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.

Jo Shields responded by saying, in part, “The majority of us just don’t care about Microsoft” and that “The ones who obsess about Microsoft day in and day out are the critics.”

I thought this was a point worth some consideration, because the underlying message is something like this:

Me: “You guys sure do love Microsoft. You are infatuated with Microsoft.”

Them: “You just see Microsoft behind every corner. You are obsessed with Microsoft.”

So, is that true? Are mono critics obsessed with Microsoft? Is it reading something into the debate that doesn’t need to be there?

A bit of meta before we get started

One of the things I want to try to do on this blog is respond to comments from pro-Mono people - as I did here, for example. What’s strange to me is some of the things I’m being challenged on:

• Does Novell promote Mono in GNOME?
• Does Team Mono give off a we-love-Microsoft vibe?

These seem so self-evident to me that I wonder how anyone cognizant of the debate can question them. In one way, I welcome them, because – to be quite frank – I think they represent an easy point to prove. In another way, I don’t like them because they require a lot of time to search out quotations and link references and so on. One feels if one only provides a single example, then someone will say “Oh, you are  just cherry-picking quotes.” But, if you provide a ton of quotes, well that’s not a very exciting blog post, is it?

In the interest of brevity and to display ever more of my sparkling wit, I am going to lean to the side of focusing on just one example. I welcome feedback on that aspect of things. The last one was more link heavy if you like that sort of thing. I can go either way. I’m bi-linkual.

A bit of justification

As I have said time and time again, mono apologists love to portray mono critics as raving lunatics, howling at the moon and slinging feces wild-eyed into space. It’s offensive and insulting, but it never lets up. Perhaps this point is something that is not so controversial and I can at least illustrate why I think what I do and have a chance of it being understood.

I’m not expecting agreement, but I would appreciate understanding.

And now, on with the quotes:

Let’s hear from Miguel de Icaza himself:

So [Microsoft is] providing us with specifications, they are providing us with tech contacts, so whenever any specification is not clear, we have access to their engineers.
[...]

I find Silverlight incredibly appealing – you get C#, you get a DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime), you get a fantastic graphics engine with a fantastic animation framework, you get video, you get audio, multi-language compatibility and so on and so forth. And I get a JITted language also, and a static language with dynamic features that beats Javascript out of the water.

[...]

So if I would have my choice today I would probably rewrite the gnome panel completely with Moonlight.

- 2008 derStandard interview

I picked this one because I think in 4 short sentences it illustrates most of the points that I see over and over again:

1. It is a representative quote – it’s given as part of an interview, not a twitter, blog entry, or part of a flame war on Slashdot. So it comes across as “official” Team Mono/Novell stuff.
2. It boasts of the “exclusivity” that Novell/Team Mono enjoys with Microsoft. Even if you don’t think this is a problem, I hope you can see how it could be perceived as offensive.
3. It constantly and unconditionally praises the technology. Everything is always “fantastic” or “superb” or “awesome” or “brilliant”. It comes across as worshipful, fanboy stuff.
4. It insults alternatives. Team Mono is not only always singing the praises of Mono/Moonlight/Microsoft, but it is a rare opportunity to degrade an alternative that passes by.
5. It promotes Mono/Moonlight as absolutely the right choice and ready for the most key parts of major projects.

On top of that, running on about Silverlight is a quadruple offense:

1. It has all the negative baggage that Mono has.
2. Plus, there is no ECMA/ISO standard to hide behind.
3. Plus, there is the incredibly offensive and anti-community Covenant.
4. Plus, de Icaza often talks about the exclusive help the Mono Project is getting from Microsoft. So good I mention this one twice.

Now, I’m sure yourself or Mr. de Icaza can justify and explain these sort of quotes – or maybe you don’t see anything wrong with them at all – but from my lights they are pretty close to the “infatuation” side of the relationship chart.

Now take dozen of quotes like this, about numerous Microsoft technologies. Add a dash of  defense of Microsoft some mono apologists engage in. Stir in a pinch of  the attacks/snide remarks on the GPL and Stallman and Free Software ideology in general. Blend with Novell stressing they are not “open source”, they are a “mixed source”. Splash reports of Mono developers jet-setting it around Redmond and interviewing on Microsoft media outlets. Top it off with over $400 Million dollars from Microsoft to Novell and I think you can see – I hope you can see – how outsiders might think there’s a bit of infatuation indeed for Microsoft in Camp Mono.

Another note

Also in that same comment, Mr. Shields says:

Is there some Microsoft connection there if you trace it back far enough? Sure. But the same applies for plenty of stuff, e.g. Javascript (especially AJAX) and people aren’t remotely as obsessive about the links there. No really, check the names on ECMA262 and ECMA357.

I think the casual down playing of the relationship between Microsoft and Mono here is another thing that sets off warning bells. “Trace it back far enough”? Come on, man, that’s like me saying if I trace my family tree back far enough, I’ll run into my father and mother. It’s not some byzatine, ancient relationship. It seems an attempt to decieve – I am willing to accept that might not be the intent – but the point of this whole post is to try to get across how things are perceived. I’m not trying to get mono proponents to necessarily agree I am right in my thinking, only that it isn’t as crazy as Tom Cruise On A Couch.

I bring this up because the downplaying of the relationship that Microsoft has with the project is another factor that adds to the perception that Mono and Microsoft are buddy-buddy. Like you are “covering” for a friend: “No no, Ubuntu-chan, Microsoft was over at my house last night, that couldn’t have been him Fedora-chan saw down at the juicy bar with those “technical evangelists” and patent lawyers bribing government officials. He may have cheated on you in the past, but he pinkie swore he wouldn’t do it again. And I for one, believe him!”

Well there you have it

Render your verdicts!  Did I make a convincing case, or did I just fling feces into the sky? Should I have just given 3 dozen links and insulted someone instead? Should I have went to bed two hours ago? Only after I wake and read your replies will we have the answers to these questions and more…

I have never understood why mono apologists take so many talking points from Jo Shields. The gentleman may be a great packager and contributor, I don’t know,  but his arguments are terrible and credibility is poor. Let’s take a look at why I say that:

Consider that we know for a fact that F-Spot and Banshee, at least, use non-ECMA covered parts of mono. Maybe they will be re-written soon. That’s great. But at the time of the announcement and currently, they were and are not covered by the standard, and so not covered by the agreement.

Right, then. So we have Mr. Shields gleeful announcement on the Ubuntu Forums:

Re: Monolith

Quote:
>Originally Posted by zekopeko
>hahahahaha!!!! well it looks like sane people will stop bitching about ECMA standards at least.
>does this cover the ASP.NET , ADO.NET, System.Windows.Forms?

No. But nobody cares about those – they aren’t used for the apps people moan about

This is blatantly false, but I guarantee you the mono-men on the Ubuntu Forum that parrot Mr. Shields will not soon tire of repeating it.

We have his careless “glossing over” the distinction on his own blog’s announcement:

If the anti-Mono crowd were provided with their GPL-compatible patent grant for Mono, which they spend so much time talking about the absence of, how would they react?

Of course, there is no such GPL-compatible patent grant for Mono, and such promises have already been called into question last year by the Software Freedom Law Center. I will freely admit that I consider the Community Promise a positive development in the context of making Mono safer – but over-selling it doesn’t bolster your position, it hurts it.

We have him attacking Stallman’s incorrect assessment of Tomboy using non-ECMA parts, conveniently not mentioning many important mono apps which do indeed use non-ECMA parts. If Stallman gets a point like that wrong in a project he is not personally involved in, that is an honest error. If you get a point like that wrong in a project you are personally involved in, well, let’s just say it doesn’t look like an honest error.

We have this strange assertion on his own blog :

So is Mono “always playing catch-up”? Not on anything anyone who isn’t porting from Windows cares about. And Mono wasn’t created with that goal in mind. For making apps which look and feel at home on Linux, we’ve had what we need for years.

Yet, the Mono General FAQ suggests otherwise:

Why is Novell working on .NET?

There are two reasons:

• Increase developer productivity.
• Assist Windows .NET developers to deploy their applications on Linux.

These are admittedly small things in the overall picture, but I do think they speak to a general dearth of reliable pro-mono arguments from Mr. Shields.

Part of the problem is the the large portion of the debate is over opinions – it takes disproportionately strong arguments to change someone’s opinion. You aren’t going to get very far calling people’s opinions “idiotic”, “paranoid”, “religious”, etc. etc. If you want to continue to attack people’s opinions, well good luck with that.

Mono apologists never learn this, especially when they portray people’s distrust of Microsoft as paranoid or irrational. Any sane man on the face of the earth will freely admit some distrust of Microsoft is perfectly rational, justified, and even required. Reasonable people can disagree on exactly how much distrust is warranted.

That leaves a smaller portion to factual debate. And so, when mono apologists get the facts wrong, or gloss over inconvenient facts, even when they are small facts – it greatly damages credibility.