The Mono Project: You Might Expect the Unexpected (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 2, 2007 17:30 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (guest, #216)
Parent article: The Mono Project: You Might Expect the Unexpected (Linux Journal)

Quite a nice advocacy job. But to balance that, I repost here part of one of the comments on the article, from one 'jt':

"The problems with C# are many, however. First and foremost, is the fact that MS controls the language. MS could at any time decide to break compatibility with the ECMA specification, in the name of 'innovation', and that would leave Mono out in the cold. They would have to choose between staying true to the ECMA specification, which would eliminate the second benefit described above, or try to stay in sync with MS's implementation which would likely require some form of licensing from MS, which would of course further MS's ends and hurt free software in general. I think it is a given that Mono would choose the latter option since it is already trying to do just that with portions of the C# stack that are not part of the ECMA specification, and because Novell has shown itself to be more than willing to cooperate with MS at the expense of the free software community."

The Mono Project: You Might Expect the Unexpected (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 2, 2007 18:57 UTC (Tue) by alankila (guest, #47141) [Link]

My experience with Mono as ASP.Net environment is that it's somewhat immature but still quite usable. It is definitely improving at a rapid, noticeable pace. So far all updates to mono have felt absolutely essential, and I've followed it as a developer from 1.2.2 to 1.2.5. Each new version eliminates bugs and brings new features to the table which are immediately useful.

I'm not sure whether Mono is strictly a competitor for Windows OS. Clearly, Microsoft has an incentive to make switching from their expensive servers to commodity ones more difficult. But on the other hand, I bet most software written for MS platform gets hopelessly tangled with the system's other software anyway, and Microsoft doesn't really need to make switching any more difficult than it already is.

Finally, I'm not so sure that Mono is so controlled by Microsoft. It's obvious that whatever good Microsoft does to .Net, the mono project will attempt to emulate, but there is nevertheless a growing body of work that has nothing to do with Microsoft, for instance the applications of GNOME desktop. These applications and others made for Linux only make the case for Mono as an independent, viable platform.

The Mono Project: You Might Expect the Unexpected (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 3, 2007 6:37 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (2 responses)

This seems the same situation that applied to Java for many years. The free implementations were struggling to catch up with a semi-proprietary standard, Sun could change it at any time, and so on. That didn't prevent free Java implementations from being usable and being free software.

I don't think you can argue based on what Novell 'would' choose in the future, or that any hypothetical future change to .NET 'would likely' require some form of licensing from Microsoft, and so on... This is just speculation. Even if you believe that Novell is more likely to 'turn evil' than any other given company such as Red Hat or IBM, we normally judge free software by whether it is free in the here and now.

Mono is 100% free software. You have freedom to use, share and change it, just the same as gcc or Samba or X11. Microsoft and other companies enjoy making vague patent threats against all kinds of free software, including the Linux kernel. They don't need to be specific because the loose cloud of FUD is the effect they want. There is no need to help in spreading it.

The Mono Project: You Might Expect the Unexpected (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 3, 2007 9:49 UTC (Wed) by jfj (guest, #37917) [Link]

Well, the thing is history.

Back in 1995 Microsoft stopped shipping a compiler/programming language with its operating system. The logic was that only professional programmers would be interested in such tools. They would pay a "tax" to microsoft to buy a compiler and libraries (about $300 then for the minimal version). The rest of the system would be closed -- professional programmers would work on the windows API.

This made a lot of hobbyists and advanced users switch to linux.

After a lot of hard work we managed to make a system that it completely open. Without specifications, under severe FUD and by lockouts from hardware vendors who where blackmailed to avoid linux. The free movement was ignored, laughed at and fought.

Now, 10 years latter, the movement has succeeded despite Microsoft's efforts. And now Microsoft wants in.

That may explain the "bias".

Some people talk about "revenue" and suggest that "revenue for Microsoft is ... revenue for Open Source"!

Others suggest superior technology, which is funny because linux has dynamic languages since the early 90s which are still better than C#, and Novell didn't invest any money in them.

As for "code that runs everywhere", this is the age of virtualization.

The Mono Project: You Might Expect the Unexpected (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 3, 2007 17:24 UTC (Wed) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

And if MS makes it incompatible with the standard, Mono project could market itself on as the "Cross-platform, standards compliant C# implementation", maybe even on Windows...