Is Mono a religion or a technology?
I blogged a response to an attack on Gnote yesterday, essentially reitterating my views that Mono is not a safe technology when building Free Software.
Now, I did expect many to disagree strongly with me, and I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the continued personal attacks of the Mono camp against all that oppose it, including myself, the Gnote developers and someone we all owe a lot to, Richard Stallman.
If you raise patent issues because we are reimplementing stuff that Microsoft pioneered, other projects like Samba and Zarafa manage to come up with a polite response that has factual information in it on why there is no threat or one that can be mitigated. If you raise the same issue within the Mono camp, there's hostility, shouting, name calling (all BTW very much against the behavior that was outlined in the Ubuntu CoC.
Now, you can hardly suggest that people like myself, the Gnote devs or RMS are out to hurt or destroy Gnu/Linux. We are just raising legitimate concerns on threats against our Freedom. Yet we should take the word of the Mono guys and Novell that Mono is safe? Given that Novell aready screwed the rest of the community over, I'm really not reassured.
I guess that all this anger somehow must come from the lack of factual arguments in the mono-camp to support their point that there is no threat. If that really where so, why not calmly and rationally put your arguments on the table, especially so in inter-community discussions where you can assume that the other party is really concerned about the future of our movement and is raising his concerns out of those feelings?
Comments
58 comments postedOK, so psychology isn't my major. Or my minor. The truth is that i have no formal psychology background.
But let's say you're presented with the idea of supporting Mono. You may be initially put off by it because it's tainted with the evil MicroSquish. But then, you see that it's all FOSS and good after all. And one of the possible outcomes is that you embrace it. You learn it. You write stuff for it. You support it. You invest in it.
Having done that, i can see defending your support with Vitriol(tm).
But you might have decided that just because it's FOSS doesn't mean you *must* support it. After all, you can't support Perl, Python, Ruby, Scheme, and the fifty thousand other FOSS implemented languages. Who has time? And, in the back of your head, even if it's FOSS, it still supports the Empire.
Having done that, i can see defending your non-support with Vitriol(tm).
There are ideas that are polarizing. If you take a poll, and ask for the ten best ideas for the past ten years, and the ten worst ideas for the past ten years, Mono could be in both lists. And many would claim that the list isn't just for the past ten years, but covers the entire millennium!
Mono isn't a religion or a technology, it's an infection. I switched to KDE to eradicate it. I'm getting rid of OpenSuSE on some servers for the same reason. It amazes me that the GNOME devs are so blind to the damage they are doing to their project.
If Wine is killed, native Linux applications won't die. If Mono is killed, Tomboy (and probably, in the future, the rest of GNOME) dies.
If you are so concerned about the future of the movement, I ask you what are you doing about Microsoft patents in COM that permeate the most popular pieces of software in Ubuntu?
A little bit of background will be useful: COM is the precursor to .NET from Microsoft. And this COM technologosy is used extensively in Firefox, Thunderbird and OpenOffice.
You can easily find infringing code in Google:
http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=iunknown+queryinterface
And you can easily find the Microsoft patents on this:
http://www.google.com/patents?q=queryinterface+iunknown
Unlike Mono which is based on the ECMA standards, Microsoft never said a thing about COM's patents.
So please excuse us, the Mono fans, for considering that there is a double standard applied to Mono here. Mono does not have nearly the market adoption of *either* one of those, and yet, you do not hear a a *thing* about COM patents or how Firefox and OpenOffice should be boycotted and instead folks should use Konqueror + KOffice.
For one, the Ecma standard thing means nothing to the patent threat as the article I linked explains.
Secondly, I do not know how strong those COM patents are as the ones on Samba and some other stuff are hardly enforcable.
Thridly, if your only argument is that we shouldn't care because maybe other MS patents apply to other pieces in Linux, that's pretty weak. Then why doesn't Ubuntu just include MP3 support by default?
And lastly, if we loose FireFox, that's pretty bad, but still fixable, it is a single program that can be replaced. If we build more and more Gnome apps on Mono and we loose that, we loose most of the desktop. That's why I like alternatives like Gnote and even the fact that there are browsers out there.
