It seems like only the OOXML controversy will be addressed. I’d advise Jeff to consider making clarifications on Mono as well, if possible. Let’s have this resolved once and for all.

I’m not sure that the GNOME project devs realize the the depth of the public perception of thier project at this point. If it weren’t for Ubuntu…

And hopefully never will be.

None of this implies that Mono is of strategic interest to the GNOME project (in fact the obvious conclusion is that it doesn’t, because both the GNOME and Mono hackers have had to do quite a bit of work to keep it technically at arms length).

It’s not a snakey political answer, just because we have stuff that interfaces with Mono used by GNOME applications — it is actually a result of quite some work *because* GNOME hasn’t bought into Mono completely. They’re stuck doing this work because they know it’s controversial and know that the whole GNOME community isn’t convinced yet.

Is there anything this web site is doing justice to?

Care to be specific? Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we write something that is inaccurate, then you can tell us and we’ll amend. Miguel used to make similar accusations without being specific at all. Jeff, on the other hand, has patiently addressed some particular issues.

Not a surprise as it’s the same guy that told Alan Cox to “contribute more with the community”:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2007-November/msg00027.html

The thread messages give an idea on how “delicate” some arguments can be to some people. Some of the messages shows that it’s became that kind of useless endless loop discussion where they defeat you by telling you’re always wrong, because you don’t play on their terms, and they’re right. Point. So you became tired and let them talking alone. I think that was what Alan did.

“Is there anything this web site is doing justice to?”

Yes, to the freedom of *not to use* some things we don’t like and think it’s, let’s say, dangerous, and policy that it will stay this way.

As we have – and conquered – the freedom to use the software we want (and this is not an easy thing on the massive monopoly situation that keep pressure nowadays), we need to have the freedom of not to use software we think that can mess with our freedom.

This is only achieved if we don’t have some weird impositions of more weird pieces of software contaminating all the good Free Software we have now, and if we policy and tell people what is happening now. Maybe we’re kind of late – or tired – to see the things happening without saying a word about that, but seems that those times are gone. Let’s awake and make some noise before it’s too late.

I do use GNOME and I have looked and found no Mono packages are installed. So at least for Debian I can tell, that GNOME does not depend on Mono.

Is there anything this web site is doing justice to?

Why even include tomboy in default gnome? Besides of it being totally useless (I seriously haven’t met anyone that uses/needs it) It got a MONO dependency that does not look right to me.

The question remains, for what purpose do Mono bindings exists in Gnome, if not to bind to Mono?

The mere fact that libbeagle itself is written in C, rather than Mono, does not mean that it is somehow immune to criticism, since libbeagle exists for a purpose, and that purpose is something quite malignant.

So my assertion stands, that for all practical purposes (i.e. the reality of most GNU/Linux distributions), Gnome is shipped with Yelp as standard, and Yelp has (in most distros) libbeagle as a dependency, and libbeagle is the binding required for applications to link to Beagle – a Mono application – and for no other purpose.

Saying that users do not necessarily need to install Beagle, is like saying to a man to whom you’ve just sold a shotgun – you don’t need to use this weapon, but you can if you want to. It’s ridiculous. Of course he’s going to use it … why else would he buy it?

What you have just witnessed is a “shuffle” worthy of a politician. The fact is that those embroiled in this fiasco now have a vested interest in seeing it through to the bitter end … and that end is the rapid promotion of Mono. They will twist the arguments round and round until they end up forcing you to ask the questions they want you to ask, and then they’ll deliver the answer that they have indoctrinated you to accept. Be wary of manipulation.

Back when Mono was new, the Fedora project leaders vowed that it would never enter the distro tree. Today, they ship Mono. Later they vowed that Gnome would not be shipped with Mono bindings by default. Today, Mono bindings are part of the core distribution.

What do you suppose is the next logical step?

The Gnome and Novell people involved in Mono are pushing hard for adoption, that much is certain, since it has already infested distributions that previously swore not to adopt it. How long before the conditions, that are not yet true, do in fact become a reality? Tomorrow? Next week? They are travelling a straight path with no exits … there can only ever be one destination. They can twist and turn and try to pretend that they are not headed in that direction, but the truth is blatantly obvious, no matter how they try to hide it.

Now as to the question of whether or not Mono is actually poisonous IP, well again Jeff carefully evades the truth, eluding to “ongoing work”. The fact that someone even needs to “work” at keeping Mono “clean”, should tell you all you need to know about this toxic waste.

The point is; there are other, better, solution than Mono, and yet there is still this massive effort to drag it kicking and screaming into GNU/Linux.

Why?

What on earth can be so important about Mono that it is so essential to endanger GNU/Linux for the sake of adopting a sanitised version of Microsoft’s IP?

And what is this technology? It is Java with a Microsoft trademark, that is all. It is Microsoft’s slap in the face to Sun, for daring to sue them for their criminal “embrace and extend” tactics with an illegally mutilated form of Java.

Have you seen Java and C# code side-by-side? It is virtually identical. Is there no one left with the common sense and presence of mind to understand that .NET is nothing but a farce – a Microsoft “reinvention” to “fscking kill Sun”. And here we are … the Free Software community … helping them to commit this crime. Are we mad? Who are these raving lunatics, these naive idiots, who thought that would be a good idea? It defies belief.

There are other things in GNU/Linux that very obviously provide support for Microsoft technologies, like Wine, ntfs-3g, and SAMBA; but all of these technologies are peripheral to the function of the operating system. With Mono, this is the first time that the very foundation of the code itself is based upon something which may, or may not, be controllable by Microsoft.

Imagine a future where the sum total of everything in a GNU/Linux distribution is written in Mono. Now imagine that Microsoft/ECMA’s “promise” to provide a “Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory” right to .NET technology is revoked. Prove that couldn’t happen. Indeed, look at what has already happened. Why does Microsoft provide .NET patent protection exclusively to Novell, and no other Linux vendor … not even any of the other three members of their private little “club”? Microsoft have already contradicted that RAND promise, since an exclusionary deal (such as the one they have with Novell) is already in contradiction to the “Non-Discriminatory” terms they laid out.

IOW this RAND promise has already been broken. Anyone stupid enough to embrace Mono at this point, is literally delivering their fate right into Microsoft’s hands. It’s sheer insanity.

And let’s pretend for one moment that Microsoft is not the vile, contemptuous company that it is, and that they don’t bribe ISO members, and that they don’t sabotage Linux vendors’ deals – like they recently did with Mandriva, and that they are not convicted monopolists on two continents. Let assume that they have good intentions, and that they will never use shell companies like Acacia or SCO or Baystar to attack GNU/Linux. Let’s assume that Mono, .NET, and the company that inflicted this technology on the world is a safe bet, and that everyone will (against all odds) live happily ever after.

Safe or not, why use Mono to recreate Linux in Microsoft’s image?

Isn’t the whole point of Linux to strike out on its own, be independent, forge its own destiny, do things its own way, and never have to rely on those who might pervert that Freedom for dubious ends?

By embracing Mono, the Free Software community is bastardising Linux into a Frankenstein’s Monster; perverting it into something that from both a technical and political perspective is, for all intents and purposes, just another version of Windows.

Is that what the Free Software community really wants?

Because it certainly is not what I want.