A decent overview courtesy of The H, whose name I do not understand.
So, Mono gets a health check and we get a nice de Icaza quote:
I think it’s going to be the next big thing, and I think the GNOME community is going to jump to it, if only because I’m going to make it really simple for them to do it. All of these people are extremely talented, they can see through the bullshit, and they’ll see that Mono is a good thing for them.
Say what you mean
I love it when people say what they mean. And Mr. de Icaza does just that, pulling back curtains and casting light on motivations and thought processes.
First it reinforces the point Mr. de Icaza intends to do everything he can to push Mono into GNOME. Everyone knows this anyway, so I don’t know why some people try to pretend otherwise. I guess they think using code phrases like “best-of-breed” or talking about how “Mono is just another choice” are not transparent euphemisms?
Next, it reinforces the point that Mr. de Icaza was totally serious back when he said that “Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET” – that’s exactly what he thought then, and exactly what he thinks now. It’s dressed up a bit in pseudo-technical rhetoric, but the underlying desire is the same.
(Yes, I’ve read his “long reply” several times, and I think if you bother to actually read it you’ll see he never once refutes or backs away from his desire to build GNOME in .NET. Rather, he plays a few semantic games about the Register’s headline and then basically goes on to argue ”I can’t change GNOME single-handedly, but I’m sure you’ll see that Mono is awesome rocks, so I’m going to need your support to make it happen.”)
I find it interesting that de Icaza thinks people “can see through the bullshit”. The bullshit, sir, is your company striking secretive patent deals with Microsoft. The bullshit, sir, is the demonization and disinformation you and your supporters gleefully engage in. You can bet that people can see right through that bullshit, which is exactly why you are fighting an uphill battle as Microsoft’s champion in FLOSS territory.
Finally it is all topped off with some amazingly arrogant nannying where Mr. de Icaza decides what is a “good thing” and for who. It never ceases to amaze me that Team Mono sees no problems at all in telling people to just shut up and take your medicine, it’s good for you.
Feels Like I’ve Been Here Before
I’d like to tie this article back into a few points I’ve made here in passing, but I haven’t covered in great depth:
Mono PR is Terrible
Not that I really want to see them improve it, of course. But the entire image and positioning of Mono has been bumbled right out of the starting gates. This isn’t because it’s evil – that’s really irrelevant – evil things are successfully promoted and good things fail in PR battles all the time.
The H article calls this “political ineptitude”, and it is probably too late in the game for Novell to change things up.
Textbook example of how not to manage the public image of a controversial project, though: “Here’s some crap I know about 90% of you are going to have at least some reservations about. Well, all the smart people agree with me and plus I know what’s good for you, so get on board already!”
Team Mono is not going to stop
Think back on some of the positions Team Mono took in the past: Winforms was the only non-ECMA bits of Mono, no non-ECMA bits are even needed, Mono isn’t going to be used for anything critical, no one is trying to build GNOME in Mono.
But, now we have people trying to get ever more Mono apps in distros by default. We have people wanting to rewrite parts of those apps, and perhaps even parts of the desktop in Moonlight. The expansion and promotion of Mono grows.
And it will not stop – because people do not give up ground, and they do not remain content with what they have. You can rest assured that whatever limits are outlined today will move tomorrow; whatever assurances and promises once made will be forgotten when Team Mono casts an eye on new territory.
That’s how people are in general. It becomes doubly true when you add in the financial and idealogical drive behind Mono.
#1 by Jo Shields on August 21st, 2009
Which ideology is that, specifically?
#2 by Jason on August 21st, 2009
The aim and idea that Mono is or should be the preferred platform of development for GNOME / Open Source / general software development.
Is that really controversial? Miguel – and to a lesser degree other Team Mono peeps – are often praising and promoting Mono as a superior development platform.
I don’t think there is anything sinister there – I’m just trying to point out that Team Mono has a vested and expressed interest in not “stopping” at any identified point (such as non-ECMA components).
#3 by Jo Shields on August 21st, 2009
Okay, fair enough. I don’t dispute any of that.
#4 by Dann on August 21st, 2009
#2 – but it’s NOT superior. And yet they keep trying to reinforce that it is, without any type of hard proof, other than it’s easy.
Easy. That’s not very specific either. Java is easy. Why shouldn’t that be the platform for GNOME?