I believe this .NET technology to be a deliberate plant by Microsoft helped by it's dumb cousing, Novell, to undermine the Linux desktop or at least to render it non-free.
Actually, FireFox is removing COM partly due to patent concerns...
Not really. They are merely removing a few bloated pieces.
They are removing it from the areas where people went overboard with COM and just created bloated code. Some folks took the COM religion too far and made everything an XPCOM object, even when it was not used or required. They are merely cutting down on those, but keeping 90% of their uses, and 100% of the implementation.
You are probably thinking of this:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2006/10/mozilla_2.html
But that still has XPCOM under the hood, it is just prettier XPCOM taking advantage of C++ modern features. Removing XPCOM is a multi-decate effort.
In any case, since it is patented work and will continue to infringe for years to come. The only viable alternatives are Konqueror or Epiphany.
And yet, you did not address the patent threat for OpenOffice.
XPCOM is different from COM. 1) Patents on COM do not apply on XPCOM and 2) they would not be enforceable anyway.
Maybe it's about time we realise religion doesn't have a monopoly on debating and/or quibbling.
BTW, I you sure you want Full HTML enabled for comments?
Oh, and it's a programming environment, but not a particularly good one.
I followed your argument about the need for rationality and civility and the need to back up claims with facts until here:
"Given that Novell aready (sic) screwed the rest of the community over, I'm really not reassured."
That's just a bit inflamatory, don't you think.
I see your point and recognize that this stuff tends to creep in. Just wanted to put a flag on the play.
Thanks for your reply, but I stand by my comment about Novell. Given that their behavior caused special ammendments to the GPLv3 to avoid such cases in the future and the fact that MS started using that agreement the very same day to show that Linux is actually violating their so called IP, they did a lot of damage to the community as a whole.
Your last topic expressed concern over Mono supporters calling any controversy FUD, but following it up with a post using a title typically reserved for tabloid media? The same title could have read 'Are Mono Detractors Drinking Too Much...........Cool Aid?'
Of course there are concerns with possible patent issues, as there are with a huge number of technologies. It is up to each user and developer to determine if the concerns are strong enough to dissuade them from using Mono.
Keep in mind the hostility is represented well on both sides of the discussion and not only Mono supporters.
Should I also assume as you do that Mono detractors have no basis since '...all this anger somehow must come from the lack of factual arguments'?
In my previous post, I politely raised these points only to be called insane, only to have RMS be called "fucking irrelevant".
These responses look a lot like a relgion responding to someone who has a different god or none at all and sidestep the real issues about this technology.
My comment is pointed at the lack of factual content in the responses, if "RMS is fucking irrelevant" is a pro-mono argument, then I'm a bit lost.
Not at all.
Anyone who falls into useless drivel, personal attacks and insults, simply deserves to be ignored.
I was simply cautioning on lowering yourself to the same level as folks like that.
Here is a quick example of how some blogs enjoy taking a statement then putting their own spin on it.
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/04/21/tomboy-is-afraid-of-gnote/
I'm unsure how the Tomboy quotes equate with 'being afraid of Gnote'?
I'm sure I can dig around and find quite a few 'angry' posts from the other side.
It is a religion in so much that anger against dissidents increases with doubt. Nobody fights about whether the world is round. Nobody fights about evolution. But they fight about whether the world is flat and about creationism.
That's the magic ticket there. The more a person doubts their own beliefs. The more likely they feel attacked when those beliefs are questioned.
Not to mention the fact that one of the leading companies behind MONO has a patent agreement with Microsoft that pretty much invalidates any statement about MONO not being patent-locked. Then we have the leading developer, a known associative of Microsoft. ( he only went to work there after he was 'turned down' by microsoft )
We can debate for hours if Microsoft is to be trusted and if the general dislike of microsoft in the opensource ecosystem is rational (i don't think it is).
