Comments on: New Opinions on Mono, Miguel de Icaza, and the “Windows Stratagem”

By: JohnD

JohnD — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:04:12 +0000

There are lots of reasons why companies will stick with software that “isn’t the best”. Among those reasons are ego – whomever drove the project doesn’t want to admit they made a mistake. So they will throw good money after bad in an effort to save face. Accounting is another reason. If a company has spent millions on say an AS/400 system, they probably won’t depreciate it all in one year. They will opt to take it out over several in an effort to offset future income – same thing for software. The bug is, if you toss it all – you can’t continue to depreciate it. So they will hold on to the old system until it’s worthless on paper. I also find that most people don’t give much thought to how much has to be done in order to accomodate a major software redesign/platform shift. Very seldom can a company just dump the old stuff and start on a new system in the same day. Most require parallel systems for at least a short while to make sure everything works as planned. So for a company that’s locked up with MS they will have to build the entire Linux infrastructure that will be needed to support the development process, then train developers and then start the actual development process. All of the above is after all the meetings that have to be held to determine the best way to go. In short, it’s not easy or cheap to say MS sucks we’re going in a new direction.
From what I’ve experienced the negative response I get is often from people who feel they have the right answer for everyone. They have labeled something as bad therefore there can be no acceptable reason for using the “bad” thing. In some ways it’s easy to be an idealist, because you don’t have to take time to understand anyone else’s situation. An idealist has determined what is right and anything else is wrong. Keeps things simple. I consider myself a realist because I learned a long time ago there isn’t a one size fits all solution for anything on this planet. Just because I don’t see a need for something doesn’t mean that it won’t be useful for someone else. If people are tired of hearing Mono promotions – then stop listening to them, don’t get involved in discussions about it. I’m all for debate, but if the participants can’t be civil to each other and willing to honestly listen to opposing view points – the debate is pointless.
If you think Mono is a waste, that’s fine but it doesn’t mean it will be a waste for everyone. I’m sure there are a lot of developers who don’t want to move away from what they are comfortable with – that’s human nature. The majority of the world’s population has some level of resistance to change of any kind. I would also ask you to consider that many developers may WANT to learn other languages, but lack the time and possibly the resources to do it. I’m married with one son, a dog, and my own business. I don’t have time to learn half of what I want to learn. In the current business climate most small companies can’t afford to make a major switch of their systems – they just don’t have the money to do it. Someone posted in here something like open == free developers. That’s true to an extent, but most of those “free developers” have a day job that pays them the money they need to live. There are A LOT of people who are afraid of losing their jobs so they can’t afford to “rock the boat” and stay true to their ideals.

By: your_friend

your_friend — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 05:08:39 +0000

Microsoft and “work” should not exist in the same space. I have yet to see a Microsoft deployment that works well. Over the last 15 years, I’ve worked in fortune 100 companies, university research labs and small companies, all with the finest Microsoft IT money can buy. All of them had the same problems and none of them can compare to the normally serene environment and functional I’ve been able to make for myself with free software. .NET is even worse than previous generations. The only difference between the London Stock Exchange and other .NET deployments is that LSE members demanded better. Some people just keep on “working” with garbage. Please don’t tell me it’s cheaper to keep that kind of second rate software around.

This technical suckdom, legal and technical sabotage, are the source of the condescention, perhaps hostility, you see from people who have had enough. Those who know better don’t want to sit through mono promotions.

It’s time to give up mono. I admire and respect the technical ability of the mono developers, but think their talent is horribly wasted. I do not admire or respect .NET users who are too lazy to learn more portable languages. The move to .NET, from what I’ve seen, has always been some kind of top down driven stupidity. I pity those caught up in it but implore them to do better for themselves. GNU/Linux jobs are hot right now and will be for the forseeable future as Microsoft continues to implode.

By: clayclamp

clayclamp — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:59:17 +0000

a language that only barely works

Can you qualify this, please. It seems a mighty big statement coming from someone who has admitted in the past (I believe) that he’s not a developer.

I don’t have an issue with the patent FUD you people spread around Mono, although I disagree with it. But _technical_ claims like those should be backed up with some evidence. Since none of you seem to be developers, maybe you can get someone else to back up the “barely works” part. That would be acceptable as well.

By: Mikko

Mikko — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:48:37 +0000

why can’t paint.net run on mono ?

By: JohnD

JohnD — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:28:21 +0000

@verofakto: The “secret” is safe because I have neither the time nor the inclination to go rooting around to figure out who is whom. If someone doesn’t have the spine to pick an id and stick with it – they really aren’t worth my time. I have freely admitted that I’m a CNE and I informed Roy not long ago that my “interests” in Novell amount to a whopping 50 shares of stock.
While I disagree with most of Roy’s conclusions about Novell and what will happen in the industry – he has a right to have and voice them.
What burns my butt the most is when people claim that all software should be free so people can do what they want with it, and then start crying foul when people start using it in a way they don’t like. Maybe Mono is the biggest hunk of crap since Windows (all versions – except maybe 2000), but if someone wants to use it – let them have at it.