What’s wrong here is that people are determined to undermine freedom by FORCING mono into GNOME instead of having it as an OPTIONAL installation. What’s sinister here is that people want developers to become dependant on one programming language for GNOME, and that is not the way to freedom.
Mono is slow and insecure, like all microsoft products. .NET is horrible for code correctness. And it’s all proprietary so there’s no way to fix it.
Doomed from the start.
#5 by Richard on August 21st, 2009
I don’t give two hoots about your paranoia — you and your shrink can sort that out –, but I do care about technical correctness.
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Every sentence in that paragraph is incorrect. Mono is not a Microsoft product. .Net is no more “slow” or “insecure” than any other managed environment. (If you care about such things, here are the “hard facts“, but take them with a bucket of salt since they’re comparing simple program implementations.) .Net is far better than C or C++ for code correctness, and somewhat better than Java (fewer casts, more maintainable structure due to greater readability). And lastly, if you don’t like the “proprietary” library options, go ahead and use MVC. Or use GTK#. Or use Boo. Or use Nemerle. Or wrap your favourite C library. Or use any of the other freely-available options.
The only thing that’s “doomed from the start” here is your bunch of counter-factual assertions.
#6 by seller_liar on August 26th, 2009
The mono ideology uses opensource ideas to promove technical decisions ( “c is better ,have closures and other stupid things )over ethical decisions ( novell helps microsoft in api domination, novell gains more money at cost of patents )
Novell is the wrong way to write software.Technics is not important.Ethics is the most important thing.
Pingback: GNOME in .NET – Not on my desktop! « OPEN BYTES – cave quid dicis, quando, et cui.
#7 by Anonymous on September 8th, 2009
Moot argument, like many others in your article, taking into account Miguel’s quote is from 2002.
#8 by Jason on September 8th, 2009
First, a general observation
I’m not sure why Novell / Team Mono / Microsoft apologists think that:
1. They can pretend everything bad happened way back in dusty ancient memory, only passed down to us through cave drawings, and so no one today should even mention such unpleasantries.
2. If something didn’t happen last night, it is “moot”.
This is especially relevant because none of the parties have ever apologized, acknowledged or repudiated offenses. They basically just kept on doing what they want and waited out the outrage. This is why I like to say that the Novell-Microsoft deal is just as offensive today as it was the day it was signed. It doesn’t age like a fine wine, friend.
And now for the specifics
In any case, I’m simply pointing out that Mr. De Icaza’s statements have been consistent since the public introduction of Mono. It’s not a single quote taken out of context – as Mono apologists desperately want to paint the infamous Register article.
To be honest, I don’t know why anyone would argue otherwise, because then you put the gentleman in a dishonest / wishy-washy / hypocritical light. I don’t think he is any of those things. I think he is misguided, but I don’t think he has changed his vision for Mono (save perhaps expanding it even more). He has always wanted GNOME to be built on .NET/mono. From day one. He would absolutely love to see as much software at every level on every system written in .NET/mono as possible.
Anyway, so weak sauce I’ve not even sure why you bothered, but I do thank you for taking the time nonetheless.
#9 by Richard on September 9th, 2009
… I think that his thought is that it gets less offensive because every day that passes without anyone suing anyone is a day that trust can be built on. O’course, the contrary view would have every passing day be one more small step into the lion’s den. Same facts, different interpretation.
#10 by Jason on September 9th, 2009
Richard,
I understand, but there are many problems with the “every day that passes without anyone suing anyone” thinking:
1. “Suing” is not the successful end game for any participant. In the vast majority of situations no one wants to sue or for things to go to court. Therefore, not suing is not a measure of “friendliness” or “reform”.
2. The time of “good behavior” must balance out that of the “bad behavior”. The point at which this occurs is surely subjective, but it points to the fallacy of pretending that one group is irrational simply because they don’t think that point has yet been reached.
3. It implies that the “bad behavior” has stopped. But it has not – at best one could make the argument that the bad behavior has lessened. This greatly weakens any “they have reformed” arguments.
There are lots of other related points, but I think they mostly stem from the above.
On the other hand, there is one problem with the contrary view:
1. You are “missing out” on Microsoft-based technology.
That’s a problem I am willing to live with, though I sympathize and understand with those situations where people really have no choice. I just don’t want to promote further Microsoft lock-in, which is exactly what I think Mono does – indirectly, but effectively.
