You've constructed a little alternate reality where your strawman critique of Mono is the most relevant one. Well it's not.
The reason Mono is such a pariah in the Linux community is because it is a patent encumbered lanaguage (patents owned by a company with a history of hostility towards open source), and its promoters are trying to tie it to some fairly prominent pieces of the Linux ecosystem (e.g. GNOME). If you can't see the danger of code with patents covered by Microsoft becoming an integral part of GNOME, well, then you are blind.
Now, some members of the SUSE community will tell you that Mono is actually safe because it is protected by licensing agreement with Microsof. Well, that's true ONLY IF YOU USE THE SUSE PROVIDED VERSIONS. Yeah, Novell has a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft, but that doesn't protect Fedora or Ubuntu or Mandriva. So why the hell should we throw our weight behind a technology product that can only be legally utilised by ONE distribution? Plus, this goes against the very ethos of free software. Anyone who pretends that Mono is a viable option on Linux, as opposed to just SUSE, is an idiot.
Wine is a Win32 API implementation. It is not covered by any patents, so it is wholly irrelevant to Mono. Samba/AD ?? Same thing. NTFS? No known patents.
FAT is definitely an issue, but that is hardly a vital component, and there is a fair amount of antipathy towards FAT. Additionally, there are no distributions trying to promote adopting FAT as an integral part of the ecosystem.
Of course, you could've have found all of this for yourself if you decided to do some basic research before jumping in and calling people hypocrites.