Does Ubuntu Forums Threaten to Ban Opposition to Mono?
- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
- 2009-06-02 00:10:17 UTC
- Modified: 2009-06-02 00:10:17 UTC
Barbwired discussions about Mono
Summary: Suppression of constructive debate about the problems with Novell's Mono
THERE EXIST people who are guarding Mono inside Ubuntu. Others are actually becoming part of Ubuntu and they curse those who 'dare' to question Mono's inclusion. But our very latest examples show polite requests and advise leading to fear and loathing, then to threat of bans.
This is openness to discussion?
This is freedom?
And why is it that the project permits itself to be guided by pro-Microsoft .NET people? People who knowingly ignore the problems and maybe want to introduce them. ECMA
is a liability, not a safe harbour.
There is a
new call to prevent
Novell's Banshee from
entering Ubuntu and ITwire
offers guidance to those who rid themselves from Mono.
GNU/Linux users who want to keep Mono off their systems can now use an application that warns them when elements of the open source clone of Microsoft's .NET development environment are being installed.
Developer Tim Chase, who describes himself as "a genetic geek", has created a package called Mononono which creates explicit conflicts with core Mono packages.
In the face of mountains of evidence, some people simply refuse to open their eyes and recognise that Mono is a patent trap and
an advantage to Microsoft.
⬆
"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
Comments
Märklin
2009-06-02 14:21:29
Dan O'Brian
2009-06-02 13:14:13
Lyle Howard Seave
2009-06-03 01:04:06
I also noticed that the venom from people who dont even want to discuss mono pretty high. We debate and discuss everything in free software but mono to some people is a taboo subject. Bringing it up will get you labelled all kinds of names.
I'm just curious if Icaza and others were greeted with the same venom by the KDE community then when they started Gnome that they are now directing to those who would question mono.
When people start complaining about 'content style', you know where things are headed. I dont think that name calling should be tolerated but forbidding something because it might prove to be provocative, would Gnome even exist if those who bashed KDE for not being pure enough a dozen years ago werent allowed to express provocative thoughts on mailing lists and forums back then? Do as I say, not as I do it seems.
Stay on safe subjects like fonts and wallpapers but dont talk about something that people wont agree with because that could lead to arguments.
There are many people in the world who love to debate (heck, debate clubs and competitions are actually a team event in some school districts.) and can do it with civility. The best of those have such good command of language and opinions that they can just as easily take either side of a debate and do a good job. Then there are other people who dont like confrontations or any kind, who would just rather not rock the boat and who feel uncomfortable in any kind of antagonistic situation no matter the level of discourse and civility and shy away from it.
There are still a few countries in the world that believes that discussion and debate have to be stifled for the greater good of the nation and its a shame that this is a model some have chosen to follow.
Having things in the open is the reason why free software has succeeded and while in no way do i think that flame wars are a good idea, most of the FLOSS leaders are provocative to an extreme (hey Linus!) and we honour them for it. Some call it candor.
Freedom for some, not for others?
LHS
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-03 05:55:04
123
2009-06-09 01:15:34
When a person asks about how to install the latest version of Mono so that person can use a certain program, the UF moderators expect the responses to help the user to install Mono. When someone else brings up in that very same thread that Mono is dangerous as a potential patent timebomb, the UF moderators consider it off topic.
If you really want to see if the Ubuntu forums are trying to ban opposition to Mono, then I suggest this experiment: start a new thread discussing the nature of Mono and opinions about the potential dangers. If you do this, then the UF moderators can't complain that the contributions to that thread are off topic or needlessly argumentative as the whole point is the discussion of Mono. If the UF moderators do take action in this thread that isn't related to incivility, then you have more evidence to show that the UF are truly against the opposition to Mono.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-09 05:17:23
123
2009-06-09 15:02:06
I don't really agree with the UF moderators, and it appears to me the UF moderators believed that neighborlee was out of line for following reasons: bumping an old topic (this in itself should normally be overlooked in most situations), posting aggressively and being off topic (the topic was about help for installing Mono), and being misinformed (the understanding is that Mono is free software as it is licensed under GPL2 and other free licenses).
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-09 15:15:33
I think it's the recurrence of (unresolved) topics that they did not like.
What does it mean? Aggressive language? Posting volume? neighborlee does neither. If it's the topic that they consider aggressive (Mono and patents), then I am left unmoved. These are some of the most important topics. Just ignoring them won't make them go away. People tend to believe what's easy and convenient.
OK. They could argue that it's disruptive to warn about something in a platform/forums that's encouraging that same something.
Slated rightly coined the phrase "Poisonware", meaning software which is inherently encumbered with patent liability. Mono may be Free sofwawre as-is, but being "Poisonware" is not mutually exclusive wrt other attributes. Learn what Microsoft has aid publicly about Mono.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-06-11 23:10:14
Mark should be deeply ashamed. You should be deeply ashamed to be associated with such shenanigans. Don't like Mono? Don't use it, by all means, no one's forcing you to. But please don't treat folks who don't agree with you as potential "collateral damage". That's simply _evil_.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-11 23:12:59
Dan O'Brian
2009-06-11 23:25:08
This is why you should be ashamed.
Sure, he took it to the next level, but that doesn't put you in the clear.
Lyle Howard Seave
2009-06-12 00:39:37
Actually, you are the one lying. What Mark did is nothing like Roy does since he has to my knowledge always managed to keep a level of civility which I find admirable. You on the other hand are at the level of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
>This is why you should be ashamed. Not as much as you should for trying to tie these two things together.
>Sure, he took it to the next level, but that doesn’t >put you in the clear.
So, if some Ipod fanboi decides to go into a store and destroy all Zunes, you would blame Apple.
I dont think even you believe that.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-06-12 00:15:34
As I said, the message I get is that you put your concerns above any other considerations, including other people's real lives.
If you want your message to be judged in some different fashion, you'd better find some more effective spokespeople. As Nietzsche sagely observed, "He who fights monsters must be careful that he does not become a monster himself in the process."
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-12 00:41:12
Lyle Howard Seave
2009-06-12 00:54:31
As unfortunate as that may be for you, your solution would be what? To stop this site because it incites people? We'd have to close down the net. Manners and civility is something you take up with that person and the parents who didnt raise them properly.
>As I said, the message I get is that you put your concerns >above any other considerations, including other people’s >real lives. So the fact that the Novell deal has affected my life and work as a “Non-Compensated AND Compensated Individual Hobbyist Developer" should not be taken in consideration? Everything in life has consequences. Every word you write will get a positive, negative or indefferent reaction. Look at Helios and the fistfight he got into. To the yahoos who attacked him, he is the guy who is promoting Linux and therefore taking money out of their pockets. (I would never blame Steve Ballmer for their behaviour.)
Im sure that if BN didnt exist it might make life easier for some but probably not for others. It all balances out in the end but nothing ever affects 'just me'.
>you’d better find some more effective spokespeople.
Again, why is it you seem to believe Roy has found and ordered these people to act as his spokespeople? Because they visit his site? I can be Britney Spears 'spokesman online' if I so desire and there is nothing she can do about that. It doesnt mean that what I say should be represented as being her opinion.
Anyone who has frequented the internet, forums, comments sections and the such knows very well how people think, act and react in the anonymity the net provides them. I find it surprising that you dont.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-12 01:18:47
In all fairness, David is a victim here. I have just pulled the address of Fink from the Ubuntu mailing list and denounced him privately.
We actually have similar issues in IRC. People pretend to speak for the site (badly) and then link to IRC logs (what they had 'planted') as 'proof' that 'we' are over the edge.
I believe sincerely that my posts are polite. That's why Groklaw blocks comments from being indexed.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-06-12 00:44:56
His postings and his statements give every possible impression that he's acting on behalf of this site.
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-12 01:08:57
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-06-12 00:47:49
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-12 00:52:54
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-06-12 00:56:48
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-12 01:07:33
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-06-12 01:18:26
Mark Fink consistently includes this site's address, and no other, in his email sig, just as though it were his own, and speaks as though he were representing this site.
Actually, if you portray yourself as "Brittany Spears' spokeperson" on the web, you'll rapidly find yourself in possession of a cease-and-desist letter from Ms. Spears' _real_ representatives, and a civil lawsuit shortly thereafter for misrepresenting yourself and potentially for defamation if you don't, in fact, cease and desist from doing so.
And, having been a participant in alt.flame when it was _net.flame_, and having been in continuous possession of an email address from the time "the Internet" was "the ARPAnet", I daresay I'm a lot more familiar with the kind of idiocies people are likely to commit than you probably are... (I wrote message processing code for PDP-based IMPs as a student at NYU in the 1970s.)
But thanks for being presumptuous!
Roy Schestowitz
2009-06-12 01:25:06
Dan O'Brian
2009-06-12 01:50:01
Dan O'Brian
2009-06-12 01:49:01
Mark Fink has appeared on this site before and afaict is repeating statements made by Roy Schestowitz previously on this site, including the slanderous statements about Miguel de Icaza.