But the people behind Mono do need to realize that the strong link with Novell and indirectly Microsoft exist and won't go away. And that makes it very different from Samba and Wine. Secondly, i'm not even sure if Microsoft would be 'extremely evil' to make a problem about Mono. Since, it is a literal copy cat of what we can all fairly judge is innovation. I don't like software patents any more than the next guy. But if there is such a thing as a valid patent, a patent regarding .NET/MONO technology would be a good example. Much better than the double-click or one-click-buy. And therefor much easier to uphold in a court room.
It is also the difference between just writing a compatible compiler to translate or execute CLR code into something that can run on linux and something that we use to develop native, original apps. We can't hide behind the 'we need to be compatible for the market to function, but we have better alternatives of our own' line of reasoning. We are not just being compatible, we are using their technology to create unique, original products. Wine and samba have never crossed that line in their tone and the general usage. And for original products it is unlike somebody would base it on either wine or samba.
The threath of Mono
You'd actually be surprised how many people are willing to fight tooth-and-nail for Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory, even the aspects of it that you'd think an honest scientist would be less than fully confident about. ^.^
The problem is not so much that there are not factual arguments. The problem is rather than people raise the same queries over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. The reason why people get angry is similar to the reason why people get angry about creationism - they get bored going over the same territory, seemingly without end.
The class libraries, CIL bytecode, and C# language are ECMA standards.
When you ask the Samba & Zarafa projects about the impact of patents, you get a polite response. When you ask the mono project about the impact of patents, you get a polite response: http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing - except you don't accept this response, because Novell is evil! This makes people who like Mono, C#, and the way it makes some things awesomely easy wonder whether there is a response that you would accept - the evidence suggests that there is no response that will satisfy you (for the generalised 'you' of "Mono will destroy GNOME" crowd). Why are you surprised that you get an angry response?
> The class libraries, CIL bytecode, and C# language are ECMA standards.
The OSP, which is considered fine by the rubber-stamping [1] organization known as ECMA, looks like a bunch of bullshit to the lawyer team at SFLC who analized it:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html
[1] ECMA is by no means a standards organization. Its purpose is rubber-stamping and force-feeding of pseudo-standards. Remember Office "Open" XML? That's the kind of rubbish ECMA is good for. http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/stranger-than-fiction.html
It is a simple matter of trust. Whilst Novell's secret patent deal with Microsoft remains, and remains secret, we cannot know what it covers and we cannot trust Novell.
Unless Novell is prepared to make the complete agreement public so that lawyers can assess what it actually means, all the words of assurance - from people not even privy to the agreement - are completely worthless. And this includes the FAQ.
As a form of political protest there are good reasons to advocate against Mono to protest against Novell's secret dealings, regardless of the patent deals. For example, we know from public statements that money from GNU/Linux products sold by Novell ends up in Microsoft's hands -- who use it to fight GNU/Linux and the GPL and all of our freedoms.
And on a purely technical level, Mono (and the whole of `.net') do nothing that other platforms already do, and do much better, in a more freedom-loving anyway.
American companies are required by SEC regulations to publish all of the relevant information for investors which is why the SEC filings for both companies have every detail that you might want to learn about the actual patent agreement.
This is not optional, this is the law in the US. Microsoft and Novell would have had to go through extreme lengths to hide something that would carry heavy penalties for people involved in signing such secret deal.
The SEC does permit actual finance information to be kept private (who pays, when, how often, etc), but not the terms of the agreement.
Afaik, this pretty clear response is what I've always been asking for. The fact that anything can be done under any licence using Mono, without any risk that Microsoft sues us a few years later. Now, what would be *even* better, is to have the save thing written on microsoft.com, so that we *know* we are not at risk.
And I'd also like to say that the claim on the article posted by Jo Shields is pure nonsense, not to say FUD. The author claims Microsoft pretends owning IPv4/6 and HTTP, while they clearly state they have paternity over some technologies/techniques using those protocols, and while they also as clearly state they promise not to sue anyone for the use of those technologies, whatever be it.
That's a bit different from *owning*, and yet, they own .NET but they don't say we can make a free use of it or any of its derivates.
You are mixing up points here.
