Mono For Microsoft

What we have here is a MonoTouch application for the iPhone covering a Microsoft conference and advertising Team Mono’s booth at the same conference for those that “don’t have a Mac”.

Why exactly is this garbage on Planet GNOME and Planet SUSE? (I can understand Planet GNOME, since GNOME seems to have largely adopted the Venerable Ostrich Position on Mono) Do people not get tired of the pro-Mono / pro-Microsoft messaging that has nothing to do with Linux?

At least Team Mono used to pretend there was some benefit for Linux from Mono, lately much/most of the messaging has absolutely nothing to do with Linux.

Part of the reason, of course, is because Mono is making very poor inroads into Linux; so Team Mono must turn towards greener non-Linux fronts for positive news. Everything can’t be about Banshee and F-Spot or whatever other GNOME application space Team Mono decides needs replacing .

The other part of the reason, I would argue, is that Team Mono cares less and less about maintaining the facade that Mono is significantly driven by pro-Linux motivations. If you go back through the Mono apologetics, you’ll see that upon initial introduction much effort was made on how Linux would benefit from Mono – and lately? Not so much.

Microsoft for Mono

Of course, Microsoft rewards its collaborators when it suits them, so Peter Galli has written “Microsoft and Novell: Three Years and Going Strong” where he gives the lapdog a small treat, and doesn’t miss a chance to talk up intellectual “peace of mind” . This is a disgustingly popular code phrase for “Use Microsoft-approved software or we just might sue you”. Microsoft and Novell love to brandish a bit of IP FUD about, especially if they can wield it against Red Hat.

I like to point out another way of looking at “Three Years and Going Strong”: the Novell-Microsoft deal is just as offensive and anti-community today as it was the day it was signed. The reasons for opposing the deal are just as valid today as they were three years ago. The people that walked away from Novell three years ago were right to do so, and anyone that chooses to do so today is equally justified.

In this corner…

So, RMS has a new blog entry “Lest CodePlex Perplex“, where he insightfully analyzes the CodePlex situation. Among the clear points he makes:

1. There is reason to be wary, but we can not know at this time that the Microsoft CodePlex Foundation will be “bad”.
2. One day we can judge the Microsoft CodePlex Foundation by its actions, but right now all we can do is anticipate based on best available information

He also lays out concerns about how Microsoft may intend to subvert Free Software to the greatest degree possible through actions such as:

1. Emphasizing Open Source “practicalities” over Free Software ethics. This is quite a success already, with many  Fauxpen Source supporters gleefully assisting Microsoft efforts directly or indirectly to downplay any “Freedom talk” at all when discussing FLOSS.
2. Restricting FLOSS to Open Source additions/extras to a Proprietary and Closed Source core – increasing dependence on the Closed base, and greatly limiting the real value of such FLOSS.
3. Making sure Microsoft Windows or other Microsoft platforms are the preferred/only platforms for development.

This is illustrates not only some of the problems with the Microsoft CodePlex Foundation and the current debate in the community, but it also shows RMS is perfectly “in touch” and still foresightful about Free Software issues (refuting a common baseless attack that he is a “dinosaur”, “out of touch”, etc.)

There is a bit that will get all the attention though, and I predict it will not only overshadow the deft summary RMS plots, but also will spur a new round of the same old ad hominems against RMS and the more generalized fallacious arguments against Free Software supporters.

RMS calls Miguel de Icaza an “apologist”. Presumably a Microsoft apologist, although he didn’t explictly use that phrase.

And, In This Corner ….

Now, Mr. de Icaza has posted his reaction. As always, it is good reading because you can really see where the dangerous mindset is coming from; not only from the “top”, but also from the “ground troops”. Just read the blog entry and see – it’s right there for anyone who cares.

For example, you ask?

Mr. de Icaza leads off with:

Richard Stallman does not seem to have anything better to do than launch personal attacks against me.

This is a light ad hominem, and hints at the common theme that any criticism is invalid because there are better things to be doing, or the critic makes no other contributions, or that criticism in general is without worth. This is an extremely common theme for Team Mono.

Continuing we have this:

In his last piece he has decided to call me a Microsoft apologist because I do not participate in his witch hunt.

Um, no. He called you an “apologist”, because you are one. An apologist is ”one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something“. Mr. de Icaza has an enormous output of spoken and written defenses of his actions. To go further than RMS explictly did, I will state that Mr. de Icaza has an enourmous output of defenses of Microsoft specifically. He does it in the very response under discussion, when he talks about how ”great people” inside Microsoft are steering the company into becoming a “community citizen”.

