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.

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.

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.

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.

You are “missing out” on Microsoft-based technology.

… 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.

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.

the Novell-Microsoft deal is just as offensive today as it was the day it was signed

… 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.

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.

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.

Moot argument, like many others in your article, taking into account Miguel’s quote is from 2002.

Novell is the wrong way to write software.Technics is not important.Ethics is the most important thing.

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.

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.