By: JohnD

JohnD — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:19:26 +0000

Where your example fails is that the London stock exchange didn’t get a system that worked. Most companies that have invested in MS software do have systems that work so there’s no reason to spend money just to switch the platform.

By: JohnD

JohnD — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:15:26 +0000

If only that were true, I have been berated on BN for just what I’ve asked for. Some BN supporters do not simply inform about potential issues.
This posting is a perfect example, I was met with outright hostility and only after a few posts am I told that there’s nothing wrong with wanting a legacy framework. Just because you don’t see the point behind another photo manipulation tool doesn’t mean that the person writing it doesn’t have a good one – at least in their mind. If it’s good other people will use it, if not it will fail.
There’s a big difference between informing people and actively trying to prevent the creation/inclusion of software just because you disagree with it’s usefulness.
Is there potential for MS to pull a fast one with Mono? Sure, but realistically a lot of the people using Mono and C# are probably already covered because they built it all with correct licenses on Windows. Mono IP infringement should be a non-issue for .NET shops looking at running their code on Linux instead of Windows. It also happens to be a perfect way to begin to erode MS cash flow.

By: your_friend

your_friend — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:31:42 +0000

Sticking with Microsoft and .NET are big money losers for any company. Microsoft infrastructure costs companies money in poor performance and security as well as direct software costs. Moving to the same under Mono is not a solution, using existing superior tools under GNU/Linux is. The London Stock Exchange is a great example of the benefits of a move to free software. They bought a .NET mess at tremendous cost against the advice of everyone with a clue. The thing never worked well and have expensive failures. It was replaced with a normal gnu/linux system at 1/10 the original cost.

By: your_friend

your_friend — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:19:50 +0000

Only Microsoft would prevent what you ask for. There is nothing wrong with having a framework for legacy code to help people get away from a non free OS. Microsoft does its best to make that impossible by making changes to .NET and by maintaining “the right to sue” and alternately threatening and cajoling. Software should not have owners if for not other reason than the owner could be as awful as Microsoft is.

People here at BN only point these things out and warn people not to make new code or otherwise depend on Mono. There’s no point at all in making a new photo manipulation tool, for example, in a language that only barely works and is loaded with patent threats. It’s even more foolish to replace free software success stories like GIMP with mono built software.

By: JohnD

JohnD — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:24:18 +0000

@NotZed: The point I think you’re missing is that the investments have already been made. Most of corporate America got themselves under the Microsoft thumb YEARS ago, most of them when they switched from Netware to Windows. One of the biggest reasons for the switch was that it was easier to write software for a Windows server than it was to write code for a Netware server. They could save money by writing their own stuff. Once companies make that kind of investment they are loath to give it up. It goes back to the old adage, if it’s not broken don’t fix it. Right now they don’t have to worry about IP infringement issues, because they are MS customers. They already have stuff that works and to change it will require spending tons of money to reinvent the wheel. They will spend that money elsewhere before they spend it on IT. Traditional IT is considered a cost center, not a profit center. This means IT costs the company money without generating revenue. Sales is considered a profit center because money spend on them usually results in more revenue – if you have a good sales staff.
We can both rail about the evil that is corporate America/World, but things aren’t going to change in the short term.

By: JohnD

JohnD — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:12:00 +0000

I’m not going around in circles, you’re not taking the time to understand what I’m putting in my posts.
What I’m asking for is let people choose the tools they want to use, even if the language is “bad”. Does C# or .NET make Linux better? Probably not. Is C# or .NET needed on Linux? It depends on your situation. If you already have a boat load of stuff written in it, then yeah you could argue that Mono is needed so you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. You can start the the process of getting out from under vendor lock in by changing the server that runs the existing code.

By: Bertrand

Bertrand — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:21:18 +0000

That is one specific example.

Personally, I’m a counter-example of that : I’m a FLOSS contributor and developer thanks mostly to the existence of Mono.

By: Bertrand

Bertrand — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:12:43 +0000

My scenario wasn’t really clear on that point : I was thinking about already existing applications written in C#.

I think translating in a different language is a bit more than “a little work”.

By: your_friend

your_friend — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:07:30 +0000

If this is true:

We both know that Mono/.NET is new to game and the tools are still fairly immature when compared to existing tools.

People should use java and other mature but free tools. You keep going in circles around this. If it’s not to promote mono, what are you doing?

By: your_friend

your_friend — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:04:31 +0000

If this is true:

GravatarWe both know that Mono/.NET is new to game and the tools are still fairly immature when compared to existing tools. It also hasn’t really had time to gain traction.

People should use java and other mature tools. You keep going in circles around this. If you are not doing it to promote mono, what are you doing?

By: your_friend

your_friend — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:56:47 +0000

This is an old and tired mirror attack. People advocating software freedom are somehow violating people’s rights and ability to earn a living! What interesting news in a world where people are earning billions of dollars developing, using, even selling free software. It is funny how often non free software makers accuse free software advocates of everything that non free software is about, exclusion, lack of choice and general control freakery. The only people violating anyone’s ability to do anything with computers are the makers of non free software.

You start losing freedom the second you start imposing limits.

