

The reason I won’t be using Mono is that the .Net framework is already embraced by Microsoft, it is already extended by Microsoft. It was from the beginning and will probably always remain so.

For a detailed analysis of the CP, see this from The Mad Hatter.

So why didn’t Microsoft’s lawyers include this in the main body? Microsoft’s lawyers aren’t stupid (I know one of them, she’s a really smart lady). So why did they write it in this confused way?

I don’t know. It doesn’t make any sense.

The Mad Hatter told us that “from ITWire, several people have noticed that pro-mono people tend to duck having an independent evaluation done of Mono for patent issues.”

Last year Groklaw wrote the article “What is Wrong with RAND?”

We now have this article whose headline is “What does RAND mean?” What it means to Free software is that it is a term to avoid, according to the GNU doctrine.

Apparently, it must mean something, because I find it being referenced in (supposedly serious) discussions about .NET licensing.

The acronym literally translates as “Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory”. So far so good. Except I don’t have a clue what it means. What does “reasonable” mean when applied to a patent licensing policy? Well, according to my own interpretation of this word, a licensing policy is reasonable when it prevents the patent from being used to impose a tax on any users of any program. But this is just my point of view on what is reasonable. Can you expect patent holders to agree with your point of view on what “reasonable” means when interpreting their own promises?

All in all, as we have said from the very start, the whole Mono story does not deserve this level of coverage. The editor of Linux Today (Carla) agrees that Mono and Google Chrome OS have been blown out of proportion, as we emphasised a day or so ago.

Just when I was getting thoroughly bored with Mono news, which is the same arguments recycled over and over, and little of anything more definitive from the Mono camp than “Same to you!”, along came a tidal wave of Google Chrome OS news. The Chrome OS story is truly frightening, far more terrifying than Mono gaining a solid foothold in Linux distributions— because the news is simply an announcement that the Chrome OS project has been officially launched. There is no OS yet. What levels of hysteria are going to be reached when the actual code is released? Rioting? Suicides? Looting?

Carla is also the editor of Linux Planet where she has published this article from SJVN about Mono. We too are quoted.

Peter Brown, the Free Software Foundation’s executive director, though still isn’t impressed. Brown said, “It’s my understanding that Microsoft has not yet announced anything officially, but assuming it follows up on this blog post and covers ECMA 334 and 335 under the Community Promise, it will not protect free software from the threats we have been discussing That’s because Mono implements, and Tomboy depends upon, a number of libraries which are ‘standard’ in the sense that they’re under C#’s “System” namespace (indicating that they’re part of the standard library) and provided in Microsoft’s implementation, but somewhat pointedly excluded from the ECMA specifications.”

So, Brown continued, “If the question is, should GNU/Linux distributions include Mono? Then the community promise from Microsoft covering these two specifications clearly isn’t sufficient. That they won’t sue us for infringement of some of their Mono patents is useless if they reserve the right to sue us over other Mono patents. If Microsoft really wants to assure the free software community that it does not intend to attack applications based on Mono in the future, it should issue a patent license to everyone for all the patents that are necessarily infringed by the complete implementation of Mono, that allows users to use, share, and modify the software as they see fit.”

[...]

But, Roy Schestowitz, editor of Boycott Novell thinks that focusing on the patent issue alone is a mistake. Schestowitz said, “Patents were never the sole issue when it comes to Mono.” Microsoft doesn’t allow deviation from the .NET core. “This ensures that Microsoft stays in control. This leads to no independence, which Microsoft may describe as ‘fragmentation.’”

Over a year ago, Beranger explained to us why Mono is more than just a patent trap; it is an habitual problem and he has just given a good theoretical example which concurs with real examples that we know of.

I am already laughing sarcastically when I imagine the faces of those Linux developers who, after having told their boss that they know C# and Mono, will be assigned to an ASP.NET project… on a Microsoft platform that uses the genuine .NET! Because this is what will happen!