I'm a member of the community with no other agenda then to see Free Software thrive. I will defend that Freedom to a great cost to myself if need be. From that feeling out, I have grave concerns about Mono. If that FAQ you pointed to addressed these concerns in full, then why isn't it convincing people like Richard Stallman, who reversed his stand on Java when Sun released it as truely Free Software? And if he isn't convinced, why should I?
And Novell's actions have been counter-productive to the community tot the extend of the GPLv3 actually being delayed to ensure that no other company could pull of a similar stunt. It's easy for them to say that a particular piece of MS technology is safe while they are under a patent deal that protects them from prosecution. So if their claims turn out to be not so true, it's everyone else that pay the price.
It grows tiring as well for my side that the defense on the pro-mono side only addresses part of our concerns, yet I personally refrain from attacking the people because I want to focus on issues instead of persons.
Richard Stallman position on Java was different. Just because Java and .NET are similar does not mean that Richard opposed it on patent grounds.
His position was roughly: Do not write new software with full Java, because the result will not likely run on free versions of Java; Write software with the free Java only to make sure it runs well on free systems.
And this matches exactly what Tomboy and and all of the Gnome/Mono developers have done: they have developed this entirely on Linux with the free Mono. And not in .NET, so this guarantees that everything built for Tomboy and the other Gnome apps runs on free software systems.
What Richard Stallman missed in his interviews is the part where C# and the core CLI (what Gnome apps use) is part of the ECMA standard licensed under RAND0 terms so Microsoft can not claim retroactively fees.
Actually, from what I recall of Pamela Jones' analysis of the Novell patent deal, it almost puts them into more hot water than everyone else with regards to Microsoft technologies. ^.^
Religion. Technology. SCIENTOLOGY!
I'm still amazed that the Mono people has managed to get a few apps in GNOME and also Ubuntu for no reason whatsoever than political ones; to gain traction for their chosen platform. It saddens me so very much, that a few really loud fanbois manage to get away with something like that. Of course, that's what they call those who oppose as well, few and loud.
I'm worried about the legal ramifications. I'm worried about needing to get codecs via Novell. I'm worried that Novell will soon cease development of Mono due to their money troubles - it's not like it's generating revenue for a long time to come. I don't think haveing Mono as a blessed dependency is a good idea at all, and noone has made a better argument - ever - than "I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really like Tomboy I NEED NEED it in GNOME, plz plzplzplz plz!!!!!!1"
Why these people can't be bothered to install it themselves but have to force it down our throats is anyone's guess. Oh, no wait, it isn't. It's to give Mono legitimacy, which may in the end be a downfall of GNOME. Thanks a lot guys, you really are thinking about us all and not just your petty needs. Thanks. Really.
Ok, let's clear up some factual inaccuracy:
"I'm worried about the legal ramifications. I'm worried about needing to get codecs via Novell."
Except you don't. Moonlight will use FFmpeg's (which is, of course, a writhing mass of patent-infringement that almost everyone completely ignores) codecs if you don't particularly want to get the Microsoft binary codecs (which, incidentally, don't infringe the relevant patents).
having read both sides of the argument I agree there's cause for concern about mono in the same way that there is for other projects, not just wine, samba or zfs. cheese, openoffice, evolution, and many free games could probably have patent claims flung at them and I would reckon the claim would be equivalent to a claim on mono.
i believe that mono critics are paranoid about microsoft while happily using software that more and more is resembling microsoft's creation. What about apple? All the dock's that are happily cloning the OSX look, etc, are probably also violating a ridiculous apple patent or 2.
i choose not to use mono because I prefer kde apps to gnome apps so I end up using basket + amarok + digikam instead of the equivalent mono versions. After every fresh install of ubuntu I give tomboy a try or have a look at banshee and I am always amazed at the functionality that creeps in every release. That to me indicates that development is active and vibrant, but I think its also due to the toolchain that Novell has sponsored / created.
As a programmer I think that the mono framework is a phenomenal piece of work and in places a pretty good platform for development especially in the enterprise space. The pace of banshee / f-spot development is proof enough for me of the quality of the platform even though I imagine there are some bone-headed microsoft committee designed pieces of code in the framework still. I'm not a c# developer so I can't comment on the technical merits of the language, but I respect the opinions of some of the people who do code in it and the output of these projects is proof enough for me. I'm a long time delphi developer so I use Lazarus on Linux instead and I wish it would get some of the love that Mono gets, but hey, that's life.
