Time to draw attention to the “Free Speech Zone” on the Ubuntu Forums.
The target
For perfectly understandable reasons, Team Mono is really targeting Ubuntu to get ever more mono applications in by default. Banshee is virtually a given at this point, and GNOME-Do is a likely follow up. There is a blizzard of pro-mono misinformation on the Ubuntu Forums – which it breaks my heart to say, doesn’t exactly have quite same level of intellectual rigor as the Dialogues of Plato.
But I digress.
The point is Ubuntu is #1. Love it or hate it, for a vast majority of peoples, Ubuntu == Linux. Through the time-tested method of pulling a number out of one’s hindquarters, I will state with no other evidence that 99.9% of newcomers to Linux install Ubuntu first. And the Ubuntu Forums is where they go to ask questions. This is good ground for Team Mono. If it were a war, Ubuntu would be a valuable territory poorly guarded.
The resistance
As people came onto the Ubuntu Forums and heard about Mono, they would naturally ask “What’s the story here?”, upon which pro- and anti- mono people alike would chime in. It was all pretty boring and standard. It happened a lot, because Ubuntu Forums gets a lot of new users, and new users tend to have the same questions. If you were to inspect those sorts of threads you would generally find the same people appearing. Nothing much interesting about this part, it was the same mono apologists recycling the same misinformation.
By my lights, there was much less misinformation on the mono critic side. Now, I know that is to be expected, but let me say why. Most of the mono critics on the Ubuntu Forums, expressed an opinion on why they didn’t like Mono. But, they were attacked in turn over that opinion by recycled and often plain non-factual arguments. If I tell you Nickelback sucks, that is an opinion. (It happens to be true, but it is still an opinion). If I tell you that Nickelback do not write formulaic songs then that is just a plain non-factual argument.
Hooray for Nickelback sucking, the one thing all people can agree on. It’s like comparing someone to Hitler, without having to worry about Godwin.
The end result
Eventually, the Ubuntu Forums set up a “Free Speech Zone” of a thread called “Monolith” in a sub-forum of a sub-forum of a sub-forum. There’s a pathetic attempt at pretense: “We do not want to silence them and in fact encourage Civil debate.”
Uh no. Just say you don’t want anymore mono criticism and be done with it. I despise people that feign neutrality. If you have a position, announce it and defend it. Don’t dance around like you have no bias and then pull some BS like the Free Speech Zone. It’s dishonest and transparently so.
Wait. Let me help you with that.
I almost don’t want to go ahead and write more, because I can already imagine the mono apologist defense, but I will pre-emptively answer a few of the protests. (I would rather put them in a sealed envelope and then reveal them dramatically.)
Well, that is the forum for “Recurring Discussions” is it not?
Yes it is. Except for the fact that the Mono/Moonlight situation is constantly changing. We just saw a major huge change with the Community Promise, and another recent change with Banshee’s announcement that they intend to build the GUI in Moonlight. This is an ongoing concern, where the situation changes.
The vast majority of the Recurring Discussion threads are stale things that only the newbiest of the new feel like they have to chime in on like KDE/GNOME or vi/emacs. Here is a sampling of the recent threads in Recurring Discussion:
- What can Windows do that Linux can’t?
- Windows? What about Mac?
- Which is more bleeding edge? Gentoo Linux or Arch?
- GIMP v. Photoshop
- Why do you choose Ubuntu over Windows?
- Poll: Which IRC client do you use?
Do you really think the debate on Mono fits among those inane discussions? Ha ha, you said “yes”. Let’s laugh together!
Furthermore, Ubuntu Forums only allows a single “sticky” thread. So it’s not like you could at least break off a specific discussion into its own thread (still confined to the Recurring Discussion sub-sub-sub forum). No all mono criticism must be confined to a single thread. At the time of this posting there were 1,105,286 threads on Ubuntu Forums. (1,102,284 of which are how to enable wobbly windows.)