Disapproval is not Fear

This is a bit of a funny point. Mr. de Icaza loves to imply or outright state that those people critical of Microsoft are afraid of Microsoft.

This is so foolish I can scarcely understand why Mr. de Icaza loves this line of argument so. Understand this, when I criticize Nickelback, it’s not because I am afraid of them. It is because they suck.

When people criticize Microsoft, it is not because of fear. It is because they are tired of vendor lock-in, overpriced and insecure software, hindering the industry, illegal behavior, lies and slander against projects they devote time and effort to, and so many — many — other offenses that Microsoft has committed, and continues to commit.

“Fear” is not even a factor.     

But, I guess the desire to attack the opponent by hinting he is a coward (or fear-monger) is too strong to overcome.   

“If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything” – Mark Twain

One thing you will notice if you pay attention to Team Mono rhetoric like I do, is that it is rarely even logically consistent with itself.

For example, one of the big defense points that came out when the Microsoft CodePlex Foundation was announced is that it was an independent body, it was only because things needed to be set up so quickly that it was so heavily staffed by Microsoft people, and so forth.

But, in his blog entry, Mr. de Icaza defends — dare I say apologizes — for his participation by saying:

Working at CodePlex is a great way of helping steer Microsoft in the right direction.

Eh? If it is an independent Foundation, then how will it be “steering” Microsoft? Lots of multi-billion dollar international monopolist corporations being steered around by independent foundations that I’m not aware of out there? Who knew?

Disregarding Intent

Finally – because this is already too long – Mr. de Icaza reveals his naive disregard for intent by casually dismissing Microsoft’s recent patent sell:

As for the patent sale, they are now in good hands: the OIN, so they are not a problem.

This absolutely ignores the fact that Microsoft locked OIN out of the orginal bidding, that Red Hat (among others) expressed concerns about Microsoft targeting patent trolls as buyers, and that the general agreement is that OIN simply “outmaneuvered” Microsoft.

The director of the OIN himself said that “the open source community lucked out“. (My emphasis).

But, Mr. de Icaza breezily passes this off in a footnote, as if saying “Well, he may have shot at you, but he missed, so why all the concern?”

Summary

I’m sure this is far from over, but I think it is worth it to carefully read both RMS’ and Mr. de Icaza’s statements here, and for color pay attention to the comments on Mr. de Icaza’s blogs. Not only will you be ahead of the talking points power curve – but more importantly I think the clear contrast between then rational analysis based on fundamental principles and historical actions by RMS and the logical fallacies and wide-eyed naivety of Mr. de Icaza’s defense is quite striking!

This article was also posted at The Source.com!

So, there has been a lot of “chatter” around the Microsoft CodePlex Foundation. Let’s hit on a few of those issues here!

Miguel de Traitor

Assuming that the reports are true, RMS referred to Miguel de Icaza as “basically a traitor” to Free Software. I don’t know Mr. de Icaza personally, nor am I familiar with the internals of his past interactions with Free Software, nor am I a leading figure in the Free Software movement, so I can’t say the same thing.

Here is one point that I have seen made, and would like to emphasize. The “spectacular factor” of being a traitor is because of one’s past history. So, it doesn’t address the situation to bring up Mr. de Icaza’s past contributions, because if he were not at one time a notable figure in Free Software, there would be reason at all to call the man a traitor.

No one would call Steve Ballmer a traitor to Free Software.

That point out of the way, I’ve often said I think Team Mono is far more on the “misguided” end of the spectrum than the “evil” end. I just don’t ascribe Mr. de Icaza’s (or his supporters’) actions to malice or wickedness. I am in agreement with Goethe in this area, at least.

Halo Ain’t Just a Game

One problem with using provocative language – like calling someone a “traitor” – is you run the risk of losing the moral high ground. RMS has been under constant attack from Mono and Microsoft apologists, from PR spinmeisters with strong commercial interests, and anyone that doesn’t like the idea of Free Software.

These attacks have been almost entirely personal attacks, but that same noise machine will now attempt to paint RMS’ comments as some Rubicon crossing that sets a new low in the discourse. That is the sad nature of a large portion of this “debate” – it is not intellectually honest.