I for one, am glad that mono exists on the server side purely to see the number of asp.net applications being ported to linux. This is helping linux commercial adoption more than it hurts.
While there are people who idolise RMS and aspire to be as committed to his ideals, some of us are pragmatic enough to evaluate the risks and actually choose to use technologies knowing the dangers. If I had to stop using samba tomorrow or cheese, I'd find something else and move on. I'm happy enough to be called a Miguel fanboy or Novell-lover by the haters. Hell, I loved Netware 3 and still use Midnight Commander almost every day.
I'd like nothing better than for microsoft to attempt to enforce a patent claim and have it dismissed in court so we can start using all of the software (including mono) without threats or FUD. I suggest you go read the linux haters blog and get some perspective. Mono is not the biggest problem we have to deal with at the moment.
The optimist in me believes that Mono might be the one thing that tips MS's hand and lets them make the mistake of trying to enforce its "patent rights". If it does, I believe that they will ultimately lose that battle and bury the notion that software patents are justifiable or enforceable. If that happens, I will have one more reason to be glad Mono exists.
Hey gvansanden,
I totally agree with you on the matter of Mono. Not that I don't want the best for my computer, but noone has ever proved mono to be useful for something else than helping wine run .NET apps.
And, if I accept using (and paying for) proprietary apps that I *choose*, if I accept using proprietary drivers from companies I trust, I will absolutely *never* accept running a proprietary OS.
Yeh, yeh, Mono is opensource, yet it is the implementation of a proprietary API, on which we hold no rights to use. What if we write an unified power-management app in Mono, for instance, and 2/3 years after, Microsoft sues us cause it wasn't written by Novell ? Who can actually say this is not a trojan horse ?
And especially, why use a Microsoft-made technology (excuse me, but I don't think Microsoft is known for the efficiency of their technologies), and we can do the same in C/C++/Python (esp. for a note taking app...). What's the *use* of Mono at the moment ?
It's not about accepting a risk when it is compulsory, it's about putting oneself at risk for no valuable reason.
And btw, Tomboy is an epic failure on my Xubuntu laptop. It just doesn't save the notes (which isn't the best feature for a note taking app). Why would you have so much anger about someone porting an app to another language so they can work on the bugs, instead of having to learn another one and putting themselves at risk too ?
Is it worth my while spending time to answer this beyond what I wrote in http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/linux/51/ last year? I have a busy day, I need to know if it'll just end up ignored (or migrate to a personal attack piece), BoycottNovell-style.
I read your blog and it's pretty one sided. So I will move to your questions in the simulated dialog:
Tally ho.
Which SPECIFIC patents are you saying are risky in Ximian's implementation of ECMA-335, which are NOT risky in GNU's implementation of ECMA-335, which do NOT equally apply to similar technologies like Java? Especially given .NET's heavy Java influence, how many cases of specific patent infringement which aren't prior art in Java can you point to?
Mono had "this phase" 7 years ago. Your claims were already covered 7 years ago. Here you go: http://mono-project.com/Mailpost:longreply
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma%20PATE... is presumably not going to carry any weight with you. So here's a suggestion: ask them for what you ask. Tell them the terms on ECMA-334 and ECMA-335 patent licensing are unclear to them, you want to verify how to license the needed patents.
Stallman doesn't know any details about Mono beyond what he's been told by serial liars like Roy Schestowitz. He's made that clear before at interview. And, of course, mud sticks. He has bigger fish to fry - and GNU has its own Mono competitor (http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/pnet.html) based on the SAME standards and documentation.
I've responded to your specific points (which seems pretty fruitless), but it seems even more pointless to make any further observations, points, details, etc. Every argument you raise has been covered a thousand times before in so many places over the past 7 years. Frankly, it's immensely boring.
So the other side lide boycot novell or Stallman are liars that set out to destroy mono, yet the Novell and pro-mono camp hold the truth?
