Summary: Follow-up to yesterday's post about the (il)legality of Mono and some new cautionary tales

IN YESTERDAY'S post, titled "Mono and Fraud", one reader attempted to explain why Novell and Microsoft were potentially doing something illegal. Earlier today, the same reader added: "doing that for 5 years establishes to the courts a long term agreement in that regard. Under that agreement, the users of Mono and other Microsoft crap have agreed to pay Microsoft for Linux. Right now it is at the low, introductory price of 0 EUR for the end user and 135 million EUR ($200 million USD) for Novell. At the end of five years, that is in 2011, there can be no question that following the chain of supply from Microsoft to the end user that those end users owe Microsoft. The only question will be how much is paid and by whom."

In addition, other problems appear in the world of Mono. F-Spot gets slammed for ignoring critical feedback and one blog concludes with: "for the production server for the game, we aren’t convinced yet if we should continue using mono or not. Maybe we’ll release another server using Windows and then we’ll have a good performance comparison showcase."

As we showed before, Mono makes GNU/Linux look bad. It mostly helps Windows [1, 2, 3]. ⬆

"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