Microsoft Hatred

Picking up traction is the idea that “Microsoft Hatred” is driving Mono/Moonlight/CodePlex/Miguel criticism, and perhaps is even the real ideological foundation of the Free Software movement.

Of course, this is absurd and insulting, but I suppose I should take a moment to point out that RMS and the FSF also object to Apple, Amazon, DRM, and Software Patents. It is a very consistent and principled stand for end-user freedom and against those actors trying to control and restrict freedom. It just so happens that Microsoft is one of the largest offenders in this area. So they get a lot (but proportionately appropriate) amount of criticism.

Further the idea that objection and criticism == hatred is false. The intent is to discredit the critic by portraying is message as emotionally driven and irrational. But pointing out that some companies are working very hard to remove freedom through DRM, patents, proprietary formats, price dumping, illegal practices, bribery, vote-stacking, or other offensive practices is fact-based, rational, and grounded in documented evidence.

“Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.” – FSF Essay

Capitalism Hatred

Not as popular, but still trotted out from time to time is the insinuation that the Free Software movement is Communist, anti-Capitalist, or even downright un-American!

The fact is the Free Software Foundation has no problem with capitalism, profiting from distributing software, or apple pie and baseball.

“Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.” – FSF Essay

Zealotry

The all time most popular canard is that Free Software supports, especially RMS and the FSF are zealots. Again, the intent is to discredit by portraying the messenger as emotionally driven and irrational.

But, you might have heard: “Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.”

Complaining that the Free Software Foundation is too focused on freedom is like complaining that the NRA is too focused on guns, the ACLU too focused on Civil Libarties, the NAACP too focused on African-American issues, or the AARP too focused on retired people.

These organizations have a guiding goal. That is their reason for existing! That’s not zealotry, that’s an effective organization.

There will be times where Freedom and Capitalism clash. In those cases, every time, the FSF will come down on the side of Freedom. If  there is no clash, there is no problem.

There will be times where Freedom and Pragmatism clash. In those cases, every time, the FSF will come down on the side of Freedom. That is what they do.

If you disagree with the FSF on an issue, it is because you value so other consideration more and Freedom less in that particular instance. That’s understandable, because you are probably not an organization set up with the sole purpose of promoting Free Software. But it doesn’t make the FSF “zealots” any more than it makes you “anti-freedom”.

Hypocrisy, part Roswell 47

Which makes this a good place for me to point out another of my favorite examples of hypocrisy!

Here is a very common defense of Microsoft: “Microsoft is just doing business like any other company. That’s just how business is done!”

Even if we accept this as truthful, and even if we further accept it as indemnifying Microsoft – two major concessions – then how is it OK for Microsoft to do its business, and not OK for the FSF to do its business?

If it is OK for a corporation to act as Microsoft does, then surely it must be OK for an organization to act as the FSF does!

This article was cross-posted at The Source.com!

In responding to the devastating criticism of the Codeplex Foundation’s fundamentally flawed organization and the high skepticism of its motives, Mr. Ramji revealed a bit of the true motives behind the Codeplex Foundation:

Look at projects related to Mono, you also can look at NUnit, NHibernate, we really feel optimistic that the Foundation could help them gain a higher level of credibility in the open source community. They feel they have been lacking that strong moral support.

Break that down and chew on it a bit!

Mr. Ramji is saying you know those Microsoft-approved “Open Source” projects like Mono? And you know how the Open Source community keeps rejecting them? Well Microsoft is going to create our own playing field and support them!

In fact, Microsoft is going to provide “strong moral support”! Oh, Microsoft. Your “Open Source” people are so often good for a chuckle. Thank you for that, at least. Strong moral support. From Microsoft. In Open Source. Heh.

I like this because it is largely the pro-Novell, pro-Microsoft people who are always trying to argue that ideals and morals don’t matter. It’s all about what the user wants, and being “pragmatic”, and “Microsoft is just a business doing business like any other business”. But here we have talk about needing “credibility” and “moral support”? Knock me down with a feather! The notion that there is an underlying moral and ideologial foundation to Open Source! Why that there is zealot talk!

Microsoft is not new at leveraging its considerable resources into creating a rubber-stamp pre-approved situation, especially when the real and existing community doesn’t want anything to do with Microsoft’s offerings – <cough> OOXML</cough> – and the CodePlex Foundation is just another example of that.