That doesn't sound very rational to me, specially since the first camp has little to gain by opposing Mono...
It does get immensly boring of having people try to discredit they guys who haven given the most to what I believe in.
What I don't understand is that you seem to ignore the hard facts - Jo Shields even gave you a link to the copy of the patent license document. The implementation of the ECMA standards is safe. Think about it - you actually *have* a written agreement.
Name one of the big distros that doesn't ship Mono - let's see: Debian? Ships Mono. Ubuntu? Ships Mono. Fedora? Since 2006. OpenSUSE? Of course. Mint? Yup. Mandriva? Yes. Even GNewSense, one of the free-est distros out there, linked from gnu.org, ships Mono (and also Dot GNU, another implementation of .Net - http://dotgnu.org ) So it sounds not very rational to me to remove Mono. I think you're chasing windmills here.
Do you really think all these distros made a mistake here in including Mono? Fedora doesn't include software to encode MP3's because of software patents but ships Mono - after long and thouroughly consideration in 2006.
We are intermixing issues here. Firstly there are 2 seperate risks in patents being held over mono.
Shipping mono and having mono apps out there would have an effect similar to problems with wine if it ever hits, namely that distros will have to stop shipping mono and specific apps like f-spot.
My other point is that Gnome should not DEPEND on mono in any way because the effect in the case above would be augmented by crippling one of the 2 biggest Free Desktops out there. So restating my point, I think it still is prudent to keep Mono out of Gnome-core, not to stop all coding on Mono in the community. It's essentially the same viewpoint I had on Java apps before Java was GPL'd.
Now to the point of this discussion again, Justin posted a clarification on this matter actually here:
"Not all of C# is ECMA. LINQ, Lambda expression, anonymous types, Object and collection initializers, just to name a few. Anyone of those implemented in Mono could be a potential legal nightmare, all being core parts of C# and .Net. Microsoft stopped seeking certification after C# 2.0.
<snip>
Also, there isn't any reason why MS couldn't sue because Gtk# was shown to be too similar to WinForms, or how MonoDevelop builds automatically generated code similar to how Visual Studio does it."
And again, I'm not claiming that I'm 100% sure that Mono is in violation of anything, because I'm not.
I'm saying that I'm not sure it isn't violating anything and that I do not trust Novell to make sure anything other than there paying customers are kept safe.
Cite the SPECIFIC line where I called Stallman a liar.
You did not directly call Stallman a liar, you referred to boycott Novell and Roy Schestowitz as liars.
Yet, I do not believe RMS is an easy pray for liars and I do not see any evidence that Roy is a serial liar either. Same goes for boycott Novell BTW.
I could trivially give you a dozen citations of Roy lying, but frankly, if you can't smell it a mile off, it's clear you wouldn't take facts as evidence, so it's not worth my time.
I'm on the 4th google page of his name and apart from some really lame stuff trying to make him look bad, there's nothing about lies in his articles...
So, if you do have something on that, please share
I assume you are referring to his posts on boycot Novell? But still, I would be very interested if and how boycot Novell has lied?
I's not my favorite site, but I have not seen statements there thay I personally know to be factually incorrect.
You get two for free. I really cannot be bothered to find proper links for more than that. Every minute spent on that cesspool drains my will to live.
The lie: "Mono is Too Controversial for Debian"
The URL: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/23/mono-controversial/
The reality: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=484121 - Tomboy excluded from GNOME task in tasksel for SPACE REASONS: "I doubt that the size of its dep chain (~50 mb) makes it worthwhile to add it to our task."
The lie: "While the World is Asleep, Mono with Microsoft-patented WinForms Slips into Ubuntu 9.04"
The URL: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/28/microsoft-winforms-ubuntu/
The reality: Mono has been in Ubuntu since 2005 - see https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mono/+publishinghistory. It's been in the default install since 2006 - see changelog for 1.37 on http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/u/ubuntu-meta/ubuntu-m.... It's had WinForms AVAILABLE (but never by default, intentionally) since 2006, see changelog for 1.1.13.6-1 on http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/m/mono/mono_1.2.6+dfsg.... And even the "While the World is Asleep" is a lie: the updated package was prepared by a Brit, uploaded by a German, on a perfectly ordinary day to anyone not living in Yankland, after having it announced more than once on ubuntu-devel@ and ubuntu-motu@. Extra hilarity comes from Roy citing Thanksgiving as his reason for talk of "while the world is asleep" - yet Roy is British, in student accommodation in Manchester.