If you are trying to stuff all Mono criticism into one thread out of a million, then you are not “encouraging civil debate.”
Additionally, check out the opening post to the thread: “This thread is created to give a voice for all those who oppose Mono, but we are in trun asking you to keep your opinions / rants / anit-mono propaganda out of the support threads” So, this is for all Mono criticism, not just crazy rants – or is all Mono opposition “opinions / rants / anti-mono propaganda”? That’s another annoying thing about mono apologists, the refusal to recognize that there can be any valid criticism whatsoever of Mono.
In practice, you will find this thread is also for any question that might even turn into a chance to say anything possibly critical of mono / moonlight at all:
Originally Posted by lewmnikCorrect me if I am wrong but is it not only Novell who may distribute Moonlight? Banshee developers will make Banshee also replace f-spot?? I think Ubuntu should reconsider Rhythmbox decision.Source:
http://download.banshee-project.org/…ee-gcds-09.pdfThread merged. Please read the first post, and then if you like all the others, and if you really want, read through the old mega thread.
Even though this gentleman is exactly correct about Moonlight being a proud Novell-Microsoft exclusive offering, he is quickly shuffled off into the “Free Speech Zone”. Was there some opinion / rant / anti-mono propaganda in that post?
Needless to say, mono promotion has free reign into any other forum. Want to pimp your latest Mono app or talk up Mono/C# or just go on about how awesome you find a specific Mono app – knock yourself out! Why, with no criticism at all, it’s just like everyone agrees.
Well, they had to do something!
Uh, why? They have hundreds of absolutely idiotic threads like counting to a certain number before the thread is locked or whatever. It’s not like some mono critical posts are out-of-place in the kernel developer’s mailing list or something.
And, if you accept they had to do something, was this the right thing to do?
Well there you have it
It is shameful and deceitful. I am very disappointed that the staff of Ubuntu Forums resorted to such a move. Although they are perfectly within their rights to do so, it is a disservice to the Ubuntu community and the larger GNU/Linux community. Interested to hear the pro-mono side of this.
#1 by Jo Shields on July 21st, 2009
When half the “concerns” include sky-pointing, it’s pretty hard to give them any credence.
#2 by zekopeko on July 21st, 2009
*sigh*
#3 by Jason on July 21st, 2009
@zekopeko
Is that really the argument you want to go with?
#4 by zekopeko on July 21st, 2009
That wasn’t an argument but a (somewhat rhetorical) question. The little dot with a curved line on top gives it away
#5 by Lex on July 21st, 2009
I was using F-Spot and Tomboy for about a year without knowing they use mono. When I found out about all the issues surrounding mono, I have uninstalled both of these applications. This was before GNote, so I have lost many notes and my photo-albums remain unorganized to this day, thanx to F-Spot sorting photos into dirs by date.
Was it worth it? Hell yeah. I am happy to lose my data? Obviously not.
If you try to install something non-free you have to explicitly add repositories. Or there is a warning telling you exactly what you are getting. If the installation iso includes non-free software, a warning is given before you download it (sometimes the iso file itself is name non-free). Either way, users know what they are getting.
Not so with mono. The lack of any disclosure is the biggest issue with mono. This is why many users feel cheated. So this debate will not go away. Mono is an unwelcomed guest that is trying to sneak in unannounced past many unsuspecting users. Some people even call it a trojan.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=mono+trojan
So how about an honest and full disclose about what mono is before user agrees to install it? It would go something like this:
“This application is using mono. Mono is an implementation of Microsoft .NET framework. Mono is currently developed as a part of Microsoft-Novell deal. While anyone can freely use ECMA part of .NET specification, the majority of .NET is covert by patents and can only be used by Novell customers as a part of Microsoft-Novell deal.
The application you are installing is using the following components not covered by ECMA: -list here-”
Of course if team-Mono did this, very few people in GNU/Linux community would touch their applications.
#6 by Jo Shields on July 21st, 2009
As long as OpenOffice.org and OpenJDK gets the same dire warning, given Sun’s 2004 exclusionary patent deal with Microsoft. You knew about that, right?
#7 by zekopeko on July 21st, 2009
Nobody forced you to uninstall those apps. You did it of your own volition. And please do tell how would you sort photos if not by date? Your notes should still be in tomboy’s config directory unless you used the “purge” parameter on the command line or “Completely uninstall…” in Synaptic (which warns you with bold text that you are going to remove configuration files).
Whoaaa! You really should read under which licenses Mono is distributed.
http://mono-project.com/Licensing
GPL/LGPL/MIT/X11/MS-PL if i got them all
So let’s see which one’s are free:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html says GPL/LGPL/MIT/X11 are approved by FSF as GPL compatible.
The MS-PL is not GPL compatible, but is an OSI approved open source license.
Hmmmm…… I wonder where did you get the notion of non-freeness….
I’m all for this if you will also support my effort to have a message when you try installing the Linux kernel:
“You are about to install the Linux kernel, the core of the system that was built from scratch but with strong
‘inspiration’ from the legacy Unix System developed by AT&T, a convicted monopolist in the USA. In recent times Microsoft Corporation alleged that the Linux Kernel infringes some 235 patents. By installing this software you are subject possible ligation against you. Have a nice day!”
Or how about we create a simple one like this for all FLOSS software you try to install:
“Warning! This software may have or may not have infringed some patents. By installing it you acknowledge the possibility that you could be sued. Have a nice day user!”
#8 by Jason on July 21st, 2009
@zekopeko.
If I wanted to hear Mr. Shield’s talking points, I would just read his blog.
One
AT&T is in no way comparable to Microsoft, any more than the East Indian Tea Company is. Microsoft’s business and monopolist conviction was in the software industry, AT&T’s was not. Not to mention that any patents that AT&T held on C are long expired. So, this is an invalid comparison.
People have pointed this out in almost every long discussion on the “Here we go again” discussion on multiple sites. Perhaps you missed it.
Two
The risk to all projects is not the same as the risk to Mono, because not all projects are explicitly cloning Microsoft technology. This is an invalid comparison – one not only I, but even the FSF have explictly commented on.
Perhaps you missed those rebuttals as well.
Repeating these same tired and dishonest arguments is my number one problem with mono apologists. If you have an argument, put it out there – I’ll consider it as fairly as I can. But do not just repeat talking points, especially those that have been debunked multiple times in multiple places.
#9 by Jo Shields on July 21st, 2009
Actually, I want to cement one detail.
You want the above “don’t use Free Software” warning when people install Tomboy. Correct?
#10 by zekopeko on July 21st, 2009
And yet you insist on repeating them yourself.
Patents have a life of 28 years. Do you have any proof that they expired? Even better, who is to say that there isn’t a smaller company with patents that cover C or any other language out there because they are broad in it’s definition?
Off course it’s all hypothetical.
What about projects that are cloning technologies from other companies? Is the risk somehow lesser for them because it’s not from Microsoft? And on the notion of TomTom you got a comment on your post which you conveniently ignored here: http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/16/the-mono-infatuation-with-microsoft/#comment-242.
Everything you said here can also be said for anti-mono folks, but to a greater degree.
#11 by Jason on July 21st, 2009
Patents last for 20 years in the US, from the filing date. C was invented between 1969-1973. Do the math.
There is also the consideration that there are approximately 5,792 implementations of the C language over that 40 year period, whereas there are approximately 4 implementations of the C# language over a 9 year period.
So we see that trying to equate AT&T/C with Microsoft/C# is superficial, at best.
Yes.
Pretending that Microsoft is like any other company is pointless, because it clearly is not. No other company has the entrenched position to attack from, no other company has the cash reserves to attack with, no other company has publicly and privately identified Linux as a direct threat to thier core business, no other company has the patent portfolio, and no other company has the history that Microsoft does.
So unless that other company is directly comparable to Microsoft, then yes indeed, the risk is lesser. It must be lesser, because it could hardly be greater.
Everytime a mono apologist attempts to draw this false comparison, it does not strengthen the argument – it weakens it. It is a losing argument. It was a losing argument when it was applied in generalities, and it is a losing argument when it is applied to AT&T.
I don’t know why you think I “conveniently overlooked” the post about TomTom – it’s interesting, but I’m not sure what you think it proves that I would want to overlook it?
#12 by zekopeko on July 22nd, 2009
The point wasn’t AT&T == MS but that it didn’t stop people from using C nor C++. You nicely point out the number of C implementations.
My bad on the patent term length.
MS is the largest software company in the world. I would say that it’s only natural that they consider other software a threat. And as memory serves Sun wasn’t also akin to Linux since it undermined their own software offering. And where is Sun now? Oh, yeah, helping FLOSS grow.
MS position certainly is “entrenched” on the market, but as we can see it’s slowly but surely being eaten by FLOSS solutions. And in part thanks to Mono, whether you like it or not.
On the TomTom thing, you missed the part were the main venue of litigation were other patents and not the FAT thingy.
#13 by zekopeko on July 22nd, 2009
BTW didn’t directhex point out that MS invented AJAX? And that it’s an ECMA standard (can’t find the comment know).
And that AJAX as an extension of ECMAscript is used on more computer and in more FLOSS applications then Mono (let me remind you, based on other ECMA standard(s) )? So why aren’t you crusading to have that one removed from Linux distributions? Why do you use it on your blog?
Disclaimer: I don’t know coding much so AJAX == flashy Web 2.0 stuff for me.
#14 by Jo Shields on July 22nd, 2009
AJAX is basically an MSIE extension allowing Javascript to make new HTTP requests, brought in for Outlook Web Access on old versions of Exchange.
Javascript is a dialect of ECMAScript (ECMA-262), which was brought to ECMA for standardization mostly by Microsoft
#15 by zekopeko on July 22nd, 2009
@directhex
so is the AJAX part covered with the ECMA 262? I mean is it standardized or has everyone just implemented it because it was cool and useful?
#16 by Jo Shields on July 22nd, 2009
What you’re driving at is accurate.
#17 by Jo Shields on July 22nd, 2009
Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest#History_and_support
#18 by makomk on July 22nd, 2009
No, Microsoft is the largest software company in the world because they considered competing software a threat, and because they were willing to eliminate that threat even if it was to their short-term disadvantage. The Microsoft business model is based around lock-in and cornering as many markets as possible; it’s a good business model, but it makes competing with them hazardous.
Sun’s future business plans weren’t focused on Solaris to anywhere near the same extent as Microsoft’s are on Windows, and they seem to have decided their future is open source. (Microsoft have decided they want the future of open source is on a closed platform, Windows, and seem to be pushing for this. I recall RMS and co objected strongly to writing free software in Java when it was a closed source platform.) Even so, there were and are still patent worries…
#19 by Lex on July 22nd, 2009
@Jo Shields
How about “FSF thinks this software is not free” warning?
#20 by zekopeko on July 22nd, 2009
That warning would be a lie. Since FSF doesn’t regard mono as non-free.
From the article at FSF: “free software implementations of C#, like Mono”
Not to mention that once users see that, the only question on their mind will be: “What the fuck is FSF?” and “If it’s non-free do I have to pay for it and to whom?”
#21 by Jo Shields on July 22nd, 2009
The FSF thinks Mono IS Free though. They say so on their website. DO you know better than the FSF?
And I repeat, should Tomboy contain the “don’t install this Free Software” warning you dictated?
#22 by Jason on July 22nd, 2009
@zekopeko
You said:
Let me just stress this a second. When Jo Shields says something like:
And you repeat this by saying something like:
Then that is exactly trying to mis-frame mono critics’ arguments and draw an equivalence between AT&T/Microsoft. But it is not a good argument. Not only because of what I have shown, but also because even the very first patents that might be considered “software patents” only came along in the early seventies, and virutally no one at that time realized they would be the issue they are today.
The comparison is totally inappropriate and proves nothing. It is a dishonest comparison, and fails on every level you care to consider it.
I know I am beating up this point, but as I said the mindless regurgitation of “talking points” is my number one pet peeve about mono apologists. No one was bringing up this “AT&T thing” until Mr. Shields posted it in his “Why mono doesn’t suck” post, and now I see it quite often.
Well, I guess that horse has taken enough of a beating. Let’s move on:
Now this, on the other hand, is an interesting proposition. So interesting in fact I will defer commenting here, because I might try to work out an post on just this topic.
Yes, AJAX is just like Mono.
Oh, except Javascript came from Mozilla who submitted it to ECMA for standardization in 1996. And the ECMAScript name was a comprimise because Microsoft had an intentionally close-but-not-quite-compatible clone called “JScript”. And of course, Mozilla had its own implementation of the mechanism that makes AJAX possible. Oh, and the standard was written by Opera and the W3C. Oh, and the W3C has a patent policy that the entire software industry has trusted for years for Internet infrastructure, instead of a “Promise” that Microsoft has applied to about 4 technologies.
So, yes, AJAX is just like Mono, except for the minor fact that it is nothing at all like Mono. And thus we must search for my hypocrisy elsewhere.
This is another of those “repeated talking points”. Did you actually read up on AJAX and the standard before you began repeating this argument?
Now that you know they are poor arguments, will you continue to use them? Will you correct other mono apologists when they use them?
Or will you just stick your fingers in your ears and flatly reject the rebuttal?
Let me be clear: I don’t think everything Mr. Shields – other any other mono apologist – posts is garbage or intentionally misleading – but I do think these are invalid.
I also think it points to a lack of original thinking on the part of those mono apologists that just repeat points. I have more respect for those trying to formulate and express their own thinking than just repeating points of others. I also have more respect for those arguments that give me pause and I must seriously consider to debunk, or even – god forbid – accept as winning the point.
Not every argument that supports your position is correct, and not every argument that opposes it is incorrect. You can concede a point without losing. Try it. It is part of honest discourse.
#23 by zekopeko on July 22nd, 2009
Your right. I didn’t take into account the situational difference. I drew a parallel because it was logical in abstract.
When applied to the “real” world it loses it’s appeal as a strong argument.
Calling it dishonest, one the other hand, is attributing me with it. And one thing I’m trying not to be is dishonest intentionally. But even if you remove that part from my “warning” message, you are still left with a fact. That MS alleged that the Linux kernel infringes 235 patents. And they pointed at least two in the TomTom case.
The question is should people stop using the Linux kernel? And the answer is Hell NO! Patents are a sucky thing all around. But they shouldn’t stop people from creating something that benefits people. And I’m expecting people to stand up to MS on Mono as they would if the Kernel is in question. All FLOSS is created equal and it should be treated equally. And so should the associated developers.
On a more interesting note, the kernel was patched in a matter of days, without much fuss. So why can’t you give the Mono developers the same trust that they will also do the same in case of a proven patent infringement (not to mention that they published their plan in case of such a development) ?
I have no problem using Jo’s (or others) “talking points” when they make sense. He has proven to be dedicated and positively passionate person with great insight,knowledge and integrity, while packaging my favorite apps for my favorite distribution (to Jo: no I don’t want to marry you).
I’m a drive-by “defender of mono” (when warranted off course) so I don’t have all the information on it at a given time. Nor do I have a “pro-mono” blog nor time nor motivation to maintain one. I didn’t even know what mono was until about a couple of years ago. I didn’t use Tomboy or F-spot in Ubuntu at the time. And then came Gnome-do and Banshee and I was, being a pretty-UI whore, in love. Little by little I started understanding the situation and was left with the question “why are people attacking developers for this awesome free software? And today here we are. Flinging words at each other while the Redmond Beast’s management is getting quite a show.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that it’s not going to be an article that’s going to address why Mono is great for application development (since you haven’t used it by your own admission) , nor why are Mono apps better then their equivalent (if any). That feeling is probably steaming from you being extremely biased (the URL is a real tell). I hope you disappoint my feeling
.
It’s still a MS invented technology that can be easily patented (if it isn’t already) in the US since MS is the “true” inventor and it can prove it. Off course this argument can be easily dismissed if they gave a perpetual irrecoverable patent licence for it. REALLY don’t want to read and try to interpret the whole W3C Patent Policy but what stands out, at a cursory glance is this:
Patent disclosure
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Disclosure
followed by licensing commitments that extend to the current version (not “forevar” as far as I understand)
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/38482/showCommitments
Perhaps you could sift through this and look if there is cause for concern?
Trust me I don’t like pyrrhic victories. I simply don’t like people attacking developers for using a specific language and platform for purely ideological/political reason. Nothing is stopping people from using a distro that doesn’t package ,or uses in the default desktop set, Mono. A Google search knows that there are plenty of those.
#24 by zekopeko on July 22nd, 2009
I would also like to address what Jo said in one comment about FSF and their ivory tower syndrome.
They pass judgment on software and provide guidelines to follow. Completely voluntary since they don’t have any power to dictate what distro’s ship.
Now the problem I have in their case against Mono is that they didn’t even try (to my knowledge) to contact the Mono team or Microsoft and see if they can push the
relevant parties to give legal assurances so that this FLOSS technology can be used for the benefit of the community and users.
It took Miguel de “Devil” Icaza and other people on the Mono team and in MS to bring this to fruition. The first iteration might not be to FSF’s liking but it’s far more then they did. Perhaps if they actively participated they wouldn’t have to tarnish hard work of others with their ideologically colored writing.
And don’t take this post as my general opinion on FSF. I think that they do great work for FLOSS and actively protect it by busting patents and sponsoring FLOSS development, but that doesn’t make them perfect. And I think that they fumbled the ball on the whole Mono/.NET thing.
#25 by zekopeko on July 22nd, 2009
And since I’m on a roll here.
Jason how about using that cute forum for comments?
Create a subforum that will automatically create a thread for each post you publish. Considering the scope of our debates, the comment system is far from adequate.
#26 by zekopeko on July 22nd, 2009
And please support OpenID for registrations. It’s so much easier that way.
OK, enough comment “spamming”.
#27 by Jason on July 22nd, 2009
@zekopeko,
Thanks for that.
I’ll be a more careful about throwing around the word “dishonest”, it is applied to the comparison, not the person making it, but that’s a fine distinction that might not come across in the heat of an argument.
Actually I have used C#, albeit the “real” thing, not Mono, and it was 1.0. I used to develop for Windows. /oh god the shame
I have thought about rewriting – and have even been politely challenged to do so – my pet GPLv3 publically available application in C# – it is in Python/PyQT right now. To be honest, I’m not sure how I feel about that idea, but it is something I am aware of and have been considering.
Also, I have never once tried to hide my “bias” or point of view. I do not feign neutrality. Rather, I am trying to come to terms with why people are doing something that I think is harmful. This doesn’t mean I think the people doing it are evil. It means I don’t understand why what I assume are decent people are doing bad things. I hope the difference is clear. Sadly, the reverse is not usually recognized.
I believe that the W3C commitments are appropriate in the context of how the W3C operates and don’t present a cause for concern. The cause for concern in that area is when members break from W3C standards and introduce incompatibilities, which is both frustrating and fascinating, but not really of interest for our purposes here.
Pingback: Does Mono hurt Microsoft? « mono-nono
Pingback: Pro-mono Zealotry « mono-nono