The Community Promise thing is nice, but there are still some concerns. One of the problems I am seeing is how useful mono is, if restricted to the standard bits only.
Let’s say, just for the sake of argument that the standard bits are perfectly safe. I know there still a couple of concerns there, but put them aside for this point.
In Special
One of the things we are hearing is that mono will be clearly split into “standard” and “non-standard” bits. That’s great. Another thing we are being told about the non-standard bits is that ”nobody cares about those – they aren’t used for the apps people moan about.”
But: Banshee needs System.Data and SQLite. F-Spot needs System.Data and SQLite. I believe both of these use ADO.Net, and are in the “non-standard” bits camp.
I would suggest that Banshee and F-Spot are very much “apps people moan about.” (The other two that are hot are Tomboy and Gnome Do, which look alright in this area based on my understanding.)
In General
The problem here I’m seeing is two-fold:
- The Community Promise has made parts of mono safer. That’s great.
- Some people might not be clear that this is not a blanket over all mono. That’s not so great.
If mono proponents want mono critics to acknowledge the Community Promise is a positive step, they need to be honest about its limitations.
If applications are using non-standard bits of mono, it would not be honest to promote them under the argument that “well, everyone knows mono is safe now.”
I want to make this point strongly because we have lots of email showing that Microsoft internally, and a high levels, discussed a strategy along the lines of only standardizing enough of .NET to make it look good, but not enough to make it actually useful.
If major mono-based applications – the ones people are pushing to get into distributions by default – rely on these non-standard bits, then the arguments for them are not much affected by the Community Promise and they need to remain optional.
#1 by Miguel de Icaza on July 9th, 2009
We are aware of that, after all, we write the software.
Replacing System.Data is a trivial exercise. The code in question is some 200 lines of C# interfaces (a contract that providers implement) that need to be replaced with something else.
For the technologically inclined, the interface contains stuff like “SendCommandToSql”, “GetReplyFromSQL”. Not exactly rocket science.
This is perhaps your chance to contribute and get the new interfaces in place. Should not take more than a couple of hours.
#2 by Jason on July 9th, 2009
Miguel,
I didn’t mean to imply the developer’s aren’t aware of it – I meant the “foot soldiers” out there are overlooking that fact. In fact, some are plainly stating that all those apps are safe when they aren’t (yet) – ala the linked thread in the post.
I’ll contribute by keeping you guys honest – how about that?
If you continue to address legit concerns and criticism – even if it is only “trival” code changes – and it can only help all the way around. It’s much nicer having your points actually addressed than being called names, and it undeniably puts the project on safer footing (even if you thought it was “safe enough” before.)
#3 by max stirner on July 9th, 2009
Why don’t we just leave all the MS rubbish out of the default gnome installs/live cds and whoever loves them so much can install them from the toxic rubbish repository and pay some sort of license fee to redmond.
#4 by Jason on July 9th, 2009
Max,
Agreed. There’s a certain sadness to the image of a new user that has finally managed to break free from Windows (or one that has never really had to worry about Microsoft tactics), only to look up and see Team Mono happily bouncing down the path to the front door, arms overflowing with packages from Redmond.
Mono and many of its applications can not be ignored – you have to think about it and come up with an opinion because of agressive promotion. By forcing users to decide if they want this technology, they divide the community. It’s inevitable and sad.
#5 by Anonymous on July 11th, 2009
“There’s a certain sadness to the image of a new user that has finally managed to break free from Windows…”
I don’t consider the mere fact that Microsoft-inspired technology can be seen on Linux as sad. You don’t merely use Linux just to escape every influence of a proprietary world, do you? That’s a little unrealistic.
Not every user has to choose an ideological side in the free-software struggle just to enjoy using your system.
#6 by Jason on July 11th, 2009
The point is not that every user has to “choose a side”; but if you don’t understand that Microsoft has already chosen one for you. That is the nature of an aggressive campaign, such as Microsoft wages against Linux and Free Software. And it is the nature of being in power; Microsoft is fine if you don’t pick a side, they still win with that because they strive to maintain and strengthen the status quo.
It is not just an issue of “a proprietary world”. Perhaps some other proprietary company would act in the same manner if they had the power. But that is not relevant right now, because they do not have such power. Microsoft does. They will never ever give it up. It must be taken away slowly: one user, one standard, one refusal to be locked-in at a time.