The very idea that Microsoft can even set up an independent Open Source foundation is absolutely ludicrious. Pick any absurd analogy you like: Yankees fans setting up a Red Sox Appreciation Society, the Klan setting up a Civil Rights commission, Nickleback fans setting up a music appreciation group, whatever.

The big defense on Mr. Ramji’s part is that the OpenPlex Foundation is in “beta”. Software is in “beta”, organizations are not. Organizations are founded with a purpose, a mission, and an agenda. Yours is showing, Microsoft. Yours is showing.

This article was cross-posted at The-Source.com.

So, the news is out that Microsoft is bringing real Silverlight to Moblin. This is not Moonlight, this is the real-deal Silverlight 3 in a joint effort with Intel for Atom-based platforms.

A very interesting development.

Carving out a niche

The only “chance for survival” that Mono/Moonlight has is to grow in a niche where:

1. Enough developers want to use .NET/Silverlight that the project is viable, but
2. Microsoft doesn’t think there are enough developers to support

It is painfully clear that as the former increases, the latter decreases. Yet, this is where Novell and the Mono/Moonlight project has staked its claim.

Which .NET developers are going to develop for Moblin using Moonlight, now that the real-deal Hollyfield Silverlight has made the scene? I’ll give you a hint, unless the email address ends in @novell.com – zero.

And You Can Have It All … My Kingdom of Dirt

Here’s a pro-tip for Novell: the very instant Microsoft decides they may profit by releasing .NET for the iPhone, MonoTouch is dead in the water.

 That Microsoft has not done so yet, only shows that they do not think it profitible. Which means you are betting on making money with a knock-off, where the original thinks it’s not worth it to bring in genuine goods. Yet.

Is .NET on Moblin far behind?

The Register nails the question:

If it’s that easy to port Microsoft Silverlight to Linux, why does the Moonlight project exist at all?

It reinforces the point that if Microsoft determines it is worth-while to bring .NET/Silverlight to a space that is currently Mono/Moonlight it will do so.

One of the favorite arguments of Mono apologists has been since Moonlight is basically only Mono+XML it was just as “safe” as Mono itself.

So, what I’m now wondering, is that if that is true – and I’m sure no Mono apologist has ever done anything but speak the truth – does Microsoft delivering Silverlight on Moblin means it could just as easily roll out .NET for Moblin if it so desired? Does the existence of Silverlight for Moblin mean that .NET for Moblin must exist?

Not Exactly the Royal “We”

I love this quote from the Silverlight blog announcing the move:

We see this is a clear extension of our current efforts with Novell where we are building an open source implementation of Silverlight called “Moonlight” that is targeted at the broad range of Linux–based PCs.

Note Microsoft claims ”we” (meaning Novell and Microsoft) are building Moonlight. Microsoft says Moonlight is a Microsoft project.

I whole-heartedly agree that it is a “clear extension” of Microsoft’s current efforts. That is phase 2, after all.

This article was cross-posted at The-Source.com.

Word on the Blogs is that RMS sent us up the bomb in no uncertain terms on Miguel de Icaza and the CodePlex Foundation, but I would like to get some transcript or video to be sure exactly what was said.

Here’s one report on RMS’ comments:

Miguel de Icaza “is basically a traitor to the Free Software community” This was in response to my question about the new Microsoft “Open Source” labs. He went on to say that Miguel’s involvement in the project doesn’t give much confidence as he is a Microsoft apologist. The project looks to be concerned with permitting “Open Source” programs to work on the Windows platform and thus divert valuable developer time away from free platforms such as Gnu/Linux. He also went into an interesting story about Miguel and the FSF (as Miguel used to sit on the FSF board), but I’m hoping there is a good transcript of the event thing somewhere online.

Mono framework is not so much of a problem, but C# shouldn’t be used in core apps as legal problems would be hard to work around. Recommends uninstalling any apps using C#.

So yeah. I would like to verify the comments and find out what the “interesting story” was.

One of the interesting things about this modern age is that you get to see all sorts of viewpoints on issues, some of which may even be interesting!

I’m not so alone

Consider The Standard Blog’s take on the CodePlex Foundation. I like this blog a lot (even if it does get a bit wonk-ish sometimes). Here are some portions of that entry that raised some points for me:

While it’s good that Microsoft is willing to provide so much economic support in times like these, it’s not helpful in building trust that the organization really will be independent and neutral.  For better or worse, if all of the money and all of the staff come from one company, it will be hard for most folks to believe that CodePlex it will really be neutral in action.

