How is Mono worse than other projects that implement Microsoft technologies?

[yesterday]

Seriously, wine helps Microsoft more than it hurts them. It provides a measure of compatibility but doesn't allow developers to write first-class applications for Linux. In other words, it maintains the platform lock-in. What's not to like about that?

This is a blinkered view. Wine also enables older software that hasn't or won't be updated to run on linux. The one thing about Microsoft is that they have gone to ridiculous lengths to maintain backwards compatibility. It's not unrealistic to imagine Wine having perfect API compatibility with winxp and earlier. There are still people using Office XP, Office 2003, old MYOB versions etc that will NEVER be updated on Windows, let alone a port to another OS.

Anyone, your absolute statements have no meaning. There is no way to quantitatively measure how much Wine helps Microsoft or Linux. Dismissing the notion that running certainly Windows applications on Linux is at the very least desirable for some in the short-term is ridiculous.

[BlackStar]

The "protection" granted by the Community promise is the issue. It is certainly not strong enough to warrant entities like Red Hat investing heavily in it. There are enough identified issues with the Community Promise that it is stupid to start integrating any C# based technology heavily into major components like GNOME. The FSF and SFLC have written enough about the numerous valid problems with the Community Promise.

Wine has no such issues.

Way to distort the issue.
(a) Mono has some degree of formal protection against patent litigation.
(b) Wine has none.
(c) hence Wine is safer than Mono.

Wait, what?

[BlackStar]

Anyone, your absolute statements have no meaning. There is no way to quantitatively measure how much Wine helps Microsoft or Linux. Dismissing the notion that running certainly Windows applications on Linux is at the very least desirable for some in the short-term is ridiculous.

That's why I never dismissed the notion that Wine is useful.

What I dismiss is baseless assertions that that Wine is safer than Mono, because it isn't. "As safe as Mono", maybe, but "more safe than Mono" not by a far shot.

[susikala]

That's why I never dismissed the notion that Wine is useful.

What I dismiss is baseless assertions that that Wine is safer than Mono, because it isn't. "As safe as Mono", maybe, but "more safe than Mono" not by a far shot.

You are conveniently ignoring a simple fact which was mentioned here countless times before: there's nothing dependant of Wine to work, if the project gets shut down the only side effect of it is that you wouldn't be able to use your Windows apps on Linux (and why you would want to do such a ridiculous thing to begin with escapes my knowledge, but that's beside the point).

Mono, on the other hand, is like poison that touches everything that uses it. If Microsoft decides to act differently, on a whim, then you (not you even, distributions, and thus practically EVERYONE) have problems using some of their applications. Who would take the blame then for letting people use and get used to something whose legal situation isn't even clear, and then suddenly pulling it out, you or the distributions?

Now I don't know about you, but as someone who uses Linux to a very large extent because it's FOSS, and as someone who applies himself restrictions (as a diehard Diablo fan I would really like to play the third installment when it comes out -- but wouldn't unless it comes to Linux) -because- of that, I don't want any -ifs- in my ecosystem. It's as simple as that. And I don't want any people as you either in ecosystem, promoting that evil. I suggest you go (back) to Windows.

[Remco]

And I don't want any people as you either in ecosystem, promoting that evil. I suggest you go (back) to Windows.

And there's the kind of behavior that doesn't help your case. I take the "live and let die" approach. I won't use Mono software, but I won't harm the Mono community either. Everyone has the right to their own opinions and decisions, based on their own values and priorities.

[susikala]

Everyone has the right to their own opinions and decisions, based on their own values and priorities.

While that's true on a general basis, this person's opinions and (claimed) activity hurt Linux.

Linus himself may be a pragmatist more than an ideologist and that may have led to the success of Linux, but the kernel is still under the GPL.

Promoting reduction of freedom or speaking for promotion of reduction of freedom in a system where one of its basic, core principles is the one of freedom is a bad thing to do and requires removal from the system, it's REALLY simple. I don't understand why are you defending the promono stance.

[BlackStar]

Mono, on the other hand, is like poison that touches everything that uses it. If Microsoft decides to act differently, on a whim, then you (not you even, distributions, and thus practically EVERYONE) have problems using some of their applications. Who would take the blame then for letting people use and get used to something whose legal situation isn't even clear, and then suddenly pulling it out, you or the distributions?

Sorry, but you are ignoring the fact that the community promise is legally binding and non-revocable. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak: Microsoft cannot attack implementors of the covered APIs, except in self-defense. Read the previous link.

The best Microsoft could do is shut down implementations of non-standard APIs, like WinForms or WPF. This doesn't affect Linux applications. At all. Nada. Zilch. GTK#, Qyoto, wx.Net, SDL.Net, OpenTK, the runtime, the C# compiler, the BCL, the native bindings, Banshee, Tracker, F-Spot, Pinta and everything else would continue working as before.

Don't use Mono if you don't like it but don't spread FUD about it. It does nothing but hurt the cause.

(Developers keep asking me if it is worth testing their applications on Linux, fearful of the anti-Mono sentiment. Good job, zealots, on reducing the value of Linux for everyone. Fewer developers, fewer users and fewer useful applications because of your FUD. Way to go.)

[BlackStar]

While that's true on a general basis, this person's opinions and (claimed) activity hurt Linux.

Linus himself may be a pragmatist more than an ideologist and that may have led to the success of Linux, but the kernel is still under the GPL.

It's GPLv2, though, to the chagrin of RMS. Pragmatism over ideology.

Promoting reduction of freedom or speaking for promotion of reduction of freedom in a system where one of its basic, core principles is the one of freedom is a bad thing to do and requires removal from the system, it's REALLY simple. I don't understand why are you defending the promono stance.

Mono is released under the MIT/X11. It's as Free as it gets. You can relicense it under the GPL, if you wish.

If the software is bad, it will sink on its own merits (like Java did). If it is good, it will rise. Trying to take away that freedom, trying to enforce your personal preferences on everyone else, that's what hurts Free software.

Remco said it best:
"I take the "live and let die" approach. I won't use Mono software, but I won't harm the Mono community either. Everyone has the right to their own opinions and decisions, based on their own values and priorities."

[Ex-Cyber]

Sorry, but you are ignoring the fact that the community promise is legally binding and non-revocable. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak: Microsoft cannot attack implementors of the covered APIs, except in self-defense. Read the previous link.

It's irrevocable for the current specifications, but Microsoft can at any time elect to release new versions of or extensions to C# or the CLI that are not covered by the Microsoft Community Promise. The "embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy is thus still quite open to them with respect to the larger situation of C# and .NET, and they're in a position to do it since they control the leading implementation and development tools. It's probably a little paranoid to specifically worry about them doing this, but given their history it's not exactly an irrational concern. It obviously wouldn't magically break Linux applications, but it could leave Linux stuck with an "obsolete" language/runtime.

[yotambien]

Promoting reduction of freedom or speaking for promotion of reduction of freedom in a system where one of its basic, core principles is the one of freedom is a bad thing to do and requires removal from the system, it's REALLY simple. I don't understand why are you defending the promono stance.

I always knew BlackStar was up to limiting our freedom and deep into "bad things". I knew it, I'm telling you. I agree, his removal of the system for non-compliance with its basic, core principles is required.

Please proceed.


COMING UP EVENTS:

-How to spot subversive elements of the community
-Is my neighbourgh a communist?
-Computing: cheap freedom fighting for the XXI century petite bourgeoisie
-Hitler, Gates and the Antichrist: an overview