Is it ever possible for a mono apologist to say anything factual without spin? There are nowhere near 20 million Open Source or mono .NET developers. The vast majority of .NET developers “don’t give a shit” about the Free Software Foundation’s concerns on mono because they don’t give a shit about Free Software. They are developing for Microsoft, using Microsoft tools. Period. Of course, many GNU/Linux and other Open Source developers do indeed give a shit.

de Icaza also refers to Stallman’s piece as a “fatwa”. Stay classy, San Diego. (Jo Shields calls mono critics “Software Terrorists”,  vilification of critics is SOP for mono apologists.)

The larger point here is that this is always the quality and integrity of the arguments of mono apologists: personal attacks, ridicule, fallacious reasoning, vilification, disinformation and if you get lucky a few pure-T 151 proof lies. I think Jo Shield’s Here we go again: Why mono doesn’t suck is the best ever defense of Mono I have read, and it is still as hole-y as swiss cheese from the Vatican. If you take the time to actually read and comprehend mono apologetics, you will come to the same conclusion; I’m not critiquing Mr. Shield’s defense because it is easy pickings or the ravings of some random internet loon -  it was written especially for detailed public defense of mono by one of its most active proponents, and linked to repeatedly by mono apologists around these fine intertubes.

In fact, this is one of the issues that alarmed me about mono. When I first learned about mono, it seemed strange to me why people were trying to promote Microsoft technology so damn hard in the GNU/Linux develop-o-sphere™. The more I read, the more the dishonesty of the defense bothered me.