As always, when I say it, it’s because I’m Nutty McNutter the Nutty Zealot, so it’s nice to hear that it is absolutely reasonable to be skeptical of a commercial “Foundation” where all of the money and the super-majority of the staff come from one company.

I mean, I know it, you know it, and the American people know it, but ad hominem somehow became everyone’s favorite party game rather than a logical fallacy when I wasn’t looking.

A “rounding error”

One point I’d like to make here though is that $1M is not “so much economic support”. That is very small potatoes indeed if you view actions like the CodePlex Foundation through a “Good PR, No Substance” lens. Microsoft paid Jerry Seinfeld 10 times that much for that horrible commerical – the budget for the entire campaign was 300 times that much!

$1M would be significant economic support if it were a no-strings-attached anonymous contribution or something along those lines. However, $1M is bargain-basement for a good PR and a bit of good press.

Perhaps most significantly, when you go through the formation documents in greater detail, you also start running into “gotchas.”  Some of these can be easily changed, and perhaps were meant to be open for discussion.

Quite right! One of the things I find strange is that people seem to be not only ignoring “gotchas”, but ascribing higher ideals to Microsoft for no apparent reason whatsoever. I’ll be the first to admit (as if it were necessary) that my default position is “distrust Microsoft”, but I’m often startled by those who take the “Microsoft is really doing good” over even a more neutral “wait and see” position!

To me, when someone starts heralding Microsoft - it instantly raises astroturf / shill suspicions in my mind. Automatic acceptance and praise  not only puts aside natural and justified skepticism, but it also skips right over “wait and see” into fanboy-land. I do not see how that is an intellectually honest position to take.

Visit the man

I strongly suggest you visit the blog and read more. There is detailed and informed analysis along with clear recommendations on how Microsoft could have set things up.

Parting wisdom

A final point to make: this is another example of putting the lie to Microsoft’s “we didn’t have time to do it right” defense. There are a host of people with expertise on setting up independent foundations. Microsoft couldn’t get any of them to help out here?

A common defense is “oh you naysayers would complain no matter what Microsoft did”. That is simply not true - people complain because Microsoft insists on doing things wrong.

Do things right and there won’t be any room to criticize.

This article was cross-posted at The-Source.com.

Naturally, I’ve been thinking about this CodePlex Foundation a bit since it was announced and I finally hit upon one of the things that was really nagging me.

Microsoft having an Open Source Foundation is like me having a NFL Training Camp. Sure, I could open one if I wanted, but who the hell would want me training them for the NFL?

That’s why this thing reeks of fraud: Microsoft is not in the Open Source business, so why would they sponsor an Open Source Foundation?

Shaping the discussion

It is very important to shape the discussion, to determine what words people use to discuss things. This is one reason why the FSF is keen to raise the issue of vocabulary.

You can be sure this concept is not lost on Microsoft, who desperately want to shape the discussion around Open Source. Take for example this bit from the CodePlex Foundation FAQ:

Specifically we aim to work with particular projects that can serve as best practice exemplars of how commercial software companies and open source communities can effectively collaborate.

So, right off the bat, we can see that only Microsoft-approved projects that fit into the mindset that collaboration with Microsoft is an important end goal.

The problem with this is that Microsoft has contributed and collaborated very little with the Open Source community. In fact, having spent the last couple of decades trying to kill it they now find themselves in the awkward position of being told by their customer base to stop being jerks about things.

The Ebenezer Scrooge Charitable Foundation

Where was Microsoft 15 years ago on Open Source? Trying to kill it. 10 years ago? Trying to kill it. 5 years ago? Trying to kill it.

In the most naive and accepting terms, Microsoft is a johnny-come-lately to the Open Source community. In the most generous light, Microsoft is a reformed felon.

Those aren’t the people that start foundations and take on leading roles in a community, yet that is what some people think Microsoft is doing.

Microsoft is welcome to participate in the FLOSS community – on the community’s terms. If they can’t do that – 100% and without one inch of  accommodation or compromise from the community – they can go back to the dead end of proprietary software. Free and Open Source software has done nothing but evolve without Microsoft – despite Microsoft – and it will continue to do so whether Microsoft sits at the table or not.

True Motives Revealed

Again, we turn to the FAQ:

We saw a great opportunity to drive change, and Microsoft was willing to fund a nonprofit foundation to make the change happen.