And when you think that, after the initial unknown motivation to start developing Mono, the whole thing took exposure after some moron wrote Tomboy!

Therefore, believe me or not, my twisted radar tells me that in the long run, Tomboy and F-Spot are going to boost the sales of Microsoft Dynamics, which is a .NET range of products. Good work, Steve, and good work, Miguel.

Charles opines that Mono does not even matter these days.

Anyway, who should care about this? Gnome developers mostly. The rest of us have gone out of the .Net and Java wars after around 2004 or 2005, and have realized that there other realities such as Qt and Python (to name just a few), and most of all, there is the Internet, and the POSH (Plain Old Simple Html), and that new little Linux distributions launched by Google… And so much more.

Mono and .Net is one of the last schemes from an outdated behemoth; both the scheme and its inventor will soon fade in blissful irrelevance. It does not mean it cannot sting back though….

On the other hand, a journalist whom Microsoft bought lunch about 2 weeks ago (and later hooked up with Laura DiDio) has just bent backwards to find some criteria by which Mono seems better than Java. He published this in SD Times and saw all the Mono proponents citing him immediately. Novell is on the same boat [1, 2, 3, 4].

In addition, one reader warned us about what he calls “Major [Java] FUD campaign against Oracle and Sun via Deborah Gage.”

He explains that “this follows the classic MSFT tactic of a positive headline covering absolutely disparaging content.”

Microsoft still hates Java. It wants to replace it with .NET by all means available. █

“Moonlight is usable for anyone on any distribution of Linux (redhat, ubuntu, etc.) — it is not limited just to Novell as Mono is.”

–Brian Goldfarb, Microsoft
[note: Moonlight depends on Mono, emphasis is ours]

Summary: A lot of news about Mono with special emphasis on key developments

A GREAT DEAL has happened [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] since Richard Stallman spoke his mind about Mono. Coverage in the press was initially scarce because Stallman’s statement had been made public just before the end of the week, but here is ZDNet UK catching up.

GNU project founder Richard Stallman has called on developers to pull back from Mono, arguing that increasing use of the open-source toolset could prompt legal action by Microsoft.

Stallman does not even say much (or anything) about the fact that Mono makes Windows stronger [1, 2, 3]. Novell makes it happen. It is almost Novell’s obligation to do so because as the SCO-faithful Maureen O'Gara put it a couple of days ago, “Of course, without Microsoft propping up its Linux business, Novell would be in the tank.” To say more on the path to Windows, watch how Novell loses to its so-called ‘partner’. From the news:

Sydney Water has decided to migrate its email platform from Novell’s GroupWise to Microsoft Outlook/Exchange and is looking for a contractor to help implement the change.

Is Novell trying to befriend the company which takes away its Netware and GroupWise customers? If so, why? And why does it help Microsoft by promoting and spreading .NET? GreyGeek writes the following in LinuxToday:

De Icaza has been trying for EIGHT YEARS to get a distro to become totally dependent on MONO, and since Novell bought De Icaza, both have increased their propaganda efforts, with the assistance of Microsoft TEs, trolls, astroturfers and fanbois.

IF MONO is what its advocates are saying it is (the best thing since sliced bread and safe to use), it would already be in widespread adoption by now. The fact that you can count dependent programs on the fingers of one hand says VOLUMES about how the Linux community as a whole totally distrusts MONO. They are right to hold that distrust.

Java is open source and is MUCH less susceptible to patent attacks. It has CONSIDERABLY MORE tools and applications built with it and for it than MONO does.

Qt4 is GPL’d and has an excellent API and development tools, bar none. It also has excellent apps built by it and tools available for it.

MONO serves no purpose, except to raise the risk of patent attack or of being left in isolation WHEN Microsoft adds extensions to .NET that patents will prevent being added to MONO. This is backwards from Microsoft’s usual attack mode.

The remainder of this comment is well worth reading.

