Jo Shields posts a blog entry about the “Mono war”.

At first, Mr. Shields outlines several points that he feels marks the “war” as “unproductive” – these points are largely factual observations, which are followed by a strange conclusion:

Nobody is going to change their positions based on angry or smug blogging, nobody is going to drop everything to work on things for kids with entitlement complexes, and nobody is going to give up on their freedom to kick up a fuss.

The first problem

Nobody is going to change their positions based on angry or smug blogging

I call this a strange conclusion because it contains some truth, but only because humans beings rarely change their position on anything, regardless of the amount of evidence in front of them. Once a person has come down on one side of the issue or another, it takes enormous effort to move to the opposing side.

Guess what? I’m not trying to change mono apologists’ position. That’s is so unlikely that it would be insane to make that a driving goal. I’m trying to achieve something entirely different, and much more reasonable:

  1. Lay out my reasoning on why I think Mono/Moonlight is a net loss to the community.
  2. Point out the dishonesty of much of mono apologetics.
  3. Hopefully convince people “on the fence” to avoid Mono/Moonlight.
  4. Failing that, convince people there is rational opposition to Mono/Moonlight.

It would be unrealistic to think Novell or Miguel de Icaza (or even yourself, Mr. Shields) will change positions on Mono. The amount of money, effort and emotion invested in Mono by those actors would make it something akin to a religious conversion.

The second problem

Nobody is going to drop everything to work on things for kids with entitlement complexes

Kids with entitlement complexes? Putting aside the ad hominem, the main request – crudely stated – by most Mono critics is “stop pushing Mono so damn much”, not “give me something I don’t have”. Is it really an “entitlement complex” when you don’t want something someone is trying to give you?

I have been asking for more truth in mono apologetics, I guess that’s my entitlement complex. If you are going to promote something, I feel entitled to be spoken to honestly. Got me there, I suppose.

The third problem

Nobody is going to give up on their freedom to kick up a fuss

Well good thing no one is asking anyone to give up any freedom! I mean, it’s not like Mono critics are threating excommunication from the community or anything so obnoxiously offensive and irrational, right?

Wonder Twin powers activate

So, combine a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what some Mono critics are even trying to achieve with a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the motives, and top it off with a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the requirements of the request – and you have a “strange conclusion” indeed.

Consider if someone said this:

Nobody is going to change their positions based on corporate PR or paid spokesmen, nobody is going to adopt your technology simply because you think it is so awesome, and nobody is going to give up thier freedom just to use Microsoft technology.

This is exactly as true (and misrepresentative of the Noble Opposition’s Position) as the original “strange conclusion”.

The Suggested Steps

Mr. Shields then proceeds to offer up several steps, some of which are not very interesting (because they are simple truisims like “pick your battles” or “understand people’s motives”), but some of which are quite interesting indeed:

Step 1: Accept that some people feel differently to you

The irony, oh how it burns. The disconnect between the absolute demonization of Mono critics and the call for those same people to “accept that some people feel differently to you” is quite remarkable.

I accept that some people feel differently. I would like to understand why. I’ve said that multiple times. Why pretend that I am doing something I am not?

Step 3: Understand governance

This is very true, in the sense that there are some mono activists that know the system very well and use it to their advantage. This is precisely why we have things like Banshee being proposed as default. The pro-Mono contingent has virtually infinite money, experience and resources compared to Mono critics.

This is an issue that cuts: on one hand, it reminds me of a huge country demanding the local resistance “come out and fight fair”, but on the other there is much truth in it: the best way to change things is from the inside.

Which, incidentally, is part of the reason some people are so darn eager to alienate and excommunicate any critical speech of Mono whatsoever. What better rhetoric to simultaneously insist that one needs to be on the inside to change things while asserting that anyone critical is not even a member of the community!

This is a point well addressed in “Why Mono is a Red Herring” over on the *NIXEDBLOG where he points out that “a blind eye was turned towards those who supported Mono until they started to obtain higher positions of authority in the Ubuntu community”, and that basically people were apathetic to the growing influence of Mono supporters until it was too late.

I’ve made a similar point about Novell in general: the deal with Microsoft today is just as anti-community, offensive, and a betrayal of the spirit of Free Software as it was the day it was inked. But, people tire, and if you have the money and resources you can just out-wait most individuals.

Mono supporters just kept thier heads down, made false assurances, and made sure they got in positions to make things happen. Now there is no problem openly suggesting things no Mono proponent would have dared broach just a few years ago.

Step 4: Understand the relative value of contributions

This is pretty much the same things as step 3, including the transparent attempt at the Catch-22: you have to be a contributor to change anything, but if you are critical of Mono, you can’t be a contributor.

Here’s another thing about contributions: a person’s circumstances may mean they can only contribute so much – you don’t know if that one small project represents 10% or 90% of a person’s time/ability/interest. You don’t get to “write off” someone just because they haven’t contributed X lines of code to Y projects, or X quantifiable units to Y different things.

On the Ubuntu Technical Board

Here’s the thing: One should just shut up until he gets into a position on the Ubuntu Technical Board before protesting? Exactly what are the chances for any single individual to get on the TB at all? The are only 4 people on the board, and one of them is Mark Shuttleworth, so there are really only 3 slots.

Isn’t that a bit like saying if you aren’t a Cabinet Secretary, you should just shut your mouth about the country’s problems? THERE ARE ONLY 4 PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ON THE DOGFIDDLING BOARD. How exactly do you think saying that if I don’t attempt to be one of those 4 people, I am not “Doing It Right”? How exactly do you think that is an intellectually honest argument?

And even among those 4 people, Mr. Shields says they  ”reached a near-unanimous verdict that Mono is fine”. So basically, you are saying 3 people decided Mono was fine, right?

This sort of rhetoric is so disappointing. I’ve heard this “no Mono critics even tried to get on the Ubuntu Technical Board, they must all be hypocrites” argument from multiple places now. I wish I could say that surprised me; but it just reinforces my belief that not only are Mono apologists dishonest in thier arguments, but they love to parrot one another uncritically. Everytime I start thinking maybe I have misjudged the quality of Mono apologetics someone lays down a turd like this on my dinner plate and asks me to dig in.

In Summary

I don’t think the “Mono war” is unproductive, though I will certainly agree there are some people fighting it in unproductive ways.

Anytime someone squeezes out a discredited pro-Mono argument, anyone who has bothered to read this blog knows that person is ignorant. Anytime someone tries to pretend that every single Mono critic is a frothing-at-mouth irrational zealot, anyone who has bothered to read this blog knows that person is ignorant. And so on. So I’m thinking that I’m meeting my goals and being productive just fine, thankyouverymuch.

It’s easy to make the other side look like a failure if you redefine thier goal, methods and motivations.