No, you lose your freedom when you surrender it or have it taken from you. Non free software owners seek to remove freedom by force and have people believe they surrendered it freely. Many of the forceful means are already crimes and reducing that kind of “freedom” is the job of the criminal justice system. There are many restrictions on the use and sharing of Mono components, those who agree to those restrictions have less freedom than those who make more reasonable language choices.

Mono is a case of throwing good time after bad. Windows developers who are interested in software freedom should move to free software platforms and learn free languages. It takes less time, works better and leaves Microsoft where Microsoft belongs. It is nice to have frameworks for legacy code, but developing new applications in mono is a waste of time. As Microsoft collapses, it’s time for people to admit they bet on the wrong horse for the wrong reasons and learn the hard lesson of their mistakes. People who try to export non free software models onto free software are doomed to the same dissapointments seen in the non free Unix and Windows worlds.

By: verofakto

verofakto — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:48:11 +0000

Roy, I believe JohnD has disclosed his affiliations to you at some point. As ‘your_friend’ seems to be falling into the usual pattern of attacking people who disagree with you, wouldn’t it be appropriate to disclose to him who he’s talking to?

It would be a shame for him to find out through other channels – after all, you have claimed in the past that you ‘loathe’ people who use multiple accounts.

By: NotZed

NotZed — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:17:26 +0000

“We both know that Mono/.NET is new to game and the tools are still fairly immature when compared to existing tools. It also hasn’t really had time to gain traction.”

It isn’t just the time, it just isn’t needed, nobody is interested outside of a few small ISV shops and a bunch of guys paid to work on it.

“What I haven’t really seen from BN supporters is the understanding of just how much money a corporation invests in a platform.”

Well, time will weed these companies out – they are intentionally putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage if they are spending so much money locking themselves in. It might take while and do a lot of damage in the mean time though.

I mean how stupid is it to invest in this ‘massive expenditure’ when they are relying on the good-will of another company which almost certainly not have their best interests in mind?

What you’re describing there is ‘vendor lock-in’, which is costly way of doing business, and one that only `works’ whilst everyone is paying the rentiers (it’s not a tax, it’s a private pay-to-play rent). Damn the massive cost to society in lost productivity and extracted rent in the meantime.

As soon as someone can escape the rentiers this business model is toast – which we are in the midst of right now – which is why there’re throwing everything behind patents and ACTA and the like to make sure they prevent this progress.

Free isn’t about the price, it’s about the freedom, and you provided a perfect example of just why it is so much more important than just ‘open source’ (== free developers ).

As for CEO’s – well come on, if any CEO is interesting in anything other than their own hip pocket nerve, i’d be mightily impressed. Make a fast buck stealing shareholder profits, go on a few junkets, jump ship with a golden parachute. They stick with microsoft or oracle because they get to go to the cricket or rugby and get free drinks at ‘conferences’ – they really don’t give a shit what the poor plebs on the floor are using, so long as they get some personal kickbacks. Microsoft isn’t about developers, it’s about bribing the ones who spend the real money – and well, that’s one thing they can be admired for executing on (revolting as it is).

By: JohnD

JohnD — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:10:19 +0000

We both know that Mono/.NET is new to game and the tools are still fairly immature when compared to existing tools. It also hasn’t really had time to gain traction.
I don’t know if there are any sites that list changes like that, because I haven’t looked. There might just be some out there, but I can’t really see the average company taking the time to announce to the world that they made the switch. And just because there isn’t a website out there, it doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened. I never suggested that people would switch en masse just because Mono now supports .NET. What I have said is that if you’re targeting corporate developers, the direction Mono has taken makes sense.
What I haven’t really seen from BN supporters is the understanding of just how much money a corporation invests in a platform. You’re not just talking about software licenses, you’re talking about the developer time, not just to create the programs, but to support them along with the time and effort of those people outside the IT department who help create it. Developer training and learning curve in order to get them to a high level of proficiency. This can be a massive expenditure made over a long time. A free OS and development tools isn’t going to come close to offsetting the investments that have already been made. In order for the company to truly go “free” from licensing and IP issues they will have to convert all their developers (so they don’t lose all the knowledge) and then start working on how to recreate everything they have so it doesn’t infringe. Try explaining to the CEO why he should approve spending the money to replace something the probably already works well enough to get the job done.

By: NotZed

NotZed — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:56:28 +0000

“I think what Miguel has in mind is a scenario like this :”

Perhaps he does – but I really can’t believe someone could be so naive (still). I would be curious if there was a single case-study where a significant deployment of was moved from .NET to mono on linux desktops (starting on mono doesn’t count).

Initially it was all about leveraging a ‘great platform’ for GNU/Linux application development, but it seems it has just turned into ‘cloning .net’. As everyone with half a brain always realised it would.

This is a losing strategy. If anything all it does is re-enforces the whole “linux == hobbyist toy” mentality. Yes you can play on linux if you want, but when you’ve ready to grow up it’s time to move to the real thing.

I know a couple of c-hash devs, and they suffer no illusions – mono is always behind, incomplete, and simply not worth their time.