Perhaps the most interesting finding today is this poll. Based on 557 votes in total, 62% don’t trust Microsoft on Mono (at the time of writing). Compare that to 73% who said "No" to Mono (for whatever reason). Might it be safe to infer from this that the majority of people are with Stallman on this subject?

Debian

Looking at distributions more specifically, Stallman referred to Debian as an example. One of the Debian officials wrote an open letter to Stallman. It concludes as follows:

So, Debian didn’t change “the default installation” (whatever that’s supposed to be) but the dependency of a package which is used by a minority of our users who explicitly wishes to install everything GNOME related (which is to the best of my knowledge in accordance with upstream developers who added tomboy to the default GNOME installation, too).

This is already covered by Heise

Debian – Mono is not in our default installation

[...]

In response to the open letter written by free software guru Richard Stallman about the Mono problem, Alexander Schmehl, Debian developer and spokesperson for the GNU/Linux distribution has pointed out that Debian has no plans to include the controversial programming environment in the default GNOME installation. Stallman, who opened his letter with “Debian’s decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy”, had suggested that Debian were including the Mono libraries for anyone using Debian with GNOME.

There are other noteworthy remarks and there are skeptics of Mono inside Debian. How is this for an argument?

I recently came across this very interesting article, written in 1999, which details the tactics used by Microsoft to fight IBM. They obviously saw OS/2 as a threat. Back then, Windows 95 was the trading token. They could have caused IBM a great deal of harm shall they refused to license it to them, but it seems the idea of subjugating IBM was more appealing. This is how Garry Norris (IBM) put it:

“Microsoft repeatedly said we would suffer in terms of prices, terms, conditions and support programs, as long as we were offering competing products.“

“[Microsoft] insisted that IBM sell 300,000 copies of Windows 95 in the first five months or face a 20 percent price increase“

Nice deal, eh? Make your dependancy on Windows 95 stronger, or else we’ll use your existing dependancy on Windows 95 against you. No surprise IBM abandoned the PC market. Are Red Hat and Sun/Oracle set on the same direction?

Why don’t people learn from history? It is an immense loss to ignore all these lessons. Consider what Bill Gates, for example, had to say on this subject.

Ubuntu

Canonical repeatedly insists that it will not change its Mono policy, not even after recommendations from the FSF and SFLC. There is a lot of coverage about it, such as:

1. As It Stands, Ubuntu Has No Issues With Mono
2. Ubuntu’s Position on Mono Revealed (Update)
3. Mono Discussion: Stallman Warns, Ubuntu Dismissive

This comes at a price. From yesterday, for example, there is this:

Our company also takes the potential threat of patents seriously. As such we stand by the position of the SFLC, FSF and RMS in that Mono is just too dangerous.

We are therefore going to look at switching from Ubuntu to Fedora.

The threat is too great to ignore. I wish the UTB would reconsider this as more harm will come to Ubuntu rather than good.

For context, there is more in this address.

Sam Varghese cites the assessment of the SFLC and aligns this with Canonical’s relative apathy.

The Ubuntu technical board has announced that it sees no reason to consider a dependency on Mono as an issue when suggesting applications to be included in the default set included in the GNU/Linux distribution.

[...]

The Software Freedom Law Centre, which provides “legal representation and other law-related services to protect and advance Free, Libre and Open Source Software” has a diametrically different view.

Following the statement made by Free Software Foundation chief Richard M. Stallman against Debian’s inclusion of Mono as a default, SFLC technology director, Bradley Kuhn , has written an essay, backing Stallman’s view about it being better to avoid a language like C#.

And to conclude, popular blogger devnet writes about Ubuntu’s decision: “I think this is pretty bold…they’re inviting someone to throw the first stone so to speak.

“I’m with Stallman on this one….better safe than sorry.” █

“I saw that internally inside Microsoft many times when I was told to stay away from supporting Mono in public. They reserve the right to sue”

–Robert Scoble, former Microsoft evangelist