#11 by Richard on September 9th, 2009
Mmm, I agree with your points (1) and (2). Suing is like firing the first shot; you can generally tell that the shot’s likely to be fired before it happens. I take issue with (3), though, since Microsoft’s teams under Anders Hejlsberg, Don Syme, and all of the other people contributing to .Net have done absolutely nothing bad. Now, their OS division might be a bit crazy at times, and their Marketing section is probably on crack, and their Apps division couldn’t manage to fix Outlook after a decade of trying … but Microsoft’s made up of many groups, and I don’t think I’ll be holding Group A responsible for the actions of Groups B, C, D, …, Y.
O’course, they’re all still under Ballmer & Co., which is a bit of a downer. But even those guys realize that they’ll be shooting themselves in the foot (Java wins the cross-platform crowd, more turn to Google’s web-centric tech, Windows ceases to be viable as a tech platform, their VS cash cow dries up, they run into licensing issues with their own code that’s under MS-PL, …) if they suddenly start on a patent barrage, and they’re not nice people, but they’re not stupid.
… no, that’s not it. You are “missing out” on technology, and that’s the problem. You could be more productive, having more fun, experimenting with more constructs, taking advantage of an entire .Net software ecosystem, … but you’re not, because you don’t like the company which originally came up with the technology. There’s no “Microsoft lock-in” when you use Gnome DO, or F-Spot. Heck, unless you tell them, people generally don’t even know that Microsoft was involved in developing the technology that was reproduced on Linux to give them the framework tools to make those apps. If that’s brand “lock-in”, they’re doing a pretty poor job of it. And it’s hardly technology-based “lock-in” either: from .Net, you can call Java, C, Python, a web service … pretty much whatever you want, most of which isn’t related to Microsoft at all.
#12 by Jason on September 11th, 2009
Richard,
The problem I have with the “Microsoft is made up of many groups” defense is something like this:
Consider: “If a group does wrong, each member of that group is guilty.” This is clearly fallacious.
Consider: “If a group does good, each member of that group is virtuous”. This is also fallacious, though not usually disputed so vigorously.
Consider: “If an individual is bad, then any group he belongs to is bad.” This is clearly fallacious.
Consider: “If an individual is good, then any group he belongs to is good.” Also, clearly fallacious.
So, it means little to point out that a person or team here and there within Microsoft has “done absolutely nothing bad”, because I don’t take the position that all Microsoft employees are evil or bad.
The point is that Microsoft as a corporate entity is bad. I’m sure some of the employees are totally stand-up fellows, and some groups are not doing anything wrong. This doesn’t matter, mainly because they aren’t running Microsoft.
I’m judging Microsoft as a whole based on documented evidence – public statements, public actions, court records, and so forth. I’m sure some of Nickelback’s roadies are cool ass dudes. The band is still an abomination and evil incarnate. Same thing with Microsoft.
So, I understand the argument, but I hope you can also understand that even if it is true – to the extent there are decent people within Microsoft – it is really irrelevant.
As far as the “missing out” on technology, I just don’t buy that. One reason is I can’t keep up with the technology I do enjoy as it is!
I still think there is Microsoft lock-in when using .NET – and therefore by extension Mono, but I might need to lay that argument out in more detail. I did try a bit of it back when I posted how Mono helps Microsoft, but I haven’t addressed the “lock-in” argument directly.
#13 by Richard on September 11th, 2009
To my mind, any stable organization is run by the people who make it up; these people make the day-to-day decisions, decide on strategy, place calls, suggest ideas, and so forth. So, IMO, to the extent that the people inside of it are stand-up fellows, the organization will reflect that. IMO, Microsoft “as a corporate entity” does not exist. It is purely the sum of its members, and each group within it is also the sum of its members.
Since “how to view an organization” is a matter of opinion and perspective, I think that we should agree to disagree on it. Thank you for clarifying your view, though; it’s always good to get to the root of a particular dissent, and it will assist us to have more productive discussions in future. I see now, for example, why you always refer to “Microsoft” and not “Microsoft’s Apps division” or “Microsoft’s Vice President in charge of ABC” — it is because you see them as all speaking for a single policy. It also explains why you see them as being duplicitous, where I see a chronic case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.