
Mono 4.0.0 Release Notes - dawkins
http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/releases/4.0.0/
======
baldfat
Mono was the worst witch hunt in the Open Source Free Software movement. I
think the whole it is Microsoft so even though it is an open standard and that
Microsoft is flying people in from the mono project and publicly helping mono
you are setting yourself up for a lawsuit.

So many projects in Linux we abandoned by users and people made clones of
working software. Such wasted time and such a negative turn in our community.

~~~
baldfat
Don't downvote without saying why. This isn't how conversations are made or
stopped.

Here is RMS fiurst post on Mono and C# - [https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-
depend-on-mono](https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono)

“[...] we know that Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I
think it’s dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono.”

–Richard Stallman

I am glad that RMS is an advocate for Free Software and we certainly have been
helped by his strong convictions. I think he was wrong with Mono and hurt
specifically GNU/Linux (For RMS' sake) by limiting the use of a language due
to pressure against developers using it. The fight was won and mono projects
were dropped by distros.

P.S. Long time OpenSUSE user which was also strongly discouraged by the
community due to Novell's and Microsoft's relationship and agreements.

~~~
streptomycin
What exactly was RMS wrong about? MS didn't try to sue Mono out of existence,
but they could have. If Mono had become a critical part of the Linux world,
they very well might have.

If MS didn't want the free software community to be wary of that threat, they
could have made legally binding promises not to sue over patents (no, making
something an "open standard" does not do that [1]). Failing that, RMS seems
correct that it would have been dangerous to depend too greatly on technology
that could be clearly be thwarted by lawsuits from MS.

Ironically, if MS had encouraged the free software community to use C# back
then, MS would probably be better off today.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_standards_covered...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_standards_covered_by_patents)

~~~
baldfat
He was wrong in seeing this as a hidden attack strategy by MS. RMS sees issues
with many licenses and discourages many languages. This was an attack on a
language which was MUCH less than others in terms of concerns, but the
community attacked mono with such fervor.

Java - [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-
trap.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html)

X Windows trap -
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html)

How about javascript [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-
trap.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html)

There are many projects that use javascript in Linux. Gnome has made
javascript the default configuration language.

I find that the reason mono was so focused was that it came from Microsoft. It
was a witch hunt that was guided by a conspiracy theory.

Answers by Mono Project [http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/concerns-
about-m...](http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/concerns-about-mono/)

~~~
streptomycin
_He was wrong in seeing this as a hidden attack strategy by MS._

Just because an attack never happened doesn't mean there was no strategy. In
part due to RMS's effort, there was basically nothing for MS to attack.

And even if there really was no strategy, there very clearly could have been.
You can't fault RMS for not being a mindreader. That's why lawyers and
contracts exist - if MS didn't want it to look like they were scheming, they
very easily could have done that. Like Sun did with Java, as described at the
top of the Java link you posted.

 _There are many projects that use javascript in Linux. Gnome has made
javascript the default configuration language._

Please read the article you linked to and tell me what it has to do with GNOME
using JavaScript (hint: nothing, it's about JS in the browser).

And from that last link:

 _In our opinion, nothing about Mono is different than other projects like
Samba or Wine, that also substantially reproduce a Microsoft created
technology or protocol._

RMS would be horrified if GNOME decided to write some core apps using Wine.
But... they didn't. If they did, there would be an outcry even bigger than the
one against Mono. RMS's problem isn't Mono (as described in your original
link, he thinks it's good to have a free implementation of C#), it's relying
on it for important applications.

I apologize if this comes off as a personal attack, but honestly, you seem to
be more concerned with slinging mud at RMS than understanding the issues.

~~~
baldfat
First: Never took anything you said as a personal attack. These are the
conversations I like to have. Someone with a different perspective. Secondly
yes I know that I was stretching the javascript to Gnome so I take that as a
knock on my argument.

No my concern is not mud slinging at RMS. I really do appreciate him and I am
glad he was born and is involved in our community.

My concern is the use of FUD. This is the very definition of FUD. Fear,
Uncertainty and Doubt. It was a FUD attack on something that really couldn't
have been a trap legally or intellectually. But placing a bit of fear and it
could happen caused this uproar.

Now we are looking 6 years later and well things have really opened up in C#
and mono?