If you want to do your own research, interesting topics might be Roy's claims that Ubuntu is responsible for Mono in Debian (hint: this requires use of time travel, as Mono was in Debian years before Ubuntu existed), or you could look at how the founder of BN quit in response to my loud departure from Roy's toxic "comments" section.
I read through stuff by the both of you and I get the distinct impression you both are inclined to interpret things to fit your viewpoint. I highly doubt in both your cases that this is malign though you two seem to have developed a deep personal dislike for eachother on a personal level.
On the second article you point out: 'While the World is Asleep, Mono with Microsoft-patented WinForms Slips into Ubuntu 9.04" he never claimed mono entered Ubuntu in 9.04, he talks about the transition to mono 2. According to this post this could be correct. So apart from the title and the content being sensationalized, I do not see how this is factually incorrect. Remembering that Roy still comes from a viewpoint where mono is dangerous, he does not seem to spread lies any more than you do...
Which specific lie am I spreading?
And sorry, but you are CLEARLY biased in this regard. Here's how it works:
* Roy posts a sensationalist, trumped up fabrication which *AT BEST* could be seen as a heavily interpreted version of the truth designed to deceive, e.g. "Mono with Microsoft-patented WinForms Slips into Ubuntu 9.04"
* Roy links back to same post in future articles, using any href he likes, as proof of misdeeds, regardless of whether or not he's been debunked.
* Rely on the (documented fact) that your readership never fact-check - and will even defend your fabrications - to get away with it.
It's journalism to make the National Enquirer blush. If you think the above is an acceptable path to spreading your point of view, then there's really no hope for rational debate. It's like using Jack Thompson as evidence of clear-headed thinkers against videogame violence. Toxic people harm messages. Roy's heavy distortion (since you seem to dispute made-up facts being called "lies") harms his message - supporting Roy harms yours.
For the record, Roy started attacking me personally in public before I started calling him out on his deception. Until that point I saw his little blog as a funny distraction, like reading right-wing Neocons moan about the end of the world.
I'm researching your claims, yet in the bugreport for the first article, I did find:
"tomboy: very nice app, but controversial since it brings the
full Mono stack, so we don’t make it part of"
Within Debian, the same discussion seems to be going on, whether mono is acceptable or not and if I'm not mistaken, you are the mono package maintainer?
I'm one member of a team which has existed in Debian for 7 years.
And there's no such discussion happening - there's at best one ill-informed post to debian-legal from an Ubuntu Forums user.
Thank you for the links. I'm going to read up on these issues before I comment on them in any form. This won't be before wednesday as I'm out tomorrow.
I'm going to read your piece in full first. You posted a polite resply so I will neither ignore nor attack you.
The only difference being between what Microsoft claims to own and what Microsoft actually owns.
sudo apt-get purge libmono0 mono-common
is all I have to say. Follow this advice if your are a company and sitting in the US or a Commonwealth nation or having branches there and avoid ending up like TomTom et al, paying randsom money to Micro-Soft. They made clear several times that they are going to cash in on patents. And if not them, they might sell their mono-related "patents" and somebody else will cash in who might not fear the revenge of the FOSS crowd,.. i.e. a patent troll.
Yes that works, and actually removes Tomboy (which I'm not using anyway), but it does not help with the issue I raised that if Gnome becomes dependent on Mono, there's a threat to it's status as Free Software.
If purging mono takes out half of my desktop in a future release, I will not be happy. That's why I pointed out that as a Gnome fan I'm actually thrilled that KDE4 exists, in the event that Gnome continues on this path to mono, there will be a Free alternative when things go bad.
I genuinely believe that Mono and Moonlight are part of the MS strategy to eventually squeeze money out of Free Software and unlike junk patents like the FAT one, these may eventually stick in court.