Microsoft doesn’t need to be “driving” anything. They need to be getting their own house in order.

Even if you assume Microsoft has good intentions – one heck of an assumption – it is inarguable that Microsoft lacks the credibility, expertise, integrity and experience to “drive change” in a direction that is positive for Free and Open Source Software.

From “Relationships”

We wanted a foundation that addresses a full spectrum of software projects, and does so with the licensing and intellectual property needs of commercial software companies in mind.

You can see here where Microsoft’s priorities lie: good old “intellectual property”. As if they haven’t been convicted in court after court of violating their very own partner’s “intellectual property”. They are in a court battle at this very moment over violating a former close partner’s patents.

We’ve sought a Board of Directors and Advisory Board that includes people known and respected in the open source community.

I’ve already addressed this. Without making personal attacks on the Boards, the bald fact that it is 72% current or former Microsoft employees makes this assertion absolutely laughable.

While the Codeplex Foundation is not currently structured as a membership organization, there are a number of ways for individuals, companies and projects to participate in the Foundation. One way is to sponsor, and another way is to become a member of the board, or board of advisors.

So basically, you must be Microsoft-approved to participate. Which is fine, but I already see people pretending like this is some independent entity from Microsoft. It is not.

This is a business organization, not a non-profit organization

Just in case you might have thought otherwise. I’m sure there is absolutely no intent to decieve by calling it a “Foundation” and having “.org” in the domain name.

Here is the explanation on the website:

While the Codeplex Foundation may eventually evolve into a charitable non-profit, the requirements for a charitable non-profit are more stringent. The set-up time for such an organization would have been longer, and the planning process considerably more complex.

I bet the requirements are “more stringent”. That’s exactly what we need, and Microsoft doesn’t want. Stringent requirements.

And I love how “set-up time” is an excuse, like non-profits aren’t started everyday by two dudes trying to help the world, and Microsoft with its army of lawyers and billions of dollars just can’t quite get a handle on the process.

This article was cross-posted at The-Source.com.

A classy announcement

So, Microsoft whips up a Open Source “foundation” called CodePlex Foundation and Miguel de Icaza, Novell VP and Team Mono Head Man is on the interm Board of Directors.

Always a man of class and distinction, and sensitive to how this might appear, he takes this opportunity to graciously reflect on his time with the FSF:

I hope that I can last more on this foundation than I lasted at the FSF, where I was removed by RMS after refusing to be an active part of the campaign to rename Linux as GNU/Linux.

This is just another example of how so many involved in Novell / Mono / Moonlight feel it necessary to take shots at RMS and the FSF. It has become a sort of standard of behavior there.

Already the Foundation is hard at work … stacking the deck.

The CodePlex Foundation claims that it has “worked hard to see that the board has a community voice as well as a partner voice”. Let’s see how the board shapes up:

Sam Ramji (Microsoft) – Note his Microsoft affiliation is not listed on the page nor in the header of his bio.
Bill Staples (Microsoft)
Stephanie Davies Boesch (Microsoft)
Miguel de Icaza (Novell)
D. Britton Johnston (Microsoft)
Shaun Bruce Walker (DotNetNuke)

So, that’s 4 out of 6 being current Microsoft employees.

You have the same composition on the “Advisory Board”, with 6 of 12 being current Microsoft employees, and 3 of the remaining 6 being former Microsoft employees – . That’s 9 out of 12, then, current or former Microsoft employees on the “Advisory Board”.

It must have been real “hard work” indeed to fill 13 of 18 positions with your own people, Microsoft.  Hard work stacking a deck, takes years of practice to make it look smooth and natural.

I’m sure it took some real arm-twisting to get Mr. de Icaza on board, too.

More hard work … spinning the issues.

Having sweated out a team whose integrity can not be questioned, the CodeFlex Foundation is able to seriously and directly address issues that matter to Open Source. Consider this important problem they identify:

We know that commercial software developers are under-represented on open source projects. We know that commercial software companies face very specific challenges in determining how to engage with open source communities. We know that there are misunderstandings on both sides.

“Misunderstandings on both sides”? Could that have anything at all to do with the decade of misinformation and FUD Microsoft has directly and indirectly funded, including the Best Buy disinformation campaign running at this very moment?

The chutzpah it must have taken for the author to actually type out that sentence, knowing full well that his own employer is the overwhelmingly largest single engine of misinformation, lies and destruction aimed at the Open Source community! You almost have to admire a man you can look you right in the eye and lie, knowing that you know that he knows that you know he is lying!

And there we have the fatal flaw of the CodePlex Foundation revealed: because it is a Microsoft mouthpiece, it can not speak directly and honestly about the single biggest challenge Free and Open Source Software faces - the aggressive hostility and lies spread about it by Microsoft.

Nothing we haven’t seen before

Before it changed its name to Altria, Phillip Morris ran “anti-smoking” campaigns in the US ostensibly aimed at stopping youth smoking, while at the same time issuing reports that early smoking deaths have “positive effects”, hiring underage girls overseas to pass out samples and so on.

Microsoft is doing the exact same thing here. Any and all such actions are simply a very small PR budget line item for Microsoft. They spend a relatively miniscule amount of money to be able to point at something like the CodePlex Foundation and say “Check out how new and shiney we are!”

The amazing thing is some people believe it! I guess some people fall for Nigerian scams, order Vigara from links in random email, and franticially dial 1-800 numbers during infomercials so they can get the deal that is ONLY AVAILABLE TO CALLERS IN THE NEXT 5 MINUTES!!!

You can fool anyone with enough effort, but it is much easier to fool people that want to be fooled.

This article was cross-posted at The-Source.com.

One of the common points debated around Mono is its relationship to .NET, and within that relationship there is a specific critique I’d like to look at a bit closer: Mono is basically trying to re-implement .NET, which is developed by Microsoft with its massive resources and own best interests at heart, Mono is destined to be forever trailing, incomplete and the less preferred choice in comparison with ‘real’ .NET.

There are a lot of issues around this.

For one thing, it plays into the Microsoft / Team Mono dance where they try to pretend .NET is “safe”, when it is only a very limited and well vetted sub-set that was submitted for ECMA’s rubber stamp. By now, Team Mono has all but discarded any pretense at sticking to the ECMA-only portions of .NET. (They haven’t discarded the half-truth that “it’s a recognized standard” as a defense, though, to my wide-eyed shock.)

But to me another interesting point is how Team Mono tries to play down the Microsoft = .NET = Mono equation when defending it. Let’s look at some recent Mono news and see how the equation holds!

A joint .NET/Mono code conference

There is an upcoming  .NET/Mono “code conference“. I think this illustrates how reliant Mono is on .NET combatibility and how closely it must conform to Microsoft’s roadmap and goals for .NET in general.

MonoDevelop

MonoDevelop is going to be the “Eclipse of the .NET community“, Mr. De Icaza tells us. Putting aside the obvious jokes, I think this is another good illustration of how the entire focus of Team Mono is – and must be – on conforming to .NET.

Here’s one of the highlights on the new MonoDevelop release:  “MonoDevelop can be used to develop ASP.NET MVC applications on OSX and Linux and Silverlight applications on OSX and Linux.”

That’s just what I was saying Linux needed the other day: more Silverlight applications. In fact, I was discussing how promoting Silverlight development in no way whatsoever helps Microsoft lock-in, and quite the contrary actually encourages the spread of software freedom under every definition known to mankind. Because it is Microsoft that is internationally recognized for leverging its considerable power to promote user freedom and interoperability through its file formats and development technologies we absolutely need more of that being produced in the Linux world, which tends to use proprietary and obscured formats and languages

So MonoDevelop is a big win there. Congratulations.

Come with me if you want to live

Mono can not survive without very close compatibility with .NET, and MonoDevelop can not survive without catering to .NET developers. Developers who, as I have said many times, care very little indeed for cross-platform development. They care about Windows development; ”cross-platform” is theoretical for the overwhelming majority and “open-source cross-platform” produces either blank stares or giggles.

The simple and irrefutable fact of the matter is that it is Microsoft that solely drives the direction and development of .NET, and they are simply enjoying Team Mono’s bewildering desire to work as proxies for Microsoft.

What’s amazing to me is that Mono apologists try to pretend like this isn’t the case – that they are some sort of “independent” project with only the most vague and distant ties to Microsoft. As if implementing a feature or two before Microsoft does, or even one or two that .NET proper doesn’t support makes you “independent”. Nope. Just makes you “incompatible”.

The real case is that if Microsoft announces a feature in .NET, Team Mono will begin implementing it, and if Microsoft announces a depreciation, Team Mono will follow suit. They aren’t leading the way – they are simply doing Microsoft’s work for them.