~~~
streptomycin
_It was a FUD attack on something that really couldn 't have been a trap
legally or intellectually._

I guess the sticking point is that I don't see how it couldn't have been a
trap legally or intellectually. X exists. X is patented. Making a clone of X
and using that clone in critical technologies is a risky strategy, unless you
get an explicit legal guarantee that you won't be sued. It happened to C#, it
happened to MP3, it happened to H.264. All very similar situations.

Now, you may say that C# is different than MP3 or H.264 because you personally
reviewed MS's patents and you personally guarantee that none of them actually
apply to Mono, so we're all in the clear. That is awesome, because as most
software developers are not patent lawyers, we lack the ability to do that
ourselves. We just know that some people said it's a problem, others said it's
not, and MS itself was silent for quite some time. But it's not the same as an
affirmative statement from MS saying they're not going to sue other C#
implementations for patent infringement.

You are right that MS may have gotten a bit more attention than another
company would have in the same situation. If so, it can be reasonably
explained by that old "fool me once" quote. But even so, the whole situation
could have been diffused by MS if they wanted to.

 _Now we are looking 6 years later and well things have really opened up in C#
and mono?_

They seem to have. To be honest I haven't been following the developments of
the past couple years in great detail because it seems like the "C# on Linux"
ship has already sailed.

And that's a damn shame. I think C# is a great language. It fits a niche that
still isn't really filled in the Linux ecosystem (although that niche is
getting smaller and smaller as time goes on and other technologies develop).

~~~
baghira
I have to agree. Even Gnome developers described the thing as "putting our
balls in Redmond's hands":
[http://lu.is/blog/index.cgi/531.html](http://lu.is/blog/index.cgi/531.html).
In fact the mono patent situation remained unclear for years, until 2009 if I
remember correctly. And in 2006 there was the whole Novell-Microsoft
kerfuffle, with Ballmer saying that only Suse Linux users were not violating
Microsoft intellectual property
[http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2006/11/16/ballmer-on-
no...](http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2006/11/16/ballmer-on-novell-linux-
and-patents/).

So I really would not call the reaction FUD.

Also, adding my personal experience from that period, I'd say that many Linux
desktop users, myself included, were not interested in adding mono as another
dependency to the stack, especially to run three applications: a note-taking
application (tomboy), photo management (f-spot) or the banshee music
player(which, I'm sorry to say, was one of the most crash-happy pieces of
gnome). Samba and ffmpeg (well, the patented parts thereof) were never meant
to be building blocks on which to write a lot free software, they are ways to
ensure compatibility with existing closed solutions. I have some simpathy for
de Icaza's idea that, since C# is a nice programming language, people should
be encouraged and helped to use it, but the combination of patents' threat and
frankly the "let's just put it in gnome!" approach doomed the effort. Also, in
hindsight, mono would have (has?) worked better in the entreprise sector,
rather than in desktop environment (Ruby is about as open as it gets, but it
is not used for DE's stuff, execpt YAST2 I think). Hopefully now that most of
the dotnet stack is open (except the bits that do depend on windows e.g.
WindowsForm, if I'm not mistaken) we'll see a rebirth of interest.

------
dawkins
The apt install with their packages worked well in Ubuntu so no more build
from source for me. I always had trouble with dependencies.

[http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-
started/install/lin...](http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-
started/install/linux/#debian-ubuntu-and-derivatives)

~~~
luxpir
Struggling with dependencies on Debian Jessie via apt-get from the mono
package repo. Anyone managed it yet?

~~~
josteink
For me on Ubuntu, I had to manually install mono-devel first.

For some reason apt-get wouldn't automatically install it, despite it being a
dependency.

------
evjan
It's going to be interesting to see how Mono going to be affected by the
Microsoft's recent cross-platform activity.

~~~
higherpurpose
Everyone here seems to be flagging this to hell now, so I'm guessing not very
well.

~~~
skrebbel
How can you tell?

