>You eat pieces of FUD for breakfast?

>Response to “I eat FUD like you for breakfest” (now defunct page)

I suppose I am one of the vocal minority you are speaking about. A little known guy by the nickname of RMS is another. And yes there are others that go a little overboard.. on both sides of this debate.

First off, we obviously do care about patents. Ubuntu doesn’t play MP3s out of the box. And no, it isn’t just because we like Ogg (or FLAC) better.

Let me make this clear. In a patent-free world I would still not like Mono installed by default in Ubuntu. Why? Because we let Microsoft be the leader, we follow. They create .NET, we follow. They modify it, we follow again. We do need to follow Microsoft on some things in order to compete (like opening .docs) but we should choose our battles wisely.

I, however, am completely fine with Mono “stealing” development resources from all the other programming languages. Because,it’s not stealing resources, someone is volunteering or being paid to do the work and odds are they are having fun doing it.

It is their choice if they want to work on Mono or a complete reimplementation of a good Mono application in C++ so it’s faster, uses less memory, and is in their favourite language.

You eat pieces of FUD for breakfast? Perhaps you should stop following Microsoft.

9 thoughts on “>You eat pieces of FUD for breakfast?”

  1. >”First off, we obviously do care about patents. Ubuntu doesn’t play MP3s out of the box. And no, it isn’t just because we like Ogg (or FLAC) better.”

    This is not a strong argument, there are specific licensing issues with respect to mp3, not the vague, almost imaginary threat associated with Mono, and openGL.

    It’s also not the case that Mono is always lagging behind MS. You’re ignoring the mono specific apis that make mono particularly compelling such as mono.addins, the integration with Unity3d, Mono.Simd

  2. >It will be interesting to see how long mono will live in this economy. It’s very likely to be one of the first things cut once Novell really starts to feel the pain. Then what? We have something usable today, sure, but should we keep on maintaining the whole mono shebang for a few apps that COULD EASILY BE WRITTEN IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE/PLATFORM?

    Really, mono guys are the vocal minority here.

  3. >Fully agree … choice and availability is what the Ubuntu philosophy is all about.
    Microsoft has only granted immunity to Novell users/clients, and Mono’s GPL does not cover Mono’s Windows compatibility stack – of which TomBoy uses extensively. There is a lot to be wary of from MS when using Mono’s Windows compatibility stack, and IMHO thus lots to be wary of from TomBoy.

  4. >it’s not stealing resources, someone is volunteering or being paid to do the work and odds are they are having fun doing itAbsolutely, I am really not a fan of the “stealing resources” argument, it’s hardly ever true.

  5. >There is absolutely no need for Mono, except to support MS only technology on Linux. I have no problem having MONO as an available technology, but I do not recommend ever making MONO available dependencies in a Linux distro. The reason of course is MS.

    There is nothing to prevent MS from crying patent violations around Mono, Moonlight, or any other MS based technology. Unless or until Microsoft provides or grants a full open source license or grant to the NET stack and runtime implementations, every application based upon Mono is subject to MS patent infringement. Further problems will continue to exist with Mono, since future releases are totally dependent upon MS’ changes and re-implementations. In other words, we will always be playing, “Follow the leader.”

    Since NET is not licensed outside of MS, it is MS and MS alone who controls direction of the NET stack and future implementations. No other entity has input nor control. Why the Open Source world would want to tie themselves to a technology where they have absolutely no input, is somewhat perplexing.

    In short we really do not need MONO at all. What is wrong with Java (now GPL), Python, Ruby, etc.? If we need a run time or VM type language to develop applications, these are readily available and work quite well.

    Java is much more stable and industry wide accepted than NET. Just like NET, the JVM allows other languages to run on top of the Java runtime and currently supports more languages than NET or MONO. There is JRuby and JPython, in addition to the Ruby and Python native bindings and runtimes now.

    In short, I see no real reason to depend upon NET at all. By depending upon NET and encouraging NET adoption, we are only enabling Microsoft to gain more control of the general IT stack. Isn’t this against the spirit of Open Source in general?

    There is nothing wrong with NET as a platform per se, since NET is basically a MS implementation of Java. The problem is not with the technology but with the possible legal ramifications and control factor that rests basically with a single entity. There is no way MONO can keep up with the Windows NET stack, since MS again, works with no one on the NET implementation, inclusion, changes, etc.

  6. >I’ve already posted this on the OP blog, but…

    IMHO, C++ is almost as easy to program in as C# or Java. The performance gains almost always outweigh the costs in complexity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *