It’s always important to consider things that would change your mind.

Here is a quote that I like:

“You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.”

- Ben Franklin

If you are in an argument with someone, and you ask them “Well, what would it take for you to change your mind, then?” And they answer “Nothing!”, then walk away. No amount of rational discourse will reach that person.

I like to think I have reasoned myself into my current position; I certainly didn’t get up one day and throw a dart at a board and decide to hate on Mono for a while. So, one of the things I have to do is to challenge myself by asking “What would it take for me to change my mind?”

Not one thing is either necessary or sufficient, but more list of solutions to problems I see.

On Trusting Microsoft

This is the big one, because a lot of the concern is that Microsoft has it in for Linux and will do something, sometime to hurt it. What we need is some assurance that prevents Microsoft from unfairly crippling Linux. That is, if somehow Microsoft released a Windows so glorious that the whole earth’s population desired it, that’s one thing. But if Microsoft gets down to about 40% market share, falling fast, and calls in Darl McBride, that’s another thing.

Microsoft joins the OIN.

Yeah, that would be undeniable proof it is a new day. We see all up and down in Microsoft internal emails that Microsoft considers how to use patents against competitors. That doesn’t necessarily mean dragging them into court – threating and waving them around and then coming in for some sort of “agreement” is aggressive use of patents, too. Joining a patent defense organization like OIN would be a major signal Microsoft is ready to compete on merit and not legal trickery.

Microsoft talks honestly about Linux and Open Source

People specifically hired to spin Open Source do not count. I mean Executives, the kind with a golden toilet on the Lear Jet. People that matter and have a real say in Microsoft strategy. I don’t doubt that Joe McCoder, the new hire, thinks Open Source is nifty. I do doubt Joe McCoder, the new hire, has bumbley-squat to do with Microsoft policy.

Microsoft replaces Ballmer with someone non-psychopathic

On a related note: with Ballmer in charge, it’s just hard to really believe that Microsoft is doing anything more than being cold and calculated (poophouse crazy is an alternative). Get respectible people in charge.

Microsoft releases some interesting code, GPL style for bonus points

We almost got there with this virtualization code. There’s nothing really wrong with Microsoft releasing code they benefit from, it is to be expected. Except now it turns out it might be something they had to do because of a possible GPL violation. Which poops all over the whole thing.

Still, if they released some code that was useful all around, and it was GPL, each bit would move me that much closer to treating Microsoft less hostile. This is because the more Microsoft has invested in the Open Source community, the less likely it is they will turn around and attack us. Some people think Microsoft is already at, or closely approaching that point. I don’t think so.

Microsoft releases a linux distro

Why not? They had XENIX right? And they might even be able to make a business case out of it: “If you have to use Linux, use Microsoft Linux!”. This is because I believe the GPL protects us well enough that even such an … unexpected … move by Microsoft would only reap benefits in the community. Plus, with Microsoft Linux, Ubuntu users would finally have a distro to look down on! It’s a win-win!

Time passes peacefully

One of the problems Microsoft faces is that they have such a long and rich history of hostile behavior. How does one realistically trust an entity like that? Say they were “evil” for 10 years, then say “Oh, we changed!”. Do you trust them on year 11? Year 15? Year 20? What if they keep doing things that are offensive? Year 25?

Microsoft keeps doing things that are offensive. It’s a sort of 1-step-forward, 2-steps-back thing. More steps forward, less steps back, please.

Also it would help if people would stop pretending that distrusting Microsoft is some sort of irrational response. Here is another saying I like:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

-Marcello Truzzi

Claiming that Microsoft is “Open Source Friendly” is an extraordinary claim. Just saying it is not enough. It will take time, actions, and words to get people to accept that. Don’t pretend like people are nutbars because they feel the burden of proof hasn’t been met yet – especially since those people probably aren’t all that interested in what Microsoft is offering anyway.

Let me just expand on that a bit: a lot of the “give Microsoft a break already” people have a financial or other ulterior motives. Hearing it from them doesn’t help a whole lot – it can even backfire. Hearing it from people who are unrelated to anything Microsoft helps a lot more.

On Trusting Mono / Moonlight / Novell

A Credible Endorsement

This really applies all around, but I’ll stick it here.

One of the reasons I don’t go on about the Open Specification Promise is that Red Hat indicates they are alright with it. I figure Red Hat knows what they are doing, so drive on. That’s the advantage of retaining your integrity, when you say something people believe you.

This is also why I think Stallman has been attacked so fiercely. If he were to speak approvingly of C#/Mono, I think most people would accept that and move on. I would certainly relax – in fact, I had relaxed and “given up the fight” until he came out and explicitly called for it to be discouraged.

Novell comes “back into the fold”

Novell does not renew its deal with Microsoft, and competes as Red Hat does. Drop all that “piece of mind” and any similar talk. Do not accept or promote exclusive Microsoft-Novell arrangements. Yes, yes, I know they aren’t the only company to strike deals with Microsoft. But they are who we are talking about here.

Mono focuses on OpenSuse or a new distro

One of the things that bothers me is how much focus there is on getting Mono into Debian/Ubuntu/GNOME. I think I understand why, but it seems that Mono is trying to “ride the coat tails” of the most popular distros/DEs, and leverage Miguel’s relationship with GNOME.

We see a number of Windows titles come to Linux via Mono

On a practical note, I like cool software just as much as anyone. If I saw a lot of cool Windows software coming over via Mono, I’d be inclined to look a little more favorably on Mono. As it is now, Wine is much better in this particular area, and doesn’t have the nasty promoting Microsoft vibe that I dislike about Mono.

Which is strange, because Mono apologists seem to love to point out how Mono/Wine are similar, while ignoring that Wine isn’t in the default install, nor are people seriously suggesting using Wine as an important development platform.

If Mono was a good as they say it is

This is a tough one, but if Mono was as good as it is talked up by the promoters, then it might be worth the risk. That is, if it helps developers become crazy productive, then it might be something worth the fight if it should come to that. A much much weaker version of this would apply to the individual apps themselves.

Not to put down the hard work done by mono developers, but lynchpinning Mono inclusion on a note-taking app and then arguing about comparative features makes the whole shebang look weak. It’s a freaking notetaking app, not a cure for cancer.

If I didn’t think the promotion/defense was dishonest

There is still a little bit of this – the original reason why I became anti-mono – but I think most of it has been hashed out. It doesn’t mean I agree with all I’ve heard, but I used to think there wasn’t any honesty at all! I don’t mind disagreeing if I think both people just have a different view on things; I just don’t like feeling like I am being lied to.

One thing that helped me in this area is after the Community Promise event I changed my strategy for this blog. I promised that I would not go back in time and pick apart past arguments, instead I tried to post my reasoning and answer direct questions. I found that made me try a lot harder to articulate my position and also struggle to answer some mono defenses. If I had just focused on finding old fallacious arguments, I think things would have went in a very different direction! (They would have been much easier on me, for one thing, I can tell you that.)

Work on presentation

I sympathize that one grows tired of defending something. The best response I can have to that is people had to know what they were getting into by “embracing” Microsoft. To be honest, I really think the Mono PR badly badly stumbled from day one, and has never really gotten much better.

Consider this: Mono apologists like to compare Mono and Wine. Lots of people “hate” Mono. Not lots of people “hate” Wine. Look at it just from a PR standpoint. How is Wine presented compared to how Mono is presented? Perhaps technical-minded people don’t think presentation matters, that a technical argument towers over everything. That belief is wrong. Think of all the technically superior products and technologies that “lost”. Technical arguments go a long way, but they don’t go the distance.

What about you?

Can you even consider what it would take to move you to the other side? Can you even acknowledge the other side might have a point?

For example, I would ask the pro-mono contingent, exactly how aggressive would Microsoft have to get with patents before you think it is a real concern? Obviously more than internal emails, normal Microsoft FUD, Tom-Tom and Buffalo. Is there any patent action that Microsoft could take that would alarm you in this area?

Or, how about anti-community, exclusive agreements? Mono is not too bad in this area. Moonlight is much worse. What if Novell struck a new deal with Microsoft that was even more “Novell-only”? Would you protest, or just shrug and accept it?

Or, how about what level of disagreement do you think is appropriate for something you just don’t approve of? Is any level of public criticism acceptable? Is it ever acceptable for people just to say “I don’t want that”? Is it ever acceptable for people just to say “I don’t want that, and I don’t want it in my distro, and I’m going to let people know”?

We throw around “zealot” and “shill” like it is nothing, but some people on both sides genuinely hold the point of view they espouse. Yeah, yeah, the internet is serious business, I know – but if you are intellectually honest, you need to examine all sides of the argument as best you are able. If, on the other hand, you are in it for the lulz, fast cars and supermodels, well then …. you have chosen poorly.